Lucille LeBlanc – Canadian Immigration Historical Society

Lucille LeBlanc worked in the federal public service for 35 years, most of which was spent with IRCC and its predecessors. She was the director of settlement for the Ontario region from 2004-2005, and was the director general of the Ontario region from 2007 until her retirement in 2012.

Interviewer: Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Your name, your time in immigration and settlement, and which years you worked?

Lucille LeBlanc: So, my name is Lucille Leblanc. I worked in the federal public service for 35 years. Most of my career was spent with the immigration department, although I worked in other departments as well. I first worked there in 1991. I worked specifically in the settlement area for about a year and a half at that point. That was followed in 1999, I was in another capacity working in another office, but that office had responsibility for a number of the refugee programs. I was involved with the administration of the settlement programs at that time—for a period of approximately about a year and a half.

Then, from 2004-2005, I stepped in for the director of settlement, who was on leave and I replaced him. This was the operation that had responsibility for all of the settlement programs for the province of Ontario. Then, before I retired from 2007 to 2012, I was the director general for the region of Ontario—the province of Ontario—and had within my responsibility the settlement directorate that was responsible for the administration of the programs for the province of Ontario. So, I’ve had sort of four exposures—they’ve been very different, but four opportunities within my career to work specifically within the settlement programs within immigration.

Interviewer: Did any policy or institutional changes occur during your time in immigration?

Lucille LeBlanc: Well, I need to be clear that I, for the most part, worked within the sphere operations. What we were involved with was translating operational policy, which stems from big ‘P’ policy, of course, to administering the programs. I have never in my career developed the settlement policy. In terms of the major changes, I guess the most major one was when I first came to work for the settlement operation in 1991. This coincided with the federal government introducing a number of new settlement programs for newcomers—including what is commonly known as LINC, the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada—and quite a large infusion of program dollars, as well.

And I’m just going based on memory, but I seem to recall that it was somewhere in the order of about 90 million dollars, Canada-wide, for those programs. What was really significant there was , from a scale perspective, a much more significant investment by the Canadian government into language training—in recognition for the fact that language was such a big indicator in terms of a newcomer’s ability to successfully integrate.

With LINC, what was different as well is that, prior to this, most of the language training was focused on those newcomers who were entering or in the workforce. This, for the first time, recognized that—for example—the mothers of children who may be at home and not in the workplace also needed to acquire language skills in order to be able to function and to properly integrate. That really struck me at that time.

And you know, I don’t know what the situation is now, but at that time, the program even provided for childcare—which was unheard of, because that was the big issue previously. For the most part, it was women who were at home with children and who had recently immigrated to Canada, but had no opportunity and no exposure—or very limited exposure—to learning English or French.

The other thing that was part of that was the introduction of what was called the Host Program, which was the matching program between Canadians and newcomers to again assist in their integration. The program was, from a policy perspective, a very formal recognition—and I remember this quite distinctly—that as newcomers arrive to the country, settlement and integration is a two-way street, so it’s not only about the newcomer himself, herself, adapting to this new society and new language and all of that, but it was also about Canadian society changing as people arrive—and recognizing what the newcomers have brought and contributed to the country.

So that speaks to the early 1990s in terms of where I was involved. The next period that I worked in the late nineties from a strictly policy perspective—policy-wise, there was nothing that I can recall that was particularly significant. Operationally, what was extremely significant was that my time as a director in a given office coincided with the Kosovo war, and so the Canadian government airlifted 5,000 Kosovars to Canada, and it so happened that the office that I managed was involved administered a program at the time that called RAP, which was an income support program for government-assisted refugees.

So, all of a sudden, our office had to ramp up in order to respond to these thousands of refugees that were arriving in Canad. The office was also responsible for what was called a matching center. Groups of Canadians who decided to sponsor refugees from overseas, be they Kosovars or others, and as the application process was finalized, we worked with the visa offices overseas to match the Canadian group who was willing to assist and the refugees from whichever country that were being resettled, and required help.

So again, from a strictly policy perspective, there was nothing different—but operationally, in terms of what was going on with the department and the government of Canada, that was fairly significant. My next opportunity to work directly with settlement was from 2004-2005. Again, I was there temporarily as a director, and I was responsible for all of the staff who were working within the settlement programs in the province of Ontario. I cannot recall again strictly from a policy perspective—I mean, there were lots of things going on operationally, but nothing specific from a policy perspective there that I can contribute.

Then finally, in 2007 to 2012, when I assumed responsibility as the director general, I would flag two things. Again, this is not really big P Policy, it’s more operational policy. In my mind they are connected, but they are different. My time there coincided with significant shifts in how we administered settlement programs—those years coincided with what had been a significant ramp-up in funding to the settlement programs. This was simply a reflection of the fact that the immigration levels had been increasing and increasing, so obviously the settlement program needed to keep pace.

What we were focused upon was having to really expand the network—and this coincided as well with a government priority to work at not having all newcomers arrive in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. It was really a focus on working with the provinces and with the municipalities to encourage newcomers going to areas outside of the big metropolitan areas. Of course, if you’re encouraging the newcomers to ‘spread out’, for lack of a better term, then the settlement programs need to be matched—and they need to be there when people arrive. So it was necessary to expand the network, because as I’m sure you know the settlement programs are not delivered by public servants—they’re delivered on behalf of the Government by nongovernmental organizations. We contract with these organizations to provide the services. So from a policy perspective, that was number one in terms of 2007-2012.

The other operational policy area that I will flag had to do with the administration of what are called contribution agreements. These are the contracts, the mechanism that’s used by the government to manage the provision of services being done by the NGOs. There had been a few isolated incidents in Ontario and in other parts of the country where the organization that had been contracted did not perform as they should have. There were even instances where police authorities were brought in—in terms of how the funds were spent. These were isolated incidents, but they certainly were a red flag for the department.

What it resulted in again, from an operational policy perspective, was a more rigorous approach to the oversight, from a programmatic point of view, so that the settlement officers who are going and observing on the site of a given NGO—that was providing language services or other settlement services. From a program point of view, were the services being delivered as per what the contribution agreement has set out, and also from a financial perspective—how are the government funds being spent? And what checks and balances are there within a given organization to ensure that the funds are properly spent and to the benefit of the newcomers.

From an operational policy perspective, those would be the areas that I would flag where I was personally involved in some way.

Interviewer: So, you mentioned funding. Did you find that there were funding issues?

Lucille LeBlanc: I would say that in a world where there were limitless funds, of course, you know there’s always a way to spend it. But I would say, generally, for the years that I was involved, the funding was significant. Of course, in the years that I was involved, immigration to Canada was basically—in terms of pure numbers—was immigration to Ontario, the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe. That has changed, certainly, and had started to change before I retired.

But in the early years, when you looked strictly at the numbers, the numbers were overwhelmingly concentrated in the greater Toronto area. So I would say that significant funding was available—I think the challenge for the department was the ability of the NGO sector to be able to respond and to expand and to adapt as programs changed, as demands changed, as movements changed. You might have the movement of Somali refugees in one period of time, and then it would be Kosovars, and so to be able to adapt to what that meant and where they were settling, and to be able to adapt your services.

So the challenge for the department was to work with the community and non-profit sector to be able to support them—as they needed—to expand their networks in response to the refugee movements or the newcomer movements that were forever changing and mutating.

Interviewer: How much liberty did you have when looking for solutions to individual systemic problems?

Lucille LeBlanc: Well, I would say, in my various roles—and to be really clear here, I was never a specialist or an expert in the programs—a lot the people that worked with me were, and had been involved in program administration for a long time.

I would say that the overall relationship with our National Headquarters colleagues on the policy side was very positive. I would also say, from what I observed, that there was certainly an openness from the national perspective—that as we were working through on the operations side, and having to adapt to the different movements of refugees and newcomers that were coming to Ontario… and as people came up with ideas and said, “well, you know, this might have worked five years ago, but we need to be looking at this differently, now, and be looking at it this way”, it was always my sense that there was very much an openness both from the big P Policy people and the folks who were on the ground administering to say, “Okay, let’s see, then, if we need to change, let’s try something, let’s pilot something, and then, if a pilot’s successful then we’ll look at making changes to the terms of the programs”—that kind of thing.

I would say that my experience, with the various hats that I wore over many years, that overwhelmingly the relationships were positive, and it was constructive, you know, and there was an understanding on both sides.

Interviewer: So, you’ve held multiple roles throughout your career; what would you say was the biggest issue or obstacle with immigration and settlement, or perhaps what’s one thing you would change or slightly alter?

Lucille LeBlanc: Well, if I reflect on the last period that I worked in the mid-2000s until my retirement. I explained to you a few moments ago that there were a few instances, and this was very minor in terms of sheer numbers, where we had to cancel contracts that we had in place with organizations because of challenges and issues with the functioning of those organizations. Some of them actually closed down because they did not have the capacity to be able to deliver on the programs that they had contracted with the government to deliver.

Looking back on it, while the number of instances where this came up was relatively minor, it caused a reaction within the department—to say we need to make sure that we increased our due diligence in terms of these organizations—and what I would say in hindsight, looking back—is that the pendulum swung too far to the other side. What happened was that it greatly increased the administrative burden on these organizations—the community groups, and so on, to have to then meet and do all of the check marks and do everything in order to complete their reports. It was on the basis of those reports that we then paid them for the services rendered to newcomers.

In a way, you could say it was predictable that the organization might react, but sort of the pendulum swung, but that is what I regretted to see is that on the longer term, the impact, because, of course, these are community organizations and non-profits that are very lean. They don’t necessarily have a lot of staff, and those that do are made up of staff who serve clients, and so they don’t have a large administrative body that can fill forms and submit reports and all that—there are very few people available as you increase the administrative burden. Then it’s left again on the same small core group of people to respond. And, of course, I mean the government had all the power, right? If you don’t meet our requirements, then we’re not going to contract with you—it’s as simple as that.

I think that, for me, it was an unfortunate consequence to our having to deal with a problem that was very real. We had to increase the rigour to make sure that the government, as a whole, in terms of the funding that it had within an organization, but also that the clients who were going there, were getting the services that they were supposed to have and that it was of a quality that was equal to what was available in other organizations.

Interviewer: Are there any moments for you that stand out during your time working in immigration in any of your roles?

Lucille LeBlanc: Oh, my God! We don’t have enough time. I was incredibly fortunate to have made the choices that I made and to have worked with this department for the number of years that I did. It was incredibly rewarding. I enjoyed it immensely—it was incredibly challenging. The people that I worked with—people work extremely hard, but it was because everyone had this dedication and this belief in these programs that we were responsible for.

I will try to just talk about a couple. When I first worked in the Settlement Directorate, one of the projects that I was given to work on by Elizabeth Gryte, who was a senior manager there, had to do with the movement of Somali refugees that came to Canada in the late eighties and nineties, as a result of the war.

So there had been large numbers who had settled sort of northwest of Toronto, and what the department was grappling with, and the region was grappling with, is that because of the large numbers and the short period of time, there was friction developing between the refugees and the community, writ large. So many of them were living in apartments, many of them were concentrated in particular areas. At the time, there was sort of a piecemeal number of organizations that were assisting the Somali refugees in terms of their integration needs, and what the region decided to do, and Elizabeth Gryte did was to help the Somali community firstly—to form an umbrella organization for all of these small little organizations that existed in order to build capacity, because clearly, the capacity was not there to help the newcomers that were needing either to register for language training or for other settlement services.

We also needed to help them figure out how they could build bridges to the broader community that was there, and helped to have them understand what these refugees— who were fleeing war—what they were having to deal with, you know, arriving in Canada. I assisted to the extent that I could, and under the guidance of people who had a lot more knowledge and experience than I did.

The reason that it struck me was that it simply demonstrated that because the people around me who had a lot more experience said, “what the Somali refugees are experiencing now is no different than, you know—fill the blank—of the refugee groups that came to Canada in the years before—be it either the Polish immigrants or the Italians, or like any country”. You sort of had this series of challenges that present themselves both for the refugee group arriving or the immigrant group arriving; they’re not necessarily all refugees, and for the community as it adjusts to what is going on.

I remember very vividly Elizabeth Gryte telling me, she said, “You know, right now, the sentiment of many of the people was that these people,” meaning the Somali refugee, “don’t belong here and it’s never gonna work with Canada, they’re never going to adapt,” and I remember Elizabeth telling me—we were working together just the two of us—and she said, “You know, one day there’ll be a Somali on a Canadian hockey team that’s gonna play at the Olympics and who will score the winning goal, and then you’ll look back on this, and you’ll say, of course, they adapted, of course, they’re contributing.”

Of course, she was right. But for me, because I was new to this business, I certainly had lots to learn. The only other piece I would add is, again—in 1998-1999, with the airlift of the Kosovars that came to Canada—the staff in the office that I was managing, some of them didn’t have a lot of experience with public speaking. We needed to go out to communities where the Kosovars were now settling in, because these people were receiving the income support component of the programs. And we needed to explain to them—and so this was directly to the refugees—and we also had to meet with municipalities and community organizations who were willing to help them, and talk to them about the role of the department.

So, a lot of the staff didn’t have experience with public speaking. So what I endeavoured to do was to go out now, I didn’t know enough about the programs to do the speaking, but I went there and was present for moral support, and to respond if things became contentious. So, I had opportunities to meet many of the Kosovars who had been airlifted to Canada. What that brought home to me was what they had lived. It was that particular group at that point in time, but it could have been any other before and subsequent. What it is that they lived in terms of experiences, and so it brought it home to me, you know, because, of course, I would see these people, and I would think of my mother, my father, my grandmother, my sisters, and you say, oh, my god!

If it had been us, what would we have done? It was really bringing home, that what we’re doing is not just shuffling pieces of paper—these are people’s lives that we’re talking about. And certainly, at the end of the day, I think that that’s why a lot of the people that I worked with were so passionate about the work they did and their attachment to this department—because they realized full well that this is about people’s lives.

Interviewer: So, my concluding question would be, are there any final thoughts you would like to share?

Lucille LeBlanc: I think a lot of Canadians don’t realize—because when you look at public polling, it’s often said that Canada is one country in the world where there is greater support for an immigration program—and I think what a lot of people don’t realize. You have no reason to realize it unless you were able to see behind the curtain, to see the extent to which the Government of Canada’s investment in integration and settlement has contributed to this over the years—in terms of people’s understanding beyond “that’s them and this is us”. Kudos to the government, I mean writ large, it’s not one party—because there have been investments in the programs, no matter who has been in power.

And also, when you think of the refugee sponsorship program, I could not tell you how many representatives from countries of the world that we hosted in Ontario —when I was wearing various hats within the department—who came to observe the sponsorship program because, again there was this recognition, and for some countries very late in the game, that immigration is a two-way street.

So, it’s not necessarily the melting pot that they talk about in the U.S.—it’s more of this bit of give and take. So I think that if, as Canadians, we consider it a feather in our cap that we understand the importance of immigration for the future of our country—and what it means to have a humanitarian program within your country that is responsive to whatever horrors are going on in the world. Then it’s thanks to the efforts of many, many people and governments who have helped the people coming in, for whatever reason, as immigrants or refugees—to be able to successfully integrate.

Interviewer: Well, I just want to say thank you for taking the time to speak to us today. That was really insightful so thank you so much!