Toronto / October 2026
It has been seven years since my colleagues and I did the Ontario road trip. From North Bay to Hamilton, Ottawa to Chatham, we gathered with sector colleagues to take stock, to commiserate, to share successes and to plan how we will navigate this new present and coming future. I enjoyed the three or so weeks of travel – the unexpected, the laughs, the delicious meals at every one of the seven meetings (yes, there is a winning region for food, but I’m keeping that to myself) and the new faces around the table. I was also reminded that I’m seven years older, and fifty is far away in my rearview life mirror. My body protested.
The discussions around the tables in board and meeting rooms, or in the gym of a community centre, were rich with ideas, and difficult at times as we listened to agencies share how the new austerity agenda across governments and the rising cost of living are affecting their staff and the clients they serve.
Employment Ontario and the Service System Managers (SSMs), which oversee employment services in their regions, were a topic of interest at all of the tables. Concerns were shared that payment incentives for delivery agencies were difficult to attain because many clients streamed into Group C, where the largest incentives are available, are not yet ready for employment. The majority have been outside of the formal labour market for years, and without pre-employment services and other social supports, their obtaining and retaining employment remains inconsistent and low.
On the other hand, immigrants are often streamed into Groups A or B (considered to need the lowest levels of support) due primarily to their relatively higher education levels. However, as the immigrant and refugee-serving sector, we know that new arrivals often face systemic barriers due to language, including language for the workplace, racism, and employers devaluing international (‘foreign’) experience and education.
Over the years, OCASI has spoken to our government policy colleagues responsible for the employment program about this. They’ve acknowledged the issues and told us that these concerns have been taken into account in drafting program criteria. We are not seeing that reflected on the ground. Employment service providers have not seen a funding increase in years. In some regions, organizations are using private donations to offset the costs of the programs. Many of the SSMs are private-sector businesses, while in other areas municipalities have stepped up to take on this responsibility. From what was shared, organizations working with public-sector SSMs have a much more collaborative and productive relationship than those working with private-sector SSMs.
Provincial and federal support for women’s programming were also raised as concerns, especially for agencies working with Black and racialized women. In one region, we were asked if Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will ever restore the funding that was taken away more than a decade ago, when the then-Conservative federal government defunded many “ethno-specific” services in Ontario. The leader shared how, even after investing in a proposal writer and clearly demonstrating their impact in a region with little women-centred programming, particularly for Black and racialized immigrant and refugee women, they were unsuccessful. The question that we heard again and again: Isn’t IRCC supposed to be working within a Gender-based Analysis Plus framework?
The provincial government isn’t doing much better when it comes to women’s services. The recent increase in support for gender-based violence services was below inflation rates. About three or four years ago, service organizations saw an increase of $20,000 per agreement (from $90K to $120K/year) after 21 years of advocacy. For many small women’s centres, this is the only consistent government funding they receive, in addition to small donations or project-specific foundation grants.
Francophone members are in a state of uncertainty. After being reassured in the early spring that there would be no impact from the federal government’s Comprehensive Expenditure Review (CER), they have now been told there may be some financial impact in year four of their agreements. More information is being sought. We and the agencies are pleased to see that both levels of government are keeping their commitment of increasing Francophone immigration outside Quebec. However, the human services infrastructure must be in place to ensure the successful settlement and integration of these new residents.
Funding and its impact on services and staffing was only one part of the discussion. The increasing use of technology, including the integration of AI into the work of the sector, sparked lively discussion. These meetings were partly a listening tour for me and my OCASI colleagues. And the role of artificial intelligence in our work was one of the areas I wanted to hear about. What are sector leaders feeling and thinking about this? Is AI integration a foregone conclusion and should we get ahead of it or be left behind? Or should we be resisting AI integration because of concerns about employees being displaced as funders look to AI and broader technology use in service delivery as cost cutting measures? Is there a negative impact on service, and by extension on clients, if we support a “digital first” strategy, which IRCC has identified as a priority? Will other funders, like the Ontario government through its Newcomer Settlement, Adult Language and Bridge Training programs, follow suit? Is there a happy medium where AI service delivery is used for clients with lower needs while maintaining fully funded, diverse in-person supports for others? For example, in some regions we heard concerns raised about those most in need of direct human contact for settlement – including women facing gender-based violence (GBV) and intimate partner violence (IPV), refugees, and other survivors of torture – would be most disadvantaged by the loss of access to human-provided settlement services.
Conversely, our conversations also indicated a shared expectation that most new immigrants will be people already here as temporary workers or students on post graduate permits. The assumption is that these cohorts will not require the same level of immediate settlement and integration services, given their cultural and linguistic familiarity and ability. Is this assumption correct?
All of these questions and more were discussed across the various regions. No consensus has yet emerged, other than we must engage in the discussion as a sector. We must approach these conversations from an informed position about the opportunities and challenges of AI and technology in service delivery, always keeping clients and their communities centred.
There will be a couple of panel workshops on this very topic of technology and artificial intelligence in service delivery at our fall Leaders’ Forum. I’m looking forward to learning more and to hearing what the sector needs from OCASI as organizations engage this new reality. The Council itself is debating the use of AI in our work. New learnings will inform where we eventually land. I suspect that this is also true for the broader Ontario sector, including OCASI member agencies.
Of course, immigration policy and the changing landscape, including Canadians’ attitude towards our immigration and humanitarian programs, were discussed. There was discussion in some regions – small and large, about the need to work cross-sectorally to push back against changes to the IFHP (Interim Federal Health Program), which require refugees, including those who are claimants, to pay a portion of their medical costs, including mental health costs, when they have even small monthly incomes from employment, social assistance or other income supports. Members were concerned that even small out-of-pocket costs could cause people with very limited incomes to delay or go without necessary care.
All regions talked about their ongoing concerns about the impact that the recently implemented Bill C-12 is having on individuals, especially those from LGBTQIA+ communities. As I write this, many countries around the world from Africa to Europe to the Caribbean and Asia are introducing and implementing increasingly draconian laws targeting same-sex relationships. What are individuals who are here and can no longer return home, to do? Under Bill C-12, they may be ineligible to make an asylum claim if more than one year has passed since their first entry into Canada after June 24, 2020. Many international students and temporary workers may be caught by this provision.
Some also raised concerns about the recent expiration of the policy that allowed undeclared family members to be sponsored. This was a lifeline, particularly for refugees from conflict zones, where it isn’t unusual for families to be separated without knowing if loved ones are alive or dead, or for babies to be born after applications have been submitted. It is unconscionable that this life-saving policy was allowed to die. Despite IRCC and the Minister citing concerns about program integrity, the department has provided no evidence that applicants were misusing the policy. Moreover, a 2023 departmental assessment described the risk to program integrity as “minimal”. The department has since changed its position about a policy that only generated about 2000 applications over seven years.” It is unconscionable that this policy would be rescinded.
It was heartening to be reminded that in spite of the uncertainties the sector is facing, our commitment to fight for a just immigration and refugee (humanitarian) program remains strong and constant.
The road trip showed us that hope and a commitment to services with impact remain the cornerstones of our membership. There is a sense of optimism, which I was not expecting, in spite of the difficult work of maintaining services while working with less funding and having to bid goodbye to colleagues that organizations can no longer employ. This last is causing an experience gap in some of the regions. But the optimism remains. Challenges are acknowledged, but so are the opportunities that may arise as we move into this new day.
Post Note:
I write this blog on the morning of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Over the past few days, I have been reflecting on a quick trip I took to Charlottetown, PEI, in the middle of my cross-Ontario visits.It was OCASI’s first visit to PEI as we continue to identify and engage with communities and their organizations across the country doing work on equity and racial justice. Our colleague Elder Noel, from the Mi’kmaq Nation, who was our opening speaker, spoke about racism as judgement based on stereotypes.
He also reminded us not to conflate issues and experiences and told the story of a group of Chiefs who approached the province of PEI to request a public inquiry into killing of two Mi’kmaq youth by the RCMP. The province agreed but decided to include the experiences of other communities in the inquiry. The Chiefs refused to participate, arguing that, while supportive of newcomer and racialized communities, as well as long established Black communities, broadening the inquiry in fact negated the very specific experiences the Mi’kmaq Nation was facing in its relationship with the RCMP and other policing and security entities. I heard the message.
This day of Truth and Reconciliation reminds me that truth must always come before reconciliation and that my ongoing responsibilities and commitments must be reflected not only in what I say, but in how I learn, listen and act.
In Solidarity….
dd