THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 4, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:00 p.m. [ET] to study francophone immigration to minority communities.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Before we begin, I’d like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times, unless recognized by name by the chair.
[English]
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
[Translation]
We will now begin with our meeting.
I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick, and Chair of the Senate Committee on Official Languages.
I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick, deputy chair of the committee; Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec; Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario; Senator Lucie Moncion from Ontario; Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec; Senator Pierre Dalphond from Quebec; and Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded Traditional Territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Today we continue our study on francophone immigration to minority communities. During the first panel, we welcome the representatives of two national organizations.
First off, we have Denis M. Chartrand, President of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones; and their Executive Director, Valérie Morand.
And then representing the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, we have before us: Nour Enayeh, President; and Soukaina Boutiyeb, Executive Director.
Welcome to the committee everybody and thank you for being with us.
We will now hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators.
The floor is yours, Mr. Chartrand.
Denis M. Chartrand, President, Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for inviting us to address an issue that our network considers important.
I am Denis Chartrand, President of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones, which represents 28 minority francophone school boards outside Quebec and across Canada.
Our network serves 174,000 students at more than 700 primary and secondary schools from kindergarten to grade 12 all across the country.
Enrolment at our French-language schools has constantly risen in the past 15 years largely thanks to francophone immigration. In many instances, when children integrate at school, so do their parents and extended families. Schools thus do more than merely educate the child.
Unfortunately, our governments haven’t yet sufficiently acknowledged that role. Our school system not only recruits, admits and retains immigrant children, it also promotes the transmission of francophone culture and helps families put down roots in our communities.
Our network’s main immigration-related issues fall under three headings: first, raising awareness of the existence of French-language schools in Canada and abroad; second, recruiting, admitting and retaining immigrant students and their families; and, third, facilitating the hiring of qualified francophone teachers abroad and among recent immigrants.
We believe that six potential solutions can be implemented to meet these challenges.
The first is to promote French-language schools in Canada and internationally. People are still unaware of the performance of our school system and of the right of francophone immigrants and refugees to enrol their children in French-language schools.
All too often, families are still welcomed by unilingual anglophone officers who do not automatically direct them to francophone immigration networks. As a result, newcomers are directed to the anglophone system, which represents a loss for the francophone and Acadian communities.
As Canada prepares to welcome 285,000 French-speaking Ukrainians, how many of that number will arrive with complete and accurate information on the choices available to them regarding the education of their children?
The second potential solution is Bill C-13 to modernize the Official Languages Act. The bill would require the government to develop a policy on francophone immigration. However, its current wording, which provides that the government will “contribute” to the restoration of and increase in the demographic weight of our communities, is far too weak. The policy must provide for a clear obligation to restore and increase the demographic weight of our communities.
The third solution is to define the term “francophone” more broadly. In 2009, Ontario, like the federal government, adopted an expanded definition of what a francophone is. An immigrant whose mother tongue is not French but who speaks French is now considered a francophone in Ontario. However, that approach has not yet been adopted elsewhere in the country.
The fourth solution concerns settlement workers. Large numbers of immigrant students in our schools come from countries in conflict. In many cases, those students are experiencing physical, emotional, behavioural and educational problems and therefore need stronger support.
The purpose of the settlement workers in school program, an IRCC initiative, is to help students who have recently immigrated to integrate and thrive by creating bridges among school, family and community. Unfortunately, the program, which is based on the anglophone model, isn’t suited to the situation of francophone school boards.
The fifth solution concerns immigrant teachers and school staff. One of the solutions to the shortage of francophone teachers and school staff is to hire qualified teachers from outside Canada. However, except in Ontario, the mandatory process of recognizing the professional credentials of those individuals is often done solely in English, which complicates matters for francophone immigrants.
Although the success of immigrants who graduate from education faculties in Canada is generally not a problem, practicums are a more delicate matter during which issues arise, particularly regarding the cultural competencies of the host environment and student teachers. This is why increasing numbers of francophone school boards have had to develop mentoring programs.
The sixth solution is to provide restorative funding under the official languages in education program. Schools are a powerful tool for attracting, admitting and retaining in a community and still the fastest and most efficient way to accelerate the integration of newcomer families. It is important to provide this immigrant population with welcoming and inclusive living environments if they are to decide to stay in our communities. However, integration imposes a high cost on our school boards.
For more than a decade now, as a result of the increasing cost of living and rising enrolment in our schools, federal government funding to promote linguistic and cultural transmission has sharply declined. Since school boards now receive 56 cents for every dollar paid per student in 2009, we need a financial reorganization to offset that deficit.
In conclusion, schools are ready to play their role in making it easier for immigrant students and their families to integrate. We must therefore help school boards acquire all the resources they need to ensure the welfare and success of these future Canadians. Thank you for listening.
The Chair: Mr. Chartrand, thank you for your presentation, which was very clear.
I now give the floor to the President of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, Ms. Enayeh.
Nour Enayeh, President, Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne: Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, good evening and greetings, everyone.
Even though we are meeting virtually today, I would like to acknowledge that the headquarters of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne it is situated on the unceded land of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. On behalf of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne, or AFFC, I want to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages for this opportunity to contribute to its study on immigration.
I am Nour Enayeh, President of the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne. AFFC is a non-profit feminist organization dedicated to promoting the role and contributions of francophone and Acadian women in their communities. AFFC represents 15 women’s organizations outside Quebec and across Canada.
In 2021, the AFFC commissioned a study on the specific needs of immigrant francophone women in the francophone minority communities of four provinces and one territory of Canada: British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Yukon. Some 60 women and 20 individuals involved in the francophone immigration field in the target regions were consulted.
The purpose of the study was to identify the needs of francophone immigrants with respect to the offer of settlement and other services provided in their communities.
The main finding of that study concerns the impact of women’s family responsibilities on their immigration pathway. For most participants, the difference between their immigration pathway and that of immigrant men is in the weight of their family responsibilities.
Most of these women oversee the smooth running of their households and their children’s education, while ensuring they have access to basic services and handling administrative formalities for the entire family. This is even more difficult for women at the head of single-parent families, who support their families and run their households on their own.
In these circumstances, the successful, long-term integration of immigrants in francophone minority communities relies essentially on women’s efforts. However, our study established that there are deficiencies in the services offered and that the services themselves aren’t adequately adapted to the specific experience of these immigrant women.
Some of the deficiencies are as follows: a significant shortage of affordable child care services, which restricts immigrant women’s independence; limited access to health care in French, which is a major source of stress for immigrant women, many of whom, upon arrival, don’t have enough knowledge of English to interact with anglophone care providers; unequal access to information on French-language services from province to province; employability services unsuited to participants’ areas of experience, to the point where many of them reported that they had experienced persistent professional deskilling; inappropriate conditions of service, more specifically, inconvenient hours of service, very long distances that they had to travel in order to access services, restricted access to child care services and difficulties experienced by some women in continuing to take English language courses, all of which are factors limiting access to relevant services.
It also appears from our study that service providers act almost exclusively as though they are providing responses to perceived inadequacies of francophone immigrants, inadequacies that may be linked to limited knowledge of English, a misunderstanding of social codes or a lack of Canadian training or experience.
This approach, which is based on relations between service providers and recipients, tends to obscure immigrants’ abilities as well as the key role of the host community. How then do we define a successful immigration pathway? Have immigrants succeeded only once they have found housing and a job and their children are in school, or when they feel they are welcomed and full-fledged members of their community, able to contribute to that community using their knowledge and abilities?
As a result, according to study participants, the lack of contact with the host community delays development of their social skills and prevents them from forming a genuine sense of belonging to that community. Consequently, it is essential that immigrant women’s skills and abilities be put to use, and, to that end, that francophone immigration stakeholders take their specific needs into account.
Based on our study findings, we have developed recommendations for improving the way immigrant women’s specific needs are considered. These recommendations are intended for the entire francophone immigration ecosystem, but also for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. IRCC plays a central role in developing the terms and conditions on which support services are provided to immigrant women. It is therefore important that it take the lead in efforts to implement gender- and diversity-sensitive policies and programs.
The capacities of the francophone immigration ecosystem, which varies with each province and territory, must be expanded to anticipate women’s needs when designing policies, programs and services.
More specifically, the recommendations based on the findings of our study are as follows. We have also made recommendations directly to IRCC.
First, we recommend that IRCC’s policies be harmonized with the Canadian government’s policy on gender equality by adopting a national policy on gender equality and diversity in immigration. Such a policy would likely require settlement services to give greater consideration to gender and diversity issues in designing their programs.
Second, we recommend that IRCC work with other federal departments and agencies to produce more detailed information on the demographic profiles of francophone immigrants in consultation with immigrant women and the organizations that represent them. It will be essential to use this kind of evidence to design policies that achieve desired results.
Third, with regard to recommendations respecting the francophone immigration ecosystem in general, we ask that gender equality, diversity and inclusion issues be included in advocacy efforts with IRCC and other entities engaged in welcoming francophone immigrants to francophone minority communities, commonly called FMCs. This knowledge of host communities must be shared with IRCC.
Fourth, we recommend that IRCC support the development of gender-, diversity- and inclusion-sensitive policies, strategies and programs by the Réseaux en immigration francophones, or RIFs, which play a central role in reinforcing the capabilities of the francophone immigration ecosystems in the provinces and territories.
Fifth, we recommend that the capabilities of the RIFs and their member organizations be expanded to develop, disseminate and use tools such as policies, analytical frameworks and resources focusing on gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+, in francophone immigration to the FMCs.
Sixth, we recommend that IRCC work with women’s organizations in their provinces and territories to implement programs and services responsive to women’s needs, programs that will use the human capital that immigrant women possess. Although those organizations operate on the ground for immigrant women, regardless of their immigration status, not all of them receive financial support from IRCC.
Seventh, we recommend that IRCC make use of the information that has emerged from research and practice in designing gender-sensitive programs and services.
Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, thank you for your attention. Soukaina Boutiyeb, Executive Director of AFFC, and I will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Enayeh. We will now proceed to questions from the senators. Colleagues, I would ask that you use the “raise hand” feature in Zoom to ask for the floor. Those who are present in person can let the clerk know they want to speak.
Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead and of the interest of the members in our witnesses’ remarks, I suggest, as usual — and this applies to witnesses as well — that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer. If time permits, we will of course have a second round.
Senator Poirier: Thank you to both witnesses for appearing here today; it’s very much appreciated. My first question is for both witnesses. What do you think the new policy on francophone immigration promised by the federal government should contain? What factors should be considered for that policy to promote vitality and support for the development of francophone minority communities?
Soukaina Boutiyeb, Executive Director, Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne: To answer your first question, I think it’s important — and we submit this in our study — to change the way we look at immigrants. Rather than view immigrant women as service recipients, they must also be seen as members of the community and active participants. Since they help ensure the vitality and enrichment of our communities, part of the objective is to change that perspective.
As our president mentioned in her remarks, the other part of the objective is to consider a gender-sensitive policy. It’s important in policy development to consider gender-based analysis plus, the purpose of which is to develop services that address the specific needs of immigrants based on their identity, gender and economic situation. We must also ensure that those services have a direct impact and can meet all needs.
Mr. Chartrand: I’d like to add something to what my colleague Ms. Boutiyeb just said. The policy must be clear, but everything that follows from it, by which I mean the IRCC regulations, must be as well. We’ve cited two examples of what happens at IRCC and what must change for the francophone community to be vibrant and welcoming and able to develop across Canada, not just in one part of Canada.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for your answer. My second question is for the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones. What is the current profile of the francophone immigrant school clientele? You made six excellent points in your remarks. How do you think we should prioritize them? Are all six points of equal priority? Where should we start?
Valérie Morand, Executive Director, Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones: Allow me to answer the previous question. The communities’ capacity to take in immigrants must be increased. That includes the school system for francophone immigrants.
Today we heard calls for tougher francophone immigration targets. No one’s opposed to a strong contribution from francophone immigration. To be consistent, however, we have to provide communities and school systems with the resources to admit francophone immigrants. Earlier Ms. Boutiyeb and Ms. Enayeh mentioned the weight of family responsibilities. That’s a factor that we’ve also identified. We’ve also submitted a project to IRCC called RAM, to recruit, admit and retain new teachers, which is based on best practices. We know the solutions. On the advice of our president, we’ve been offering meeting sessions for a few years now. Transportation is provided, snacks are offered, child care is available and parents can socialize and break out of the isolation we mentioned, all of which promotes integration. Children are one vector, but we also give parents a chance to put down roots in the community.
We know what we have to do. Let’s capitalize on these best practices and find the means to implement them. In many cases, the solutions aren’t that complicated. We nevertheless have to acknowledge that they exist and switch out of reactive mode. We know the solutions, so let’s plan and learn from the Syrian refugee experience so we’re ready for the coming wave of Afghan refugees and the wave of francophone Ukrainians. We know the solutions. Let’s give ourselves a chance to implement them.
Senator Poirier: Did you get a positive response to the request for proposals that you issued?
Ms. Morand: It was turned down twice. I didn’t tell you that we didn’t submit it a third time. We see what has to be done, but the onus is on IRCC to acknowledge the reality on the ground. As our president, Mr. Chartrand, said, the settlement workers in school program has to be adapted to the francophone schools model. The system is based on the anglophone model, under which a significant concentration of schools is needed in order to qualify. That’s not the case of the network of francophone schools, which are scattered across the entire province. You often have one council serving the province or territory. Let’s acknowledge the specificity of francophone schools so we can serve this immigrant clientele well.
Senator Mégie: My question addresses the point you raised, Mr. Chartrand, concerning the expanded definition of who is a “francophone.” I don’t know whether I heard it right, but it seems that definition has been expanded in Ontario. A person whose mother tongue isn’t French is considered francophone if he or she speaks French. Why wasn’t that definition expanded in other provinces rather than in a single province? What was the obstacle to that?
Mr. Chartrand: It’s up to every province to adopt that definition, and we’d be happy if that were the case. There’s no obstacle, provided the province wants to use the same definition as Ontario’s of what a francophone is for education purposes. That definition isn’t constitutional. It’s used so that people who speak French can be considered francophones for the purpose of enrolling their children in school.
Senator Mégie: Do you think that definition is included in Bill C-13 and that it can influence the other provinces?
Mr. Chartrand: I hope so. I hadn’t thought about it, but absolutely. No need to change the Constitution. If that provision were inserted in the Official languages Act, I think that would help; you’re absolutely right.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Mr. Chartrand. Would you please tell us about recruiting francophones for your schools from an immigrant pool that settles in a place where there are francophone communities and French schools?
Have you actually been informed that they might be arriving, and do you have the time to court them so they can choose a French-language education for their children?
Mr. Chartrand: That’s sort of what I was talking about when I said that newcomers are welcomed by immigration officers when they arrive in Canada. That’s where schools should be promoted because we don’t necessarily know who’s arriving or where.
However, I must congratulate the Centre francophone du Grand Toronto, which has taken matters in hand at Pearson airport. Its representatives make sure that newcomers, whoever they may be, receive information on the four school systems in Ontario. That’s what we need all across Canada: agents or people who welcome immigrant families and can properly inform them about their education rights, first of all, and about the services that are provided.
To answer your question more specifically, no one at the federation or on the school boards is telling us that immigrant families are arriving in Montreal or Ottawa tomorrow.
Senator Dagenais: I have a question for Ms. Enayeh.
Ms. Enayeh, we know the Trudeau government has decided to implement a national child care program because child care obviously comes before school.
What do you know about the intentions of the provinces, other than Quebec, which will be receiving federal money to establish those child care facilities?
Will a share of that money be for francophone child care facilities, or will we have to fight another battle for that funding?
Ms. Enayeh: I come from British Columbia, and this is a major concern there, particularly since we know, as we said at the outset, that’s really where language is transmitted.
I haven’t heard any talk about specific plans in that regard.
Ms. Boutiyeb: If I could clarify one point.
Access to francophone child care services in communities across the country is definitely one of our fears.
As regards immigration, it’s one of the things that emerged for immigrant women who took part in the study. We hope that child care centres will be affordable, but also available at times suited to them, in terms of employability and inclusion and integration services.
In conclusion, we also have to change the way those facilities operate so these women can take part in activities. We need atypical child care models.
Mr. Chartrand: Child care is extremely important for us.
Our federation supports the education continuum from kindergarten to post-secondary. Child care centres and the program that was just announced are excellent, but this is a perfect example of the reason language provisions must be included in Bill C-13 when the federal government allocates funding to the provinces.
There have to be language clauses that state, “We’re funding you, but X per cent of that funding has to go to francophone minority communities.” In this case, that means francophone child care centres.
As you know, senator, there are many day care centres in our schools, and day care centres are the gateway to the community and our schools.
Senator Moncion: I have two questions, one for the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne and the other for the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones.
Ms. Enayeh, you said there was a credential recognition problem for francophone immigrants who could potentially teach.
You mentioned that credentials… These people arrive in Canada and have to take English exams. Did I understand that correctly?
Ms. Enayeh: We were talking more about credentials in general, not just teachers. Immigrants arrive with credentials that aren’t adequately recognized, and many of them are required to redo their studies in English, not just the teachers, but women in general.
Ms. Boutiyeb: What I could also add about immigrant women is that, when career women arrive, they already have expertise in a specific field. In many cases, although it depends on the field, they have to retake all kinds of programs, more than just certification programs, to have their credentials recognized, which isn’t always easy.
That often makes them want to change careers, even though that’s not what they initially want, because, in many instances, those careers don’t give them a standard of living equivalent to what they previously had.
That’s a reality for those women; they have to have access to positions they had in their home country; their credentials must be recognized at the same level, and that recognition must be fair depending on the province or territory. We also feel there’s considerable unfairness from province to province.
Ms. Morand: Senator Moncion, to answer your question specifically concerning teachers, you should know that teachers are overrepresented in the francophone minority immigrant population.
Qualified teachers represent a very large percentage of francophone immigrants arriving in Canada. The reality is, as Ms. Boutiyeb explained, that it’s a struggle to get professional credentials recognized. The teachers’ associations grant that recognition. Every province has a different professional association, which also complicates interprovincial and interterritorial mobility. Furthermore, apart from Ontario, it’s difficult to get service in French when communicating with those professional associations.
Consequently, among immigrants, qualified teachers attempting to have their professional qualifications recognized must communicate and submit documents in English. To quite a degree, that complicates the process, which is already laborious, energy-consuming and costly.
Mr. Chartrand: There are three phases: The first is credential recognition; the second, as was just said, is the fact that recognition is done in English in virtually all provinces; and the third, obviously, are the turf wars among the professional associations.
Senator Moncion: Yes, we see that in many fields.
Senator Clement: Thanks to the witnesses. We’re very pleased to see you. I have a question for Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Enayeh. I’d very much appreciate it if they could answer it.
As my colleagues know, I come from Cornwall and I often talk about municipalities. It’s true that immigration is a federal jurisdiction and that the provincial governments are involved in it as well, but the municipalities, to use Mr. Chartrand’s phrase, are “the bridge between newcomers and the community.” Ms. Enayeh, you used the words “sense of belonging.”
Which communities are doing a good job, and what are the best policies, from a municipal standpoint, for meeting this need?
Mr. Chartrand: There’s a whole range of education policies. I said it should be advertised that we have French-language schools. Unfortunately, some municipalities don’t really know they have French-language schools and therefore don’t promote them. This is an enormous problem in most cities in Canada.
However, others acknowledge the fact and work with the school boards so we can all work together when immigrants or refugees arrive in Canada. Here’s an example, and it’s the only one I can give you because it’s the one I experienced. A few years ago, the City of Ottawa did a good job of cooperating with Ottawa’s four school boards to ensure that information would be provided to newcomers. I don’t want to take any more time, if Ms. Enayeh wants to continue.
Ms. Enayeh: I had a lot of experience with the Syrian refugees when they arrived in Canada. Perhaps it was because there were too many of them, but I admit we saw gaps in the services offered to women. The Syrian refugees were treated somewhat like immigrants, but being an immigrant and being a refugee are two very different types of status. The situation was different. So I believe you have models that can be followed, but they weren’t really appropriate.
I’m more inclined to blame the fact that a large number of immigrants suddenly arrived, so the authorities didn’t have a chance to work more on that. I honestly didn’t see any models that were extraordinary models to follow. They were really models that were repeated but that didn’t secure services for women in particular, with, let’s say, all their differences.
Ms. Boutiyeb: Mr. Chair, I’d like to add that it’s important to remember that migration pathways differ from person to person and that they aren’t unique. When people arrive in our country, they come in different ways: as landed immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, foreign students or on a Canadian working holiday visa. In short, there are many ways to come into the country.
It should also be borne in mind that settlement services are funded by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, and that it provides services to a single class of persons, who are refugees accepted here or landed immigrants.
So what about the others? What often happens on the ground is that, when these individuals, who are mainly women, can’t access services elsewhere, because they’ve been denied them since there are no departmental service requirements, they turn to women’s organizations in the provinces and territories. However, it isn’t part of the mandate of those organizations to meet those needs, or else they have to go beyond their mandate to do so. I’d like to add a comment on the state of funding for women’s organizations. To answer your question, senator, when provinces or municipalities believe in the importance of women’s organizations, which have targeted funding, we see genuine progress made in integrating those women in our country.
To add to what the president said, it’s important to bear in mind what we’re saying today, which is that it’s very important to have a gender policy from the get-go. That helps prevent this kind of situation in which we have to take in individuals who have different situations.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Senator Dalphond: I was very interested to hear that immigrants, especially francophone immigrant women, had previously taught French and had to take qualification exams in English in order then to teach in francophone school boards. Standards vary from province to province.
My question is for Mr. Chartrand or Ms. Morand. Would it be possible for the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones to develop a national certification program that would be recognized by all provinces? Once an immigrant passes the test, we could facilitate credential recognition by the professional association, and that wouldn’t be unheard of. For example, there’s a national examination for accredited professional accountants that’s recognized by each of the professional associations in every province; The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada also sets exams that are then recognized by the provincial professional associations. Is that an idea that we can explore? By examining examples for certain professions, we might convince the provinces that the same can be done to recognize francophones’ credentials and perhaps offer a support program that could facilitate matters once candidates have taken the exams and could help immigrants obtain accreditation from the appropriate professional association in their province.
Mr. Chartrand: That’s a great idea.
Obviously, I’m an engineer by profession and therefore a realist. There’ll be a lot of turf wars among the provincial professional associations. However, it’s a good idea, and as you mentioned, senator, we could suggest something similar to the arrangement for accredited professional accountants. Ms. Morand, would you have anything to add?
Ms. Morand: Yes, it’s an excellent idea, so good in fact that it’s been floated within the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, for years now. That organization represents all departments of education across the country, the 13 provinces and territories. However, it’s never made any headway. Everyone acknowledges that it would be desirable to have a mobility program or certification that fosters mobility for newcomers who sometimes settle in one province and for those who, for all kinds of reasons, then choose to relocate. Choices are often not final, and they entail further costs for new certification. Yes, there’s a genuine need, but that proposal or potential solution hasn’t yet led to anything concrete.
Mr. Chartrand: The provinces are, let’s say, very territorial about education, as are their ministries.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chartrand.
Senator Mockler: I’d like to congratulate the witnesses who are here with us. I’d like to hear your answers to two brief questions.
First, I know there’s a lot of concern, as they say here in the Madawaska region, across the country, from east to west and north to south, about the role of governments within the francophonie, particularly when they examine factors that may influence francophone immigration. What do you think are the factors responsible for the failure, or at least the poorer performance, of the provincial and territorial governments to meet their own francophone immigration targets?
The Chair: Who wants to answer?
Mr. Chartrand: I’m not an expert, but I think the answer to the question, or what explains the failure — It’s an extremely complicated question because it depends on the various orders of government. For example, does Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, with its offices around the world, encourage, or rather push, francophone immigration? Or is it all wishful thinking and it isn’t working as hard as it does for immigration from elsewhere, anglophone immigration, as it were? I don’t know, but is IRCC doing a good job? I don’t know.
Second, are the provinces as welcoming of francophone immigrants as they should be?
Some provinces — We know that education in Ontario, the education offered in Ontario as part of the work that’s being done with the Ministry of Education, isn’t the same as what’s offered in British Columbia, for example, between British Columbia’s Ministry of Education and francophone inhabitants.
The same is true of immigration. Pardon me, but I can’t answer your question, except to say that a good study should be done to determine the reasons for the failure.
I don’t know whether Ms. Enayeh or Ms. Morand want to add anything.
Ms. Morand: I’ll just add to that answer by saying that we used the word “ecosystem” a little earlier. I think it accurately reflects the immigration situation. It can’t be the sole responsibility of one entity, such as IRCC, or of the provinces, the school system, the municipalities or community organizations. We must work together to coordinate action on the ground so francophone immigrants don’t slip through the net.
With regard to the example you cited a little earlier concerning early childhood services, the agreements negotiated with every province and territory currently contain a short provision stating that each of the provinces and territories must create spaces for francophones and Indigenous communities.
However, that provision doesn’t include specific targets. What do you think will happen to the short provision at the very end of the agreement? We all want to do the right thing, but if there’s no clarification… When I sign a contract, I want to know the details. There aren’t any here. Once again, there’s a chance we may miss an ideal opportunity to create spaces in early childhood services. We know right now that we have as many children on waiting lists as there are in francophone minority child care services. The situation is serious and really must be rectified.
The Chair: Ms. Enayeh, did you wish to add anything?
Ms. Enayeh: I don’t have enough experience to answer that question thoroughly, but I can speak very briefly about British Columbia, for example, and the problems we have. As Ms. Morand said, it’s true that we need to work as an ecosystem. If we wait for British Columbia, which has a very small francophone community, to act alone, we’ll never get there. We have problems. We’re losing francophones here and there. When parents fight to ensure their schools have the same level of quality as English-language schools and then give up and start enrolling their children in English-language schools, that leaves some holes. If we don’t work together as an ecosystem, we won’t make it.
I don’t have an answer for you regarding the federal aspect.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Before going to the second round, I would like to ask two questions. My first question is for Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Morand, and the second is for the ladies from the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne.
In a 2015 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a province or territory may delegate the function of setting admission criteria for non-rights holders to a French-language school board, but that the board may not unilaterally set admission criteria for immigrant students who are not rights holders. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
My second question is for the Alliance des femmes de la francophonie canadienne. I don’t know whether you discussed this, but I’m curious to hear what you have to say about the cultural issues involved in integrating immigrant women. For example, what should a federal policy on francophone immigration include in order to promote greater cultural harmonization, which is an issue? I have solutions that come from the arts and culture field, but I’d like to hear what you have to say on the subject.
First, Mr. Chartrand and Ms. Morand.
Mr. Chartrand: Thank you. Once again, the challenges obviously vary from province to province because education is a provincial jurisdiction. You’re spoiled if you live in Ontario because the ministry has delegated the right to accept or reject non-rights holders to the school boards. That’s done through an admissions committee. The students go to school, they’re spoken to in French and, if they understand and have support at home, especially in French, they’re simply accepted. Once they’re accepted, they become rights holders, or rather their families become rights holders.
However, that right hasn’t been delegated in certain provinces and territories. It’s currently up to the education minister to decide whether someone may or may not attend a French‑language school. The challenge is that we have various ministers who have differing perceptions of what should be done. The situation doesn’t just differ from province to province; it can change when a province gets a new education minister.
The Chair: So there’s absolutely no harmonization or uniform criteria across the country, from what I understand?
Mr. Chartrand: Exactly.
Ms. Morand: Senator Cormier, I would say that’s why the right to manage schools is so significant because we’re talking about acknowledging that the school boards are in the best position to manage conditions for admitting their students. Legal disputes arise in a few provinces and territories when education ministries adopt a much more paternalistic and rigid approach that fails to recognize, or timidly recognizes, that right to manage their schools.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’ll try to allow some time for my colleagues to ask questions. Ladies from the Alliance, would you please briefly tell me what you think about cultural issues?
Ms. Boutiyeb: Of course. I would start by saying that the identity principle isn’t static; it evolves, as the migration pathway does. It’s important to acknowledge that and to acknowledge that we’re a multicultural country where women could perhaps encourage the evolution of the concept of francophone identity that we have. We’ve seen more inclusive definitions in Ontario. Once again, what that contributes is the idea that it’s important to ensure that everybody belongs to this ecosystem of harmonization and that all the elements are there.
You talked about culture, women’s organizations, school boards, health, seniors… In short, we’re fortunate to have various people working around immigration. It’s important to take all those people into account.
It’s also important to view immigrants as more than just concepts of landed immigrants and accepted refugees. There are other migration pathways. It’s the women who are forgotten. Those pathways make it possible to work in our communities. Those are two factors, and I would add a third, which might perhaps answer Senator Dagenais’ question: We don’t just need a policy; we need an Official Languages Act that contains an immigration principle and calls on the federal government to do a better job on francophone immigration.
The Chair: Thank you very much. With your cooperation, Senator Dagenais, Senator Moncion and witnesses, we could accept one question from Senator Dagenais and another from Senator Moncion, then conclude the meeting with those two questions.
Senator Dagenais: I want to circle back to funding for French-language services. We all remember what happened to Laurentian University. Without federal government funding, are the provinces, apart from Quebec, really prepared to provide French-language services to immigrants arriving in Canada? Mr. Chartrand, if you would care to respond.
Mr. Chartrand: Once again, I’m not an immigration expert; I’m more familiar with education. Can the provinces provide those services? Theoretically, yes, I suppose, if they contribute more funding themselves, but, once again, that depends on what you might call the attitude of the province toward francophones and francophone immigration. So without venturing any further, I can theoretically say yes, but, in reality, I think it’s entirely something else. I don’t know whether anyone would like to add something.
Ms. Boutiyeb: The matter of leadership has to be considered. I come from Ontario. Budget cuts were made at all levels a few years ago and still — In short, I think leadership changes everything. Bringing this all back to Bill C-13, I’m also thinking of the importance of having language provisions. That would prevent us from having to endure this kind of situation and assure us that, when projects and services are put in place, francophones, even those in minority communities, are treated as full-fledged citizens. There have to be equivalent services.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your questions and answers.
Senator Moncion: I wanted to hear about the experience in the schools with respect to immigration, integration, the francization of newcomers and retention. What challenges are associated with those three elements when newcomers arrive in the schools?
Ms. Morand: Thank you for the question. There were in fact all kinds of initiatives in French-language schools designed to meet the needs of students and ensure their success and well‑being. In Ontario, there is the Newcomer Settlement Program (NSP) to hire workers to act as intermediaries between families and the school and to mentor students. In some programs, the students who arrive in our schools are paired with students who have already been attending. They are assigned a mentor, someone their age with whom they can discuss things if they have worries. This prevents isolation and make sure that everything goes smoothly. There is also a community café, a successful endeavour that allows immigrant parents to decide what subjects they would like to take. There are on-site interpreters and school transportation, a day care arrangement for the children, and snacks. Everything is taken care of by this turnkey service. People can ask questions about parents’ work and involvement. It’s often a shock to parents when they’re asked to invest in their children’s education and check their homework.
Those are only a few of the initiatives. Some school boards have established partnerships with embassies in order to be able to provide closer monitoring. When we were talking about the ecosystem, it meant that more people would do well to ensure that the migration process is successful for students in French‑language schools. The one thing the network of French‑language schools would really like to have is statistics on the increase in the number of immigrant students who have joined our network. We know that much of our growth — Since 2008‑2009, 31,000 new students have joined our network. We would like to know what percentage of them were there as a result of immigration. In Ontario, we can’t assess that yet. Soon, the Ontario school boards will have to provide such data. We would like to have a Canada-wide picture in order to be able to track the situation.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your questions and answers. That concludes this meeting. I’d like to thank Mr. Chartrand, Ms. Morand, Ms. Enayeh and Ms. Boutiyeb for their testimony and their commitment to the Canadian francophonie. If there are any urgent recommendations you were unable to tell us about today, please send them to us. If you have other comments to add, you can send them to the committee clerk, and we will gladly look at them.
We’ll now move on to the second group of witnesses. I’d like to welcome Mariève Forest, Visiting Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, and Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, doctoral student in political science, University of Ottawa.
Ms. Forest and Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, you are familiar with our procedures. You will give your opening speeches, to be followed by a round of questions from the senators. We’ll follow the same procedures during the questions and answers, with five minutes allowed for the questions and answers, so that we can ask you as many questions as possible and so that you can answer them as best you can. Go ahead Ms. Forest.
Mariève Forest, Visiting Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am delighted to be able to share my perspective on immigration in francophone communities. My comments are mainly based on the results of a study commissioned by the FCFA that Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault and I conducted. It was released only this morning.
The purpose of the study is to take stock of the issues and possible actions to be taken in connection with the francophone immigration target. I believe that it addresses all of your concerns.
One of the main findings of our study is that Canada’s existing immigration system is contributing to the decline of the francophone population. Mr. Deschênes-Thériault will explain the numbers that led to this conclusion. I will talk about five examples taken from our study that address the following issues, though all too briefly: What are the factors in the current international recruitment procedures, and in the process of acquiring permanent residence status, in francophone immigration? What measures would make it possible to meet a more ambitious francophone immigration target?
Before speaking about any specific measures, I would like to point out that in view of the scale of the reforms that need to be introduced, it would appear reasonable for the federal government to establish an office responsible for considerably increasing immigration to francophone and Acadian communities. This office would be responsible for an in-depth reform of the government’s francophone immigration approach and would ensure that the community is involved in developing and implementing these measures.
I will talk about five specific measures to be implemented, if I have enough time. As for recruitment from promising sources, I will be discussing considerations pertaining to Canada’s very limited presence in sub-Saharan Africa. To begin with, sub-Saharan Africa represents the largest number of international francophones, in fact over 40%. Canada has only one visa office in all of sub-Saharan Africa, in Dakar, Senegal. This office serves 16 countries, including 12 countries whose francophone populations are the largest in the region. Consequently, if Canada’s capacity for processing immigration applications from this region is to be increased, we suggest that an additional visa office be set up in sub-Saharan Africa.
I will now mention some of the ways people can become permanent residents to illustrate the scale of the problematic issues, as well as the scope of the possible reforms needed in the selection process.
Let’s begin with the economic category because it’s the biggest. The pilot projects currently underway are regional and sectoral. For example, the Caregiver Program is not suited to the needs of francophone communities. What’s needed instead is a program that would directly address the labour shortages in the education and early childhood services sector. Programs like these have much more potential.
Still in the economic category, the new Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot does not appear to be well suited to francophones at the moment, because almost all of the websites for the 11 communities identified are only in English. It nevertheless has strong potential, because under this program, the community identifies the eligibility criteria and how to prioritize them. It could nevertheless be something to build upon in developing a pilot program on immigration to francophone and Acadian communities.
I won’t be talking about the family sponsorship and protected persons categories, but we could return to these during the round of questions, if you wish.
A review of refugee resettlement measures offers a variety of possibilities. On the one hand, there are many emergencies in countries and regions where French is the official language, such as Burundi in the Central African Republic or Mali. A positive measure here might establish a numerical quota for francophone refugees and increase Canada’s share of support and resettlement for refugees currently in francophone African countries. Different priorities would be needed.
I’ll close with the Provincial Nominee Program, which is becoming increasingly important, given that admissions represented approximately 11% of total immigration in 2008, and that we were close to 25% by 2019-2020.
Moreover, in 2019, only Ontario reached its targets for the admission of francophone permanent residents under the Provincial Nominee Program. Ontario did so well because of its French-speaking skilled worker stream, for workers who speak both official languages and want to settle in Ontario. Support could be offered to the provinces and territories so that each region could introduce a francophone stream based on the Ontario model; this would be a promising avenue. The creation of this new stream could be accompanied by the issuance of additional designation certificates for francophone applicants based on the national target and the provincial and territorial designation targets for francophone immigration.
I’ll conclude by simply saying that the measures needed to achieve an ambitious francophone immigration target require an in-depth review of the immigration promotion and recruitment strategy, and a major expansion of ways to become a permanent resident under each of the programs currently available from the various governments.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, doctoral student in political science, University of Ottawa: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for your invitation to appear before your committee. In my brief speech, I would like to draw your attention to the results of two recent studies to which I contributed, and which directly address the francophone immigration target.
First of all, last year I conducted a statistical analysis study for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. The study identified a gap between the francophone immigration target and its associated objectives. Just to remind you, in 2003, a committee co-chaired by the federal government and the communities developed the first strategic framework to promote immigration in francophone minority communities.
The first objective mentioned in the strategic framework was to increase the demographic weight of francophone minority communities. It also mentioned the objective of maintaining the demographic weight in these communities. To achieve these objectives, the committee set the target at 4.4% francophone immigration, a target that was at the outset expected to be met in 2008.
But when it was adopted, the 4.4% target wasn’t based on any demographic studies. It was based on a comparison to the demographic weight of the francophone population at the time of the 2001 Census. The study conducted for the commissioner’s office showed that achieving this target by 2008 would slow the decline of the demographic weight in francophone communities, but not maintain it, and even less lead to growth. From the outset, there was therefore a disconnect between the target and the objectives.
The study also illustrated the limited progress towards the 4.4% target over the past two decades. The percentage of francophone permanent residency admissions exceeded the 2% threshold only twice, in 2019 and 2020.
These results show that we need to rethink the francophone immigration target and base it on reliable data so that it can meet the real needs of the communities. That was the context when we began the study commissioned by the FCFA of Canada, which was released this morning, as Mariève mentioned.
Over the past 50 years, the demographic weight of the francophone population outside Quebec dropped from 6.1% in 1971 to 3.8% in 2016. Although immigration is not the only factor that has an impact on a population’s demographic weight, it is a key factor over which the federal government has a major influence.
To fill in some of the gaps with respect to the ambiguity of the objectives of an immigration target in the study conducted for the FCFA, We specifically commissioned Statistics Canada to do some demographic projections using the Demosim model. The projections in this special commission are based on the assumptions that had been used for Language Projections for Canada, 2011 to 2036 , published in 2017, with the addition of some new features.
Data from the 2016 Census were the starting point for our study, rather than the data from the 2011 National Household Survey used in the Statistics Canada projections. We used actual population data for francophone permanent residents admitted between 2016 and 2020 and we also tested 10 specific hypotheses for international francophone immigration, in addition to a hypothetical proportion of 2.96% francophone immigrants, which was suggested by Statistics Canada and used in the reference scenario.
According to the reference scenario, the demographic weight of the francophone population could exceed 3.1% by 2036; this is a decrease of 18.4% from the 3.8% observed at the time of the 2016 Census.
The various scenarios we tested in our study nevertheless showed that growth rather than a decline would be possible with relatively high levels of francophone immigration. At the moment, immigration is having a negative impact on the demographic weight of the francophone population, but projections show that immigration could in fact be a factor that would have a positive impact if higher objectives were to be met.
The demographic projections carried out as part of this study provide clarification on what objectives could possibly be met based on different annual targets. Among other things, our projections show that an annual 6% target would be appropriate for an objective whose purpose is to slow the decline in the demographic weight.
To maintain the demographic weight at its current level, a target of approximately 8% is needed; for growth, it would take a target of 10%; to play catch-up and meet a 4.4% target by 2036 — the demographic weight at the time of setting the initial target — a target of 16% would be required; for growth beyond 4.4%, the target would have to be even more ambitious.
In short, the projections show that the demographic decline in the communities will continue unless highly ambitious francophone immigration objectives are adopted and met. I cannot overstress the importance of meeting the targets because the measures in place do not appear to show that the 4.4% target will be reached by 2023, and even less likely that more ambitious objectives can be met, as the recent study suggests.
In her speech, Mariève suggested several options worth exploring, which we could discuss if you wish. Thank you for listening, and I’d be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for this presentation. With your permission, Senator Poirier, I’d like to ask an initial question now and then give you the floor immediately afterwards.
I am looking at this much-discussed progressive table of percentages, which goes from 12% in 2024-26 to 20% in 2036. Given that Canada has never managed to meet the 4.4% target, you have to wonder what the government will have to do to get there.
On the one hand, we have significant catching up to do to avoid losing momentum, and on the other, there are the many immigrants who arrive in Canada and would prefer to settle in a community where they can learn English.
In New Brunswick and elsewhere, francophones who come here want to live in an environment where they can learn English. This makes integrating into francophone communities more difficult.
You mentioned sub-Saharan Africa as a target region, for example. But what about immigrants who speak neither French nor English, and who could be sought after for our communities because they will have to learn one or both official languages when they get here?
I’d like to know your position on that. Then I will give the floor to Senator Poirier.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: For economic immigration, a separate francophone immigration program would be required, by which I mean an independent administrative system for francophone applicants; the number of designated places in this francophone economic program would reflect the new target. The program would have to be integrated into the immigration levels plan and include a number of quotas. In addition to the other streams, whether in terms of family sponsorship for immigrants or the Provincial Nominee Program, it would also have to be linked to an obligation to designate francophone or bilingual applicants and work with the provinces and territories to create specific pathways for francophone applicants.
For economic integration, allophones are less of an issue. However, for those who want to learn French, the francophone integration pathway has been strengthened by means of the language training available in a number of institutions. If we look at what there was 20 years ago and compare it to the present day, there is still a lot of work to do, but much progress has been made.
If we want to substantially increase the number of francophone immigrants being admitted, then clearly resources will have to be provided to further support the francophone integration stream, as well as the capacity to properly host these people. I’ll now give the floor to Mariève and will continue after that.
Ms. Forest: Thank you for your question. In fact, what Guillaume was just talking about is another example of what we said in the study. Given that there are no longer any programs to meet the target, an office is definitely needed to reorganize all the immigration microprograms.
Measures have so far been rather tentative, and mainly just assigned additional points to people who could speak French.
We’ve shown here that there really are options that could further encourage francophones to come to Canada. What’s important is to go out, widely and systematically, to see what’s happening with immigration and to create specific programs for francophones.
I’d like to underscore the importance of clearly understanding that, when the ambitious target requested by the FCFA is set, it’s all about the recruitment plan. That means reviewing everything in depth: what happens afterwards for the institution, whether people will continue to speak French, and whether they can attend school in French. It’s a completely different facet of the department’s objectives and programs. As Mr. Deschênes-Thériault said, much is already in place, but it all needs to be improved. There are waiting lists for early childhood services. Both streams need attention for everything to work.
Senator Poirier: I’d like to thank the two witnesses for being with us today.
My first question is for Mr. Deschênes-Thériault. In your opening address, you mentioned a study that you had prepared for the Commissioner of Official Languages. In this study, did you receive information about official language minority communities? Are they well equipped to retain newcomers, and is there a lot of migration within the country once the new immigrants come here?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages’ study was published in November.
Retention is still the most important aspect of the francophone integration process, because it is essential to have the required tools and resources to promote successful integration. If the current data and the data from 20 years ago are compared, it becomes clear that much more progress has been made in terms of institutional capacity than in recruitment.
If we look at the tools available to recruit more people internationally, progress over 20 years was much more limited than in the institutional sector. However, there is still work to do, particularly in rural areas. There are certain communities in Toronto, Vancouver and other large Canadian cities where there is a long tradition of immigration, like Moncton and Halifax. In some more rural regions in New Brunswick, where immigration is a relatively new phenomenon and where capacity is now being built in the communities, significant work is needed to promote retention.
I don’t have any specific data on interprovincial migration, but with census data from Statistics Canada, it would be possible to provide an overview of interprovincial migration.
Senator Poirier: My next question, about the post-2023 target, is for the two witnesses.
A target is important, of course, but I’d like to hear what you have to say about the programs, policies and mechanisms the government should adopt, amend or discontinue in order to expand the demographic pool for francophone minority communities.
Ms. Forest: Thank you for the question. I’ll make a start.
It’s true that it’s difficult to set priorities, because there are existing measures of various kinds and they have not led to meeting the 4.4% target. If we want to increase this target, then it’s important to make the required changes to the various programs. For refugees, the government could pay more attention to francophone countries. Each stream would have to be examined and specific measures introduced.
Our study is the first to examine each of the pathways to permanent residence and to identify the main problems with each of them, by presenting options that would attract more immigrants through these pathways.
So if we want to reform each of these programs, our suggestion is that it should be within an office that has significant decision authority and that can introduce follow-up measures. The office should work closely with the francophone communities to ensure that what is done is consistent with their needs and wishes.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: I would add that an independent francophone economic immigration program should be established, with an ambitious quota incorporated into the immigration levels plan. That’s one of the first options that should be explored to substantially increase the number of francophone immigrants. The program could be administered under Express Entry or be set up as a completely independent program. The important thing is to have an independent administration system for francophone applicants.
For the Rural and Northern Immigration Pilot mentioned by Ms. Forest, the model used assigns a key role to the communities in selecting applicants. It would be interesting to consider a pilot project like this in francophone communities for which there is less of an immigration tradition, in order to give them the opportunity to select applicants who meet their needs in the economic category.
The provincial and territorial nominee program is also for economic immigration, but it’s administered differently. In Ontario, the bilingual skilled workers stream works rather well. The other provinces could learn from it.
Family sponsorship is rather complex. Capacity to process applications from francophone applicants within a reasonable amount of time would have to be increased, because the Dakar IRCC office serves more different countries than any other office. Some capacity-building would be advisable.
For refugees, more expertise could be hired to deal with emergencies, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, and this would complement Canada’s international role in terms of refugees.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers.
Senator Mégie: Ms. Forest spoke about sub-Saharan Africa as a population pool for francophone immigration. In the study you carried out, is there a demographic profile of the provenance of francophone immigrants within or outside of sub-Saharan Africa?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you for the question, Senator.
For recent immigration, from 2016 to 2022, approximately 35% of admissions were sub-Saharan African nationals; approximately one third, 32% to 33%, came from Europe, primarily from France. One quarter, from 24% to 25%, came from North Africa and the Middle East. About one third of francophone permanent residents admitted between 2016 and 2020 were sub-Saharan African nationals. In view of the demographic changes within the international francophone community, and the fact that the main international pool is in sub-Saharan Africa, from where there will be an upswing over the coming decades, we have been increasing promotional activities in this region. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is currently developing more capacity to properly serve visa applicants in this region.
Ms. Forest: Sub-Saharan African people who migrate around the world also need to be taken into account. Canada only receives a small percentage of them. For example, if what Canada accomplishes is compared to what France does, it becomes obvious that our sub-Saharan African efforts are not doing as well as they might.
Senator Mégie: Do you think the number of recruitment offices, about which you spoke earlier, ought to be increased as part of a global recruitment program?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you for that question. It’s true that the offices do not handle recruitment, but rather process visa applications abroad. There should be more offices in the sub-Saharan African region. There are between 40 and 50 IRCC offices around the world to process visa applications. On that list, the office that serves the largest number of countries is Dakar. It has drawn media attention on several occasions because of delays in processing applications.
That has an impact on people who want to immigrate to Canada and it also has an impact on the francophone communities that rely on francophone immigration. The Dakar office serves 12 of the 15 francophone countries in sub-Saharan Africa with the largest francophone populations. Capacity building is definitely needed in this region.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for our two guests, but I’ll begin with Mr. Deschênes-Thériault. I’d like to return to the rarely-met targets set by the government. When the government said that it wanted to achieve a 4.4% francophone immigration level outside Quebec to slow the decline in the francophone population of Canada, do you think that target is realistic, given that immigrants who arrive outside Quebec will probably be welcomed in English?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you for the question. The 4.4% target was set nearly 20 years ago. Over the past 20 years, there would have to have been an average of 6,000 more people settling in Canada outside Quebec. When we look at immigration levels in Canada, which represent hundreds of thousands of people, it’s not such an ambitious objective, and it’s even surprising that the target has never been met.
For about a decade, there has been some stagnation in terms of admissions and programs introduced. So there is certainly some catching up to do. In order to be able to meet any future targets, specific programs need to be introduced for francophones. As for hosting, there has been a great deal of development and effort in francophone settlement, and it has progressed significantly over the past 20 years. From now on, anglophone settlement service providers, in their agreements with IRCC, are required to inform their clients that they can receive services in French. Work is still needed to ensure that this is actually done; there are still areas for which services could be developed further, but francophone settlement services have been developed over the past 20 years in each of the provinces and territories.
Senator Dagenais: Do you have anything to add, Ms. Forest? I’m going to go ahead with a second question. Do you have a regional breakdown of the francophone immigrant shortage? By this I mean do you believe that people who settle in a region in the anglophone provinces will benefit or be disadvantaged in terms of the services they will be able to receive in French? Is it easier for them to settle in urban or rural communities?
Ms. Forest: Mr. Deschênes-Thériault did in fact say that there were services in every province and territory, but that they were often in the major cities. Nevertheless, as was the case during COVID-19, the francophone communities were better in terms of serving people who live farther away.
However, the full range of services available in English is not available in French. Sometimes it’s a matter of details, like having access to daycare services so that the person can meet a professional. Sometimes it’s the full range of small related settlement services that the francophone communities have trouble receiving. But we’re really talking about the big cities, and of course it’s even more difficult in the regions.
There is nevertheless one good program, the Welcoming Francophone Communities initiative, which was introduced by the department and which is definitely beneficial in small and more remote communities.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: I’d like to add that while there are challenges in some rural regions, there are also success stories. I’m from Kedgwick, a small village in northwestern New Brunswick. In Restigouche West, we have hosted approximately 150 immigrants since 2018, whereas before we would only get about 10. That’s a major transformation for our rural regions. It’s a collective effort that involves employers, the municipalities and the province. Services were developed. There is therefore work being accomplished in francophone regions. As I mentioned earlier, the level of preparation can vary significantly from one region to another, and it’s therefore important to help communities develop services in the regions as well as the cities.
Ms. Forest: I’d like to mention something that is addressed in the study and about which we haven’t spoken today. If we set a general target for francophone immigration, it’s important to note that currently, the distribution of francophone immigrants is highly variable from province to province. Even with a very ambitious target, if we continue to receive the same proportions of immigrants in the various provinces, some will continue to decline, particularly in Atlantic Canada. The measures taken will have to consider these factors to avoid penalizing the provinces.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: You are presenting a lot of statistics… I’m sorry, but I wasn’t there for the first few minutes of Ms. Forest’s presentation, so this was perhaps already discussed. For the targets that have been identified, like the 4.4%, how many people does that represent?
I’ll give you an example. A lot of immigration could be generated by francophone universities. The francophone universities have a lot of people from abroad registering and I can give you the figures. At Hearst University, there are 175 and at Cité collégiale, the figure is between 1,300 and 1,400. These are young students who come to study in Canada, and to seek Canadian skills. They would be very good candidates for francophone immigration. How to calculate this? First of all, are they included in the 4.4% target? Where do they fit in, and what can we do to keep them here after they have graduated? I know that it’s a problem at the moment in the Quebec universities, which have been saying that students have trouble being accepted or remaining in Canada. I believe it’s also a problem elsewhere in Canada. A large portion of the funding received by universities is provided by students from abroad.
Ms. Forest: That’s right. To compare the number of people admitted in comparison to the 4.4% target, in 2019 for example, there were 8,470 permanent residents with a knowledge of French accepted outside Quebec. So in that year, there was a shortfall of approximately 5,000 people in relation to the 4.4% target. These figures vary from year to year, because the total number of immigrants admitted to Canada varies from one year to the next.
There is another consideration with respect to foreign students. It’s a very good question, because increasingly in Canada, immigration is a two-step process. The first step is to become a temporary resident, meaning a foreign temporary worker or student in one or other of the categories. Then, after one, two, three or four years, people can become permanent residents. That’s becoming the most frequently used pathway. A positive image of immigration emerges as a result of foreign students, because they were educated in our institutions.
This avenue requires further exploration, because we still don’t know much about the economic and social integration of these people. Mr. Deschênes-Thériault and I will soon be starting a study on this subject. There are certainly measures that could be introduced to help postsecondary educational institutions provide better mentoring for foreign students to become permanent residents. That would be very important.
Senator Moncion: I learned last week that Cité collégiale had a student recruitment office in Morocco, which provided students with access to many services. When they get to Cité collégiale, they are mentored throughout their stay in Canada, but then experience problems with the immigration process.
Ms. Forest: Precisely.
The Chair: Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: I agree with Mariève. In connection with the suggested separate francophone economic program, the manner in which applications are approved means that people who have graduated from Canadian institutions could be in a good position to obtain permanent residence under a program like that in which, relatively speaking, many places are available.
For the programs, it’s important to properly prepare this transition to permanent residency when people are still studying rather than waiting until they have graduated. Moncton has an international student retention program. New Brunswick Community College even has an immigration consultant for students who will soon be graduating or who have already graduated. Some initiatives exist already, and these could be extended and accompanied by a separate francophone immigration program.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I’m looking forward to reading your studies. You’re suggesting that in order to correct past mistakes, we should set very ambitious targets of up to 20%, when we haven’t even been able to reach 4%.
I can understand why you’re suggesting that a separate structure be put in place to accomplish that, somewhat like CIDA used to do on behalf of francophone international cooperation. That may be a good idea. If it worked, I presume we would be talking about approximately 60,000 to 70,000 francophone immigrants per year outside Quebec? I believe that at the moment, there are approximately 175,000 students studying in French in all of the francophone institutions, which amounts to approximately 15,000 to 20,000 students per year. We’re talking about increases of more than 10% within the francophone network.
Recruitment remains the main problem, and the second is retention. With high targets like these, do we have enough capacity and can we provide services in French, particularly in terms of education, which is important for maintaining the language?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you, senator. Perhaps Mariève can finish answering, but I would like to further clarify my comments. In our study, we recommend adopting a new francophone immigration target based on reliable data. We suggest a different set of objectives. When the time comes to decide what the next francophone immigration target should be, people need to be in a position to determine which of the objectives are realistic.
This would clearly require a major effort, including the expansion of the various pathways to different programs. After that, it would be essential to ensure that there are enough francophone applicants to meet these targets. Even if that is not the case, I believe that we should go ahead and further develop promotional activities. These are two different things. We need to expand the pathways and prepare people who want to be candidates for immigration to ensure that they meet Canadian eligibility requirements to access the special programs for francophones. It would also require promotional efforts, on the one hand with foreign students — but not only them — and on the other hand, with the various categories of immigration and people who work internationally.
Ms. Forest: I believe that Guillaume has covered the essentials. I should point out that we are not suggesting a specific target in the study; we are simply saying that with such and such an objective, such and such a target should be set. This is previously unavailable information, because it was based on reliable data and on the demographic projection system approved by Statistics Canada.
Senator Dalphond: Earlier on, you mentioned establishing a new and perhaps more francophile structure within recruitment at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Is that because you feel there is a systemic problem, and hence not only a shortage of resources in the field, but also a lack of awareness about the importance of recruiting francophones?
Ms. Forest: I would not go that far.
Our suggestions are ambitious, because currently, even with additional points for people who speak French, for example — and we really did increase the number of points — we have been unable to meet the target. It’s rather that by looking at the state of the situation, we can see that having only measures that are somewhat favourable to people who speak French from within a large pool doesn’t work as well as if we were to establish specific quotas for francophones. As these quotas would have to be established for about a dozen programs, then to make sure things are monitored properly, many more resources would have to be allocated in the field in order to welcome them. You have to be consistent. If we were to truly adopt such an ambitious target, then we would have to provide the resources to meet it.
It’s impossible to know whether that would work, because no one has ever tested the impact of the measures we are suggesting. There are also many unknown variables in terms of what to expect.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: I’d like to make a distinction. The expansion of access to permanent residency, and to the various programs and measures, is designed to promote the designation and admission of francophone permanent residents. The question of promotion is a separate factor within the immigration programs, and IRCC — hence the federal government — is much less active on that score.
At the Canadian embassy in Paris, there is an office responsible for promoting francophone immigration. What’s being proposed for IRCC is a review of its immigration programs. A rethink is needed to enhance promotion. A number of factors come into play given that IRCC is less active on the promotion front because it’s not part of the department’s mandate. However, a review is needed of what can be done with the communities to get them engaged in promotion and in missions by and for the communities, and to build on what already exists and focus more clearly on regions like sub‑Saharan Africa, where there is considerable potential that is not necessarily being exploited, to identify immigration potential in francophone and Acadian communities.
Senator Mockler: I have a comment. Kedgwick is familiar to people for two reasons. The first is Olivier Bergeron, who can be seen on Star Académie; the second is Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, who is working towards his doctorate. Congratulations, Guillaume.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you, senator.
Senator Mockler: Quebec plays an important role in the Canadian francophonie and we monitor what’s happening in Acadia and francophone communities outside Quebec very closely.
Could the Canada-Quebec Accord, which was signed in 1991 to promote francophone immigration to Canada, be updated on matters of immigration and the temporary admission of aliens?
How does this accord affect the development and vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec? How can Quebec’s objectives with respect to maintaining its francophone character, and Canada’s objectives with respect to maintaining the demographic weight of francophones, be reconciled?
The Chair: Those are good questions. Mr. Deschênes-Thériault?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Thank you, senator. Those are complex questions and I don’t really have all the answers. For the Canada-Quebec Accord, I believe both parties would have to agree on a review. I don’t believe it would be to Quebec’s advantage to reopen it for various reasons, including the financing of settlement services.
As for ties between Quebec and the francophone communities on matters of immigration, not much research on the subject has been done.
A few years ago, I was involved in a research project in Ontario. It studied interprovincial mobility, that is to say the number of former immigrants who migrated to Ontario and those in Ontario who migrated to Quebec. I would have to review the numbers, but there was no substantial difference in the net migration totals. Work nevertheless remains to be done, and I believe that it would be more difficult for a francophone community to send recruitment missions to Quebec. That’s not what is being suggested. There is more of a focus on international recruitment in the form of collaborations. Quebec certainly has something to offer the various communities, but other regions offer other kinds of opportunities. For example, there are the Acadian communities in the Atlantic provinces for people who are looking for communities on a human scale, with closer contacts, or life in a rural area. The Atlantic provinces also have a lot to offer.
There are also people who want to discover the North, who want the northern Canadian experience and decide on the territories. Others prefer the milder climate of the West Coast. Different francophone communities have other things to offer to the various profiles. It’s not that one community is better than another. It’s all about what people want and what their plans are. Some regions are more suited to some people than others. In some contexts, joint missions could be considered, but that’s an aspect that remains to be explored.
Ms. Forest: I agree with Mr. Deschênes-Thériault; there could be more collaborative agreements for the promotion of francophone communities. Francophone communities are already working together more effectively, and agreements could be signed for Quebec to promote some francophone communities, and vice versa, when its representatives are abroad.
Senator Mockler: Thank you.
The Chair: I too would like to ask a question.
First, you may not be aware of plans to bring over 40 workers from Morocco to settle in Saint-Isidore, a small community in the northeastern portion of the Acadian Peninsula. Approximately 250 people are going to settle there.
I just wanted to mention this as something you could think about. It’s a situation that will no doubt be very informative in terms of integration. They have clearly identified who these economic immigrants are going to be. How will they integrate, how will the integration proceed and how will the whole process turn out? It’s a specific situation, one that is rather unique in my region. For researchers, it could certainly be something worth studying and it would make an interesting pilot project.
There’s been talk about the major challenge involved in the immigration continuum and its different categories of immigrants. It’s an entire ecosystem, but I’d like to remind you of the official languages bill, which of course will have to address the matter of immigration.
What concrete form do you think the federal government’s commitment to supporting immigration in the act should take? Should concrete support measures be specified in the Official Languages Act or in a regulation in Part VII? Or would it be better to specify the francophone immigration objectives, targets and indicators to be met in the Official Languages Act, as you described it? Do you feel that the Official Languages Act needs to be much more specific in this regard?
Ms. Forest: Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, perhaps you could make a start on answering this question?
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault: Right off the bat, I wouldn’t necessarily recommend assigning a numerical objective in the Official Languages Act, because things can change. However, it might be interesting to specify objectives, targets and indicators; to meet them, one would have to decide whether one wanted maintenance or growth. So perhaps more details could be provided about the desired objectives. After that, when developing the policy, the numerical objectives and performance indicators could be spelled out. The act could be more specific.
It’s interesting to note that in the reform document of February 2021, which preceded the introduction of the first version of the first bill, it was stated that the objective was to maintain the demographic weight at 4.4%. The formulation of the objectives in the February 2021 reform document opened the door to a catching-up approach. Will this be changed afterwards? That remains to be seen. I would just like to mention that in the reform document, one particular objective had been specified.
The Chair: Thank you. So this objective was linked to idea of catching up.
Ms. Forest, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Forest: Mr. Deschênes-Thériault covered everything I believe. That’s really the item that could be specified in the act.
The Chair: Okay.
I don’t see any other questions from my colleagues.
Thank you for your valuable contribution and your important work, Ms. Forest and Mr. Deschênes-Thériault. You have helped us with our committee work and with the work being carried out in the field. The communities can rely on your studies to claim their rights and defend and promote their interests as host communities for francophone immigrants.
I’d also like to thank my colleagues, the interpreters who work so hard on our behalf, and the administrative staff, who help us get our work done.
So, I wish you a good evening, a good week and a pleasant springtime, which will no doubt be coming soon across the country.
The meeting is adjourned.