THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 25, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:03 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.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair 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.
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 Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba, member of the steering committee; Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec, member of the steering committee; 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.
[English]
I wish to welcome all of you, as well as 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.
[Translation]
Today we continue our study on francophone immigration to minority communities.
During the first panel, we welcome two provincial organizations. First of all, from the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, or SFM, we have Bintou Sacko, who is the Director of Accueil francophone, an initiative of the SFM helping francophone newcomers to Manitoba. And representing the Société nationale de l'Acadie, or SNA, we have before us Martin Théberge and Véronique Mallet, respectively President and Executive Director of the SNA.
Welcome to the committee everybody and thank you for being with us. We’ll now hear your opening remarks. It will be followed by questions from the senators.
We will begin with Ms. Sacko. The floor is yours, Ms. Sacko. Thank you.
Bintou Sacko, Director, Accueil francophone, Société de la francophonie manitobaine: Thank you very much. First, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear today.
Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I am speaking to you today in my capacity as Director of Accueil francophone du Manitoba, which is part of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, or SFM.
As the organization representing Manitoba’s francophone community, SFM supports the community’s advancement in all areas of activity through the assistance of its network of associates and partners. Immigration is one of our priorities in expanding the francophone space in Manitoba. Today I would like to discuss two major themes: the target for francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec and ways to strengthen the sector and ensure the government’s francophone immigration objectives are met.
With respect to the first theme, the 4.4% target for francophone immigrants settling outside Quebec, the Government of Canada has deployed resources since 2003 to reach that target in response to the demographic decline of francophone communities outside Quebec but has had little success in doing so. There have been minor successes here and there, of course, but the target has not been met. Despite the efforts it has made over many years, the federal government clearly must adopt new ways to achieve that objective and to offset the impact of this delay in reaching its target for francophone communities outside Quebec.
The Government of Canada suggests that there should be a clear immigration policy and specific strategies regarding francophone communities outside Quebec. Those initiatives or policies should include: increasing the number of francophone immigrants and refugees from francophone countries, particularly in Africa; implementing measures to make it easier for international students to obtain visas and enter Canada by lifting the systemic barriers they face and rescinding the requirement that they prove they will return to their country of origin upon completing their studies, which is also a reason given for denying visas to most international students; increasing processing capacity for immigration applications from francophone countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa; and, lastly, providing support to francophone communities outside Quebec in building capacity for more international promotion and improving their reception and settlement services. That in a nutshell is my thinking on the issue of the targets that should be set.
As regards the second theme, the federal government should determine how to increase support for this sector and ensure that francophone immigration objectives are met. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the IRCC, cooperates directly with francophone and Acadian communities on immigration, and together they strive to support the francophone immigration settlement sector. This partnership is all the more important since it takes the specific needs of the communities into account and is consistent with their overall community strategic plans.
Since 2003, the Société de la francophonie manitobaine has structured Accueil francophone so it can manage francophone immigration and coordinate activities directly related to the settlement and integration of francophone newcomers. In the intervening years, it has been involved in most initiatives, consultations and strategies involving francophone immigration outside Quebec at the national, provincial and community levels.
More than 4,800 immigrants capable of communicating in French entered Manitoba between 2010 and 2019. In 2020 and 2021, despite pandemic-related travel restrictions, Accueil francophone welcomed 301 immigrants, including 109 refugees. In 2019, it took in 666 immigrants, including 254 refugees.
This sector will be strengthened by the implementation of specific measures. Funding is a priority and must be adapted to the francophone settlement sector. As a result of inadequate funding, Accueil francophone’s structures and organization are in trouble and unable to develop targeted programs or to focus on retaining employees in a sector that pays extremely low wages.
As regards support for “by and for” in providing settlement services to complete the francophone immigrant pathway, the pathway idea was developed by the francophone immigration networks and enables newcomers to access all the French-language services they need to integrate more successfully. This pathway is now fragmented as a result of problems involved in accessing certain services in French. We also suggest that an agreement including specific strategies should be developed to engage the provinces, Manitoba in particular, in settling and integrating francophone newcomers.
Thank you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sacko. We will now hear from the representatives of the Société nationale de l’Acadie, Mr. Théberge and Ms. Mallet.
Martin Théberge, President, Société nationale de l’Acadie: Good evening, Mr. Chair and senators.
We are pleased to appear before you on the question of francophone immigration.
Issues such as a declining birth rate, the exodus, aging of our people and, above all, linguistic assimilation, make it essential to increase our population from immigration. Despite the urgency, the contribution of immigration remains well below our needs. Francophone immigrants represent 15% of all immigrants to New Brunswick and less than 4% of those to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. These rates do not reflect the demographic weight of New Brunswick’s francophone population, which is 32%, nor that of the other three provinces, which is 11.9%.
The target for French-speaking immigration in minority communities was adopted in 2003 to halt the decline in the demographic weight of this population, which stood then at 4.4%. Since that year, our demographic weight has continued to decline, and francophone immigration has never exceeded 2%. It should be noted that the Atlantic provinces have never reached their own targets in this area either.
Despite the implementation of targeted services, increased international promotion, better awareness of host communities, more cooperation, and positive federal programs such as Express Entry and Provincial Nominees, francophone immigration is not increasing. Why is this so? Outside of Canada, the Canadian Francophonie equals Quebec, which is very detrimental to us.
The SNA believes that the IRCC cannot carry out its francophone immigration activities in a vacuum. The Public Diplomacy Program, which allowed the SNA to carry out promotional activities internationally, has been eliminated. It is through its diplomatic relations that Acadia succeeds, for example, in maintaining a French consulate general in the Atlantic provinces, an essential tool in attracting European immigrants. Other promotional activities carried out by the SNA are also of a diplomatic nature, such as twinning between communities, youth mobility and the promotion of Acadian artists.
It is essential that the federal government consider the issue of francophone immigration from a broader perspective of international relations and develop a diplomacy strategy to accompany its new francophone immigration policy. Such a program would recognize our ability to act internationally as a source of development and growth and would empower our people to attract and integrate more immigrants to Acadie.
International students represent a skilled and educated immigrant class in Canada. In the Atlantic region, it is estimated that they represent about one third of francophone immigration. They could be much more numerous but their applications for study permits are very often refused. Later on, those lucky enough to get it, often find their application for permanent residence refused as well. As a matter of fact, almost all categories of immigrants face the same issue.
Recognition of foreign credentials is one of the biggest barriers to economic integration. More than one-third of immigrants surveyed in our region reported that they were working somewhat or not at all in their field. In Atlantic Canada, one cannot fully integrate without mastering English. Yet, between 2011 and 2016, more than a quarter of French-speaking immigrants did not know enough English to carry on a conversation.
In our region, there is a shortage of jobs in French. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador, 98% of the jobs available to French-speaking immigrants require proficiency in English. Allow me to point out that studies show that becoming bilingual does not undermine the use of French by those immigrants.
Despite many efforts, our communities still do not understand the positive impact of immigration. This sometimes leads to painful experiences that can cause people to leave for big cities and larger multicultural pools.
Despite the high quality of services offered to immigrants in Acadie, despite an important network of stakeholders and greater cooperation within the Atlantic Francophone Immigration Committee led by the SNA, there is such a wide range of services offered to immigrants that some are not used to their full potential.
To address all these challenges, we submit an effective way of dealing with issues that is unique to Acadie: the “By and For.” This means that the more problems are dealt with on the ground, the more solutions are thought out and implemented by key players, as close to reality as possible, the more likely problems will be solved. In addition, our brief proposes the following way forward: that the federal government immediately address the reasons why francophone international students are denied permits and aim to increase the number of successful applications; that it identify, as soon as possible, ways to facilitate the permanent residence of francophone immigrants in minority communities; that it act immediately with professional associations to facilitate the recognition of diplomas and professional experience of francophone immigrants; that it develop “by, for and with” Acadie a diplomatic strategy for the francophonie, linked to the strategies for promoting francophone immigration; and that the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the IRCC, help its community partners in the Atlantic region to facilitate English courses for francophone immigrants.
Thank you for your attention. We will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Théberge. Thanks to both organizations for their statements.
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. And please don’t hesitate to get our attention should we fail to confirm that you have not been added to the list.
Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead and of the interest of the members in our witnesses’ remarks, I suggest that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer. If time permits, we will have a second round.
We will begin with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Rose-May Poirier.
Senator Poirier: Thanks to all our witnesses for being here this evening.
My first question is for Mr. Théberge. We know that the 4% target has never been met. Can you explain to us why it has never been met?
It seems that the target is only 2% in New Brunswick. Can you clarify the reasons why it hasn’t been met? What kind of impact can failure to meet that target have on the Acadian community?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for your question, Senator Poirier. I’ll start and then let Ms. Mallet finish.
I believe, on the one hand, that we’re acting in a vacuum, in a silo: We treat immigration as one single factor and don’t look at what surrounds it. We don’t look at cultural and diplomatic factors. We have to stop addressing it in a vacuum, on the one hand.
On the other hand, we need programs that are developed for francophones, not Canadian programs designed all too often in English and then adapted for Acadian and francophone communities. We need genuine initiatives that are by and for the Acadian community so we can attract people and develop programs specifically for our community. That has both short- and long-term impacts on our communities. The vitality of our communities depends on this.
I’m going to let my colleague continue.
Véronique Mallet, Executive Director, Société nationale de l’Acadie: I support what Mr. Théberge said at the start of his remarks on the action that IRCC takes in a vacuum.
The Société nationale de l’Acadie has been very active in promoting Acadie and francophone immigration to our region. What we see is the degree to which our region is simply not known internationally. Quebec has done an excellent job of promoting and making itself known, whereas it’s very hard for our regions to do the same. Since Acadia isn’t well known outside Canada, it’s very hard to promote immigration to our region and to attract immigrants.
Then there’s the retention issue. To my mind, it all boils down to a connection with immigrants. When you recruit immigrants from large cities, our region definitely doesn’t have the large cities they may be used to. We have to be able to attract people who are looking for the kind of life we have to offer. That match isn’t really coming together right now.
Senator Poirier: Mr. Théberge, you finished your presentation with a few points that might provide a solution in assisting immigration to our regions. Have you contacted the government to give your opinion on the way to solve existing problems and how to go about it? Did the government rely on your expertise in the matter of increasing immigration from 2% to 4.4%, a target that has never been met? People on the ground often know the problems and how to solve them. Were you consulted on that aspect?
Mr. Théberge: My history with the Société nationale de l’Acadie dates back to October 3; that’s quite recent. I can tell you that, for the period since that date, the answer is no.
I’ll ask my colleague to continue.
Ms. Mallet: We appeared before the House of Commons committee on the same issue a week or two ago.
Apart from that, we have to be more prepared to offer our opinion when it’s asked for. We try very hard to tell people what our regions are like, but we have more information to offer than what’s requested of us.
Senator Poirier: My next question is for both witnesses, but the other witness may answer as well. What do you think the new francophone immigration policy that the federal government has promised should contain? Do you think the rest of Canada knows enough about the Canadian francophonie outside Quebec?
Mr. Théberge: People know very little about us in Acadie, and we try to make ourselves known through our diplomatic efforts. This is the second part of the answer: We have to stop thinking about immigration in a vacuum and allow programs like public diplomacy, which previously existed and help us do our own promotion and become better known as a welcoming place.
Ms. Sacko: I don’t think I have much to add to Mr. Théberge’s remarks.
The solution I mentioned would be to allow francophone communities outside Quebec to promote themselves because there are specific strategies and directions that can be considered and specific factors that could be addressed in promotions outside the country, such as particular features and specific characteristics of francophone communities.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Sacko.
When you look at all the efforts that have been made to promote francophone immigration to your province in the past 20 years, there was a memorandum of understanding on refugee sponsorship in 2002. Then there was an accord with the Canadian government on immigration in 2003 and a provincial strategy to attract francophone immigrants in 2006. I think everyone agrees that the targets have never been met. What didn’t work? Do you sincerely think the reform of the Official Languages Act currently being proposed will actually change anything?
Ms. Sacko: Thank you, Senator Dagenais. I’ll try to answer your question.
Yes, all the strategies that have been introduced over time have produced results but not necessarily achieved objectives.
As regards what’s lacking, two things come to mind. First, I mentioned promotional strategies earlier. I think we have to expand the pool. Strategies to date have focused particularly on Europe and the countries of the Maghreb. The francophonie is quite widely dispersed in sub-Saharan Africa. We have to take a look at those pools and adopt targeted strategies directed at pools where we can recruit as many francophones as possible.
Second, I also mentioned financial resources. That’s very important. There may be excellent ideas for community development programs, but you need resources to introduce those initiatives.
Those are two things that may be lacking and that have prevented us from trying hard to reach those targets.
Senator Dagenais: My second question is for Mr. Théberge.
You mentioned in your brief that many immigrants don’t work in their fields once they’ve integrated. Apart from the often well-written programs that look very good politically, can you tell us about the administrative problems that make certain things hard to do? Do you think the targets set in the provinces, and now by Ottawa, are achievable based on what’s currently in place?
Mr. Théberge: If we’re talking about credential recognition, the big problem is that the issue depends on the professional associations and so on. The government must take action in this area and work with those associations to find some middle ground so we can recognize or work with professional associations from elsewhere, or recognize academic work done outside Canada for people who are integrating. I’m not the only person who has gotten into a taxi driven by a doctor after landing at Toronto airport. I think that’s nonsense, and we need to work to change it.
We have a project under way at the Société nationale de l’Acadie in which we’re conducting a feasibility study to facilitate the recognition of academic and accounting credentials. We’re starting with that, since we know it well. I’d be happy to submit our findings and results to you once we have them.
As for the targets, they clearly must be raised. Incidentally, I’m inclined to agree with the findings of the FCFA and the data it released a few weeks ago. We entirely agree with its conclusions on targets. Everything’s possible, provided we do the necessary work and the circumstances favour success. We have to work with the communities, the established institutions and the federal and provincial governments. A tougher target isn’t just possible; I think it’s necessary.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much.
Ms. Mallet: I’d like to add to Mr. Théberge’s remarks on credential recognition. We act as a liaison with foreign governments on this matter. For example, we’re currently working with the French government, through France’s consulate general in the Atlantic provinces, ideally with a view to signing a bilateral agreement on the recognition of academic credentials. We’re doing this work thanks to the consulate and the fact that it has a clear understanding of the situation in the region. As a result, we aren’t required to go through the French embassy in Ottawa, which doesn’t necessarily understand our situation. And so we come back to diplomacy, which was raised a little earlier, and the need to work with foreign governments to reach bilateral or multilateral agreements.
Senator Mégie: My question is for Mr. Théberge or Ms. Sacko. I heard from a number of you, even during the interviews before your presentation, that there was only one office in Africa for recruiting francophones from that population pool and that it was oriented more toward France and the Sahel.
At what level do you think you have to act to be able to expand your presence or the presence of recruiters in that major pool? It seems to me that pool would contain francophones whom we would want to bring in, but do you know the level at which you’d have to act? I don’t think the Official Languages Act will have any impact. It will take something more administrative. Do you have any idea how that could be done?
Mr. Théberge: I’ll discuss diplomacy once again. The Société nationale de l’Acadie travels. We’re about to embark on a mission in Louisiana. Last fall, we were in France. We manage to do this by setting up projects designed to generate related revenues. As a result, over time, we’re able to carry out this kind of mission.
The public diplomacy program previously enabled us to operate more actively outside Canada. It also helped us make a name for ourselves and promote Acadie as a land of welcome and the Atlantic provinces as places with an economic and educational focus where people could live as francophones. Unfortunately, the program was shut down and we find it hard to do that kind of promotion. We don’t have the funding for it. It’s increasingly hard to establish multilateral agreements, as Ms. Mallet mentioned earlier. Consequently, there should be a diplomatic program or strategy linked to an immigration strategy because we don’t want to do immigration in a vacuum.
Senator Mégie: Was that diplomatic strategy shut down for lack of funding or for other reasons, such as a conflict of interest with Quebec or something similar that might be responsible for it?
Mr. Théberge: I don’t know if Ms. Mallet has the exact answer to your question. All we know is that the government shut the program down about 10 years ago.
Ms. Mallet: More than 10 years ago; more like 15. If I’m not mistaken, the last mission under the program was in 2006. I think it was a political decision to terminate the program. The Acadian people’s ability to maintain these relations is considerably reduced now since the program was scrapped. The program had a major impact. Now we struggle along using resources far inferior to what we previously had.
Mr. Théberge: You have to bear in mind that we’re allowed to promote ourselves but not to recruit. We’re very limited in what we can do even if we travel and conduct these kinds of missions; we soon reach a limit and the impact’s reduced.
Ms. Mallet: I’d like to add to what Mr. Théberge said. We can promote ourselves; IRCC has given us that mandate. However, we can’t travel because IRCC doesn’t grant travel funding. We can promote ourselves by buying advertising. However, our region’s already poorly known and we live somewhat in Quebec’s shadow. Consequently, we can’t gain recognition by buying more advertising.
Ms. Sacko: I would add that it would be a good idea to increase the number of promotional activities. For example, Destination Canada is a promotional activity that has been conducted virtually since the pandemic started. Its in-person version was held in Europe only, more particularly in France. People had to travel from the Maghreb to take part. The strategy was well supported, thanks in large part to the province, and Immigration Canada also attended. However, the activity was conducted solely in Europe.
Opening up initiatives such as Destination Canada in Africa and ensuring that people don’t have to apply for a visa in order to attend would help the program somewhat.
There’s also the workload involved in the embassies. Some embassies cover 13 African countries. File processing requires an enormous amount of energy. As a result, the system systematically rejects applications, which discourages applicants who make a considerable effort to open files and obtain the necessary financial resources to file immigration applications. In the blink of an eye, they lose everything and their applications are denied.
The government should consider establishing bridging programs that could help relax criteria so that people can easily file their applications for permanent resident status in order to come to Canada.
Those are the points I wanted to add to the remarks of Ms. Mallet and Mr. Théberge.
Senator Gagné: Welcome and thank you for being here, Ms. Mallet, Mr. Théberge and Ms. Sacko.
Ms. Sacko, I’m always happy to see you again. I’d like to circle back to a couple of statistics. Accueil francophone du Manitoba has facilitated the welcoming and settlement of francophone newcomers to Manitoba since 2003. You have a lot of years of experience under your belt. You’ve managed to retain many immigrants in Manitoba. The statistics are quite impressive. The rate of retention of immigrants who use the services provided by Accueil francophone du Manitoba has been roughly 80% since its inception. Now that’s impressive. It’s a factor to consider. The idea isn’t simply to bring in people; retaining them is an entirely different challenge.
What socioeconomic, cultural, linguistic or political factors contribute to the settlement of francophone immigrants in francophone minority communities? Why do you think Accueil francophone du Manitoba has been able to retain so many immigrants?
Ms. Sacko: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Gagné. It’s always a pleasure to see you.
One of the factors that promote the openness and retention of immigrants who settle here in Manitoba is the way the services are provided. An important initiative that Accueil francophone du Manitoba has introduced is to go out and meet clients when they arrive at the airport, thus establishing physical contact at that point. We’ve developed strategic partnerships with Réseau Compassion, which has provided us with transitional accommodation in the francophone heart of Saint-Boniface. That enables them both to live in the francophone quarter during their transitional period, and thus develop a network including all the services provided in that community, and to access all the francophone resources they need to help them integrate. Taking it a step further, when looking for accommodation as we do, we focus on housing in or near the francophone community so they don’t have to look for services elsewhere and can always return to the community.
Our strategy is always based on the idea of expanding the francophone space. In addition, when families arrive, we put them in direct contact with the Franco-Manitoban school board. When the children go to French schools, that consolidates the connection between their parents and the francophone community.
So we’ve developed various strategies that have helped these people stay connected to the francophone community and discover the resources the community can offer them so they can stay here.
They’re comforted by the fact that it all takes place in French because that’s their mother tongue. Sometimes they’re put off when they don’t have that.
Those are the factors that come to mind and that have really promoted immigrant retention through our francophone settlement service.
Senator Gagné: Now I would like to hear what Mr. Théberge or Ms. Mallet has to say about the factors supporting or undermining retention.
Mr. Théberge: First of all, I would say that the Atlantic provinces are unfortunately among the worst in Canada when it comes to retention. There are two factors. The first is the economic factor, and that means getting a job. It’s very hard to stay if you can’t find a job. The second is the language factor. If you can’t speak English, you’ll find it hard to build a network in our provinces. In Newfoundland and Labrador, even though there are some jobs in French, 98% of them require English. So there’s also a connection between language and economic integration.
Those are the two important factors that unfortunately encourage immigrants who arrive in our provinces to leave for Montreal or Toronto, for example, which have a larger population pool and a multicultural community as well.
Senator Moncion: My first question concerns targets and strategies for Manitoba. You discussed a number of factors, but you didn’t touch on targeting for employment. You seem to have a very good immigrant support program. Would you please tell us about the targeting you do with regard to the job shortage and employment opportunities that may arise?
Ms. Sacko: As far as employment goes, again in the pathway of francophone immigrants who arrive here, we have structures that have been established to support them. That’s outside Accueil francophone, not within it, but, thanks to web indexing, we have structures put in place to support immigrants so they can integrate.
Sometimes English is a barrier, but an effort is made from the outset to increase client awareness and provide support so clients understand that the first jobs they get are entry positions: Their starting jobs may not be up to their level, but they can then gradually climb the ladder. So we don’t have a specific integration target, but most people, despite the job shortage, find something in their field within an average of three months of arrival.
In many instances, economic immigrants already speak some English. They know they’ve arrived in an anglophone province and have done some preparation before coming here. The problem may arise among refugees. Support is also provided in that case. A minority, not the majority, arrive with very little English. However, programs are available to provide them with support and language training, and resources are provided through the resettlement program so they can improve their language skills and find a job to support themselves.
So, as you mentioned, there’s a highly developed support program that takes into account the particular characteristics of each client and that, once the needs assessment is done, gives us a clear idea of a pathway we can trace that the client can easily follow.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. I have a two-part question concerning New Brunswick. The first part is related to the testimony of an immigrant who left Quebec because he had very limited access to spirituality and religion. The second part concerns recruitment partnerships with francophone universities and educational institutions. Some places have federally funded programs to establish recruitment offices in certain African countries. The degree of success is quite high in other provinces. Would you please tell us about those avenues?
Mr. Théberge: I’m sorry; I don’t really have an answer to your question. Perhaps my colleague, Ms. Mallet, has more information on the subject.
Ms. Mallet: I should point out that we’re speaking on behalf of the Atlantic region as a whole. Perhaps your question would be of interest to our colleagues from the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, who’ll be appearing later.
What we know is that the embassy that processes African files is swamped. There’s a serious staff shortage for file processing purposes. We’re given very little information on file processing at that embassy, but that’s the information we have. The result is serious file processing backlogs.
Senator Moncion: Each of your provinces has universities that conduct recruitment. They’re financed in part by foreign students. There’s a whole pathway here for recruitment, retention and programs to be introduced with funding from federal government programs.
Mr. Théberge: As I mentioned at the outset, we know that international students are definitely an important clientele for our universities, and we know that international students make up approximately one third of francophone immigration.
However, what we know from our research is that the education visas of a large number of students are denied, and a great many of those students are subsequently refused permanent residence even once they’ve been trained in Canada.
They come here, we train them, and then we tell them, “No, you aren’t allowed to stay here.” I find the amount of work involved there pointless and appalling. I think there’s a very clear path here that should be explored further in order to increase the acceptance rate of international students. When I say acceptance rate, I mean for education visas and permanent residence applications once students’ education is complete.
Senator Dalphond: My question is further to the answers that Mr. Théberge and the two witnesses just gave, and I thank them for their clear presentations. They raised the same two issues involving foreign students and the denial of their subsequent permanent residence applications.
Do you have any conclusive evidence that the same is true of students who attend anglophone universities, or is this situation unique to francophone students and those subsequently applying for Canadian residence because their files are processed differently at different offices? Is there a shortage of resources?
Do you have any information or indicators suggesting this is a systemic phenomenon, unrelated to the students and their language, or is it something specific to francophones?
Ms. Sacko: I can give you an opinion. It’s not based on any specific information, comparison or study that’s been conducted of incoming anglophone students, but we’ve looked at the retention rates by country for which the embassies are responsible. For example, we’ve seen that the visa-granting rate in the countries of Europe and the Maghreb is much higher than the rate for students applying from sub-Saharan Africa. I don’t have the numbers with me, but that’s information we could pull and forward to you.
I think that aspect was singled out for an analysis of the reasons why the visa-granting rate is 25% in the embassies covering the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and 90% in the embassies representing countries of Europe and the Maghreb. What’s the explanation for this disparity or this major discrepancy?
On the other hand, I don’t have any exact information on how those numbers compare to those of anglophone students and their visa-granting rate.
Mr. Théberge: We don’t have any statistics either. Incidentally, the media recently covered this and reported the stories of international students who had been told by the officials who had processed their files that the educational pathway in francophone communities outside Quebec wasn’t legitimate.
If I may say so, senator, I believe that’s a problem that merits further consideration.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for your answers, but the answer to my question is that this requires more study. So you don’t have a specific answer?
Ms. Sacko: That’s correct.
Senator Dalphond: I want to thank the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, which has done a comparison between students from sub-Saharan and North Africa and Europe. If my understanding is correct, it seems to indicate that success rates differ with the places where applications were processed.
Senator Mockler: I’d also like to thank the witnesses for taking immigration seriously, especially at the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, which represents the francophone world.
My questions are for the witnesses from both associations. We’ve observed that we’re taking a lot of time to listen, discuss and gather information on Bill C-13.
This morning, I spoke with some people who, once again, brought it to my attention that Bill C-13 provides for no official mechanism for consulting the provinces and territories, contrary to what the provincial government has proposed. The provinces and territories, through the Ministers’ Council of the Canadian Francophonie, have constantly asked to be consulted.
Would you please comment on the reason why no one is taking the time to consult you?
Ms. Sacko: Strategies are in place though. More particularly with regard to the bill, consultations are ongoing in certain departments, although I’m not sure they’re about this issue.
I talked about consultations that IRCC conducted at the time on the francophone immigration strategy. I think that was in 2017. A series of extensive consultations was conducted to determine the francophone communities’ francophone immigration priorities. Last year, I believe the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages also conducted some community consultations, which I attended to discuss francophone immigration and related needs. Now, if the act provides for consultations, I believe some are already under way. As to whether and how they’re taking shape, and as for the results of those consultations, I believe that’s all we know.
I hope that answers your questions to some degree.
Mr. Théberge: I think two points should be mentioned. When we discuss consultations, whether at the provincial or community level, it reveals the challenge I noted at the outset: the fact that the issue is too often addressed in isolation, in a vacuum. We fail to recognize the permeability of immigration as an issue and to acknowledge that it has impacts in other areas and that other issues have an impact on immigration.
The other point that I think is important to raise about consultation is the issue of accountability. We must consult, yes, but then each of us has our role to play. As a community organization, we must then complete forms and report what we’ve done with the money. Where’s the accountability of our provinces, and how do we know how much money is allocated to the provinces and then genuinely allocated to francophone immigration in each of the provinces? I think that’s also an issue or challenge that should be explored.
Senator Mockler: We have an opportunity to move immigration forward within Bill C-13.
Mr. Théberge, I listened carefully to the way you described how you receive information from the government and then what you recommend, and I read the recommendations you proposed with the association. In the spirit of Bill C-13, how can we influence immigration to a greater degree so it truly becomes part of that linguistic whole?
Mr. Théberge: In my view, the duty to consult under the Official Languages Act constitutes a genuine measure. Another measure would be the duty to implement “by, for and with” the people who know the situation on the ground, the people who welcome immigrants and help them find a job or get a health insurance card.
I invite us — and I mean us — collectively to be on the lookout because we have the act, but we also have the regulations made under the act on the way we implement it. We also have to act on that. We have to work together and devise immigration strategies that are cited in other strategies, and vice versa. Once again, I’ll mention a diplomatic strategy, for example, for promotional purposes.
Consequently, we have to ensure that the Official Languages Act is a multitentacular act, as it were, and that it has an impact on immigration and vice versa, that the Official Languages Act has an impact on education and vice versa. Of course, I could continue naming all the issues until tomorrow morning, but, as you can understand, we have to stop thinking in isolation. We have to expand; we have to be accountable, to consult and to ensure that the regulations enact all that.
Ms. Sacko: I would briefly add to that by saying it would be a good idea to develop an agreement, a strategy to commit the provinces to establishing francophone immigration. The reality is that some provinces don’t even have an immigration department. How accountable are the provinces for francophone immigration? What, for example, is the commitment to francophone communities here in Manitoba?
As Mr. Théberge mentioned, education is also the key. Some education sectors must be supported, such as the Université de Saint-Boniface, which plays a very important role and is the very heart of the francophone community, where we have an opportunity to assist francophone immigration.
The school boards are also making an enormous effort. Securing the provinces’ commitment to those institutions is also an issue of accountability for the priorities that are defined for the provinces to ensure we’re on the right track.
The Chair: Ms. Sacko, Mr. Théberge and Ms. Mallet, thank you very much for your testimony. We can see that many actors are involved in immigration, but you are on the ground and your testimony is highly relevant and important to our study on francophone immigration.
We will bring our first panel to a close on that note. Witnesses in the first panel, you may now turn off your cameras and stay online if you wish.
We are ready to continue with our second panel. We have the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, which is represented today by its President, Carol Jolin, and by its Executive Director, Peter Hominuk. We also have the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, represented by its President, Alexandre Cédric Doucet, and by Ali Chaisson, Executive Director. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
As usual, you will have the floor and questions will follow from the senators. Mr. Jolin, the floor is yours.
Carol Jolin, President, Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: Good evening, everyone. First, I would like to thank you for inviting the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, or AFO, to testify as part of your study. I am accompanied by AFO’s Executive Director, Peter Hominuk.
As the central agency and mouthpiece of the Franco-Ontarian community, we represent nearly 744,000 Franco Ontarians. We are pleased that you are conducting a study on francophone immigration to minority communities because the federal government, with its power of selection and promotion and its international presence, has a crucial role to play.
As you know, francophone immigration is an essential ingredient in the vitality of francophone minority communities, and that is the case in Ontario. Immigration is one of our public policy priorities. Without francophone immigration, our communities are bound to disappear.
The AFO works at the provincial and federal levels to improve and accelerate francophone immigration to Ontario, so much so that we now have a federal-provincial-territorial action plan for that purpose. Reception services are now available for francophones at Pearson airport in Toronto, and improvements have been made for francophones in the Express Entry program. Lastly, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has designated three welcoming communities in our province: Hawkesbury, Hamilton and Sudbury.
However, much work remains to be done. The target for francophone immigration to Canada has not yet been met nearly 20 years after it was established. Significant declines in the past year leave us wondering about the federal government’s ability to reach its target in 2022 as planned. This is an increasingly significant problem for the Franco-Ontarian community, particularly for the francophone and bilingual labour force. Although the pandemic is a partial factor in the decline in immigration to Canada in 2021, the AFO would like the federal government to take action to meet and exceed established targets in short order. For example, the government could improve the permit-granting system for international students, open more visa offices in sub-Saharan Africa and increase the number of immigrants the province may select through the Ontario immigrant nominee program.
Allow me to clarify that point. Even if the Government of Canada managed to meet the federal target, that would not be enough for francophones to maintain their demographic weight. A study conducted by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages last year reveals that, far from supporting growth in our francophone communities, the current immigration targets have merely slowed their demographic decline. It would help our minority populations if the government could raise its targets so they can at least return to their demographic weight of 2001.
The AFO believes that the reception and retention of francophone students are one of the solutions to enhancing the francophone presence in Ontario. The Université de Hearst and the Université de l’Ontario français are international student recruitment success stories. Hearst’s Franco-Ontarian population has been vastly enriched by its university’s recruitment efforts. The inclusion of students has brought with it a continuum of learning and Canadian support that prepares students well for a stable life and participation in our communities. Unfortunately, in recent months, our francophone post-secondary institutions have witnessed a significant number of refusals of study permit applications from international francophone students, particularly from Africa.
At a time when we are seeing the implementation and transformation of francophone universities in Ontario and facing a major shortage of francophone and bilingual labour, these massive refusals of students are counterproductive to what the Government of Canada is trying to accomplish. Our universities are powerful recruitment tools for francophone immigration, and governments must support them in that area. The shortage of francophone workers, exacerbated by the pandemic in recent years, is a reality in Ontario. Francophone immigration is an essential tool to remedying that situation.
Before concluding, I would like to make another suggestion. The Province of Ontario has been selecting more than 5% of French-speaking immigrants a year through its provincial immigrant nominee program. The AFO would like the federal government to grant the Government of Ontario the power to select more immigrants through that program. In return, the province should commit to continue meeting its francophone candidate target every year.
I want to thank the members of the committee for listening and considering our remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jolin.
Alexandre Cédric Doucet, President, Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, members of the committee.
My name is Alexandre Cédric Doucet, and I am president of the Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, the organization that represents the Acadians and francophones of the province of New Brunswick. I am accompanied today by Ali Chaisson, executive director of SANB.
Thank you very much for inviting SANB to appear before your committee as part of its study on francophone immigration to Canada and Quebec. Immigration is an especially important area of intervention, particularly for the Acadian nation of New Brunswick. In our province, in particular, where French is the mother tongue of some one third of the population, immigration policies and programs have an essential role to play in maintaining the demographic weight of the francophone community, one that is protected by section 16.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let’s talk about that section. My argument is mainly based on the constitutional protections that section 16.1 confers on the francophone community of New Brunswick with respect to immigration. The factual problem is this: A decline in the demographic weight of New Brunswick’s francophone community has been threatening that community’s vitality for many years. That decline may be explained, in particular, by an aging population, a low birth rate and the exodus of part of the population to urban centres outside the province. Immigration policies and programs thus have an essential role to play in maintaining the demographic weight of the francophone community of New Brunswick, a province where French is the mother tongue of one third of the population. However, according to the 2016 census, only some 14% of newcomers to New Brunswick reported that the official language of their choice was French. In 2018, only 19% of permanent residents of New Brunswick were francophone.
New Brunswick’s francophone community has not benefitted from immigration to the same degree as its anglophone community. This reality is eroding the unique linguistic balance in New Brunswick. It is therefore particularly important for us to be able to welcome and integrate francophone and francophile newcomers properly in our province’s francophone community. In the next few years, according to projections derived from a baseline scenario, the province will need a quota of at least 15% of francophone immigrants to maintain growth in its Acadian and francophone population and thus avoid decline. The federal government’s target of 4.4% of francophone immigration outside Quebec is in fact an assimilation rate in the New Brunswick context.
It goes without saying that federal immigration policies cannot enhance the vitality of francophone minorities without taking into consideration the specific linguistic composition of the provinces. New Brunswick requires permanent, tailor-made federal government immigration support to help it maintain and develop that population. That is because New Brunswick’s unique linguistic balance is disturbed every time the percentage of francophone newcomers falls below the percentage of francophones living in the province. This runs counter to the principle of equality of status of the province’s two official language communities.
Although I will not have time for a full presentation of our argument in these remarks, many legal arguments may be advanced to the effect that the rights of New Brunswick’s francophone community, which are protected by section 16.1 of the Charter, guarantee the following: francophone and francophile immigration to New Brunswick that can ensure the community’s survival and development; intake and support centres for francophone newcomers appropriately funded to ensure adequate integration in the francophone community; intake and support centres that provide French-language services, which are distinct from centres that provide English-language services and that are sufficiently funded for the French-language services to be of quality equal to that of services offered in English.
Bearing this in mind, we strongly encourage the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to recommend that the Government of Canada negotiate an agreement with New Brunswick that reflects the linguistic and constitutional specificity of the only officially bilingual province in the country. More specifically, it should consult the New Brunswick government and the appropriate representatives of both official language communities in that province and negotiate and adopt a five-year agreement on support for the distinct educational and cultural institutions of those communities to ensure their protection and promotion. That five-year agreement should focus on primary and secondary education, early childhood, post-secondary education, health and, of course, immigration.
In short, as we have seen in the recent decision on the process for appointing a unilingual anglophone Lieutenant Governor, New Brunswick enjoys a unique linguistic and constitutional specificity in this country. This fact can no longer be concealed by our federal or provincial decision-makers. Instead it must be reflected in all aspects of society, including immigration.
I appeal to your courage and sense of responsibility as statesmen and stateswomen. A bright future lies ahead for Canada and Acadie. We are at a veritable crossroads. It is up to you to decide the direction of this major Canadian project and its distinct implementation within our language minority communities.
Thank you and good evening. I will be pleased to respond to your questions and comments.
The Chair: Mr. Doucet and Mr. Jolin, thank you for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from the senators, and I would remind you that we will allow five minutes including question and answer. I would also ask both colleagues and witnesses to be succinct in their comments.
Senator Poirier: Thanks to the witnesses for being with us. We are pleased to have you here. My first question is for Mr. Doucet. I would like to understand what’s happening on the ground. You referred in your remarks to a figure of 14% of new immigrants in a certain year who were francophones and another figure for another year. What’s the situation in Acadie? What are the biggest obstacles in our Acadian communities right now? How much of this percentage of immigrants is still with us now? Are we retaining those we recruit?
Mr. Doucet: As long as the francophone immigration percentage is below the 33% demographic weight of the francophone community, it’s an assimilation target. At the SANB and in many civil organizations, we have always said that immigration will stop helping us the second immigration is centralized in the federal government and not decentralized to the provinces with specific linguistic characteristics as in Quebec. When we consider the linguistic specificity of New Brunswick, which is the only bilingual province in Canada, we, in Acadie and New Brunswick, as a provincial state, should have far more immigration powers. That would improve the immigration situation since we would then have more power and more money.
Senator Poirier: As regards retention, are we keeping them?
Mr. Doucet: I don’t have the figures with me to determine whether retention is going well. We often hear that immigrants come here and then move to the major cities like Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City, for example. That’s the classic pattern. When the provincial state has acquired a lot more immigration powers, it will be able to ensure both the recruitment and retention of all its immigrants.
Senator Poirier: We’ve also heard about certain provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador, where francophone immigrants must know English to be accepted by the province. Do you have any comments on that? Does that phenomenon also occur in New Brunswick?
Mr. Doucet: I’m going to hand it over to the Executive Director of SANB, who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Ali Chaisson, Executive Director, Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick: Would you please briefly repeat your question?
Senator Poirier: All right.
We’ve heard comments on certain criteria that might represent a challenge for minority francophones. In some provinces, such as Newfoundland and Labrador, francophone immigrants must be bilingual in order to be accepted. As immigrants, they must speak English and French.
Is it also a criterion in New Brunswick that francophone immigrants must absolutely have a command of English?
Mr. Chaisson: That’s a very broad question with a lot of consequences, good and bad. There’s definitely the constant danger of giving immigrants false hope. I think the only place outside Quebec where immigrants could live their lives in French without using English is probably northern New Brunswick. We published a white paper on immigration three years ago, and the interviews we conducted with a large number of immigrants clearly showed that bilingualism is an intrinsic aspect of their ability to integrate. It’s definitely less important in northern New Brunswick, but you have to speak English if you’re ordering parts from a supplier in southern New Brunswick. Professional integration, particularly in the private sector, is related to this problem.
We’ve noticed the problem in New Brunswick for some time in connection with language training, in that the amount of English-language training offered isn’t proportional to the services provided in English. An immigrant who doesn’t speak French can definitely integrate better, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true. If we really want to retain immigrants, language training, especially for professional purposes, could help these people function in a second language. Consequently, it’s become on a major priority.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thanks to the witnesses for being with us this evening.
Both of you noted that your provinces have a role to play in immigration. I know the provincial nominee program is one of the main mechanisms through which the provinces designate individuals who will immigrate to their jurisdiction. An evaluation conducted by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada acknowledges that the program makes only a limited contribution to francophone immigration.
You also noted the agreements signed between the federal government and the provinces. Can you tell us whether the agreements of your provinces include language clauses under which the governments are committed to promoting francophone immigration?
What would you suggest to improve the cooperation between IRCC and the provincial departments responsible for immigration?
Perhaps Mr. Jolin could answer the question first.
Mr. Jolin: A lot of things have been said, and I completely agree with what my colleagues have said so far.
Ontario can select immigrants, and it selected 8,350 immigrants through the program in 2020. According to the figures we have, Ontario secured 5.4% to 7% of francophone immigrants through the program from 2018 to 2020. Ontario wants to be able to select more under the program and has sought up to 13,000 immigrants. We have to work with the province to help it continue its work and aim for a target of over 5%. That’s what we need because our demographic weight constantly declines by 0.2% with every census. Consequently, we have some work to do in that regard. The program’s working well for us, which is why we’d like to be able to help the province select more immigrants. That’s an important point. Both levels of government have an extremely important coordination role to play.
In 2017, we released a white paper on francophone immigration. We’d like the community to be committed under these agreements because we have a lot to contribute on the ground. We can help by bringing the community’s perspective. We hope we can further synchronize the work being done between the two levels of government. Our white paper initially outlined the inconsistency, rather than the consistency, of the work that was being done. We have a lot of work to do to improve cooperation between the two levels of government.
The Chair: Mr. Doucet, do you want to add a comment?
Mr. Doucet: Yes. Thank you for your question.
I don’t think there’s a language clause in the agreement between the federal government in New Brunswick because New Brunswick has made two or three attempts to increase its francophone immigration target, which has been set at 33% for many years.
As parliamentarians, you must remember that section 95 of the Constitution Act, 1867 grants authority over immigration to both the federal and provincial governments. Immigration is a joint jurisdiction. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province. The geopolitical role that Quebec has played with the federal government for many years has afforded it more power and funding for immigration, among other areas. In 1978, the two parties signed the Couture-Cullen agreement, which enabled them to manage immigration more thoroughly than any other province in Canada. New Brunswick would like to see that.
Mr. Jolin mentioned the contribution of the communities. A very important report was released on this matter by Jean-Maurice Simard, a former senator, who unfortunately has since died. In his more than 200-page report, he wrote that the official languages are not a jurisdiction and that they are a matter for the federal government, which therefore has a role to play to defend the French language. Since they are an area of federal jurisdiction, the government may enter into agreements directly with institutions. In immigration, the federal government, with its spending power, could sign agreements directly with institutions such as the Université de Moncton, New Brunswick’s multicultural associations, SANB and the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, which operate directly on the ground, and that would help them recruit and retain francophone immigrants.
There are some extremely important concepts that should be explored. They are collective and legal levers that are available to you as parliamentarians. I encourage you to emphasize this aspect in your next report.
The Chair: I’m going to ask a question before I give Senator Dagenais the floor.
Mr. Doucet, New Brunswick has its own Official Languages Act, which is the instrument whereby it discharges its constitutional responsibilities under section 16.1.
With regard to francophone immigration, what is the province’s specific responsibility for performing that constitutional obligation and how can New Brunswick achieve the desired targets?
Mr. Doucet: In 1993, when section 16.1 was entrenched, both the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick and the Parliament of Canada voted. The onus isn’t solely on the Province of New Brunswick, which, let’s be honest, is very much in favour of that. The Government of Canada also has a responsibility to implement section 16.1. Yes, New Brunswick has a responsibility, but so does the federal government.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Doucet.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Jolin. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me Ontario’s more successful at recruiting francophone immigrants than the other provinces. Can you tell us whether Ontario selects immigrants based more on language or on greater employment opportunities that are offered? Ontario is obviously the largest province in the country. Do you monitor levels of satisfaction with French-language services that immigrants receive, or do they lean toward English services because they are faster?
Mr. Jolin: With regard to the communities, it was mentioned that the attraction [Technical difficulty] enormous amount of immigration that comes here because communities are already established. Of course, we have a government that is focused on the economy, wants to create jobs and wants to have people who can fill available jobs. That helps us in both ways because we have very good reception capacity.
As I mentioned, we have three welcoming cities. What we’re trying to do there is to draw people to other places than the two major cities of Toronto and Ottawa. We have communities that are prepared to welcome people. We have communities, schools, infrastructure, community organizations and so on. I believe that 70% of francophone immigration outside Quebec goes to Ontario. However, if you look at the number of people we receive through immigration, we’re still well below the Ontario target, which is 5%. According to the most recent statistics, we receive 1.97% of immigrants. We’re losing demographic weight from one census to the next, which is why we entirely agree with the target that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne has set, starting at 12% in 2023 and rising until we return to our 2001 demographic weight. Otherwise it will be extremely difficult for the communities to continue operating.
Nevertheless, there are several communities with a high concentration of francophones. To the west, there’s Sudbury. To the north, a number of communities have a significant French-speaking population. There is currently a shift in eastern francophone communities. Eastern Ontario has always been a bastion of the Ontario francophonie, percentage wise. Things are changing slowly, but steadily. Within seven or eight years, greater Toronto and central and southwestern Ontario will be the largest bastion of the French language in Ontario. That’s saying a lot, given that there are currently 744,000 Franco-Ontarians and 1.5 million people who speak French. So yes, we are getting a lot of people, but in comparison to immigration throughout Ontario, we are well short of our targets and we need to work harder to meet them.
Senator Dagenais: You mentioned governments. Premier Ford is currently, as we know, in an election campaign and is committed to the idea of the federal government lowering child care expenses. How will the $13.2 billion that Ontario will receive be used for child care services in French? Will it be in proportion to the demographic weight of francophones?
Mr. Jolin: Our objective is definitely to ensure that the percentage of the money distributed for child care will have a francophone focus and that francophones will receive an appropriate share for their day care centres. This is certainly one of the objectives of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, the AFO, which works very closely with the Ministry of Francophone Affairs. I believe that they are receptive to our interests.
The main barrier we are facing is, I think, the shortage of staff. Everywhere in Ontario, for anglophones and francophones, in every sphere of activity, whether the private sector, or government and non-profit agencies, staff shortages are having a serious impact. That’s why we definitely need francophone immigration to fill these positions, because there is definitely no shortage of jobs in French-speaking Ontario. So from that standpoint, we will closely monitor the rollout, and the money trail, and will work with the government to make sure that francophones receive their fair share for day care centres.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jolin.
Senator Clement: Good evening to the witnesses, and thank you for your presentations and your replies.
I’m from Cornwall, in eastern Ontario. We were rather disappointed when the government chose other locations as special immigration areas, including Hawkesbury, but we continued to move ahead at the community level in order to become a welcoming community that can attract immigrants.
The downside is that new Canadians find the process complicated and that there is a lack of clarity. Where do you go for assistance? How can you feel welcome when you have to knock on one door after another?
I have two questions for any of the witnesses who would like to answer them. First, could the concept of the Pearson Airport’s new French-speaking immigrant kiosk be extended to other airports or venues? It helps a lot and gives people a feeling of belonging to a community.
Secondly, are the universities and colleges fully partnering with governments to attract students? Here again, are people still working in silos, and do the universities have their own plans for attracting international students? Could you comment on that?
Mr. Jolin: Thank you for the question. I’m aware of all the work you’ve been doing with respect to immigration in Cornwall to attract and integrate families.
Senator Clement: Thank you, Mr. Jolin.
Mr. Jolin: I was impressed by these initiatives.
The Pearson kiosk was launched as a pilot project. The 200 newcomers a month that it receives are helped in all sorts of ways. I believe it’s a success. I would definitely like to see a program like this in Ottawa, for example, so that this kind of reception and welcoming service could direct people to the appropriate locations.
At the community level, much remains to be done. Some organizations specialize in welcoming and helping people when they arrive. There are three francophone immigration network organizations in Ontario. There is one for the southwest, one for the north and one for the east. Part of their mandate is to work with organizations to be more welcoming. There is still a lot of work to do. The pandemic-related research didn’t help, because many volunteers were working with these organizations to help with the reception process. They directed people to the right location when they arrived and helped them integrate into the community. I can hardly wait for the pandemic to be over so that we can get things back on track.
To my knowledge, and Mr. Hominuk can correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe the government did enough with the colleges and universities on recruitment strategies. It’s more like every man for himself. For the launch of Université de l’Ontario français in Toronto, and Université de Hearst’s highly successful international recruitment program that has continued for years, I don’t think there was any cooperation of this kind.
Peter, am I wrong on this?
Peter Hominuk, Executive Director Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario: To my knowledge, the information you just gave us is accurate.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to return to what you said about partnerships, which are very important in recruiting people who want to study at Canadian French-language universities. You mentioned that Université de Hearst had been very successful. You also mentioned Université de l’Ontario français. Cité collégiale also has a program. In fact, it just received a rather large grant so that it could continue to run an office in Morocco. That’s why Julien added his comment to what you just said about the fact that there was no government funding approved for this purpose. I nevertheless believe that in its $80 million program, the federal government set aside funding for new projects. Cité collégiale appears to be doing well.
This leads me back to my question, and I’d like to hear an answer from both sides. What kinds of initiatives are there at New Brunswick universities and colleges? I’d also like you to talk about success rates. Ms. Bourgeois told us not long ago that between 1,300 and 1,400 students came from African countries. At Université de Hearst, they account for 70% of its students. There are also integration and retention challenges involved in all of these initiatives. I’d like to hear what both sides have to say about this.
Mr. Jolin: Université de Hearst has a program for international students. Its experience has shown that what attracts them most is a highly francophone setting. The second thing, according to my discussions with the rector, is that there are job opportunities for students when they are attending the university. The graduation rate is very high, somewhere between 85% and 90%. Almost 100% of the students who attended the university remained in Ontario and 50% remained in Hearst. This is extremely important for a community looking for skilled staff. In the long run, when one person comes, that person will be followed by a brother and then a sister, leading to a francophone pipeline from Africa. The university nevertheless had to put in a lot of effort to achieve these outcomes.
Much of the effort was accomplished through the web as well, because not everyone can afford an office in Morocco. If you want to recruit students, you have to have the resources. I know that there is a visa office for students in Dakar, that it serves about 12 or 13 countries, and that some people have to travel through 6 countries to get a visa. A person has to be extremely resilient and determined to do all that in order to get a visa. I nevertheless have questions about some of the advice being given to these people once they get there. When they check a box that says they want to remain in Canada and are then told that doing so could lead to a refusal, I wonder how they are being advised on how to complete the documents required to come and study in Canada.
If we are prepared to do what’s required and to take francophone immigration seriously, it’s important to be there, which means having offices on site. Infrastructures are also essential for processing applications within a reasonable time period. Last Friday, when I was giving an interview, a journalist told me that 11,000 francophone immigration applications had gone through the first phase in Ontario and were on hold within the process. Clearly, not all of these applications will be accepted. But the process needs to be sped up for them.
I was surprised to learn that young students were being refused permanent residence status after being trained here and completing internships here. Employers want to hire them and they are being told that they can’t stay. The process is contradictory and there’s a disconnect. We don’t get it. When these young people come here for their education, our goal is to keep them here, because they were trained here.
The organizations that process these applications need to be better informed. We’re talking about skilled people who want to be here and contribute. There are all kinds of jobs available, and from the economic standpoint it would be beneficial to offer these jobs to young people. It’s worthwhile to spend money abroad to open visa offices and hire staff to process the applications, because the applicants will be able to fill positions that nobody wants at the moment. It would generate economic growth.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to hear what the witnesses from the SANB have to say about this.
Mr. Doucet: I’m going to give the floor to Mr. Chaisson.
Mr. Chaisson: Thank you. This is a very interesting discussion. I won’t attempt to summarize the comments made by Mr. Jolin, my colleague from Ontario. The SANB prepared a white paper on francophone immigration, and an organization chart. Any reasonable and intelligent person who looks at the chart would come to the conclusion that the structure was designed to make sure that things would not work.
The expression “faire société” is frequently used in Acadie to describe the blueprint for Acadie as a society founded on humane concepts. To use my colleague’s expression, there is a disconnect. We exploit our immigrants, while failing to consider that they are human beings with dreams and aspirations. It would appear that Canada’s federal and provincial immigration policies fail to factor in societal considerations of this kind.
The irony is that at most of Canada’s consulates and embassies abroad, the ability to communicate in French is generally poor. A chef in Sydney, Australia, who has just lost his job and would like to work in St. Boniface with Franco-Manitobans will encounter a number of problems. If the people at Canada’s consulate or embassy in Australia don’t take the time to properly advise applicants because they don’t speak French, the dice will be loaded from the start.
To return to Pearson Airport, it was a pilot project and the experiment deserves to be tried in most airports where there are numerous immigration agencies, including Halifax, where many direct European flights land. So the answer is yes. It’s definitely important to repeat that pilot project.
I’d like to reassure you and confirm something. As long as IRCC’s immigration funding formulas are based on successful models, remote regions will never be able to improve their immigration status. The regions that benefited from immigration, in places near Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, are doing very well and will continue to do so. As Mr. Jolin said, their circumstances will continue to improve.
However, for regions that did not benefit from immigration, the funding models will make sure that they never close any existing gaps, particularly in rural areas.
I believe that IRCC’s public policies have a lot of ground to make up. The time has come for these policies to address the idea of an equitable society with a view to closing the gap in certain regions. While it’s all very well for some regions to have received funding to open new recruitment offices abroad, other regions require funds to help them maintain their reception centres, which are not currently meeting needs. The gap needs to be closed.
The Chair: Thank you for these comments and ideas.
Senator Mockler: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The comments from the witnesses have generated a great deal of interest. I’m sure that you will be closely monitoring all these matters, particularly in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the SANB is well known for defending New Brunswick’s language rights. I’d like to congratulate Mr. Doucet and Mr. Chaisson. We need people like you to ensure compliance with the intent of the act and the Constitution.
Mr. Doucet, you briefly touched upon the matter of a ruling by Justice DeWare with respect to the appointment of the new Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick. For you and all of us, it’s important to avoid causing insecurity about our approaches to immigration, particularly in connection with the modernization of the Official Languages Act.
If the federal government were to appeal Justice DeWare’s decision, or to refer it to the Supreme Court, what impact might this have on New Brunswick’s constitutional linguistic uniqueness, and on immigration generally?
Mr. Doucet: You no doubt recall a similar situation in New Brunswick’s past with respect to language rights.
In 2002, Bernard Lord’s provincial government had lost before the Court of Appeal in the Charlebois case. The appeal court had ruled that New Brunswick’s Official Languages Act was no longer constitutional, and was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982. At that time, the Lord government had two options: to refer the matter to the Supreme Court or to modernize the act by changing it completely.
Under the current circumstances, I think that the federal government is facing the same debate: to refer the matter to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, or to challenge an extremely clear ruling by an English-speaking judge who speaks French very well, and who has just said that the rights of New Brunswick’s language community have been violated from A to Z by the appointment of a unilingual anglophone lieutenant-governor.
I think that the correct political decision would be to amend Bill C-13 to include a provision stating that future lieutenant-governor appointees would have to be bilingual. That’s clear to us.
Of course, obtaining a contrary interpretation from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court with respect to section 16.1 would be harmful to New Brunswick’s Acadian community. In the immigration context, section 16.1 is an extremely important instrument for the provincial government and the two linguistic communities. Section 16.1 of course stems from the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, adopted thanks to the tireless efforts of Mr. Jean-Maurice Simard and Mr. Richard Hatfield, following the Convention d’orientation nationale des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick (CONA), held in 1979 in Edmundston, in a historic vote by Acadian delegates in favour of creating an Acadian province.
So section 16.1 is a provision whose purpose is to bring New Brunswick’s two official linguistic communities together. If the federal government were to appeal this decision, it would amount to challenging the societal harmony resulting from section 16.1.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Doucet, Bill C-13, tabled on March 1 by the Minister of Official Languages, is about francophone immigration. If the bill is adopted as is, what positive impact might it have on linguistic minorities in New Brunswick and the other provinces?
Mr. Doucet: One of the main demands from the SANB and several other organizations at the many consultations held in recent years on the modernization of the Official languages Act was precisely the recognition of New Brunswick’s linguistic uniqueness, and harmonization with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
If the bill is adopted as is, section 45.1 states that the federal government has an obligation to recognize the importance of government-wide coordination and to support the status of the two official languages, as well as the status of both official language communities.
When combined with the new paragraph under the interpretation heading in the act, it states that language rights must be interpreted in the light of their remedial character. When I hear “remedial character,” I see a dollar sign. New Brunswick has the resources required to obtain more immigration funding powers, like those Quebec has had since the 1970s. This means that we have an unbelievable historic opportunity in Acadie—New Brunswick to administer immigration ourselves.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Doucet, to conclude, there are many organizations asking for language clauses in agreements between the federal government and the provinces. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
For New Brunswick, given the many factors you’ve just mentioned, how important is it to include language clauses in Bill C-13?
Mr. Doucet: It’s clearly very important. But the fact that we have a minority government should not be overlooked. There is nothing to guarantee that the bill as it is currently worded would be adopted.
One thing that worries us at the SANB is that the departments have already begun consultations on the Action Plan for Official Languages.
But until the bill has received Royal Assent, the departments will not engage in any consultations unless the wording has been adopted. I therefore believe that the language clauses could be included in the regulations rather than the bill. It’s clear that they are essential, but they won’t have been lost simply because they are not in Bill C-13.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee members, I’d like to thank you for your testimony. You are playing a very important role on behalf of the francophonie.
That’s the end of today’s meeting. Thank you, have a pleasant evening and I look forward to seeing you soon.
(The committee adjourned.)