THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 2, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:01 p.m. [ET] to study francophone immigration to minority communities.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon. 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 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; and Senator Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
I also wish to welcome all viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Today we continue our study on francophone immigration to minority communities. First we have the representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, Liane Roy, President, and Alain Dupuis, Executive Director. The federation has just prepared an important study on francophone immigration.
Welcome to the committee and thank you for being with us, Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis.
We’ll now hear your opening remarks. It will be followed by questions from the senators. The floor is yours, Ms. Roy.
Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am speaking to you today from Moncton, New Brunswick, which is situated on the traditional lands of the Mi’kmaq people. As a proud Acadian, I am grateful to the Mi’kmaq for the assistance they have provided to the Acadian people throughout its history.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear as part of your study on francophone immigration to minority communities. As you know, in 2003, the federal government established a target of 4.4% of French-speaking immigrants to be admitted outside Quebec every year. That target was to be met in 2008, but the timeline has been pushed back to 2023.
Historically, the government has never managed to approach that target, and annual results have rarely exceeded 2%. The rate for 2021 was 1.95%. We would remind Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, that although the target wasn’t met, the communities were entitled to expect at least some progress toward it. Instead we had a decade of stagnation. Even if the 4.4% target is met next year, that lost decade has had a tangible impact. The demographic weight of the francophone and Acadian communities fell from 4.4% in 2001 to 3.8 % in 2016. If the trend continues, it will be 3.1% in 2036.
According to the Commissioner of Official Languages, 76,000 francophone immigrants could have settled in our communities over the past 15 years if the target had been reached in 2008. The situation has now caused so much harm that remedies are called for. Which is why we have requested that the government allocate the resources to achieve a target of 12% by 2024, rising to 20% in 2036.
We didn’t pull these numbers out of a hat. They come from a serious demographic study that was conducted for the FCFA by the Sociopol corporation. It was based on Statistics Canada’s data and its Demosim model and enabled us to explore various scenarios. Below 10%, we are barely able to maintain current levels. However, the progressive model we propose would help restore the demographic weight of our communities to 4.4% by 2036.
Incidentally, that goal was set by the government itself and announced twice, first in the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023, and then in the official languages reform document released in February 2021. The figure is definitely surprising, and many have asked how we can hope to meet a target of 12% when, over the years, the government has been incapable of meeting the present one. The answer is simple: by finally introducing the specific francophone immigration measures that we have been demanding for years.
While IRCC is not short on good will, it does lack the tools it needs because we can’t achieve our objectives by merely making adjustments to general immigration programs such as Express Entry. You don’t do immigration to minority communities as you do in the majority. We need a francophone immigration policy that includes specific programs and measures designed to address specific realities.
Here then are our recommendations. First, that the Government of Canada establish a holistic policy on francophone immigration that includes levers tailor-made for the Canadian francophonie, including increased funding to enable francophone communities to participate directly in its implementation.
Second, that the government create a distinct economic program for francophone immigration outside Quebec that is specifically designed to meet the labour needs of the francophone and Acadian communities and that involves the communities in the recruitment and selection of francophone immigrants.
Third, that the government create specific francophone components for family class sponsorship, refugees and provincial nominee programs.
Fourth, you are undoubtedly aware of the visa refusal problems experienced by many francophone students, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, who want to study in French in our communities. Some of the requirements they must meet, such as demonstrating that they will return to their country once they have completed their studies, clash with Canada’s francophone immigration objectives.
We therefore recommend that those requirements be lifted and, more generally, that the government substantially increase its capacity to process visa and immigration applications in francophone countries, particularly in Africa.
Furthermore, last year, IRCC established a six-month pathway for candidates to transition from temporary to permanent residence. Given the success of that initiative during the pandemic, we recommend that the pathway be made permanent for francophone applicants.
Lastly, we recommend that the government provide additional support to francophone and Acadian communities so they can fully engage in all phases of immigration: from promoting internationally to mobilizing employers for recruitment purposes and providing immigration pre-departure service and improved French-language settlement and resettlement services, to developing welcoming and inclusive communities to ensure that all who settle in those communities succeed.
Francophone and Acadian communities have worked hard to meet the immigration challenge in the past 20 years. We have proven that we have the necessary expertise and know-how to create the francophonie of the future, a diversified and pluralist francophonie.
However, that francophonie will not exist unless the government adopts this restorative target and genuinely allocates the means to achieve it.
Thank you. I am now ready to answer your questions with the help of the FCFA’s Executive Director, Alain Dupuis.
The Chair: Ms. Roy, thank you for your opening statement.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead, I suggest, as usual, that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer. If time permits, we will have a second round.
Senator Gagné: Good evening, Ms. Roy and Mr. Dupuis. I’m glad to see you again in the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. I’m well aware that immigration involves many stakeholders, the provinces and communities as well as the federal government. Would you please analyze the contribution the provinces make to francophone immigration to minority communities?
I’m also aware that the provincial nominee program is one of the main mechanisms the provinces use to nominate people who will immigrate to their territory. In an assessment published in 2017 — I don’t know if any other studies have been done since then — IRCC acknowledged that the program makes only a very limited contribution to francophone immigration. In your study and consultations, have you detected any particular problems that might undermine the provincial nominee program?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question. I’ll begin answering it then turn the floor over to Alain, whose figures are probably more accurate than mine.
As you know, the provinces and territories have been examining francophone immigration for some time now. As you may remember, in 2018, the provinces and territories, in coordination with the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie, established an action plan — I think it contained 10 collaborative actions — for working closer together to increase francophone immigration.
There have been many changes in the various provincial and territorial governments since that time. That action plan wasn’t implemented, but, from what we hear from our members, I believe all the provinces are still interested in francophone immigration. In the study we just began in April, we examined francophone immigration and demographic issues on a province‑by-province basis.
I’ll let Alain share those figures, which will give you an overview of the results of those programs, particularly the provincial nominee program. The results will surprise no one but will make for an insightful analysis for the provinces that use it more.
Alain Dupuis, Executive Director, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada: Good evening, Senator Gagné. Yes, a few provinces and territories have established targets. New Brunswick has a target of 33%, Manitoba 17% and Ontario 5%. I believe Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories have targets in absolute figures. This is clearly having an impact on national francophone immigration targets. Roughly 23% or 24% of immigration depends on francophone immigrants selected by the provinces and territories, and that figure is rising. In the next few years, the provinces may seek more control over the economic immigrants they select. It’s important for us that these provincial targets be implemented and that a number of obligations be established respecting the number of nomination certificates granted to the provinces. If the number of nomination certificates is increased for the provinces and territories, that measure must be directly associated with the francophone immigration targets. Ontario is currently the only jurisdiction that has exceeded the target its own government had set.
Francophone immigration must clearly be viewed as a whole. If we set more ambitious targets for francophone immigration to Canada, we’ll have to break down those figures by province and territory to ensure that the entire country enjoys the restorative and growth impacts on the francophonie, but especially, if the provinces and territories have greater selection power, that obligations respecting nomination certificates are associated with those targets. The federal government could add criteria or grant more certificates if it wishes, provided francophone candidates are selected.
The 2018 federal-provincial plan must clearly be reviewed. It contained good objectives but didn’t necessarily call for follow‑up, as we would’ve liked. Many governments have also changed since the plan was established. It’s now time to revise it upward to meet the restorative and growth targets.
Senator Mégie: Thanks to the witnesses for being with us today. I wanted to ask you a question that I previously put to the President of the Treasury Board. I believe Ms. Roy touched on it as well in asking if we were aware that we have a system that systematically rejects students from North Africa. However, when I asked Ms. Fortier the question, her answer was that her department would look into it. That’s not a surprise. She knew it and said, “We’ll look into it; we’re aware of the problem.” Have you noticed any correction or attempt to correct that problem in the past three months?
Mr. Dupuis: What I’ve heard about the Chinook system is that the minister who appeared before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration said no artificial intelligence was involved in the ranking system. It’s essentially an Excel spreadsheet that doesn’t do automated selection. From what the minister said, the problem isn’t with the ranking system.
However, we think the main problem is the criteria established for processing student visa applications. As our president mentioned, the requirement that applicants prove they’ll return to their country once they’ve graduated has a significant impact on the francophone pools. They also have to prove that they have funds available in a bank account to support themselves over a given period of time. It appears that IRCC is unable to validate that information. In a number of African countries, there aren’t necessarily any partnerships with financial institutions in a number of francophone African countries, as a result of which many applications are denied on the basis that applicants don’t have the means to study in Canada.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Could I ask another question in the second round, or may I ask it now?
The Chair: You have the time, senator.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to consider another topic, credential recognition. We know it’s a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Would you have the time to look into it, or is there another partner organization that might have some ideas on best practices compared to what’s being done in the provinces and territories?
Ms. Roy: Yes, absolutely, senator. As you know, credential recognition is a very complex issue. You could say it’s a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but the professional associations, professional orders and postsecondary institutions are also involved in it. Some of our partners have conducted pilot projects, especially on labour shortages in education, particularly among teachers and early childhood educators. There are shortages all across Canada.
The Société nationale de l’Acadie in the Atlantic region and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have examined these issues to identify best practices and how to establish a better credential recognition system. Those two organizations have had some success with an initial pilot project and with financial assistance from ACOA, and they wanted to see if they could extend the use of their guide for teachers and early childhood educators. I don’t know the findings of those studies, but I do know a lot of work has been done across the four Atlantic provinces. We also went and looked at what was happening in francophone communities in the other provinces and territories.
Mr. Dupuis: I would add that it’s very important that the federal government get involved in credential recognition, which goes far beyond the francophonie issue. It’s an issue for all immigrants who choose Canada. Consequently, we’d like to see better coordination between Employment and Social Development Canada and the other federal departments. The latter can bring other professionals and provincial partners to the table and create much more appropriate systems. Minister Joly’s February 2021 white paper also states a commitment to create a francophone immigration corridor for teachers who play a role at Employment and Social Development Canada to ensure coordination and alignment in education. I think it’s a model that must absolutely be considered in the next few years because Canada’s growth depends on immigration. The issue is too fundamental for the federal government not to play a leading role in coordinating it at the national level.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Roy.
You previously worked in the senior public service as assistant deputy minister in the Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour of New Brunswick.
The French-language bills and the commitments that provincial and federal politicians make generally seem quite clear, as do the demands of the francophone groups as to what has to be done to save the French language in Canada. From your privileged perspective, what’s preventing action, and why are the targets not necessarily being met?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question, senator. I think it’s the fact that the government tries to create the same programs for anglophones and francophones. If we really want to meet our targets, especially in francophone immigration, we must have specific programs for francophone and Acadian communities. In my opening statement, I made some recommendations on what could be done to find a solution to this problem.
First, we should have a policy on francophone immigration that would be holistic, that would consider all stakeholders and programs, to determine what kind of francophone component we could include. In our associations, we often refer to “of”, “by” and “for,” that is to say, by and for francophones.
It’s important to acknowledge that you don’t do francophone immigration the same way you do immigration in general. Some of our communities are smaller, and there’s a serious job shortage in many regions, if not all across Canada. We feel that this francophone immigration policy, with the new targets we’re proposing, must be envisioned as having a restorative objective, a growth objective and an objective of reinforcing community capacity. In our view, a policy should provide for the creation of a distinct francophone economic immigration program.
This program should establish a role for the communities in immigrant selection, the creation of a francophone component for family class sponsorship and greater cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency in order to increase Canadian government support for the resettlement of emergency-affected refugees from francophone African countries. The inclusion of a francophone component in the provincial nominee program would help ensure equitable growth of the francophonie in all regions of the country.
We have other suggestions such as creating a permanent pathway from temporary to permanent residence, measures to facilitate entry by international francophone students and lowering certain barriers for study permits and student visas. Since we have a labour shortage, the best way to deal with it is by welcoming more international students who can address those shortages by training at our institutions here in Canada. Another issue is that the Canadian government must increase its capacity to process immigration applications in francophone source countries, particularly in Africa.
These are examples of what could be done and what a policy on francophone immigration should contain. I hope I understood your question.
Senator Dagenais: Yes, absolutely.
We also refer to immigration as a solution to restore the demographic weight of francophones. We know that immigrants arrive here with children who already know some French as a result of the education they’ve received.
How capable is the French-language education system in the provinces of stimulating or encouraging immigrant children to pursue their studies in French?
Ms. Roy: I think we can welcome children to our schools all across Canada. Even though some provinces operate differently, we see that some school boards and school districts have established specific programs for students arriving with their families across the country. There are francization programs for those who may not have all the required French-language skills. Many provinces and education departments across the country have established specific programs for children arriving with their parents from outside the country.
I’m going to give Mr. Dupuis a chance to speak so he can clarify a few points in response to the senator’s question.
Mr. Dupuis: I think an action plan with predictable targets from year to year has to be put in place. That’s why we’ve proposed a new 12% francophone immigration target starting in 2024, which could then increase slightly by 8,000 immigrants year over year until we reach a target of 20%.
If we establish a multi-year plan to expand the francophonie, to restore our demographic weight, that will help schools and school boards plan their offerings more effectively. There are currently 740 French-language schools across the country and nearly 30 French-language school boards and commissions. I think we’re well prepared. That’s one of the questions I asked last week at the education issue table, which consists of the 13 provinces and territories and the federal government.
The school boards in the communities tell us they’ve increased capacity to take in and integrate immigrants. However, they also need additional resources so institutional workers have access to a program for French-language schools — schools are a gateway to the rest of the community — and to ensure that all our approaches align with the organizations and other services provided in the francophone community.
Senator Moncion: Good evening to you both and thank you for the information you’ve provided us.
My question may be simple or complicated; I’m not quite sure which. Mr. Dupuis, you mentioned that Ontario has met its 5% target but that the other provinces haven’t. To what do you attribute Ontario’s success compared to the performance of the other provinces?
Mr. Dupuis: Ontario introduced a specific program for francophone and bilingual workers that’s apparently well promoted by the province. It enables the province to meet and even exceed its nomination certificates for the francophonie.
There are definitely some promising solutions here because that program wasn’t focused solely on people who spoke French, but also on people who had bilingual skills and worked in desired fields. It’s all viewed as a model that should be reproduced elsewhere, based on what I understand from our study. The program was introduced about five years ago, if I’m not mistaken.
Senator Moncion: For the other provinces, the federal government serves as a gateway, as it were, for applications and the distribution of immigrants across Canada. Would you please tell us about that distribution, if you know about it, and what the stumbling blocks are in that area?
Mr. Dupuis: Ontario is still the province that has taken in the most francophone immigrants in the past five years. Of a total 27,000 francophone Immigrants outside Québec, 15,900 chose Ontario. Toronto, the greater Toronto area, and Ottawa are the two cities that take in the vast majority of francophone immigrants, followed by New Brunswick, which has welcomed some 2,500 French-speaking immigrants, then Alberta with 2,700 and British Columbia with 2,930. We also note that western Canada increases its share of francophone immigration year over year.
Senator Moncion: You mentioned increased funding and indicated how it would be used.
There’s no increased funding right now. In northern Ontario, for example, we’re gradually starting to see support programs for people who want to settle there. I’m telling you this so you realize that people are immigrating to northern Ontario, and that’s remarkable. I want to say it because you don’t see a lot of different races outside Toronto, and most people seem to be adjusting well.
How is it that some of these communities have funding to take in these people and others don’t?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for your question, senator.
A program called welcoming francophone communities has been developed. It was funded as part of a pilot project, and 14 communities across Canada were selected to determine how to attract people, how to welcome them and how to help families and individuals settle. The program has produced very good results.
In addition to the initiatives that could be expanded, we propose to introduce real programs, not just pilot projects, and this is one of them. As I told you, it’s had very good results across Canada. You mentioned Ontario, but I’m in New Brunswick. We’ve seen a community in northwestern New Brunswick take in immigrants. There are 14 communities like that across Canada.
Perhaps Mr. Dupuis has more recent statistics on exactly what you’re saying, senator. These programs are working very well, and we’d like to see them expanded and spread across Canada precisely because they’re working very well.
Mr. Dupuis: I think there’s been good progress in the past five years. We’ve gone from 40 to 75 organizations that now provide French-language settlement services in minority communities. That’s significant progress. However, we’re in restoration mode, and you have to view the francophone settlement sector as 20 or 30 years behind the times if you compare it to the big English-language settlement services, which have expertise and tens and, in some instances, even hundreds of employees. Settlement services are often provided by the employees of organizations that also offer other services.
In addition, services must obviously be specialized to meet the more specific needs of women, youth and the LGBTQ2+ communities. We have to make sure we have resettlement services because we currently have only four services designated for welcoming refugees in French outside Quebec. We need more, and we need more in the major centres of the francophonie as well. We also have to consider offering services to temporary residents who come here as foreign workers or students and who can’t receive IRCC financial settlement services. The provinces often have to handle that, or the post-secondary institutions or employers. There really has to be an improved offer of service on the ground for immigrants.
Second, the communities must also be allowed to play a role in promoting our communities abroad. We currently have promotional activities, but our organizations can’t get federal government funding to travel abroad and promote our communities and jobs in French. Some organizations do it on their own initiative, such as those that attend Destination Canada, for example, but it isn’t systematic or part of a comprehensive promotion and recruitment strategy in the source countries of the francophonie.
Third, all francophone society stakeholders also have to be encouraged to play a role in francophone immigration. By that I mean employers, organizations, schools and health services; that ecosystem has to be created. There are still too many gaps. We need major investments in the next Action Plan for Official Languages to fill those gaps both at the start of the process, in promotion, recruitment and selection, and in the services offered on the ground in every region.
We also have to consider ways to regionalize francophone immigration. As I said, Toronto takes in 30% of francophone immigrants, Ottawa 22%, Vancouver 8.8%, Moncton 6.1% and Winnipeg 6.1%. Once again, it’s the major centres that are welcoming immigrants. Consequently, we have to make sure they know the regions and that the regions can offer promising economic opportunities for families and individuals who choose Canada.
Senator Clement: Thanks to the witnesses. You constantly repeat that we’re in restoration mode. That’s the refrain. It’s remarkable.
Ms. Roy, would you please tell me again how many people we’ve failed to welcome to Canada because we systematically fall short of our targets?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question, senator.
According to a study that the Commissioner of Official Languages released in late November 2021, the figure was 76,000. So that’s 76,000 people we could have recruited to settle in our communities.
Furthermore, 76,000 is roughly equal to the francophone population of British Columbia. That’s a lot for us since we’re talking about people settling in the country.
Senator Clement: That’s remarkable.
In responding to Senator Dagenais earlier, you mentioned a specific policy and the role of the communities, and Mr. Dupuis just discussed that as well. It’s really a matter of partnership; we have to talk about partnerships between the federal government, provinces, communities and municipalities. What obstacles have there been? None of this is new; it’s as old as the hills. What isn’t working, and what do you specifically recommend?
Ms. Roy: We recommend a policy on francophone immigration. On that, we have to give a nod to Bill C-13, which has just been introduced and which refers to a just such a policy. We have to ensure that the policy is well understood and that it’s holistic. It has to clarify who does what and what kind of programs should be created consistent with the “by and for” approach, that is to say, by and for francophones, as I said earlier.
It’s important to ensure that we can develop that policy by consulting the communities and going out to see what has to be done.
You mentioned partnerships. In one of my earlier answers, I discussed the welcoming francophone communities program. It’s a great program that has resulted in many partnerships in connection with the mini-communities where we’ve tested some projects. We’d like to see the same thing all across Canada. We need a policy that’s holistic but also one that very much embraces all partners and people.
Immigration has to be considered as a plan for society; it’s important for all of Canada, but for our francophone in Acadian communities as well.
Mr. Dupuis: I would add that most of the current programs are designed to achieve overall objectives. In many cases, however, they aren’t tailor-made to address, for example, the labour shortages specific to francophone communities.
Consequently, when the minister tables his annual immigration levels plan in Parliament, it includes all the variations in the types of programs: the program for workers, business people, family groups, refugees and resettled persons and the provincial nominee program. It’s all quantified so the annual target can be set for each of those programs.
Then the department adapts its strategies to address its annual objectives. Francophone immigration is mentioned, but as a footnote. The 4.4% target is specifically associated with none of these programs. Consequently, we hope that all those programs can help us reach a quantified objective, although without adding a francophone lens to them.
That’s why we want a policy on economic francophone immigration, for example. We could adopt the rural and northern immigration pilot project, under which the communities have a role. That program helps set up committees with regional employers and stakeholders who are familiar with the needs of the region and play a role in candidate selection. For example, they determine whether a particular type of profile is needed for a particular year and in a specific type of industry. The community then recommends to IRCC candidates who should be selected.
It’s a great model that could work nationally for the Canadian francophonie. Let’s get the committees involved with the communities that have francophone and bilingual employers looking for various profiles and adapt the criteria to attract people who meet the needs of the country’s various regions.
It’s a great model, and it’s a pilot project that could serve as a good example for a francophone economic program.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: It’s my turn to ask you a few questions further to those of Senator Clement.
We constantly hear that there are systemic problems in immigration management in Canada with the number of partners and how those partners work together.
Your telling report includes recommendations for a policy on francophone immigration, and your last recommendation is that an office be established to reform the federal government’s approach to francophone immigration with respect to promotion and recruitment. You think there’s room for a restructuring within IRCC. I’d like to hear more of what you have to say on that subject.
In addition, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada coordinates the Réseaux en immigration francophone, the Table nationale de concertation communautaire en immigration francophone and the community component of IRCC. You’re also responsible for National Francophone Immigration Week. So you’re doing a lot of work. Talking about closer ties between the department and the communities, can you tell us how that office would improve the initiatives the communities can take and how the partnership could best be established?
Ms. Roy: I’ll let Alain answer that, but I’ll start by telling you how the department is structured to respond to francophone immigration. The francophone immigration component is part of one of the settlement directorates, as a result of which the vision and overview of francophone immigration are limited because immigration is identified with that directorate.
We feel that’s already part of the problem. No one at the department is responsible for francophone immigration as a whole. That’s why we recommend creating this office or modus operandi: to facilitate partnerships and to take a more comprehensive view of francophone immigration rather than associate it with a specific directorate.
Now I’ll let Alain round out my answer.
Mr. Dupuis: Absolutely. This issue shouldn’t be viewed in isolation; it has to be a cross-cutting issue within the department as a whole. For example, a deputy minister or assistant deputy minister could be exclusively responsible for francophone immigration for a number of years until this new policy is introduced, implemented and briefed to all colleagues and directorates within the department. IRCC is a big department with international offices, and we think immigration is important enough to justify making a senior official in the department exclusively responsible for it.
My home province of Ontario did that with French-language education within it’s education ministry. It centralized everything and made an assistant deputy minister responsible for it. A few years ago, it also made an assistant deputy minister responsible for French-language health services within the Ministry of Health.
Someone clearly has to be responsible at all levels for meeting certain targets, especially much more ambitious targets such as the 12% proposed for 2024.
The Chair: Targets are also the subject of one of the recommendations in your report, the one concerning the progression of targets leading to a 20% target in 2036.
You spoke at length about restoration and growth, and Ms. Roy referred earlier to Bill C-13. Where should those objectives and targets be set forth? Should they appear solely in the policy? What should appear in the act itself so it includes that idea of restoration and growth?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question, which is of considerable interest to us and related to Bill C-13. As regards the content of the bill pertaining to the francophone immigration policy, we feel it’s important to know how that policy will be set forth and what language will be used. It’s true that we’re discussing an immigration policy and that it’s already far more than what the present act contains. We’re very pleased with it, but we’re talking about objectives, targets and accountability.
Where we feel it may not be strong enough is where the bill refers to “contributing” to our demographic weight. We would like to see a much stronger verb such as “restoring” or “increasing” it. The word “contribute” conveys a sense that immigration is just one way among others to get it done, whereas we know scientific research has shown that, in Canada, and especially in French Canada, immigration will affect, contribute to and, in fact, increase our demographic weight because that’s previously been demonstrated. It’s very important for us that the language used in the bill be more forceful. We’d like to see a much stronger word than “contribute” used in the part about restoring and increasing our demographic weight.
The Chair: Mr. Dupuis, did you have anything to add on the subject?
Mr. Dupuis: No.
The Chair: I’ll ask my last question before we continue with Senator Gagné. I put this question to the Statistics Canada officials when they testified on the various immigrant categories: economic immigrants, foreign students, temporary workers, refugees and newcomers. They couldn’t give us any numbers for the various categories for how many immigrants or persons we receive in those categories, for example. Do you think a strategic identification and prioritization exercise is conducted on immigrants to see whom we should take in based on regions and needs? What can you tell us about that?
Mr. Dupuis: Of the total number of francophone immigrants, 40% are currently in the skilled workers program category, the economic category, and 29% are in the economic category but are selected by the provinces. That nevertheless amounts to more than 70% of francophone immigrants who are in an economic category. Approximately 15% are in the family unification category and roughly 13% are resettled refugees.
In our view, that shows that francophones enter Canada mainly through economic programs, but it’s very important to have a policy on francophone immigration that embraces all categories, particularly because of the importance of economic immigrants. We obviously have a major labour shortage in our communities. Consider teaching, early childhood, all the community organizations that are finding it hard to recruit, health care and services for seniors. The federal, provincial and municipal governments also want a skilled bilingual labour force. Consequently, it’s quite important to have that economic component, but not exclusively. Family reunifications are also very important, and support could be increased for francophone refugees who come in through the HCR program. The HCR designates many countries, which unfortunately are in sub‑Saharan Africa, as crisis zones calling for resettlement. Canada could develop expertise in this field by bringing in francophone refugees.
The Chair: Thank you very much. The floor is yours for the second round, Senator Gagné.
Senator Gagné: Your questions were actually ones I wanted to ask. They were about Bill C-13, which we’ll be thoroughly examining at the appropriate time. Again in the context of Bill C-13 — I have it with me, but I can’t seem to find the right subsection. It acknowledges the restorative character of the act. Having regard to that, do you think the bill provides a fairly good framework for the positive measures that should be taken to enhance the vitality and support the development of the communities? What I understand is that you would like to make it mandatory and not necessarily a measure that contributes, as you say. I think it refers more to a positive measure that, for example, may include all measures, and then it identifies the institutions and sectors, such as health, justice, employment, immigration and so on.
I’d suggest you table this question. Perhaps we could discuss it at greater length another time because there are about four minutes left.
The Chair: Go ahead, if you wish to respond.
Mr. Dupuis: Very quickly, yes, the restorative character will be a principle for interpreting the act, but the provision on francophone immigration refers to maintaining or increasing, and maintaining is not restorative. Maintaining means keeping the level at approximately 3.6%. The communities want a restorative target that makes up for the lack of progress in the past 20 years, and the wording on francophone immigration will have to be clear.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for that clarification.
The Chair: I would like to ask you a question about an event that was held on the weekend. I was in my region and we organized an event to express our solidarity with the Ukrainians who are refugees in our region, particularly in my home province of New Brunswick. I was very impressed and moved by the quality of the people in our region who want to contribute to the development of our society. Some of those people initially spoke neither English nor French. Is it possible to include in our francophone immigration strategies the idea of identifying people who come to our country and who speak neither English nor French but who could fit into the francophone communities? What do you think about that?
Ms. Roy: Thank you for that question. I think that immigrants who speak neither English nor French must be aware of the opportunities that the francophonie affords. You mentioned the Ukrainians. We know there are approximately 300,000 Ukrainians who speak French because Ukraine belongs to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie as an observer country. No one automatically thinks of that.
So we should be able to explain or show immigrants that they can choose to learn English or French. The federal government currently doesn’t offer free access to instruction in both languages. It’s either one or the other. So it doesn’t offer instruction in any general way, which somewhat undermines our ability to integrate allophones. We feel the communities offer rich life opportunities. We think it’s important to welcome them, to open up to these people, because our communities can be enriched by their cultural diversity and afford the opportunity to get involved in community life.
However, our current infrastructure doesn’t make it easy to integrate allophone immigrants who have special needs. From a professional standpoint as well, one of the important points in welcoming allophones is that we know that multilingualism opens many professional doors and helps reinforce language skills in English and French. It’s important for us to have infrastructure, but we’re very open — we did it for the Afghans — so we think about it so we can understand how to do it better. We think the policy on francophone immigration should include a section or chapter concerning allophones. Mr. Dupuis, do you want to add anything?
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam President and Executive Director. Thank you for your remarks and for answering our questions with such aplomb. We sense your enthusiasm and especially your commitment. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada in fact has a decisive impact on francophone immigration strategies. Thank you very much for your contributions. I’m sure we’ll have occasion to speak again when Bill C-13 is considered around this table.
Ms. Roy: Thank you for your interest.
The Chair: We now come to the second witness panel of our meeting. We have two witnesses. First, from the Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité, or RDÉE Canada, we welcome Ms. Roukya Abdi Aden, Manager, National Consultation on Economic Development and Employability. Welcome, madam. And, from the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, we have Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations. Thank you for being with us. We will now hear your statements, beginning with Ms. Abdi Aden. The floor is yours, madam.
Roukya Abdi Aden, Manager, National Consultation on Economic Development and Employability, Réseau de développement économique et d’employabilité: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to inform you of some findings and issues related to economic immigration to francophone and Acadian communities.
I should tell you at the outset that RDÉE Canada and its network can confirm that francophone immigration is critically important for economic recovery and growth and for the development and reinforcement of our communities.
We have been and are still facing a disruptive situation that has left us no choice but to act as quickly as possible as a nation. The reality of it is this: Nearly 100% of Canadian population growth will be attributable to immigration in the coming years.
I’m sure that, like me, most of you here today are aware of the initial results of the 2021 census, which were released last week. Those results confirm a strong trend that has developed in the past few years: Canada has an aging population and a declining birth rate. Those two facts mean that Canada does not and will not have a large enough labour force to run the country, restart its economy or make it grow.
This reality is also very clear on the ground and is being experienced by many Canadian businesses that our network serves and supports. We are seeing labour needs and shortages in virtually all economic sectors, including sensitive sectors in the francophone communities. Mr. Dupuis and Ms. Roy mentioned them: they are education, early childhood and health.
The COVID-19 pandemic has merely exacerbated these labour challenges, which have been developing for several years. Last Thursday and Friday, I attended a meeting on the tourism sector’s labour force. The situation in that industry is the same. There will be no genuine recovery there as long as the labour shortage persists. Most health restrictions have now been lifted across the country, but the majority of tourism businesses, whether it be hotels or restaurants, are unable to operate at full capacity for lack of staff. On the ground, employers expect employees to appear at their doors in buses full of people from elsewhere. Tourism is one example among many.
I would also like to discuss a few challenges, not those related to the settlement and integration of francophone immigrants as such, but rather certain challenges in the recruitment and selection of immigrants in general and francophone immigrants in particular.
One of these challenges is that the country’s actual labour needs and the profiles of the selected applicants don’t match. As you know, our immigration system is highly selective; it’s designed to attract highly skilled people, but who do not necessarily meet the needs of the labour market. How does this play out on the ground? It leads to employers who still don’t have anyone to hire and disappointed immigrants who are under‑employed or unemployed.
Another major challenge with recruitment is just how difficult it is for Canadian employers to navigate through the immigration system. We worked with a caisse populaire in northern Ontario and I can tell you that it took them two months just to complete the online form because of the various problems they encountered. They also never received answers when they sought help on how to complete it. Added to that is the amount of time it takes to process applications, which has become extremely slow as a result of the pandemic. An employer submitting an application today will have to wait 12 months for the selected employee to get to Canada.
I will admit, however, that there has been progress. Some measures were introduced over the past few years to promote francophone immigration. However, these measures are clearly inadequate, and more draconian action is needed to turn the trend around. In 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages published a study showing that Canadian immigration was negatively affecting francophone communities. The metaphor used at the time compared the situation to the start of a forest fire. Twenty years on, the fire is raging and has burned down much of the forest. As the saying goes, desperate times require desperate measures, and that’s what’s needed today.
I’ll conclude with these few priorities for action. It’s crucial to ensure that the francophone immigration target, as proposed by the FCFA, is increased and stabilized. It’s also crucial to provide economic stability and support entrepreneurship for francophone immigrants. Special attention is needed in the regionalization of immigration, to counter geographical asymmetries for francophone immigrants in minority communities. The policies, programs and services to address the shortage of workers need to be aligned with policies and services for francophone immigrants. A long-term vision is absolutely essential for the demographic strengthening of our communities. RDÉE Canada has tabled a brief proposing seven recommendations based on these priorities.
Thank you for your attention, and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Abdi Aden. We will now give the floor to Mr. Normand and will then move on to the round of questions. Over to you Mr. Normand.
Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, the ACUFC, is comprised of 22 francophone or bilingual postsecondary educational institutions in eight Canadian provinces. Our strategic plan provides for the development of structural initiatives to promote the recruitment and training of an international clientele. We focus on three main areas: positioning our network of institutions in various markets, and with potential partners; involvement in recruitment activities; and raising awareness among federal institutions.
My comments today will focus on these three areas in order to discuss the three major challenges being faced by our member institutions.
Firstly, our network of institutions has to deal with a very high permit application rejection rate for international francophone students, especially those from African countries. The study permit refusal rate for francophone applicants from African countries hovers around 80% for most of our institutions.
One of the reasons frequently given by the Canadian government for rejecting study permit applications is that those submitting the applications have not succeeded in convincing an officer of their intent to leave Canada following graduation. The repeated use of this reason for denying study permits is wholly inconsistent with Canada’s desire to keep international students in Canada and is harmful to its efforts to meet the francophone immigration target.
Another factor, however, needs to be added to this picture, and that is the fact that the government systems are unfamiliar with francophone institutions outside Quebec. Institutions have reported to us that applications for study permits had been refused because the officer looking at the case did not consider that wanting to study in French outside Quebec was a legitimate aspiration, or because the applicants had been encouraged to review their choice of an institution. We are continuing our efforts to familiarize people with our network of institutions, including IRCC and Global Affairs Canada staff working in Canada and abroad.
Secondly, the institutions provide many services to their international clientele to support them in their studies. This important contribution from the institutions is designed to retain these students until they have graduated.
There are many systemic barriers for international students. That’s why several institutions are already taking action to create ties between the international clientele and the communities, which is one of the keys to successful integration. If these people are to remain in Canada, a systemic approach needs to be designed to view the path followed by francophone international students as a societal project in which ties are created between educational institutions, community service organizations, employers and the entire community.
Thirdly, there are good reasons to invest in these efforts. Over 90% of the international students who responded to a survey we commissioned said that they intended to search for a job in Canada after graduating, and 62% said that the support received from their institution throughout their studies contributed to their decision to stay in Canada.
That represents a significant pool of potential permanent residence applicants, which could help meet the francophone immigration target; however, government actions need to take this pool into account.
Postsecondary institutions are devoting considerable resources to ensure that their graduates have the skills required to remain in Canada and help fill some of the desperate worker shortages. These efforts ought not to be wasted simply because it takes so long to process applications, making it difficult for graduates to stay in Canada.
Postsecondary institutions in minority francophone communities devote a considerable amount of time and effort to recruit, welcome, train, retain and support its student clientele, but they continually face challenges and risks from federal government authorities. These officials need to be encouraged to adopt a variety of positive measures that would provide support to postsecondary institutions in their efforts to contribute directly to the recruitment of international students and an increase in francophone immigration.
That’s why we are making two recommendations today.
The first is that the Privy Council Office, with Global Affairs Canada, IRCC and other departments involved in this area, develop a consistent and systemic approach that would result in genuinely equal treatment by the Canadian government of applications from international students who want to study in French at postsecondary institutions in francophone minority communities.
The second is that a federal government-wide francophone immigration policy, as provided in Bill C-13, should address issues that affect the careers of international students attending francophone minority postsecondary institutions.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Normand.
We will now move on to the round of questions.
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Mr. Normand.
We’ve often heard about immigrants who arrive in Canada with degrees or diplomas, and who end up in jobs that have nothing to do with their qualifications. They even have trouble getting recognition for their skills. That’s probably something that deters people from coming here. What can educational institutions do to facilitate and speed up their integration into the workforce in their areas of expertise?
Mr. Normand: The fact of the matter is that the requalification and evaluation of immigrant competency profiles does not rest with our institutions. Where they can do something is in areas like developing requalification programs, micro‑certifications and complementary programs. For example, once immigrants have had their documents evaluated by a professional body and some complementary training requirements have been identified, our institutions can offer them the required complementary training. That is one initial area in which the institutions can do something.
The other possibility is that by making people abroad aware of our network of institutions and facilitating the arrival of potential applicants to Canada, a pool of international students would be created. After graduating, these students would have access to the Canadian labour market to help meet our workforce needs.
Those are the two main roles our institutions could fill.
Senator Dagenais: For comparison purposes, do you have figures on the number of francophone immigrant children studying at the college and university level in French? Is the figure higher or lower than the number for local francophone children? Have you followed up on the number of jobs available in their diploma and degree areas?
Mr. Normand: I don’t have those figures. Additional analyses and comparisons would be required, and we haven’t done these yet.
However, we do know that there are workforce requirements just about everywhere. Ms. Abdi Aden talked about this as well, and she is familiar with this area because of her work with the RDÉE. There are jobs available for qualified people graduating from our institutions, and there is absolutely no doubt about that.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer, Mr. Normand.
Senator Mégie: My first question is for Ms. Abdi Aden.
Can you explain the discrepancy between the overqualified immigrants we select and the actual workforce needs of our society? If we continue to accept overqualified immigrants and fail to try and attract those who would be more closely aligned with our workforce requirements, then I don’t see how we could possibly succeed in recruiting and retraining these immigrants.
Ms. Abdi Aden: As you know, our immigration system assigns a lot more points for degrees and diplomas than for work experience. For example, someone with a master’s degree or a professional licence will get points for the M.A., the doctorate or the training received, whereas on the ground, we might need someone to fill a job as a chef or a truck driver. The needs are so variable out there that a person recruited because of a degree will not be as interested in working. Immigrants often review their expectations downward when they try to find their first job. I would say that’s where the challenge lies.
If we want an immigration system that meets the needs of the marketplace, we need to select immigrants not so much because they have ticked the boxes like: “I’m young, I have points for the number of years of experience in such and such a field or I have such and such a degree,” but rather a system which factors in the training these people have received that will meet needs on the ground, and that also might be transferable. People with a doctorate or who were selected because they are doctors or engineers, will not always accept the jobs offered here, unless they are willing to give up what they’ve learned.
As I was saying, it creates a great deal of frustration among applicants, because what we’re telling them is: “Here are the jobs posted that you could fill at the moment, no matter what level of training you have or what degrees you might have.” In immigration, the boxes ticked are what will get an immigrant to come to Canada, but what’s available once they get here are jobs that are not necessarily appropriate for these qualified people.
You’re familiar with credential recognition, since you asked about it. I’ll give you a straightforward example. In February, we organized a virtual job fair to do some recruitment. In francophone communities, there is a shortage of early childhood workers, and there are almost 2,500 vacancies at the moment. The pandemic made the situation worse, and the figures I’m giving go back to 2019. In education as well, in Ontario alone, there are more than 10,000 jobs that need to be filled in francophone communities . Some 12,000 people signed up for this international recruitment fair held in francophone countries. Of these, 4,000 were chosen because they had the right profile for the desired positions, but I’m not convinced — I still don’t have the results — that they are going to come to Canada or that the employers offering the jobs will be able to hire them directly, because there is a credential recognition process for them to go through.
I talked to you about processing delays, which have worsened during the pandemic. Just a while ago, I mentioned a caisse populaire in northern Ontario that said, “I need 90 employees, but I can’t wait a year for them to arrive. I need these people right away, within the next two months.” It took two months just to fill out the forms and enter their applications into the system. These challenges that affect the recruitment process can be seen on the ground now.
Senator Mégie: I wanted some details about the poor fit between certain aspects. People can check a box to say that they have an M.A. or a PhD, but then you find out that the degree is not recognized. It’s a dead end. Is there an organization or a person that could talk to another organization to find out how these things that don’t fit together properly could be planned or reorganized? I know about this because I’m a francophone immigrant doctor, so I know how it works. I’m not surprised by what you’ve told me. Is there anyone who can fix that?
Ms. Abdi Aden: I’ve been hearing that question throughout the 20 years I’ve been in Canada. The professional bodies need to do something. They too have to do something. I know that the government is making an effort. I don’t know whether you’re from Quebec, but did you know that a few years ago, Quebec signed an agreement with France to offset some of the existing barriers? And yet, in spite of that, the barriers are still there. I heard a French doctor who had worked in France for 20 years and had his own clinic, and who after getting past the initial credential recognition barrier, was required to do an internship. He had to get into the system and had trouble finding a health professional to take him under his wing, because there weren’t enough of them. He was still waiting to find a place where he could do an internship in order to sort the situation out. I know that it’s a challenge. One can take the current situation as either a possibility, or as something that will only get worse. There are worker shortages in virtually every sector. There was our health system, which had a great deal of trouble coping with the pandemic and which needs to sort itself out. We cannot, with Canada’s population alone, train everyone who requires it; people need to come from abroad.
If we don’t make the required effort, the system will continue to crumble even more. There are needs everywhere. Employers have to do something. Canada’s employers are waiting for us to bring people to knock on the door. They themselves are not necessarily putting in the effort. They expect things to just happen. So I think that as a country, there is work to be done right now. We can use the current context either to say that we need to do things differently, or to continue as before and carry on talking about the challenges we’ve been discussing for another 10 years.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much. This discussion about the professional organizations was interesting. Having worked in a university for many years, I can tell you that we were talking about it 20 years ago and are still doing so. It’s a complex issue, but it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we’ll never reach our targets. The official languages reform document spoke about a francophone immigration corridor. I asked myself whether this corridor had been established after it was announced. I know that the ACUFC said last year that it would be involved in establishing the new francophone immigration corridor, which was designed to support the training and recruitment of francophone teachers and French-language teachers. I wonder if you’ve been consulting people on this matter and if there are other sectors — like the health sector we were discussing — that could provide additional training through this corridor arrangement.
Mr. Normand: Thank you, senator. This francophone immigration corridor for education was in fact included in the reform document. It appears that people were keen on a corridor in the health field as well. Since the announcement, nothing has happened. Steps have been taken and the corridor has been discussed, because it’s useful to be involved in initiatives that would make it possible to establish this corridor. Thus far, we haven’t been consulted about its implementation.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I spoke to you earlier about something like a corridor. There was an early childhood education recruitment fair at the Canadian embassy in Paris and at other missions in an attempt to recruit French-speaking teachers for francophone schools, as well as for immersion schools and language schools. The demand is there. I can tell you that if Canada was opened up tomorrow to certain francophone applicants, there would be no shortage of applications and profiles. Some 12,000 people signed up for the fair, from different countries within the Francophonie, and 4,000 were selected. We saw the requested profiles.
The problem is that once the employers have been put in contact with the applicants, there is the matter of credential recognition and processing the applications. If an employer wants to recruit someone with training in early childhood, delays are sure to occur. Some token steps were taken, but can we really speak about a corridor? It’s not enough to organize a job fair and make announcements about employers in Canada and the number of jobs available, or to recruit candidates and try to line them up for certain jobs; other challenges that will no doubt arise along the way will have to be dealt with to make sure that everything is ready and organized so that people can be brought in who are capable of working in our schools, our day care centres, and also in our immersion system, because there are lots of needs in immersion schools as well.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to talk about the various professions. In Canada, there is currently protectionism between the provinces. If we look at education, for example, and I’m not sure if it’s still like that today, but the skills required to teach in Quebec were different from those in Ontario. There was a constant battle between the two provinces to determine whether the teachers working in one province had the skills recognized in the other, and vice versa.
If this interprovincial framework for credential recognition exists, I can only imagine how difficult it is to recruit people internationally, because it must be much worse without any credential recognition system as such. It means that even if we were to recruit people from abroad, they would arrive here and come up against a wall of protectionism. I’d like to hear what you have to say not only about the immigration framework, but also about the complexity of what needs to be done in connection with this issue as it exists in colleges and universities.
Mr. Normand: There are indeed major mobility problems and difficulties with the professional bodies. This is something that the ACUFC has been studying for years. For example, there may be a lack of training in French in some specific fields in a given province. A student might decide to go to another province and end up unable to practise the profession in their province of origin, because the training in the province next door is not recognized by their own province. These are the kinds of major challenges our institutions have to deal with, and they are applicable to internships as well. It may be a challenge to arrange internships for students in a context like that. Most of the time, students will practise their trade where there are internships, and more specifically where they completed their final internship.
If they have to be mobile and practise their trade outside their province, it’s highly likely they will remain there and not return to their province. This causes a lot of problems for recruitment and for retaining skilled workers in the provinces and territories.
Added to that is the need to gain recognition for the credentials obtained abroad and the possibility that someone might have to take additional training once they arrive in Canada to work. That might be required in some instances. When it happens, if someone wants to settle in a particular province, they would be required to take additional training in another province only to come up against the same barrier yet again. The issues surrounding the professional bodies need to be part of the discussion in credential recognition. Our institutions have to be there when the discussions are held, because it would have an impact on the recruitment and retention of students, and on the delivery of training programs.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I acknowledge that this challenge exists. When people say they want to work internationally, we need to tell them about the realities that await them.
To address this, we had prepared a guide for people who wanted to work as teachers, but it had to be done by province and territory. Imagine someone who wants to immigrate to Canada and thinks: “Very well, if I want to go to such and such province, I need that, and I can go to another province.” That’s a real headache for anyone who doesn’t live in Canada and wants to immigrate here! They will ask themselves how things work in this country, with every province and territory having its own rules. They may not be sure about where precisely they want to go, and there might be three provinces of interest to them, but then there are three different aspects to be taken into consideration. I’ll stop on that note.
Senator Moncion: They are often unfamiliar with our country’s structure and are unaware of these barriers between provinces.
My next question is about targeted recruitment. I know that some businesses can — even in the field of medicine — go after specialists who are internationally recognized, bring them to Canada and sponsor them, and bypass all sorts of questions about their qualifications so that they can take on important positions here in Canada. This frequently happens in science. I’ll be careful about my wording because of what you were saying earlier as a rector. It’s even possible to seek out professors with specific skills to come to Canada, and as the employer, to sponsor some of these people.
You were talking about a number of caisses populaires, which are not necessarily particularly prestigious, but we know that employers can go themselves to recruit and sponsor people. Would this kind of system be attractive to employers, and how could it be promoted, whether to universities or from the economic development standpoint?
Ms. Abdi Aden: I can say that if it’s a big company or one that’s fairly well-off, it can be done. There are examples, and I know that some major firms go to certain countries to do their own recruitment, and that they can avoid some of the difficulties. However, in Canada, many of our employers are small- or medium-sized businesses. I can tell you that on the ground, some would prefer to shut down rather than go off on an international recruitment mission, because they find it so daunting. They tell themselves that they don’t have the means or the time, and they don’t want to go through everything that’s required.
So only companies with the means and resources required to do things like that can arrange it, and I think that nothing is impossible. Over the coming years, it won’t only be the different levels of government, but also employers and everyone else who will be required to step up to the plate and do something. If you’re in need, then there’s nothing luxurious about your circumstances and you shouldn’t ask for much. Either you close shop and stop, or you make an effort to meet your goals and the targets that you’ve set for yourself.
There might be certain situations in which a business is managed by just one person who might need assistance from one or two others. But in circumstances like that, people might not be willing to make all the effort required to recruit internationally, go through all the hoops, or even get around some of the barriers.
I can tell you that everything is possible when you’re in need, everything. It’s important to point that out, and I think a lot of awareness raising is required and a lot of promotion too. There are also no doubt examples of some companies that went through the exercise in order to show others that it’s possible. “It’s something that has to be done, and if necessary, you can do it too.”
Mr. Normand: You’re talking about targeted recruitment. Of course, our institutions recruit on a different level and aim at an international clientele, but I’d like to remind you of the rejection rate for study permits in the targeted recruitment process.
What we’ve learned from some of our institutions is that because of the effort required, they’ve stopped recruiting, particularly in certain African countries. They were spending all kinds of time and resources for nothing, knowing ahead of time that 100% of the study permit applications from certain countries would be refused. When you’re trying to develop a pool that might possibly promote francophone immigration to Canada, and when you know that the institutions are no longer recruiting from some of these pools, it should encourage the federal machinery to find ways of correcting this serious problem.
Senator Clement: There are so many things to say here. Nevertheless, Ms. Aden, I appreciate your comment about the need for desperate measures.
I would just like to comment about the professional bodies, as a follow-up to Senator Moncion’s questions. It’s true that it’s a closed shop, but I’m also wondering whether there might not be systemic racism within these professional bodies. I’m wondering who manages these organizations. Are they people who reflect actual experience? I’m asking that because I think we need to take things further than just saying that it’s complicated. There’s a problem somewhere and we need to have more conversations about it.
Ms. Abdi Aden, you talked about immigrant entrepreneurship. Can you tell us more about your thoughts on that? We discussed employers and small business employers, but you mentioned entrepreneurship more specifically.
Ms. Abdi Aden: Yes, absolutely. You shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket. Canada is a country where — Yes there is the traditional job market, but there are also many businesses in Canada. There are people who would like to set up their own business rather than work for someone else. And, economically speaking, Canada’s in a position where many of our businesses and the people who manage them are near retirement age. I always talk about entrepreneurship and my view is that we need to explain to immigrants that they wouldn’t necessarily have to work for someone else and that they could be their own boss. There are many opportunities available to them. They can start their own business. They can be told about business opportunities, and about some businesses in our region that need to be taken over, and asked if they might be interested in that.
Two years ago, we started organizing immigrant entrepreneurship competitions. Over three days of work, we describe to them the whole area of entrepreneurship so that they can move forward with their own business ideas. We’ve been trying to cultivate that and getting immigrants thinking about that area.
In 2019, before the pandemic, BDC published a report indicating that many immigrants preferred to go into business either because they previously had a business at home, or that they simply have an entrepreneurial bent.
I think it’s important to offer such possibilities to them and to help francophone immigrants show entrepreneurship by taking over some of these businesses. Many francophone small businesses will be closing their doors in a few years. So this could be suggested to them. Of course, there are many challenges involved in being entrepreneurial and we’re trying to find solutions. I believe that this is something we should be telling immigrants about before they even arrive in Canada and perhaps again once they’re here. They need to have these doors opened for them, because there are certainly many among them who would be prepared to move in that direction.
Senator Clement: Mr. Normand, you mentioned that some officers felt our francophone postsecondary institutions were not legitimate or at least looked upon less favourably. Have there been official complaints filed? What are we to do about this? It’s scandalous to hear things like that. There’s also the matter of applications from African countries being denied. Once again, have there been any complaints or actions taken about these applications? Both of these issues strike me as urgent. What are we to do?
Mr. Normand: One of our recommendations was for the Privy Council Office. We spoke briefly with the group of witnesses who represent the FCFA about the Chinook system, which has been prominent in the news in recent months. We get the impression that there’s been a change since the introduction of this system two or three years ago. In our institutions, problems with the high rejection rate for study permit applications has been on our radar for at least 15 years. Many government officials have been asked about this, starting with IRCC. Global Affairs Canada plays a role in international recruitment, and it oversees the ÉduCanada brand used to promote postsecondary institutions internationally. After 15 years of complaining to these authorities, we believe we have to look elsewhere, at higher levels, and to send a message to the top levels of the government apparatus to say that the problem needs to be solved quickly. That’s what our institutions are telling us. In terms of international efforts, the high study permit refusal rate for African students is the top priority.
There is not much information available to help understand the problem, because the institutions are not informed of the number of study permit applications being denied. The only way for them to find out if there’s a problem is when the person to whom they have offered admission does not register and doesn’t show up at the institution in September. That’s how they find out that a study permit has been denied, unless the student contacts the institution to try and understand the reasons for the refusal.
Senator Clement: Isn’t there a communications system for the process?
Mr. Normand: No. The institutions are not made aware of IRCC officer decisions. There is also not much access to data. We can get raw data, but it’s difficult. Our information comes from evidence that could be anecdotal. However, the evidence is adding up. It’s having an impact on the ground. Canada’s reputation as an international destination, and the reputation of our institutions is being harmed when students report to others that it’s difficult to go and study French outside Quebec.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
The Chair: I’m now going to ask a question that’s related to Senator Clement’s. It concerns support for immigrants, whether they are foreign students or economic immigrants. I often wonder about the scale and cultural issues involved in the process of integrating and providing support to foreign immigrants and students. I have noticed in some university settings that there is a form of ghettoization for immigrant populations or students who stick together and don’t really have serious, established and ongoing relations with the local population.
What factors do you think would contribute to better integration and support?
I come from the arts and culture sector. As I look at the francophone immigration policy that the federal government intends to introduce, I’ve been asking myself whether this sector in particular needs to be factored in, because it’s a cultural bridge in our support and retention strategies for foreign students and economic immigrants. Both of you should feel free to answer my question.
Mr. Normand: I will begin by saying that’s why we are asking for a whole of government francophone immigration policy. A francophone immigration policy should not be restricted to IRCC. Many stakeholders need to contribute to francophone immigration. For the institutions, the field of action ranges from recruitment abroad to providing support in completing permanent residence applications. Our institutions have improved the services they provide to international students. Having an international clientele in our smaller institutions located in rural or remote areas is a fairly recent phenomenon. There isn’t the long-standing tradition of welcoming international students that you see in major English-language institutions. Services are still developing. However, it’s important to establish better links with the communities. The FCFA alluded to this earlier. Because students are considered temporary residents, they are not entitled to some community services. By improving networking between the institutions, the support services provided to international students, and the communities, we would be able to facilitate their integration, and convince them to remain in Canada’s francophone communities after graduating.
Ms. Abdi Aden: I agree with everything Mr. Normand said. For immigration, it’s essential to have a cultural integration component. A diversified community should also be promoted. There is talk of an inclusive diverse community. It’s important to be able to encourage dialogue between those who come and live here and those who welcome them. I think that’s essential. We could even set an example for the whole country.
So yes, that’s important for francophone immigration.
The Chair: My second question is one which I should perhaps be asking Minister Fraser. On the question of applications, if I’ve understood properly, foreign students apply for permanent residence after completing their studies. That happens to be a reason for refusing a study permit. Unless they confirm that they plan to return to their own country, they risk not being granted a study permit. Is this because of bilateral agreements between our respective countries? In other words, we are hosting people from African countries so that they can come here and study. The countries from which they come want those students to return home with their newly acquired expertise. Do you think this is one of the factors that leads IRCC to refuse study permits?
Mr. Normand: Thank you for the question, senator. According to IRCC, the issue is one of dual intent. That’s what we hear from IRCC. What they want to prevent in certain instances is for potential students to apply to institutions and then, after a few months of attending these institutions, they use the fact that they are now in Canada to apply for permanent residence before completing their studies. That’s one of the issues they worry about. Of course, our institutions are aware of this, and have rigorous processes when the time comes to offer admission to international students. That’s why we worry, when our institutions and our association conduct international recruitment activities, about the fact that we are suggesting to them the possibility of remaining in Canada after graduation.
I give a series of webinars abroad that are organized by IRCC offices in Canadian embassies. At the end of my presentation, I explain that it’s possible to apply for a work permit after graduating and in some instances to apply for permanent residence. After that, IRCC explains the process involved to obtain permanent residence. In a context of recruitment activities at which both our institutions and IRCC are promoting the possibility of remaining in Canada, it’s only to be expected that some will complete their study permit application in a way that shows they hope to be able to remain in Canada and expect to be able to do so.
That’s where it becomes a problem of consistency and an international issue that goes beyond IRCC. We really need to do something about how the system is organized, along with our ideas of what the contribution of foreign students will be to the Canadian ecosystem.
Senator Moncion: Your question was headed in precisely the same direction that I was going. Colleges and universities, whether anglophone or francophone, do a lot of international recruitment because it helps them pay for their operations, and the better that works, the more institutions are funding themselves through people coming from abroad. What are you doing to help these people remain in Canada? In your recruitment processes, you say that you’re using this kind of sales pitch to get people to come and study in Canada. You also tell them that it might be possible for them to remain in Canada, but when they submit an application to come and study here under the Chinook program… When you look at the information and find that 80% of applications are refused as soon as the application is submitted, it’s clear that you nevertheless manage to get students to come here. You are able to make your institutions more cost-effective, so there is a missing link with respect to retention and finding ways of keeping them here afterwards.
Mr. Normand: Thank you, senator. I’d say that many of our institutions provide support services for the students who are completing an application, starting with a work permit after graduating, and perhaps eventually a permanent residence application. Some of this work is being done outside of our institutions. In fact, once students have graduated, they are no longer the responsibility of our institutions, and we don’t always have up-to-date data. However, what our study has shown, as I was saying at the beginning, is that more than 60% of the students who remained in Canada after graduating said that the main reason for their decision to remain in Canada was the services they received from our institutions.
That’s why our institutions need to be strong and agile, and have the required capacity to provide the services that the international clientele expects to receive if they are to stay here. If our institutions can't do that, others with more resources and greater latitude will attract, retain and welcome foreign students. You said that in some instances, foreign clients provide funding for the institutions that are seeking independent revenue. When our francophone institutions are unable to compete at the same level with the anglophone institutions, the gap gets wider. Do we really want a postsecondary education system that relies on revenue from foreign clients to survive? The debate is much broader than the discussion we’re having today, but it’s one aspect that needs to be given consideration with respect to the revenue structure of our institutions. It may be unfair, from one standpoint, to make the survival of our institutions depend on a foreign clientele.
Senator Moncion: I fully agree with you. People know that there are francophone universities and colleges in Canada. In Ottawa recently, a rather large amount was granted to Cité collégiale so that it could continue to recruit abroad. These programs and initiatives were successful. Is there any link between these recruitment programs and IRCC that would make it possible to obtain information about Cité collégiale, about its graduates for example, so that IRCC could use this information to help people applying for permanent residence, or are these parallel processes without any links to one another?
Mr. Normand: I can’t tell you precisely whether there are any links of this kind between the institutions, but I can say that they operate in parallel. There’s no doubt about that. There are few links between the institutions and IRCC. There are some pilot projects, initiatives and communications, but as for the process of obtaining permanent residence… Not only that but once the students have graduated, they are no longer in our institutions and there are no natural links being established. That’s why it would be important to come up with more transparent processes in which there were exchanges of data by both sides, so that the institutions could be better informed about the reasons for refusals and also adjust their message or even their training so that, at the end of the line, the graduating students would have everything they need to obtain permanent residence.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I have a final question for Ms. Abdi Aden, since we have a few minutes left. You have a platform called Connexion internationale de Montréal that provides a guide. You also make the rounds of the embassies to help employers recruit people. I read somewhere that employers want direct access to applicant databases. Could you tell us how a francophone immigration policy… How could the federal government perhaps, through this policy, help you improve the initiatives you’ve introduced? Can you talk to us briefly about this initiative, about whether it has been successful, and tell us how a policy might help you improve the performance of your programs?
Ms. Abdi Aden: What I can say is that the policy could help things get done differently, as my colleagues at the FCFA were saying before me. At the moment, we are working in a system that was established in a specific way that required being inside the framework. But the framework is no longer meeting our needs. Things need to be done differently. You know, when you’re a minority, you need to be innovative, come up with new ideas and try different ways of doing things. We have a solid program that we often use on liaison tours. The FCFA organized tours up until 2019. We took over in 2020.
One of the programs we often use, called Mobilité francophone, provides an exemption from the labour market impact study. We have been trying to convince them that the process would be a lot faster, but because of the pandemic, it’s not as fast as it used to be. An immigration policy would also enable us to do things differently and come up with customized programs. We would like to do targeted recruitment tours in certain countries. Not all employers are able to travel. Not all of them are big companies.
There are also needs in the regions where there are small businesses. If we can do targeted recruitment in certain countries, with appropriate resources of course, on behalf of of employers… As I was saying earlier, it’s a continuum; if you introduce an activity, you have to be able to see it through. We can’t do recruitment internationally, find the right candidate, do the preselection and help these employees. Some are prepared to do on-site recruitment, but we need to make sure that once they have selected a candidate, the system will get that person into Canada relatively quickly. An immigration policy would allow us to do something else, to suggest other ways of doing things and to be able to come up with some very clear outcomes. That’s something we are doing now, but only with half measures, and we’re not always achieving successful outcomes.
The Chair: Good. Thank you very much. Your message is very clear, Ms. Abdi Aden. I’d like to thank you and Mr. Normand very much for your contributions and for the work you’re doing on the ground to ensure that Canada can become increasingly effective in terms of francophone immigration.
I’d like to thank the senators for their questions. That final intervention is where we will end this meeting. Thank you very much and I look forward to seeing you soon.
(The committee adjourned.)