THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 4, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:11 p.m. [ET] to study the government response to the committee’s report entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach; to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act; and to study matters relating to minority-language health services.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Thank you all for your cooperation.
I would now invite committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Moncion: Good evening. Lucie Moncion, Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: Good evening. Pierre J. Dalphond, Quebec.
Senator Aucoin: Good evening. Réjean Aucoin, Nova Scotia.
Senator Mégie: Good evening. Marie-Françoise Mégie, Quebec.
The Chair: Welcome, esteemed colleagues.
[English]
I wish to welcome the 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]
Tonight, we welcome the Hon. Marc Miller, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, to discuss the government response to the committee’s report entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach, as well as the impact of the study permit cap.
He is accompanied by officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Scott Harris, Associate Deputy Minister; Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Settlement, Integration and Francophone Affairs Sector; and Julie Spattz, Senior Director of the Strategic Initiatives Division, International Students Branch.
Good evening, and thank you for being with us. I would remind everyone that we’re celebrating National Francophone Immigration Week, the theme of which is “Our Heritage for Tomorrow”, and that this meeting is part of different events.
I would also remind you that we submitted our report on francophone immigration in March 2023, that the modernized Official Languages Act was adopted in June 2023 and that your government adopted the francophone immigration policy in January 2024.
It is with this in mind, minister, that we welcome you, and we look forward to hearing your opening remarks. We will then have questions for you about the study permit cap and the government’s response to the francophone immigration report. Good evening, and welcome.
The Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would add to what you said about earpieces that one rarely needs to use an earpiece if one is bilingual. Perhaps that can serve to motivate people who are learning either English or French, which will help our translators.
I’d also like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Thank you for inviting me to be with you during National Francophone Immigration Week, as you pointed out, Mr. Chair. This is important to our bilingual identity.
I would like to recognize the work of the committee — and its members, of course — in particular in highlighting the importance of francophone immigration, not only during this week, but all year long.
I would also like to point to your report from last year, in which you noted that increasing the immigration of French speakers to Canada’s francophone minority communities is necessary to halt the decline of the Canadian francophonie and ensure the vitality of the French language across Canada.
[English]
We agree that immigrants help grow Canada’s future and can help increase the francophone population outside of Quebec, and inside of Quebec as well, but the particular federal duty to ensure it occurs outside Quebec is important in my portfolio. My department has been working hard since that report was tabled and continues to make improvements here.
Here are a few examples of the impact that francophone immigrants have made. Raphaëlle Couratin immigrated from France to a small community in the mountains near Whitehorse where she became a champion of the French language in her community. Another example is Jacqueline Blay who was born in Algeria but moved to Manitoba and wrote a series of books on the history of French in Manitoba.
Examples like these validate the importance that the Government of Canada has placed on boosting francophone immigration outside of Quebec.
This is a priority for the government. It hasn’t always been that way.
[Translation]
Of course, the department’s francophone immigration policy is consistent with our modernized Official Languages Act, which aims to enhance the vitality and prosperity of francophone and Acadian minority communities in Canada. This policy paves the way to increasing their demographic weight in an immigration system that is fair, equitable and non-discriminatory.
Last year, Canada exceeded the target of French-speaking permanent immigrant admissions outside Quebec with more than 19,600 admissions, or 4.7% of permanent resident admissions. That’s substantial. We are building on this momentum with ambitious targets set out in our recently announced immigration plan.
Of the overall permanent resident admissions targets, going forward, in accordance with the announcement I made last week, my hope is that francophone immigration will represent 8.5% in 2025, 9.5% in 2026 and 10% in 2027.
I also want to point out that, this year, our target was 6%, which is actually about 50% higher than what I would say we barely managed to achieve last year, the year before the one that ended and the one that’s ending. That’s a considerable increase, but we’ll do even better. We’re actually above 6%. Barring a major setback, we’ll get past 6%, which I think is very important, but we have to do it properly. I would note that the 2024 express entry rounds are under way, and prospective candidates with strong French language proficiency are being invited to apply for permanent residence.
As you are well aware, minority francophone communities are critical to Canada’s long-term growth. That’s why I announced a new immigration pilot program to support francophone communities. We’ll be launching it in the coming weeks. This pilot program aims to increase the number of French-speaking newcomers who settle in minority francophone communities outside Quebec, thereby helping to increase their demographic weight.
This spring, my department launched the community application program, which ran from May 21 to July 16, 2024. Economic development organizations across Canada were invited to participate in this pilot.
These organizations submitted applications on behalf of their communities to demonstrate eligibility and show how immigration would strengthen their local economies. I will announce the selected participants and the launch of the pilot in the coming weeks.
We will continue to promote growth and vitality in rural and francophone minority communities because they are crucial to our national identity and the very survival of these communities.
Innovative initiatives, such as Welcoming Francophone Communities, which I recently announced will be expanded to 10 new communities in Nova Scotia for a total of 24 communities, make necessary services available to French-speaking newcomers to help them get established.
We will also continue to work closely with the provinces and territories, educational institutions and other key partners to address the ongoing challenges facing French-speaking international students.
[English]
In recognition of these challenges, we launched the Francophone Minority Communities Student Pilot to help welcome and retain French-speaking international students in francophone minority communities outside Quebec. Students and their families who come to Canada as part of that pilot will have access to settlement services and a pathway to permanent residence, which is a distinction from other international students who come here. We recognize the unique and valuable economic linguistic and cultural contributions that newcomers make to Canada, whether it is students who are temporary or permanent residents, as well as those individuals I mentioned in my introduction. IRCC’s future actions to support francophone communities outside Quebec will be guided by the new Policy on Francophone Immigration that I launched in Caraquet earlier this year. It includes promotion efforts, robust selection mechanisms for French-speaking skilled workers or bilingual immigrants, and settlement and integration services.
[Translation]
As you can see, we are working hard to show how important immigration and bilingualism are to Canada. I look forward to answering your questions about this. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I have some questions for you, minister.
Can you tell us what your francophone immigration targets — 6% for 2024, 7% for 2025 and 8% for 2026 — are based on? You’re also planning to increase them. Do these targets take into account the restorative nature of language rights, which is one of the objectives of the new modernized act, and do they take into account regional realities, including the uniqueness of New Brunswick?
Minister, do you agree that a target below 10% will result in maintaining the current demographic weight, but not help it recover? One of the objectives of the Official Languages Act is to restore francophone populations in minority communities. Can you provide more information about what informed those targets?
Mr. Miller: The question we should be asking ourselves is this: Is immigration the answer to absolutely everything? I would say it isn’t, but it is an indispensable tool for revitalizing francophone communities outside Quebec.
When I was appointed Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, I looked not only at the importance of restoring those communities and helping revitalize them through immigration, but also at what I believed was achievable.
The worst thing one can do in politics is stoke false hope and mislead people. I wanted to be ambitious and shake things up in my department, which certainly rose to the challenge. We set out to increase francophone immigration levels, as French is the fifth or sixth most commonly spoken language in the world. Previously, the work that needed to be done to ensure the volume of immigration to those communities and restore the demographic weight of francophones outside of Quebec wasn’t being done.
The decline has been going on for decades. We can’t fix things overnight by announcing unachievable targets. However, in my latest plan, which does have cuts across the board, I was able to keep that hugely important target for francophone communities and build up to 10% in two years. I’m happy with that 6% figure, but am I completely satisfied? Obviously not, and I won’t be until we have a steady volume and we’re doing it the right way.
The Chair: Thank you. It’s clear that the immigration ecosystem is complex and that you’ve made investments.
On September 9, Acadie Nouvelle published an article detailing the excessive administrative burden placed on francophone organizations by your department. The article mentions very high financial management standards and little funding for program administration. For example, the Fédération des associations de juristes d’expression française de common law, which ran the legal workshop program for newcomers, isn’t contemplating any future projects with your department unless there are major changes to how things work. This is a challenge we hear about constantly, the administrative burden on official language communities and the organizations in those communities that run certain programs for your department.
Yes, we can bring immigrants in, but communities need to be equipped to welcome them and help them integrate. What reassurances can you offer those communities and organizations about the future? Francophone organizations are currently disengaged on this matter.
Mr. Miller: Yes, and they might find the red tape to be a disincentive as well.
I discussed this in person with several organizations at the Université Sainte-Anne in Nova Scotia this summer. I agree with them; I don’t disagree with the article. For a small organization to do such a huge amount of paperwork to bring in two or three people doesn’t make sense. I told them I would work on it. We’re looking at how we can reduce the administrative burden on these small organizations, some of which perform other roles and duties. There’s less red tape in some other departments. I definitely got the message. I’ve instructed my team to work on this challenge.
Another challenge has to do with integrating newcomers into the social fabric of these communities, many of which are small. It’s very important to note that the provinces are responsible for supporting that integration in every respect. I’m not necessarily talking about administration of services, which is under my purview, but in an overall way.
If the volume goes up, that doesn’t mean funding will go up proportionally. We’ll have to be more efficient and cut some of the red tape from my department. I certainly understand that criticism.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m going to ask all senators and you, minister, to be as brief as possible because I believe we have lots of questions we really want to ask you.
Senator Moncion: Getting back to your answer to Senator Cormier’s question, you talked about how your team is tackling red tape. What does that actually look like for your team? We see the announcements you make, but we don’t see the work happening behind the scenes. Is there a plan or a structure of some kind giving shape to that work? I imagine there is, but we never see it.
Mr. Miller: You’re very lucky you don’t see it. It’s bureaucratic work that goes on behind the scenes. I wouldn’t be here without my department’s support. Sometimes, all it is is bureaucratic work; it’s not necessarily people on the ground. It’s my role and my political office’s role, as well as that of a quasi-independent public service, to make sure that things are operating properly and there’s a good recommendation.
A lot of work happens behind the scenes, especially when we ask them to double the volume from 3%, where it was a few years ago, to 6%. Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and we can’t compare small organizations to an organization with millions of dollars in funding in a major centre like Montreal or Toronto.
I’ve received proposals for administration and work plans.
Senator Moncion: The other part of that work plan is coordination between the federal government and the provinces. Have the provinces made commitments to work with your representatives to meet those targets? We often hear about lack of collaboration, especially when it comes to francophone immigration, and especially when the government is working with provinces that are more anglophone than francophone. Can you speak to collaboration?
Mr. Miller: In short, outcomes vary. Some of the provinces want to do it. It depends on the political leanings of the province in question. I would say that I have more hope when it comes to New Brunswick than I did two weeks ago. It may be highly politicized, but what’s clear to me is that, in small communities where the number of people coming from other countries is growing, maybe significantly for the first time, those people need homes, francophone schools and services in French if they’re unilingual. However, not everyone can live their life only in French in those communities. I would say that the work is only partly done, especially in the way we collaborate with the provinces, and that it often depends on the province in question. That applies to Ontario as much as it does to Nova Scotia, but there are other provinces, such as Manitoba and even British Columbia, that didn’t even have a plan for French as recently as a year ago.
It depends on the willingness of provincial institutions. Unfortunately, when it comes to integrating newcomers, much of the actual responsibility lies with the provinces themselves for things like education, health, housing and employment. There’s no better tool for integration than having a job that suits one’s aspirations, so there’s a lot of work to do. That work needs to be done better, especially given the ambitious new targets announced last week.
Senator Moncion: My other question is about educational institutions that were degree mills, especially ones in Ontario. How are you working with Ontario to address that thorny little problem?
Mr. Miller: For international students in general, not necessarily those who speak French — the federal government does have to help francophone institutions in Ontario — I would say that Ontario is lagging behind, except for some public statements of principle. In the two provinces that have the most international students per capita, Ontario and British Columbia, I have seen and am seeing more efforts on their part.
To be honest, I don’t think Ontario is stepping up. It wasn’t really expecting anyone to do anything. The federal government had to step in and take action. The problem is that education is almost entirely a provincial responsibility, and the provinces are very vocal about asserting control.
We could certainly pick apart, analyze and even criticize all my announcements about international students, but my hope, ultimately, is to ensure that provincial governments have space to act within their jurisdiction. Things haven’t necessarily been done the way we would have liked. We had to take action, and we’ll have to take further action if those provinces don’t play their part, especially big provinces like Ontario and British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister.
Senator Mégie: Thank you for being with us today, minister. I was looking at the government response to our Official Languages Committee’s report, Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach.
In that response, you recognize the importance of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but you also say you’ll strengthen coordination with many federal institutions, including Canadian Heritage; Employment and Social Development Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; and Infrastructure Canada, to name just a few. However, you don’t specify what each of those departments will be responsible for.
Aren’t you worried that not specifying their roles will lead to some confusion? The more people involved in this, the less likely the work is to be done properly. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Miller: That’s always a risk with bureaucracies that operate in silos. People could criticize that about pretty much any ambitious government strategy. I feel that the francophone strategy, which has a budget of several billion dollars over the next few years, is very well thought out. I myself am very clear about the role I need to play. I need to address not only the volume of immigration, which I think is essentially the top priority given how little francophone immigration we have, but also the type of immigration and the importance of aligning these programs with local needs. For example, if a community needs early childhood educators, doctors, students and skilled workers, we have to make sure we have the volume, but we also need to consider the role and the specific envelope, if necessary, for a particular kind of targeted immigration.
Obviously, whether it’s Canadian Heritage or other institutions responsible for promoting the francophonie, each department decides on its own specific objectives. With respect to what I see as my responsibility, I’m very clear about what I have to do, and I plan to do it, primarily by addressing volume, but also by ensuring that we have that very important foundation for successful immigration and integration, which is not limited solely to a conversation within the immigration department.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I have a question about the study permit cap. When you say you’re increasing targets, as you said in your responses to Senator Cormier, doesn’t the study permit cap kind of contradict this new francophone immigration policy? Caps are being reduced, but targets are being increased. The economist Richard Saillant said that, theoretically, this amounts to increasing a portion of a shrinking pie. When I read that, it made perfect sense to me. Isn’t there a contradiction here?
Mr. Miller: When I announced changes to the international student visa program, we had quality issues. We had a huge number of students coming into the country who weren’t prepared. I would say they were fraudulently recruited, and the number of them was skyrocketing. The federal government absolutely had to take action. I would say that, over the years, many educational institutions have tried to earn a little money without considering the long-term repercussions, without a plan for what these young students can do after they get their degree, which could involve supporting them as they pursue their lives in a new country. That’s why we had to reorient the focus from quantity to quality throughout the system.
At the same time, it’s my responsibility to make sure that French-language institutions outside Quebec are destinations of choice for international students while encouraging those institutions to change how they recruit and ensuring that the students they bring in get the support they need. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing in some institutions, even francophone ones, is that vulnerable students seek asylum in Canada. That wasn’t the point of granting visas; the point was to nurture excellence. Things can change in the students’ countries of origin, but that’s rare. These are people who don’t intend to become permanent residents or Canadian citizens or who claim asylum during their first year of studies. I never asked any of these institutions, be they francophone, anglophone or otherwise, to charge international students four times more than my own kids would pay. It’s the provinces that decided to endorse these institutions’ choices. I would say there’s been a blatant lack of responsibility in some ways. The federal government had a duty to act.
As to francophone students in francophone institutions, I’m sure you’ve seen the pilot project I announced. I see this as a special stream because these people have already begun to integrate into Canadian society, and it gives them privileged access to permanent residence. However, that can’t happen at just any price, nor can it happen by sanctioning the behaviour of universities and institutions that recruit abroad without necessarily ensuring the people they recruit can pay the exorbitant cost of attending certain institutions and then integrate, especially into small communities that are very new to them. I’ve heard many stories of people who commuted from northern New Brunswick to Montreal to work on weekends. Those aren’t optimal working conditions in a country like Canada.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, minister.
The Chair: I’ll give the floor to Senator Aucoin, minister, but I must say that, while I understand the political context in which these decisions have to be made, what surprises me about the decisions is that their impact on post-secondary institutions in minority communities wasn’t calculated ahead of time. In the post-secondary institutions I visit, I’m not seeing the situation you’re describing. I don’t see that problematic situation. I’ll let you think about that, and then I’ll give my colleague the floor. Here’s my question for you. Your department and your government don’t seem to be measuring the negative impact of their decisions on official language minority communities even though this is a priority in the modernized act. I’m sure you can see that’s hard to understand. People get the sense that the modernized act, which Canadians and your government spent a long time working on, matters less when it’s time to make this kind of decision.
Mr. Miller: Speaking generally — and you will see that my answer is a bit rough — the modernization of the Official Languages Act did not necessarily give every francophone institution a blank cheque to go out and recruit just anyone, by any means and floodgates wide, simply because they claimed to care about the French fact. I take them at their word; I believe in their good faith; but we have to admit that in the numbers and with the business models that some institutions were planning, we had to do something and limit the number in order to focus on quality. I am reaching out to those institutions so we can live up to our responsibility to do right by these young adults in communities that are new to them, even supporting them as permanent residents later. This is a responsibility that lies not only with the institutions, but also with both levels of government.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you for coming this evening, minister.
I am going to continue in the same vein. The decisions you initially made definitely made universities in francophone communities take a breath, take another look at themselves, and see how this was going to affect them. Ultimately, the result of the past year is that there had not necessarily been as much damage and it had not affected them as they feared.
I have a question about students at the master’s, doctorate or post-doctorate level. When you cut the number of foreign students, you told us that even people at the master’s, doctorate or post-doctorate level are people who might have already integrated into society, who are very educated and could have entered the labour market. Do you think that even at that level, universities in francophone communities were not doing their homework and were recruiting people who were not qualified to study at this level and integrate into the communities?
Mr. Miller: I would say not, Senator Aucoin. Regarding the inclusion of master’s or doctoral students in the cap that was announced, the number of places was adjusted while at the same time the caps were reduced by 10% Canada-wide. Based on the evidence to date, people are having trouble reaching the caps assigned to them pro rata, by province, that were then redistributed by the provinces. What I am trying to do at the federal level is to make sure the flow of visas is allocated to the provinces proportionally. That is an important question, which is part of the accountability exercise I am trying to engage in with the provinces.
Based on a review of the situation, it was self-evident that people working on a master’s or doctorate had to be included in the cap I announced, while at the same time adjusting it for the number of people who are studying at the master’s or doctorate level right now. A particular concern of mine relates to certain provinces that wanted to recalibrate their situation in order to be exempted from the cap, by creating all sorts of new programs that are called master’s programs but really are not.
Senator Aucoin: The chair referred to the red tape the department was imposing on some organizations in small communities. Chéticamp, my community, in Nova Scotia, was designated as a welcoming community. I spoke with the director of the Société Saint-Pierre a few weeks ago. They have no idea what this means. About two weeks ago, they had not received any communication, any money, or any directives explaining what that meant for them. I presume that other communities in Nova Scotia and elsewhere have been designated. What can you tell us about this and other programs?
Mr. Miller: Senator, I am prepared to follow up on this. I made the announcement in Chéticamp itself to include them. Funding is an issue. It isn’t huge amounts of money, but when a community is designated as a welcoming community, there are funds, there is work, and there is more collaboration with our department that come with it. I am absolutely prepared to follow up for this community, because this is quite simply good news. This is a program that has proved its worth. There will then be immigration to Chéticamp. The community will have to be prepared, and we stand ready to do the work. I am absolutely prepared to follow up personally. This is a community I care about, because I visited it several times in my childhood. I am quite familiar with that part of the world.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senator. We do have to congratulate you, minister, on the success of the welcoming communities and on your having added more. This is a very positive result from the decisions you recently made.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the committee, minister. In somewhat the same vein as the previous questions, I would first like to congratulate you on increasing the targets for francophone immigration outside Quebec. I was looking at the census statistics: The demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec has fallen from 6.1% to 3.1% in close to 50 years. Proportionately, we have half as many francophones in the provinces outside Quebec as there were before. So having 10% of new Canadians or permanent residents be francophones will bring us above the proportion in the province. That is a good thing and will help in recovering the past.
However, this can only work if we have not only welcoming communities, but also provincial governments that have adequately funded health care and education systems. We must also have people who not only are happy to be in the community, but also find opportunities for the future that will mean they decide to stay in the community.
In the discussions you have had with the provincial ministers and governments, do you think people understand these challenges? Are the provinces prepared to do what is needed, or do they think this is a federal government detail that does not concern them?
Mr. Miller: Thank you, Senator Dalphond. I think it depends on the province. In the best provinces, not only is there an understanding, but there is also the consequent funding. Between the two, there’s a serious lack of knowledge, or an “I don’t care” attitude. Some provinces understand, but don’t necessarily allocate funds.
This is of considerable concern to me, given what I shared with you a little earlier regarding the need to ensure there is proper integration. Otherwise, the magnetic pull of the big cities is at work; people may feel lost in the communities and they will then head for Montreal or Toronto. It takes only a generation for them to be assimilated, although I have seen a neighbourhood in Toronto where the second language is French. That was really a nice thing to see.
However, my point in all that, even though we have fallen from 6% to 3%, is that these people are concentrated in certain parts of the country, be it in the Acadian peninsula or in French Ontario, which means that French is much less present in the rest of Canada. We have to make additional efforts in areas within the provinces’ actual jurisdiction: education, health care and housing. It does not take much time for someone who voluntarily settles in one part of the country, in a small bit of Saskatchewan for example, who believes that they will be able to live their lifetime in French, to quickly realize they will have to move to a big city or, in extreme cases, to another province. The provinces and the ministers responsible have to be involved. I am not necessarily seeing that in all provinces.
It is happening, but obviously it depends on how finely tuned the policy of the province in question is. But it has to be done at the initiative of the ministers and the premiers themselves, and I am not always seeing that initiative, particularly if we want this to succeed. The federal government has to admit that it can’t do everything. If there is a criticism to be directed at us as a government, it is that we have tried to do everything ourselves, with sometimes mixed results. That is the case here. The provinces have to take responsibility for themselves, live up to their responsibilities, and do their fair share to ensure that Canada continues to be a bilingual country.
Senator Dalphond: Do you feel there has been progress in that regard? That the number of provinces that understand Canada’s linguistic duality and the challenges it represents is growing, or are they saying oh well, things are going to…. They are at three now, one day it will be zero.
When I say three, I mean from 6% to 3%.
Mr. Miller: There are federal parties that treat francophones outside Quebec like a disappearing species, and this is depressing, not to say insulting. I would say that across Canada there is still a hill to be climbed, particularly with the massive increase in the heavily anglophone population — I’m not saying in recent years, but in recent decades. That is why I have been so ambitious in setting my targets: to make sure that this response is automatic in my department so that another minister can run with the ball someday. I am not planning to leave office; I want to stay here for as long as Canadians want.
We talk about the internal mechanics of the department, and the automatic responses that need to be developed, because we have to admit that we have not always responded that way within our department. As the senator told you, this is not limited solely to the minister of immigration, and there are efforts to be made in all departments. We have invested a lot of money in this initiative, but at the same time, we are swimming against the current, we are reversing the trend, and I think we can get there. But I don’t want to mislead people by saying this is a foregone conclusion.
The Chair: Regarding dialogue with the provincial immigration ministers, do you know what the agenda is at the next Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration? Will francophone immigration in minority communities be discussed?
Can you tell us at the same time, before I yield the floor to Senator Moncion, whether there is a coordination mechanism between that forum and the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie? What can you tell us about that forum, in terms of coordination and dialogue?
Mr. Miller: I would say yes, but it is really quite limited. As I told Senator Dalphond, there is always a glimmer of hope. I recently had a chance to speak with the premier of Manitoba, who cares about francophone immigration; we talked about refugee claimants, precisely because we have to make sure there are more francophones in Manitoba, which has encountered these challenges in the past.
As I said earlier, I have a lot more hope in New Brunswick than I had two weeks ago. Obviously, there have been a few public run-ins with my counterpart in Nova Scotia. They are in the middle of an election there, so it is difficult, but coordination is happening and we are still looking at it in the context of our action plan.
I also share a coordination role with Randy Boissonnault, with whom you will be speaking shortly, I believe.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
We don’t have much time left, but I am going to give Senator Moncion the floor, to be followed by Senator Aucoin. I would ask that you keep your questions and answers brief.
Senator Moncion: I would like to come back to something you said earlier. You talked about the modernization of the Official Languages Act that did not allow institutions to do anything they wanted. We agree with you.
Francophone educational institutions all over Canada are experiencing chronic underfunding at the moment. We know that the federal government is doing its share when it comes to granting funds, but the provinces are not meeting these needs or are not honouring their portion of the commitments. There is also the issue of financial equilibrium for these institutions that are working to increase the qualified student population for Canada’s workforce needs. This is a young workforce; we need a young francophone workforce, because we have an aging population. We know that at some point, the number of employed workers is going to decline and the costs associated with an aging population will continue to rise.
When it comes to investments in Canada’s colleges and universities, these universities therefore have a double or triple mandate, to train francophone immigrants who come to Canada and will be staying here. As I said, this is a young population.
I want to come back to the initial question regarding the provinces’ commitment to improving matters, particularly on the francophone side, because we know that in Ontario, that commitment is not strong. I already have information about the universities: in medicine, for example, the number of places for francophones will be falling, and it will be even worse for francophones coming from other provinces.
I would just like you to reassure me in this regard, at least. I don’t think you are going to be able to do it.
Mr. Miller: I can’t assure you that Ontario will finally do what it has been asked for a very long time to do, particularly following on the defunding of several francophone institutions in the last few years and the adjustment that some colleges and universities have had to make to attract high-priced international students. However, I am prepared to do my job with those institutions, because I believe the federal government has a role to play and a duty to francophone institutions outside Quebec that it does not necessarily have to anglophone institutions. Francophone institutions are very small and fragile and have a student pool they have to care for more than others.
I am totally prepared to take on that role. For example, there is the pilot project that was announced this summer in Nova Scotia so the institutions are able to properly support the people who will be coming here, maybe even until they receive permanent residence after graduation. This is an attraction for students who, if they were anglophones, would not necessarily have that guarantee. However, it has to be done the right way and not necessarily just by increasing the numbers without making sure these people are able to cover the cost of their time in Canada, which really is quite a lot. Obviously, they have to be given a good education, because we want these people to stay in these communities, which are often quite small. The universities and institutions should also have hope, but, as you pointed out, this is not the responsibility solely of the federal government.
There is a historical tale behind the underfunding of post-secondary institutions in Canada, which says, on the international scene, and I also believe it, that it is one of the best destinations for international students. However, there has been critical underfunding and we have got to address it. It amounts to under-investment in our future in general, not necessarily just in terms of Canada’s intellectual capital, but also for the economic future of our country.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: My question has been answered, but I place remain hopeful for you, minister. Thank you for being here this evening.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. That concludes our discussion. I also want to thank you and the officials here with you for the work that has been done. I have to say, very optimistically, on the one hand, but frankly with a lot of challenges in mind, that you are in charge of a very complex department, one that seems, and I do say “seems”, to be dysfunctional in many regards. It makes me sad to say that, since I know that in your department you have people who do excellent work, but today we get a lot of feedback like this — not to bring everybody down, but to say there is still a lot of work to be done. We thank you and your officials for the work you are doing. We are going to suspend the meeting, it being time to welcome your colleague, Mr. Boissonnault, with whom we hope you will continue to work. Thank you, minister.
Mr. Miller: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are resuming the meeting to continue our study on minority-language health services under the theme of health professionals and the recognition of foreign credentials. We have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Randy Boissonnault, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages. He is accompanied by officials from Employment and Social Development Canada: Paul Thompson, Deputy Minister, and Jacinthe Arsenault, Director General of the Apprenticeship and Sectoral Initiatives Directorate.
Welcome and thank you for joining us this evening. We will start with your opening remarks, followed by questions from senators. The floor is yours.
Hon. Randy Boissonnault, P.C., M.P., Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages: Thank you, honourable senators. I am very happy to be with you this evening. I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. Thank you for inviting me here today to talk about foreign credential recognition for health care professionals.
We have an amazing pool of incredible talent here in Canada, and it’s our responsibility to create the conditions necessary so that skilled newcomers, who have the required training and experience, can contribute to the economy. The Foreign Credential Recognition Program enables the government to collaborate with the provinces, territories, and regulatory bodies. Through the program, the government of Canada helps develop and strengthen the assessment process and improve the labour market integration of skilled newcomers.
It’s a complex system in which the provinces and territories regulate occupations, while the federal government funds key initiatives to accelerate these processes. It must be acknowledged that the professional colleges and associations in every province and territory wield considerable power. Working with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Health Canada, we’ve already reduced multiple barriers for internationally educated professionals.
I have raised foreign credential recognition at the Forum of Labour Market Ministers. My FLMM counterparts and I discussed key labour market issues unique to our jurisdictions and shared solutions for critical sectors like health care and supporting official language minority communities.
I would like to share a few figures with you. Since 2015, we have invested more than $270 million in 115 projects across the country to support skilled newcomers through the Foreign Credential Recognition Program. This amounts to nearly $114 million in 36 projects in the health sector since 2020.
Budget 2024 provided an additional $50 million over two years starting in 2024-25 for the program, with a focus on residential construction and health care. This is in addition to the $115 million over five years announced in Budget 2022.
In short, we are transforming the system. The National Nursing Assessment Service’s Expedited Service — made possible with support by the Foreign Credential Recognition Program — has reduced assessment times for internationally educated nurses from 12 months to six weeks. If you can imagine, this was done while also reducing fees by 40%.
Between 2018 and 2022, we issued almost $17 million in loans to nearly 1,900 newcomers — two thirds of whom work in health care. While these results continue to increase over time as borrowers continue to repay these loans, about half have completed their credential recognition process, and almost 60% are working in their field of expertise. New loan agreements were put in place last year and we are continuing to issue new loans of up to $30,000 across the country.
[English]
Despite this progress, delays in the credential recognition process continue to make it difficult for qualified professionals to enter our labour market, threatening to drive this talent to other countries.
[Translation]
Some provinces are taking promising steps, such as Alberta, which has made significant progress on recognizing foreign-earned qualifications, particularly in nursing. Saskatchewan has launched an accelerated pathway for internationally educated nurses. Atlantic Canada has also launched a number of initiatives to attract health care professionals.
[English]
But we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. It is a message I heard loud and clear at the Workforce Summit. The mechanisms are in place, but more needs to be done.
[Translation]
The program we are talking about this evening also plays a critical role in improving access to bilingual health services.
For example, Société Économique de l’Ontario received $2.5 million from 2021-24 to provide mentoring and support to internationally trained francophone professionals in various sectors, including health, engineering, and social services, to build capacity within official language minority communities. I will have more examples to share with you in reply to your questions, but please know that we are working on it and we are looking for partners at the provincial and territorial level in order to get this work done on the ground.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Among the potential solutions for facilitating recognition of foreign credentials and the intake of workers, the government cited the corridor provided for teachers. Do you intend to create that kind of corridor for health professionals to expedite their arrival? It seems that the corridor for teachers has had a degree of success.
Mr. Boissonnault: I think the figure is $16 million that has been invested in the action plan on a corridor for teachers. This is a project on which we have worked closely with the minister, Mr. Miller.
I am here to tell it like it is, colleagues. It is very difficult right now to find people who are trained in education and speak French. Not enough teachers are being produced in France or Quebec. Canada is searching around the world for trained people to fill these gaps. This is an enormous and very impressive challenge.
We are looking into solutions that we have used with the other professions, particularly in health, where we choose a bilingual country or one that is predominantly francophone and we train people on site. Half of the cohort remains in the country in question and the other half will come here to Canada. The goal is not to gobble up all the talent in the country in question, but we can renew our efforts, because we have a certain presence trained abroad.
I am pleased that we are achieving our targets for the $16 million program, but that does not meet the crying needs that exist all the way to British Columbia. I believe there is a shortage of 10,000 teachers. The need is enormous here in Ontario, and at the last meeting of the Ministers’ Council on the Canadian Francophonie, I committed, with the Minister of Francophone Affairs, Caroline Mulroney, to find a way to address this issue. We will be writing directly to the Council of Ministers of Education to determine what our options are, from coast to coast, for getting French as a second language, immersion and French teachers, because the French fact in Canada among children requires this.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties] in light of what you are telling us about the corridor for teachers, with the challenges that this involves, it may not be a solution. Do you think there may be a possible solution in the creation of a corridor that would facilitate the entry of health professionals into Canada?
Mr. Boissonnault: That is a very good question. I think the results of the teachers program would have to be improved, if I can be very clear. There is a great need for health care workers all over Canada.
I will give you an example that I’ll be reiterating a few times this evening: We need the provinces to do some work and to help, period. As the federal minister, I am responsible for recognition of foreign credentials, but the powers all lie with the provinces, the professions, and the professional colleges on the ground.
I recently saw that Réseau santé Alberta has signed an important agreement, through the Government of Alberta, and we have put matching funds on the table. That is the most significant expansion of the health care system in French in Alberta in my life. It includes recognition of health professionals in French.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Moncion: Welcome, minister. I am going to continue in the same vein as Senator Cormier. You spoke about education. Places in universities are limited. We know there is a problem in education, and we have long known that we are going to have a teacher shortage in Ontario. I imagine things are the same in the other provinces.
We had that information in 2010; we knew what was coming for the future. We made the university programs longer. In Ontario, instead of having one practice year, it is now two. That was where limiting student numbers started, because the programs became much too long. The same is true for medicine. We have a shortage of doctors and health care personnel and there are all sorts of barriers.
In Ontario, at the University of Ottawa, I believe there are 300 places set aside for medicine; we need 8,000 doctors. We know we need that number, and there are 300 places a year. We are producing about 300 doctors a year. It will take 100 years to reach our goals. We understand that there is a financial oversight issue in all this. How can the federal government work with the provinces to improve this component, particularly when it comes to francophones?
Mr. Boissonnault: In the 1990s, I sat on the University of Alberta’s board of governors, and as a militant young student activist, I attended the meeting when the board of governors and the province decided to manage the number of doctors for ten years by setting an absolute number. They decided the number, they set it in concrete, and they were proud of what they had done, because their aim was to keep the health care system working for the next ten years. Not much has changed in Alberta since then, with a population that has doubled.
You referred to the financial oversight, which is bizarre.
So if we really want to have a system that delivers the goods and provides the health care and services Canadians deserve, we have to stop laying traps like inviting a private health care system in, and we have to fund more places for doctors in the universities.
I would now like to talk to you about what has been done in Manitoba. We have a very good agreement with Manitoba, which wanted to train or recognize the credentials of 150 doctors around the world. Of that number, 10% to 15% were francophone doctors. That is much higher than the percentage of our population, but they have to catch up, with all the problems they have had. So if I could get other provinces that are not going to just report the number of foreign doctors they plan to recognize, but will also have a significant percentage of francophones…. I say that’s great. Bravo, Manitoba!
In the case of Ontario, the number of years it takes to recognize credentials absolutely has to be reduced. There has to be more places. This is a recent change. Less than a month ago, I spoke to the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario about this issue, cutting it from two years to one. I am going to give you an example, this being something I am passionate about. Did you know that half or our dentists here in Canada were born or trained overseas? That currently amounts to 50% of our dentists. It took them up to two years to have their credentials recognized. Thanks to the money provided to the Association of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry, the time has been reduced to one year.
I spoke to three young dentists: one from Nigeria, one from India and one from Mexico. I asked them what was different. They told me that the training is not different, but the protocols and rules with patients in Canada are different. This is what it took them a year to learn. If it had been longer, it would certainly have amounted to relearning what they had already learned in their own countries. They thought one year was perfect. Now, we can have dentists born and trained overseas on the ground faster. That is what I want to see from coast to coast.
Senator Moncion: I am encouraged when I listen to you. However, that seems to be agreements you make with each service, each province and each university. Or are these programs that could be deployed across Canada and would become the norm?
Mr. Boissonnault: I would say yes, there are opportunities to have ad hoc agreements. When the very generous Mr. Thompson trained me, when I became the minister responsible for this issue, he told me: “Good news, minister, you are responsible for recognition of credentials.” I said: “Excellent, Paul, what can I do?” He said: “Absolutely nothing, but you have money and you have a megaphone.” So I use money and a megaphone to nudge people to do something on the ground.
For example, we have granted $83 million over several years to 13 organizations across Canada. Those organizations have helped 6,600 people who were trained overseas to get jobs in the health care system. We also take a systemic approach: We provide funding to the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne via the action plan. We have paid out $200 billion to the provincial and territorial health care systems, and it is up to them to open up these spaces to train people and recognize credentials. Each province has to make it clear to the organizations that manage and protect these positions that they have to open their doors.
Senator Mégie: I am learning some very interesting and encouraging things. When I hear that you have targeted bilingual or francophone countries where we provide training, countries that are responsible for training nurses, where we go for a portion of our health care personnel without creating a brain drain in the other countries, I think that is very positive. In the case of doctors, it is more complicated.
I like the Manitoba example. How could you, using those millions of dollars and your own voice, get the other provinces to do the same thing? You will have to deal with the professional colleges and the various federations of physicians. But if Manitoba has succeeded, can we follow its example? I don’t know how they did it; you may know and you could tell us. Is it possible to achieve the same thing in the other provinces?
Mr. Boissonnault: I’m going to speak in code and say that elections make a difference. We’ve seen different governments with varying degrees of appetite for change when it comes to skills and foreign credential recognition.
One government that really surprised me was Saskatchewan. One issue is that some provinces are looking for talent because they want to build their province. Under Saskatchewan’s regulations and legislation, for every person who comes to that province, the ministry responsible for the workforce has 20 days to determine how their skills will be recognized in Saskatchewan. If they are not recognized, the ministry must determine what to do to ensure that they are.
Under the law, when someone comes from another country, there must be a response within 60 days. There must be a clear path for the person to be trained locally, to be recognized in Saskatchewan. How was the minister able to do this? He went to the professional orders and associations and told them that they had to work with him, or he would pass legislation to authorize the province to regulate the professions. The orders and associations didn’t want that to happen, so they reached an agreement with the ministry. It’s the only jurisdiction that has gone that far.
In Alberta, for example, they wanted to determine how many nurses were willing to work in that system, so they came up with a list of 13 countries and asked nurses to apply. They were hoping for 200 to 300 nurses, but ended up with 1,400 applications. Half of them were able to work immediately, and the other half were able to access the system in less than a year. There are ways. It’s a question of political will.
I’m here to finance groups on the front lines so they can break down barriers. You’re all out there in the community, in your provinces and territories. It would be great if you could help me raise awareness of this program among organizations on the front lines. If I ever get more money in a future budget, I’ll be able to do more.
Senator Mégie: We’ve been speaking with some of our colleagues in the Senate with a medical background, and we came up with the idea of a national assessment plan. Do you think there would be any interest in that? The assessment would be national rather than provincial. It would be a big deal, but from your connections and discussions with the provinces, what do you think? Would that be feasible, or is it unrealistic?
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a great question. I couldn’t speculate on a national system for recognizing doctors’ credentials without creating a constitutional crisis, so let’s stay away from that issue for now.
That said, we sent a clear message to the provinces and territories in the 2022 or 2023 budget, specifically that they need to recognize foreign credentials in health care, or we’ll have to establish a national recognition system. We weren’t able to do so because there were changes on the ground. It meant having a lot of very difficult conversations.
In any case, I haven’t seen any interest on the ground thus far. We don’t need a national system. We can work with the three or four provinces that want to do it. We can start with those provinces that want some degree of standardization. I haven’t seen that yet, but now would be a good time to turn to Mr. Thompson, if I may, who works closely with the Deputy Minister of Health, because Social Development Canada plays a very important role. The entire Health Canada network is also very important.
Mr. Thompson, do you have anything to add on this?
Paul Thompson, Deputy Minister, Employment and Social Development Canada: Yes, I can add a few points. Labour ministries across the country do have networks. Health Canada and its counterparts across the country also have a network. It’s about more than just subsidizing projects. It’s also a question of sharing best practices to simplify results and to share what works. It’s true that models do exist in other fields. There is the red seal program for trades, for example, which is an agreement amongst the provinces that speeds up the recognition of credentials. As another example, agreements are reached amongst the Atlantic provinces from time to time, and we could build on this foundation to broaden the recognition process. Models do exist in this area that could be emulated for professions in the health care sector.
The Chair: Thank you. I have some supplementary questions, but I’m going to turn it over to Senator Aucoin instead. I’d also like to welcome Senator Youance.
Senator Aucoin: What’s happening abroad is great. It seems that your efforts are yielding results for people in health care. However, we heard in committee that francophone nurses have to take an American exam, and these exams are administered by the professional orders in each province. This has caused a lot of difficulties, and there is still no Canadian exam to this day. What can your department do in that regard, or what are you already doing? Can you share any examples of any health professions facing provincial barriers or examples of professional orders that are managing entry into the profession?
Mr. Boissonnault: You may not like my answer. The work is slow and cumbersome. It’s done by each profession separately, in each province and territory, because there is a real struggle between them to keep talent at home. They’re afraid of having shared standards, because that would encourage the mobility of health professionals. Professional orders and associations tend to want to keep their members in their province, to protect jobs and to ensure that too many people don’t access the system to keep wages at a certain level. These are basic issues. As for a national exam, it would be really tough to do, because the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over either the recognition of credentials or health care in the provinces and territories. That said, as the Deputy Minister mentioned, the red seal program is a very important tool that can be used as a model to encourage people to participate in a national labour market, which is important.
Senator Aucoin: Do I understand correctly that you have a megaphone and you have some money? So I assume you want to continue in the same vein to effect change. Here is my second question. I’m a little confused because I’m not sure what you can do about it. In my community of Chéticamp, people used to get quite upset when a unilingual anglophone was hired at the caisse populaire or the co-operative, for example. These days, we have many foreign workers, none of whom speak French, but people can no longer be upset about that, especially when it comes to health care or in care homes. Can your department hold talks with the provinces to solve this problem in francophone communities outside Quebec and in minority language communities, or could we welcome foreign workers who are bilingual? If there are 25 people in Chéticamp who are foreign workers from Malaysia or India, for example, surely some of them must speak French.
Mr. Boissonnault: That’s a great question. That’s why I mentioned what just happened at the Réseau santé albertain. There were people employed there who couldn’t speak French. We could help if the local francophone community asked for support from their advocacy organization. Then there would be a program to attract francophone or at least bilingual people to fill those positions. This could be interesting from an official languages perspective or in terms of skills development. However, it has to come from the community. It shouldn’t be the federal government pushing for this development on the ground through provincial jurisdiction. It’s also very important that those who manage the system declare these positions as bilingual in the health care system, or if necessary because they’re called upon to provide services to a francophone clientele, these individuals must be able to speak both French and English.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Minister, I’d like to come back to the modernized Official Languages Act, to ask you what impact it’s having on health care in minority language communities. I know that you are aware that health care has been identified as a sector that is essential to the vitality of communities in the Official Languages Act, and that measures to encourage the inclusion of language provisions in agreements between the federal government and the provinces could also help the provinces.
I was speaking with your colleague earlier and asking how, in the measures you are putting in place, you are taking into account this new, modernized legislation, along with the obligations and responsibilities that come from your government. For instance, will the upcoming regulations for part VII include details in that regard?
Mr. Boissonnault: I’d like to answer the last question first. My colleague Minister Anand will be looking after some of these regulations, and we’d be happy to come back and discuss them.
Let me tell you about the two sets of regulations that I’m responsible for, which have to do with the Commissioner of Official Languages and the strong presence of francophone businesses across the country. I’m pushing the public service to meet the deadlines I’ve set before this committee and the other one. I look forward to having the regulations and hopefully sharing them early in the winter of 2025, in the first quarter of 2025. This is very important to me, because I think some companies are anticipating what the regulations will look like. Things are also progressing very well for the regulations concerning the Commissioner of Official Languages.
I can address you properly in the language of Molière now, as a Franco-Albertan, although I didn’t speak French very well when I first started at Campus Saint-Jean in 1988. My grades in French were so bad that no one would ever have believed that I’d be Minister for Official Languages one day, but here we are. I think the next big struggle in this country, for us minority francophones and for minority anglophones in Quebec, will be in health care. That’s why I noted the change in the Réseau santé albertain, which was established in 1992. I think we were able to change things with the Alberta government because of the changes in the text, the amendments to the Official Languages Act, specifically regarding the importance of vitality and communities being able to flourish as that relates to the overriding importance of health.
The Chair: With regard to regulations, minister, you said you have been pushing your civil servants. What are the challenges? I’m thinking specifically of the health sector in linguistic minority communities. Are consultations being held throughout the process to ensure that these regulations, which are so important, are adequate and take into account the reality of OLMCs?
Mr. Boissonnault: I’m pushing, yes, but I’m also giving the public servants the time they need to get it right.
When I worked as special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, at the time, the community wanted an apology a month before I was appointed to the role. I said, “No, we’re going to take as long as it takes to get the apology right.” The same applies to these regulations. We have to take the time to get them right, and that’s my intention. So, if it takes another quarter, and they come out in March instead of December, then so be it. It’s also worth noting that any time we’re talking about the Official Languages Act, we need to have very important conversations with several stakeholders, and we’re in the process of doing that work right now.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Moncion: If I have enough time, I have a few quick questions for you.
You talked about the funding you’ve provided. You mentioned $114 million and the fact that 6,600 people were able to join the health care system. Can you tell us whether the provinces have any financial involvement in these programs?
Mr. Boissonnault: Yes, I can speak to that. As a matter of fact, they’re usually not involved. With a few different provincial governments having changed recently…. Let me give you an example.
Manitoba really wants to change the way credentials are recognized. Ms. Marcelino is well aware of this issue. My counterpart Jamie Moses is also very focused on this issue. We want to see how we can work directly with the Manitoba government for the first time, so that they themselves can change how professional orders and associations handle this issue of recognizing credentials. This is the first time this has happened anywhere in the country.
I’m so pleased that the provinces have shown such openness. I can’t do this myself, because I can’t force a province to come to the table. I’m working with an organization in the Philippines that wants nurses’ credentials to be recognized. I’m working with the national association of dentists, because they know where the barriers are and where the obstacles are.
Let me give you an example from the construction industry. How can anyone ask young men and women to pay $10,000, take an exam and be able to drive a truck, knowing that 60% of these people will go bankrupt? I know that 60% of these people are failing the exam. Why did they pay $10,000? We need to either change the exam or let people pay afterwards, so they can pay their bills once they’ve passed. These barriers are keeping people out of the job market. In every order and every professional association, little barriers exist that are preventing people from being recognized here in Canada, and these barriers put them at a disadvantage.
It’s a very broad field, and I’m working with organizations that know how to break down a number of critical barriers, which helps speed up the process of getting people to review their criteria.
The Chair: Senator, may I ask a supplementary question to your question?
Senator Moncion: Go ahead, sir, you are the chair.
The Chair: You talked about numbers, minister. You mentioned the $114 million, and so on. In January 2024, the program launched 16 new projects with a budget of $89 million to support some 6,600 foreign-trained health professionals. Can you tell us what proportion of this funding directly affects official language minority communities? Do you have any data on that?
Mr. Boissonnault: I’ll give you an example and then we’ll talk about it. We’re happy to do so. Let me give you an example. Société économique de l’Ontario was given $2.5 million over three years to mentor foreign-trained francophone professionals in various sectors. Another $2.5 million went to foreign-trained francophones in Ontario and British Columbia to offer them their first job here in Canada.
I’m very much in favour of francophone organizations applying to our program to promote the recognition of credentials among francophones. I’d like to go even one step further. I’d be very happy if the representative organizations would approach the provinces to get the money needed to do this work. If they ever managed to do so, I’d be very interested to see how I could match—
Senator Moncion: I know you don’t necessarily intervene with the provinces, but I have a document that was produced for information purposes, one that I found very interesting. It talks about residency placements. Once doctors have completed their training, they have to do a residency for a few years. They can do this in several places, including Alberta, so I’ll give you the statistics for your province.
In Alberta, between Edmonton and Calgary, there are 10 positions, 10 residencies available, so there are places to train residents, except no one wants to take those residencies. On the other hand, there are other provinces where people have finished their courses, but they can’t find residencies. So they could go and do their residency in Alberta, for example, where there are 10 residency spots. I think you’ve already answered the question, but those 10 spots are currently vacant, and there are doctors who are ready to do their residencies but can’t find a placement. They could go to Alberta and you could fill 10 physician positions.
Is there any way you could intervene in this situation? Is there anything you could do or any funding you could use to persuade the provinces to open up to this idea? The worst province is Quebec. Of the 87 residency positions open in 2024, Quebec must have more than half of them.
Mr. Boissonnault: If I want to have a lively meeting with my provincial counterparts at the table next time, I’ll formally share that idea.
Just before this document, as you said, just to have conversations with some ministers, with my counterparts, but also with Minister Holland’s counterparts…. It is very important, but I’m not convinced that they want to fill these positions with doctors from other provinces, because the province that sends its residents will worry that they’ll never return to their home province. It’s all very complex, colleagues. There’s a very strong inclination to keep talent close to home, and we see this in every field, because people with talent hold all the cards. Highly skilled people have won, not employers. It’s a battle for highly skilled people in health care. I’d be quite happy if we filled even 50% of these residences. That would help the system.
Let me give an example. I’ll follow it up with some good news, because it’s a bit of a flat note, as we say in a choir. We’ve introduced a new…. Well, it’s not exactly a new program. We’ve improved the program to encourage doctors, nurses and another dozen or so health care professions to do their internships and settle in rural and remote communities. What we’ve done for nurses and a number of different areas, or sectors, so to speak, is to offer a rebate on a $30,000 loan over five years. For physicians, it’s $60,000 over five years. Minister Fraser will be making this announcement shortly. It’s already been made, but it’s important because regulations will be put in place.
Let me give you an example. In rural Alberta, it’s places like Red Deer and Fort McMurray. It could be Olds or Fort McKay. In the Atlantic provinces, we’re talking about communities of 30,000 people or fewer. This will really encourage young doctors, nurses, physiotherapists and so on, to settle in rural and remote areas. In Northern Ontario, for example, it’s very important that people have access to a doctor.
Senator Moncion: Yes, but a number of partnerships have already been created in northern Ontario. For example, I have a friend who is an optometrist who spends one week a month in Timmins. So there are already agreements in place. There’s a similar program with cardiologists who go and work in the Kapuskasing area. People can also access telemedicine. There’s a whole system that works, even though some people do have to travel for treatment.
There are other models for simplifying immigrant access to health care professions, specifically in Europe for example. Have you considered any other operating models that could be emulated in Canada?
Mr. Boissonnault: We’re always on the lookout for systems that could work here. It’s important to note that existing models would have to fit into a federated system like ours. That is important. I’d rather have a system more like the U.K.’s one day, where the centre is the decision maker — but that’s not the system we have — even similar to the German or Belgian system.
I’m going to ask Mr. Thompson or Ms. Arsenault to expand on that.
Before we move on, just to give you an idea of who benefits from this discount on their loans…. Dentists, hygienists, pharmacists, teachers, social workers, personal social workers, physiotherapists and psychologists…. We’ll help all these professionals by paying a portion of their student loans if they want to settle in rural, remote communities.
Senator Moncion: Why is this initiative limited to just those groups?
Mr. Boissonnault: Because we see that high debts and labour shortages are associated with these people in rural and remote corridors. We remain open to including other groups. We started with nurses and doctors, but we found that too restrictive. In a second phase, we added several other occupations. We’ll see if we can add other professions to the list in the future.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Mr. Thompson: I don’t have any specific examples or models that we can implement. We do have forums for sharing practices. For instance, the OECD is working on the issue of recognizing credentials and workforce mobility. We are participating in these dialogues, but I don’t have any specific, immediate examples to share.
The Chair: Since we’re running out of time, I’d like to hear your thoughts on data and research. You’ve mentioned a number of major investments since you began speaking here today. How can we ensure accountability? How can we ensure that we have data? The lack of evidence-based data and the lack of a research budget came up again and again during our study. What can you tell us about the work you might be able to do in this area, especially as you combine two rather formidable mandates, specifically official languages and employment and workforce development? It seems to me that you have everything you need. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. How are you prioritizing these issues?
Mr. Boissonnault: Credit goes to the Prime Minister for combining my roles. He’s the one who decided to put these two functions together. I’m very grateful to him, because I couldn’t agree more, Mr. Chair. I love the role of Minister of Official Languages and I love what we’ve been able to do in the area of workforce development. There’s a very important Venn diagram that brings together the various issues.
Data is critical. Workforce Summit 2024 was held in Montreal just two weeks ago, bringing together roughly 200 people from civil society, unions, employers, universities, colleges, and so on. It was the first time in 12 years that such a conversation on the country’s workforce had been convened. We have to recognize how much the world has changed in 12 years, not only because of the pandemic, but also because of how we work and all the challenges we face, with artificial intelligence and various upheavals. Now, 50% of the working population is made up of millennials and members of Generation Z. This is changing the system for the future.
One of the things that emerged from this summit had to do with data. We don’t have enough access to data, and the data we do have isn’t accurate enough at the regional level. I have colleagues who want to know the state of the workforce in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Saint John. Currently, there’s no simple way to know.
I spoke with some strong individuals, people like Steven Tobin, who worked for the International Labour Organization. He helped us develop the Labour Market Information Council. He and I and others made it very clear that our data systems are a little outdated, and we need to work with Statistics Canada and others, not only to make the data that the federal government generates more accessible, but also to be able to tap into other sources of data that already exist in the private sector, within unions and at the provincial level.
I already have some agreements with the provinces. I pay the provinces and territories $3 billion a year to train people on the ground. We aren’t getting enough data through these agreements. To modernize these agreements, I plan to do the same thing we did with health care. When we put the $200 billion on the table, we forced the provinces to share data. Mr. Chair, you talked about accountability and being accountable to the financial supporters. We are the financial supporters, and we want the data.
The Chair: Minister, do you have the means to get this information? There’s a lot of talk about this. Some have the impression that it’s a challenge for the federal government to get information from the provinces. What is the solution to getting this data?
Mr. Boissonnault: It’s interesting, because we had young public servants in our workforce session. One young man came up to me and said, “Minister, we did this for you in tourism. We figured out how to connect all the different data elements. We can do it here too. We just need a few meetings, authorizations and the political will to do it. However, we also need partners on the ground, so that means cities, provinces and other partners.” So I’ll have to find more money for that. I know Mr. Thompson and his team are very happy to do it. It will add a certain richness to our ecosystem, and this will help us manage the economy more strategically.
Mr. Thompson, can you answer the question about data?
Mr. Thompson: It’s not necessarily a question of increasing investment. We already have a lot of data. We just need to make it more useful. That’s the challenge.
There are global investments with Statistics Canada, as well as other more targeted projects. We’re working with linguistic minority communities to improve access to data for economic planning. It’s going in the right direction.
We are also working with our colleagues at Health Canada to fine-tune the analysis of labour market information based on each individual occupation, and in each province, to fully understand supply and demand and to support decision-making in this area.
The Chair: My final question for you, minister, has to do with artificial intelligence and telemedicine. As Minister of Employment, what is your vision and what are your priorities? Obviously, I’m thinking in terms of minority language communities, but also perhaps more broadly. We know that francophone minority communities and some of Quebec’s anglophone communities are located in remote areas. Can you share any strategic elements with us that touch on those aspects?
Mr. Boissonnault: I just made an announcement regarding research. I recently met with 12 or 13 francophone and Acadian researchers from across the country who are responsible for advising me on how to ensure the sustainability of research in French in Canada. How will we be seen and perceived when it comes to artificial intelligence? In the arts and culture sector, we talk about the concept of discoverability. How are people supposed to find a francophone woman from western Canada who sings in French on Spotify? Finding something like that on Spotify isn’t so easy at the moment.
So how do we find those artists? From our perspective, it’s also thanks to artificial intelligence that francophones, francophiles, the franco-curious and franco-queers are seen. That’s also very important.
The U.S. and China have their own approaches to artificial intelligence, but the third most powerful country when it comes to artificial intelligence is Canada. I’m talking about Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto, which are very important hubs in the development of this technology, and Canada is set to become a global leader when it comes to the development of responsible artificial intelligence.
There are two aspects to this, specifically the basic development of the technology—I mean AI that sees everyone—but also the deployment, which has to be done responsibly. Minister François-Philippe Champagne, other ministers and I are implementing a whole-of-government approach across the federal government.
The Chair: With that, thank you very much, minister, and thank you, Ms. Arsenault and Mr. Thompson, for answering our questions.
Colleagues, for our third panel, we are discussing the theme of research and evidence this evening.
We are pleased to welcome, by video conference, Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon, Chair of the Pan-Canadian Committee on Research in French at the Association francophone pour le savoir, Acfas.
Good evening, Ms. Lapointe-Gagnon, and welcome. Alberta is definitely in the spotlight this evening, as I understand you’re at Campus Saint-Jean. We’re delighted to welcome you.
We’re ready for your opening remarks, followed of course by a question-and-answer session with my colleagues. Please go ahead, Ms. Lapointe-Gagnon.
Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon, Chair, Pan-Canadian Committee on Research in French at the Association francophone pour le savoir (Acfas): Mr. Chair, honourable senators, good evening, live from Edmonton.
I’d like to begin by thanking you for the invitation to appear before the committee as the official representative of Acfas, a century-old multidisciplinary organization with regional branches from coast to coast that play a central role in sharing knowledge in French and advancing the francophone research community.
My remarks will be divided into two sections. The first deals with the need for evidence in French, and the second, with the systemic barriers that make it difficult to create this evidence and to support the next generation of francophone workers in health care.
I’m going to focus on francophone communities in minority settings in Canada, since they have the greatest needs and face the most significant obstacles.
As shown in the study released by Acfas in 2021 entitled “Portrait and Challenges of Research in French in the Minority Context in Canada,” a major trend is emerging in the Canadian research community, specifically, more and more French-speaking researchers are choosing to conduct their research in English and publish in English.
This often strategic choice can have an impact on the very topics of research. Can a study on the health of francophones in Alberta attract a major U.S. scientific journal? To achieve their publication objectives and respond to pressures from the highly competitive neoliberal university, researchers will turn to topics that seem more universal and study larger populations, leaving aside populations such as francophone Canadians, who sometimes experience fourfold the discrimination in the field of health based on age, sex, ethnicity and language.
The creation and dissemination of evidence of this population’s situation are essential for better discerning its needs and establishing public policies to meet those needs. The domination of English in health sciences is problematic. It generates significant blind spots that hinder the documentation of local minority francophone issues.
As indicated in the issue of Minorités linguistiques et société published in 2024 that was devoted to the health of minority francophones, despite significant advances since the early 2000s and the creation of the Consortium national de formation en santé (CNFS), there is still a lack of data on the smaller francophone populations, which makes them invisible in the research.
Without administrative data on health, including the linguistic variables, research producers operate in the dark and research users, including francophone health professionals and practitioners, do not have access to research measurements and results specific to the populations they serve. This has consequences to the capacity to produce diagnostics, which harms a population that is already in a vulnerable linguistic situation.
Studies also show that in the absence of an active supply of services in French, a significant proportion of francophones, or 21%, will not access care, which speaks volumes on the importance of language not only for access, but also for the safety and quality of the care received.
The biggest threat to the creation of evidence in French is not only the pressure to conduct research in English, the lack of data or tools, but also, if we turn to the Canadian francophone minority population, the fragility of our post-secondary institutions and our scientific journals, the many obstacles to conducting research and the patent lack of programs for training health care professionals in French and for researchers of Canadian francophone health. How do we train the next generation who may be interested in these issues?
The heavier teaching load for professors at French-Canadian post-secondary institutions and the difficulty recruiting research assistants are among the obstacles to conducting research. There is also an unfair distribution of resources for better understanding the needs of francophones, with the west, the north and certain Maritime provinces being left out. The majority of research chairs and institutes in the field of health are concentrated in eastern Canada. Few studies are interested in populations other than those in Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba. To counter these phenomena and ensure strong succession planning, there needs to be support to create new programs. I am thinking of speech language pathology in western Canada, the creation of chairs outside the geographic locations already covered, and the creation of targeted grant programs to encourage the production of evidence in French of the neglected populations.
We also need to reflect on a way to encourage the next generation to choose French and encourage francophone researchers to work in their language by removing the systemic obstacles, namely the underfunding of post-secondary institutions, the absence of programs in French in certain provinces and the slide toward English in research. We need to send a strong message: French in research is not only prestigious, it is also necessary for ensuring the health and safety of francophones.
As indicated in the Acfas study I cited earlier, which was published in 2021, more than 30,000 research professionals in Canada outside Quebec can speak French. A vast majority of them are practically invisible because they conduct their career in English only. To help them get out from the shadows, we need specific funding programs, research chairs and institutes devoted to the health of understudied francophone populations, and to promote French in the research community with adequate support for those who want to submit grant applications in French to the Service d’aide à la recherche en français.
Thank you very much for listening to me.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon, for this presentation on this pressing concern, to say the least. We will now move on to questions.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much, Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon. I always find it interesting to hear about the challenges facing the people in western Canada, especially in the university communities, like Campus Saint-Jean, that have been chronically underfunded. You say that all the research work, or almost all, is done in English. You also talk about the lack of data in French. When I was doing my doctorate in French, I was told that if I wanted my research to be read, it would need to be translated or I would have to write in English. We are confronted with that all the time.
One of the documents we were provided talks about the commitment made with the federal government agreements. I will read an excerpt and you will see the irony in the information. It talks about improving the availability of aggregated data for existing and new common indicators to enable reporting on progress for underserved or disadvantaged populations including, but not limited to, Indigenous peoples, First Nations, Inuit, Métis, official language minority communities, rural and remote communities, children, racialized communities, including Black Canadians, and members of the LGBTIQA2S+ communities.
It talks about data that is not accessible, which results in what you just described as a problematic situation that we are constantly confronted with. I agree with you when it comes to the findings. What can we do to change that?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: That is a great question. I am very worried about the message that is being sent to the next generation of researchers. At some point, English became the language of choice and it has taken hold. How do we undo that?
Researchers have slowly moved toward English because it is easier and more prestigious. For my students, choosing French in a place like Alberta is choosing a political fight. This battle is not for everyone. How do we smooth the path for the next generation? We need to create programs. For that, our institutions need to be well funded. Providing good funding sends the message that they are accessible and welcoming. Over the past few years, with the crisis at Laurentian University, the challenges facing Université de Moncton and what happened at Campus Saint-Jean where I work, we have not been sending the right message to future generations. The message is that these institutions are in a precarious situation. Who in today’s world wants to pursue an education at an institution in a precarious situation?
The message needs to be overhauled and adequate funding needs to be provided to say that these institutions are not in a precarious situation; they are essential and necessary. They have a mission and a vocation that is different from a large university.
Campus Saint-Jean is part of the University of Alberta. However, its mission is completely different. It is much more focused on community needs.
For researchers at these faculties and institutions, the community service component is extremely engaging, but it is not valued. How can we value these aspects? How can we change the ways of viewing excellence in research?
Another way of creating prestige, as I was saying, is by creating research chairs. The research institutes and chairs on the health of francophones in Ontario have made a major difference in understanding the ecosystem and what is happening on the ground, even if things are not perfect. In western Canada, there are no chairs or institutes. How can we understand the needs of our population?
Note that there is no evidence or analysis without researchers. It feels like we are in the process of losing future generations. We must act quickly to prevent that from happening.
Senator Moncion: There must be some advantage for anglophone universities in Canada.
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Yes. The concentration of resources is in the hands of anglophone universities in the U15 group. These universities are among the best funded. Only the rich get funding. The concentration of resources among the 20% of the wealthiest researchers is completely absurd. The distribution of resources in the research community needs to be reviewed.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: I agree with everything you said and I wonder if we should remain pessimistic about this situation. You talk about 30,000 professionals who remain invisible because they are not published in English. It is true that it is a leitmotif for all those who do research, “Why don’t you publish in English? You would get more recognition. You would be read everywhere in the world.”
Since you are in the research community, do you think it would be possible for francophones to shine with this francophone baggage of publishing in French, if another research chair were created?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Absolutely. We are seeing this globally: the francophone research community is growing. In Africa, there are tremendous opportunities for working and researching in French, and travelling. The international component, which is so valued and prestigious, is possible to have in French. You can publish in English and then distribute the research in French.
I think the publication trend in health sciences and natural sciences will make it very difficult to turn the tide, but when we see what Acfas is doing with the “Ma thèse en 180 secondes”, or my thesis in 180 seconds, competition, we see that we can encourage people who publish in English to disseminate their work in French. I think there is a very promising future for that.
I may have presented a more pessimistic view, but there is a lot of optimism to be seen too. Back home at Campus Saint-Jean, we just created the first doctoral program. We have seven Ph.D students in the first cohort. Create programs and the students will come. These people want to have a career in French and they chose to do their doctoral thesis in French in Alberta on extremely varied topics in the field of education and the integration of newcomers, which are all necessary topics.
There is room for optimism because there are people on the ground who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get to work. However, we must encourage them, give them grants when they propose projects like these and value what they do. Often, when an application is submitted to the three large councils, there are stumbling blocks when it comes to understanding the realities on the ground. Some might say, “Why conduct a study on francophone seniors in Alberta? It is not a big enough population. We can get much bigger populations in terms of numbers.”
Grant application evaluation committees could receive training in order to raise awareness among the evaluators of research in French in minority communities. They could look at completely separate profiles of researchers who have published in French in journals that they might be less familiar with, who do not have the same impact factors, even though we know that these factors should not be seen as a good measure of success in research.
I think that if we raise awareness among the evaluators, this can also open up possibilities. One thing is certain: The next generation is there and we need to send the right message because it is very easy to lean toward anglicization and mass disappearance.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much. I have another question.
You talked about how hard it is to recruit research assistants. Are you talking about francophone research assistants or in general?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Francophone research assistants. It is hard to recruit research assistants when higher learning programs are barely getting by or when there simply are no higher learning programs at certain institutions. It is quite the journey to find assistants.
We are many researchers on campus with multiple grants for training our successors. We want to hire students to support us in our projects, but once they emerge and show their talent and their investment, everyone wants to snatch them up.
We are seeing a lot of exhaustion as a result of limited resources. It is a small community. As soon as someone is up to speed and delivering the goods, everyone wants to recruit them to work on a research project. There are not enough of us. There are not enough students to meet our needs in research assistance.
The 2021 Acfas study, including a poll of 515 researchers working in a francophone minority, indicated that this is a major obstacle that has been called out by those who work at small institutions. In the francophonie, 65% of them have a hard time recruiting research assistants.
What can we do about this? We need more effective and more fluid exchange programs. I would like people from Quebec to be able to come do practicums with us for a few weeks or months. That is the type of program we need to help us. Otherwise we end up with funding that we cannot spend because there are not enough human resources who can operate in French.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much. Congratulations on your motivating spirit. If we have more people like you, I think this will work.
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Thank you, that is very kind.
The Chair: Some might say that you are passion personified.
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Thank you.
Senator Aucoin: I am not sure if I still have a question considering everything you said and your passion for this topic.
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is wondering what the federal government can do. You talked about bursaries and exchange programs, but can we include a few recommendations in your report to truly help you recruit assistants at the master’s and Ph.D levels, increase the popularity of certain programs or develop them further? What can we do?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: That is a great question because we can agree that there is a lot of overlap between provincial and federal responsibilities. I am thinking of the Canada Research Chairs program. It is an extremely beneficial program. Could we have research chairs in the Canadian francophonie? This would yield results immediately.
Then I am thinking of the three major research councils. This evening we are talking about evidence-based data on health, but there could also be targeted programs created specifically for the francophone minority, with their own envelope. This could spur on the creativity and imagination of the researchers. When they see that there is funding allocated specifically to these issues, that completely changes how these things are received on the ground. Allocating money to a topic garners interest. Researchers who have moved toward English might say, “You have my attention. I will be funded, but only if I wear my francophone hat, if I resurface.” This type of initiative could bear fruit.
I am speaking on behalf of Acfas and I can tell you that we have created Service d’aide à la recherche en français, SARF, which is helping to address to the office shortage for research at our institutions. An anglophone researcher at a major university in the U15 group who wants to apply for a grant from the three councils is guided and receives recommendations, advice and help. A francophone researcher at a small institution often has to deal with a research office of one person who is overwhelmed. This support service created by Acfas is there to support researchers. It ensures that there are people who are there to mentor and advise the researchers before they submit their application and this breaks the isolation that we often see as francophone researchers working at an anglophone university. I already know that thanks to this assistance service, some researchers have applied in French when they initially thought that they would not.
The federal government could continue to support this service so that the researchers can flourish. It is already supporting the service, but I think that the federal government can ensure the continuity of the assistance service.
Senator Aucoin: Thank you.
The Chair: It may be simple to say, or ask you to think about, but is research in French being promoted enough in Canada?
Although we know that education is a provincial responsibility, could the federal government invest in promoting research in French? That is a possible route for raising awareness; what do you think?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: That would be essential. Researchers turned to English because they wanted to be read and they wanted to integrate in a community that said it was the right thing to do. The messages we are hearing on the ground are absurd at times. We are told to submit our grant application in English or we will not be subsidized. I work on the history of francophones in Alberta. I am not going to submit my grant application in English. French is my first language; we end up with researchers who deny themselves the chance to do research in their first language, the language of their heart, the one they mastered, the language that is easiest for them to share the results of their research. I believe there is a strong message to be sent. I mentioned it in my opening remarks. There is so much success in the research in French and in the field of health and this goes a long way to helping ensure security in health. I believe there are some beautiful messages and nice stories to share by showing the faces of the research in French and by demonstrating how this transforms the lives of people and communities, because suddenly the communities feel seen in the research and there are potential solutions.
I am thinking of the work being done by one of my colleagues at the University of Alberta, Sedami Gnidehou, on malaria brought in by newcomers from French Africa. If there is a public health problem that we are unaware of, if no one is working on these issues, we cannot communicate to take charge of these newcomers’ health, which is threatened by malaria being imported into Canada.
The Chair: Earlier we were talking about data and you said that there is no data without researchers. In your view, the relationship that the post-secondary institutions in minority communities have with the communities themselves, in other words, the organizations…. Would the organizations be able to contribute more to the issue of data? If so, how could the federal government intervene with these organizations to ensure the data collection and ensure that the data is evidence-based? What is the connection with the post-secondary institutions?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: I believe that these are very good people. They know the community, get constant feedback and are in contact with the different branches of the population, such as newcomers, seniors, the next generation and young people. In Alberta, we have Francophonie albertaine plurielle, Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta and Francophonie jeunesse de l’Alberta. These are groups that know their population and what the population needs.
A few weeks ago, I was at the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta (ACFA) conference where we saw what the community needs in terms of programs. What Alberta needs is speech language pathology programs. There is a shortage of experts at the francophone schools, which can have consequences. Many young people turn to immersion schools and anglophone schools. We may be losing future francophone researchers because suddenly, when they are young, they turn to English or immersion because they do not have access to services. These people know their population. They certainly need support from the federal government to know it better. I know that ACFA just funded a major Sociopol study to get a better picture of the extremely precarious francophonie in Alberta. This must have been expensive and I imagine that the federal government was there to support it, but this type of initiative is very important. As a researcher myself, I refer to that data. It is good to see partnerships and to see post-secondary communities develop programs centred on that. I know they exist in official languages, but often applicants need not be academics. Sometimes this causes a bit of reluctance among people in the community who would like some leadership on this. I am not sure if that answers your question.
The Chair: Yes, it does.
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: I am telling you what I know.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Moncion: I would just like to know Acfas’ role in data collection. What is Acfas’ role in data collection for the official language minority communities?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Do you mean ACFA or Acfas?
Senator Moncion: Sorry, I mean Acfas.
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: In Alberta, people often mix up ACFA with Acfas because the acronym is so similar. Acfas can do a lot, including through SARF, the Service d’aide à la recherche en français. SARF has received requests from universities that want to understand who the francophone researchers are within their own university. As mentioned earlier, there are 30,000, but they are not known. A monitoring body to oversee the research in French increases potential because there are small initiatives left and right, but no overall picture of the situation. No one really knows which researchers among our colleagues and at our universities can speak French. We are missing out on an incredible resource. Even at the University of Alberta, I have many colleagues who speak French who help us when we have committees, but I know that in passing. They have not been identified as a resource. I think Acfas could play a census-taking role and possibly support the creation of a monitoring body.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I have another question. The modernized Official Languages Act provides examples of positive measures for supporting research in French. The 2023-28 action plan contains several examples of tangible positive measures, including $8.5 million in funding to support the French-language research ecosystem.
On October 22, pursuant to that action plan, Minister Boissonault announced the establishment of an external advisory group on the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French — of which you are a member, if I am not mistaken. Your mandate is to analyze the current dynamics of the creation and dissemination of scientific knowledge in French and to provide advice and recommendations to Minister Boissonault for developing a federal strategy to ensure the long-term viability of Canada’s French-language research ecosystem. Your group will produce a final report and present its key findings to the minister responsible for official languages by March 31, 2026.
Are you comfortable with that deadline? Do you think it is realistic? Do you think that developing a federal strategy to ensure the long-term viability of the French-language research ecosystem would help deal with the challenges of collecting and disseminating evidence-based data in French, including in the health sector?
Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon: Yes, we have a big job ahead of us. I am indeed a member of the advisory group along with top-notch researchers. We have to produce a report. I cannot speak to what the committee has discussed so far. I truly hope that the recommendations we make will be used to rebalance things because we want to try to have an overview and see where our actions will make a significant difference. However, it is not a commission of inquiry. As a historian, I have studied commissions of inquiry a lot, including the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. I published a book on the topic and what we often see is that the commissions are quite esoteric in their reports and then the report is shelved. I think that a collective effort will be made for the recommendations not to be shelved and to build from there. I think this is the right time. Several studies have been published over the past few years, including the one by Acfas and the Bouchard report. There is more and more awareness of the researchers’ situation and we are seeing more and more obstacles in their way. That is the foundation for making recommendations that will have an impact.
From these recommendations, we have to make sure that this makes a difference on the ground, but it is just one of the building blocks for supporting this research in French.
I hope a next-generation researcher chooses French. We will let them know that it is just as prestigious as English. I am currently seeing all sorts of young researchers leaning toward English because they are tired of the obstacles that stand in their way.
The Chair: We can only hope that the other members of the advisory panel are as passionate as you are in order to get the desired results. Thank you very much, Mrs. Lapointe-Gagnon, for your testimony and your answers. This will certainly help us in drafting our report. Thank you very much for the work that you do across Canada and especially in your province, Alberta. On that, I see that there are no other items on the agenda.
(The meeting is adjourned.)