THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 21, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:01 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to francophone immigration to minority communities.
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is René Cormier. I am a senator from New Brunswick, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that we are taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Today, we resume our study on francophone immigration to minority communities.
[Translation]
For the first part of our meeting today, we welcome the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, who is joining us by video conference. He is accompanied by three of his officials: Pascale Giguère, General Counsel; Pierre Leduc, Assistant Commissioner with the Policy and Communications Branch; and Martin Labelle, Director of Investigations with the Compliance Assurance Branch.
Thank you all for being with us and welcome to the committee. We’ll hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators. Mr. Théberge, the floor is yours.
Raymond Théberge, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, good evening. I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking to you from Winnipeg, in Treaty 1 territory, the traditional territory of the Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation.
I’m very pleased to be joining you today to present my 2021-22 annual report and to discuss an issue of particular concern: francophone immigration in linguistic minority communities.
First, my most recent annual report. In 2021-22, my office received a record 5,409 admissible complaints, an increase of 189% over the previous year. The trend is evident: The volume of complaints has been steadily rising for the past five years.
I’d like to point out that nearly 75% of the complaints we received in 2021-22 were related to the lack of proficiency in both official languages among senior executives. Almost half of these complaints were about a specific event related to Air Canada.
[English]
At the risk of repeating myself, being able to speak both official languages is an essential skill for any leader, especially leaders of institutions subject to the Official Languages Act. The bilingual nature of an organization depends in large part on the bilingualism of those occupying positions at the highest levels. Our leaders need to lead by example and must be able to represent all Canadians in both official languages.
This is why I recommended in my report that one of the parliamentary committees on official languages study the language obligations related to the staffing of senior management positions in the federal public service and to Governor-in-Council appointments in order to determine whether knowledge of both official languages should be a requirement when hiring for these types of positions and in order to find a lasting solution to the erosion of language rights in the federal public service.
[Translation]
I also recommend that the Minister of Official Languages ensure that federal institutions are fully informed of their obligations under Part VII of the Official Languages Act and that they meet these obligations in accordance with the Federal Court of Appeal’s January 2022 decision in the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, or FFCB, case.
With this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal has finally and unequivocally recognized the full scope of the obligations under Part VII of the act. I expect the federal government to provide the leadership that federal institutions need to guide them in meeting their obligations.
I am aware of the federation’s decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This appeal is specific to the court’s decision regarding Part IV of the act. The federation is also seeking some changes to Bill C-13. Needless to say, I will continue to keep a close eye on this case.
[English]
Let me now turn to the second reason I’m speaking to you today. For more than a decade, my predecessors and I have made francophone immigration to minority communities a priority. Recent language data from the 2021 Census has heightened the urgency of taking action.
Although the number of Canadians who can speak French is higher than ever, and despite the fact that Canada’s francophone population is increasingly diverse, the declining demographic weight of the French-speaking minority population in comparison to the English-speaking population continues to be a major concern.
As you know, my office published a study in November 2021 on the 4.4% immigration target for French-speaking immigrants in francophone minority communities. This target, which was adopted almost 20 years ago, has never been reached by the federal government. Moreover, our study shows that even if this 4.4% target had been met consistently every year since the original 2008 deadline, it would not have been enough to maintain, let alone increase, the demographic weight of the French-speaking population outside Quebec, which was its objective.
[Translation]
I am disappointed that the federal government still has not committed to reviewing its target for francophone immigration to minority communities, despite various reports and studies urging it to raise it, including mine. The experts are clear: With an annual target of 4.4%, the demographic weight of francophone communities outside Quebec will continue to decline.
It’s time to do more and do better. There are many — my office and I included — who have spoken out in recent months, and we expected that decisions would have followed immediately. We need a new, clear objective and a much more ambitious target for francophone immigration: A target that resolves the shortfall in admissions of French-speaking permanent residents to minority communities and ensures a bright future for our francophone communities.
[English]
Although my study focused on the admissions of French-speaking immigrants, we also need to pay close attention to the retention and integration of newcomers in the communities to maintain the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec. It’s all well and good to welcome them to the country, but we must also make sure that they can thrive in Canadian society.
Let me be clear: We need to make adjustments to ensure the sustainability and future of francophone communities across the country. Immigration is part of the solution. The government must commit to a more ambitious target and consider all the changes required at the various stages of the francophone immigration continuum.
On a positive note, I’d like to acknowledge the opening of the federal government’s new Centre for Innovation in Francophone Immigration in Dieppe, New Brunswick, which aims to help increase the number of francophone immigrants coming to Canada.
[Translation]
Modernizing the Official Languages Act is also a way for the government to ensure a stable and dynamic future for official languages in Canada. Bill C-13 has the potential to transform the country’s language policy by making the foundation on which it rests, the Official Languages Act, a law that will allow our official languages to progress and that will truly defend the language rights of Canadians.
Although there’s still a lot of work to be done, I’m still optimistic about the future. It’s reassuring to know that public support for Canada’s official languages is standing the test of time, as evidenced by the results of a major survey my office conducted in 2021.
[English]
We can’t take anything for granted, however. The support of the Canadian public needs to be backed by strong policies and initiatives in all parts of society so that both of Canada’s two official languages can thrive across the country.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.
The Chair: Thank you very much, commissioner, for your opening statements. We will now move on to the question period.
Before we start questions from the senators, I would like to ask members in the room to please refrain from leaning too close to their microphone or remove their earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room. Being aware of the time ahead, I suggest that, for the first round, each senator be allowed five minutes, including question and answer.
Senator Gagné: I’d like to welcome you, commissioner, and the members of your team. It’s always a pleasure to have you appear before the committee.
Commissioner, since your report contained a recommendation related to the January 2022 Federal Court of Appeal decision, I’m going to ask you a question about that. In practice, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed the interpretation of Part VII that you put forward as Commissioner and that also allows the Commissioner of Official Languages to regain his full investigative powers under this part of the Official Languages Act.
Bill C-13 contains many amendments to Part VII. Witnesses have indicated that some of the amendments in the bill do not comply with the entirety of this decision. You also mention this in your brief to the Official Languages Committee. What elements do you think are missing from the bill, and why do you think it’s important to amend certain provisions of Part VII?
Mr. Théberge: Thank you for the question. When we talk about Part VII, it’s important to remember that this is the part of the act that more closely concerns the development and vitality of minority language communities. What is currently proposed in Bill C-13 is certainly an improvement over Bill C-32. However, the bill gives federal institutions a great deal of leeway for implementation, that is to say that regulations haven’t been developed to specify the terms and conditions of application.
For example, when we talk about preparing positive measures, we have to ask ourselves when and how. I believe that federal institutions are given a lot of leeway. It’s also important to mention that the Federal Court decision uses the word “action.” It’s not enough to prepare positive measures; we must take action.
Another important aspect in the Court of Appeal decision is the issue of impact studies. When policies and programs are developed, it’s extremely important to know if the impact on the official language minority communities will be positive or negative.
Bill C-13 currently contains language that is still quite ambiguous with respect to implementation. We suggest some wording in our brief. It’s also important that… Too often, the communities themselves are not consulted enough to know their real needs. I think we need to specify a consultation mechanism in Bill C-13 to avoid situations that are very often… I’m thinking of a typical example, that is surplus land.
For example, we know what communities need in terms of school infrastructure. Often, consultations don’t take place and the land disappears. As I mentioned, it’s also largely due to the fact that federal institutions aren’t necessarily aware of their obligations with regard to Part VII. We have a new legal environment with regard to Part VII. I wonder to what extent federal institutions are aware of their new obligations as a result of this decision. It would be important to reiterate some of the elements of the decision I was talking about earlier, including positive measures, impact studies and consultations that are part of the act. They need to be in the act or in the regulations, whichever.
Senator Gagné: I wanted to check whether you think the regulations should be used to further develop the whole issue of impact studies and to further define what is meant by “positive measures.”
Mr. Théberge: Indeed, the details of the implementation and how it can be done will be specified in the regulations. It’s important to avoid having this become a shopping list in the bill. The regulations need to be considered in developing implementation criteria.
Senator Gagné: Treasury Board issued a directive regarding the sale of federal government lands. This was in response to a situation in Manitoba. I imagine there may have been other cases, but I know that, in Manitoba, after failing to inform the Franco-Manitoban school division of a piece of land for sale, a different approach was taken and a directive was issued. Am I to understand that this directive should ultimately be in the regulations?
Mr. Théberge: We certainly need to be clearer in the regulations about the expectations of federal institutions.
The situation you mention isn’t unique to Manitoba; the same thing has happened in British Columbia and elsewhere. In fact, in some situations, there is a conflict between the duty to consult francophone communities and Indigenous communities. So there is still a challenge.
Senator Gagné: Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Good evening, Mr. Théberge. Thank you for being with us. I just heard you say or wonder whether proficiency in both languages wouldn’t be a hiring criterion. I’m wondering something that I’ll ask again: Wouldn’t imposing bilingualism as a hiring criterion affect the bilingualism bonuses offered to employees? Could it create issues or controversy? What are your thoughts on this?
Mr. Théberge: From memory, the bilingualism bonus has always existed. It applies to everyone with certain skills. I don’t see how the bilingualism bonus can have an impact on ensuring that people are proficient in both official languages to hold a position.
I think I made a distinction; in my presentation, I was talking about the senior public service, but also about Governor-in-Council appointments. They aren’t necessarily the same thing, but it’s important to remember that senior management positions in the federal public service don’t require bilingualism. This leads to a situation where we see that the leaders of an institution aren’t able to set an example for their entire organization. All sorts of reasons are given for this. Clearly, when the leader of an organization is unable to function in both official languages, it sends a very strong message to the entire organization.
I think the bilingualism bonus has been around for a long time and will continue to be around because it’s part of the collective agreements. However, that’s not what I was interested in, but rather management.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
In your various reports, including those for 2002, 2014 and 2021, I see the number of years between those reports, their content and their titles, especially. How do you describe the government’s responses to your studies? The further along you go, the more you see that not much has changed. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Théberge: That’s an excellent question.
We’ve tried to measure the impact in the studies we’ve done over the last few years. The study we did on official languages in emergencies had an impact. We met with all of the organizations that have implemented emergency measures across the country. That will be part of Bill C-13. We refer specifically to emergency measures in Bill C-13. Our report on the Language Institute led to the creation of a working group at the Treasury Board Secretariat, which looked at ways to create better conditions to ensure the vitality of both official languages in the workplace.
The immigration study we recently conducted has caught the attention of several stakeholders. We have many roles at our office, but one of those roles is to educate and ensure we have the evidence base on which people can make decisions.
Over time, those studies have changed. When I was a young teacher, I relied heavily on a journal called Languages and Society, which was published by the Commissioner of Official Languages. That journal dealt with very important community studies. Identifying issues and helping to illuminate them are part of our role as educators and advocates. Then we want these studies to influence legislators. In our report on official languages in emergencies, we can see specifically that the issue has caught the attention of legislators.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Théberge.
Senator Moncion: Welcome to you and your team, commissioner.
My question is about racism at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, and its impact on francophone immigration. The federal government recently admitted that racism exists in the department, as part of its response to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration’s report, entitled Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and in the Rest of Canada. The report outlines how racism affects the processing of applications in a number of ways, which would partly explain the higher rate of refusal for French-speaking African applicants. Given the disproportionate effect this has on francophone immigration, what role can the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages play in terms of examining this systemic issue at IRCC?
I have another question for you after that.
Mr. Théberge: The official languages commissioner’s role in this situation ties in with the study we conducted and ensuring that the government develops a distinct francophone immigration policy for the future, one that is separate from the current dual anglophone and francophone immigration policy. What we are currently seeing is that the government simply wants to make changes to the existing immigration process. The only way to avoid systemic issues like the one you raised is to establish a holistic policy that deals with francophone immigration separately from anglophone immigration.
The same capacity tends to be used to do the work. In Africa, for example, the office in Dakar processes virtually all the student visa applications. Reducing the number of offices would create problems from an accessibility and equity standpoint. There is no doubt that the government needs to open more offices, and it could if it had a separate policy.
I always have trouble with a single overarching policy. Right now, IRCC’s strategy is just to fix a few things by focusing on the Express Entry system or the direct entry of immigrant students, but the reality is that the nuts and bolts aren’t in place to truly support francophone immigration. They are in place to support immigration more broadly, but there aren’t enough staff in place. Creating a separate program for francophone immigration is crucial to avoid the situation you talked about.
It’s important to understand that francophone immigration gets lost in the workings of the system. The department doesn’t have enough resources or staff in place; nor does it have the necessary mechanisms in the regions where francophones live. I would say that’s the first step. In order to hire French-speaking staff, you have to recruit them where they live. Having a minimal number of offices will certainly impact the selection of candidates and the entire immigration continuum. I would say it’s important to think about the immigration continuum, not just selection.
It’s also important to think about how we welcome and integrate international students, temporary workers and permanent residents. Let’s not forget about retention. We may be able to attract immigrants to communities, but can we keep them? Do we have the infrastructure and services in place to keep them? Many witnesses have appeared before various committees, and they have said that communities aren’t necessarily equipped to welcome and integrate immigrants properly.
That was a very long answer to your question, but the bottom line is we need a separate policy. The government talks a lot about linguistic duality, but I would like to see that duality applied to immigration as well.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for that long answer. My next one has more to do with the bias of those making the decisions to accept or refuse applicants. That fateful bias seems to be one of the department’s problems.
How do we reduce the impact of that bias on the acceptance of francophone immigration applicants from Africa? How do we build that into a policy?
Mr. Théberge: One of the answers to that question lies in examining the Chinook system, which is part of the department’s response. It said that it was going to look into whether the infamous algorithm had a built-in bias. The software is used to make a lot of decisions.
The other answer lies in internal education and awareness-raising at IRCC. The way an institution addresses an issue that has been deemed to cause systemic racism, for instance, is usually through institution-wide education. IRCC has to start by acknowledging that, if fewer francophone immigrants are being accepted in relation to other immigrants, the department has to look in the mirror and ask itself why that is and why so many people have raised the issue.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Mockler, I have a follow-up question for you, Mr. Théberge. It flows from Senator Moncion’s question.
One of the things people have said, and not necessarily here, is that potential francophone immigration candidates in Africa are not always well equipped to fill out their applications.
Do you think the policy should include an initiative to help applicants? I think part of the reason applications are being refused has to do with the challenges applicants face in filling out their applications and following the steps properly.
When I attended a presentation in Brussels, I realized that, by no means, is it easy for someone wanting to immigrate to Canada to understand what they are supposed to do and how to go about it properly.
What is your view on that?
Mr. Théberge: I think we need to have as user-friendly of a process as possible. Is the process simple and easy to understand, or is it teeming with bureaucracy?
I’m not necessarily aware of specific cases, but there is no doubt that, when people fill out forms, they don’t necessarily have all the tools they need to provide the information being requested.
If we are going to seek out immigration candidates, I think we need to provide the support they need to fill out the forms and complete the process correctly.
Senator Mockler: I, too, want to welcome Mr. Théberge and his officials. Without getting into specifics, I will just say that we miss you in New Brunswick.
I’m trying to get a clearer picture, so there are two things I’d like to know, Mr. Théberge.
Let’s look at the number of complaints your office receives, and the methodology you use to resolve those complaints and respond to them in a reasonable and reasoned time frame. What accounts for the record number of complaints your office received in 2021-22?
Mr. Théberge: Two events account for 75% of the complaints: the English-only speech given by Air Canada’s CEO and the appointment of a unilingual Governor General in August. Those two categories of complaints are different. One relates specifically to Part IV, and the other relates to Part VII.
If we take those two categories out of the equation, we see that the trend is still on the rise. The number of complaints, regardless of the event… I must admit, we seldom receive 2,800 complaints for a single event, but the trend is a growing number of complaints.
This year again, the number of complaints went up. Why? On one hand, I think Canadians are increasingly aware of their language rights. On the other, I would say that official languages issues have been getting a good bit of media attention for a few years now, so it’s something that’s on people’s minds. Sometimes, it’s more local events — as opposed to federal events — that affect how people perceive official languages.
In the past few years, we’ve seen a lot of events in the world of official languages, and that helps make people aware of their language rights when they aren’t respected.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, let’s look at past statistics through the lens of Bill C-13. Should the bill be amended to apply official languages obligations to senior management staffing in the federal public service and Governor-in-Council appointments?
Would new regulations solve the underlying problem of fostering a more bilingual senior public service?
Mr. Théberge: To answer your question, I would say that it is up to lawmakers to decide whether they want to include those kinds of obligations in regulations.
As we speak, two bills, S-220 and S-229, deal with that issue, particularly when it comes to certain types of positions, and both of them are making their way through Parliament.
What’s important to remember is that bilingualism and linguistic duality are core Canadian values. I expect federal institutions and the leaders of those institutions to respect not only the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law.
We’ll have to see what happens with those bills. However, if such a requirement or provision were included in a bill, I would certainly make sure it was respected.
Senator Mockler: Can you tell us more about why you asked a parliamentary committee to study the issue, instead of reaching out to the ministers responsible for its application? Can you speak to the reason behind that?
Mr. Théberge: As a committee, most of the time, you have the role of shedding light on issues. In this case, the issue involves the entire federal government. It even goes beyond that. The issue is bigger than a single minister; it is government-wide.
A committee has the tools to carry out this type of study, to drive the discussion, hear from the right people, leverage the expertise of analysts and provide a clear picture of where things stand. Conversely, ministers focus solely on their respective departments, which would result in piecemeal studies. When a parliamentary committee turns its attention to an issue, it puts the whole problem into context.
Senator Mockler: I’d like to hear your view on something, commissioner.
Should federal institutions report specifically on their progress in their annual reports to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Canadian Heritage, as is the case with substantive equality? That way, Canadians across the country would have access to that information and could see who was doing what.
Mr. Théberge: I think the Treasury Board’s role is extremely important here. One of its roles is precisely to ensure reporting and accountability. The Treasury Board will need to develop the right tools and identify the right ways to communicate the facts to Canadians.
Senator Mockler: Do you have anything to say about the Department of Canadian Heritage?
Mr. Théberge: The Department of Canadian Heritage has always been involved with official language minority communities. The department already reports on official languages activities annually. It’s clear that the Department of Canadian Heritage, as well as its predecessor, has always been the government’s chosen representative for reaching out to official language minority communities and working with them. The department’s activities are well-known.
The Chair: Your questions are inspiring me. I have a follow‑up question.
First, I have a comment. Commissioner, the whole matter of bilingualism in the senior public service is a recurring theme; it’s hard to quantify the results and understand how things are changing within government. What’s more, it impacts the implementation of the Official Languages Act and respect for language rights in Canada.
Senator Mockler, I believe, raised this. Do you think the issue should be addressed in the amendments to Bill C-13? Where should those obligations reside, so that the federal government is truly accountable and responsible — so that it is actively working to ensure the senior public service is bilingual?
Here’s my follow-up question. Under Bill C-13, the government has a responsibility to promote official languages internationally, in the face Canada puts out to the world. With that in mind, do you think senior officials, whether they be ambassadors or high-ranking embassy officials, should have to be bilingual at the time of their appointment?
Mr. Théberge: I’ll answer that in two parts.
First, I think that, if lawmakers felt the need to include a bilingualism requirement for senior officials in the bill, it would be a significant step.
That idea has been around for quite some time, as you pointed out. There has always been pushback from the federal government, which argued that it had a hard time hiring people who were already bilingual and what have you.
Experience tells us that we have a very large pool of bilingual people in the country — not just a few people, but a whole lot.
Would you mind repeating your second question, please?
The Chair: I’d be glad to. As we speak, another committee is discussing the importance of bilingualism for those working on Canada’s behalf around the world. One of the comments I heard was that it may be necessary to ease the bilingualism requirements in countries where Chinese is the most widely spoken language. That’s what I was getting at with my second question.
Should we require high-ranking officials, ambassadors and the like, to be bilingual?
Mr. Théberge: I’m quite familiar with the comments on bilingualism that came out of the committee’s discussion. If we really want to showcase official languages on the world stage, our ambassadors and other diplomats should be able to communicate in both official languages. The Francophonie Summit is taking place this week. Nearly a hundred countries are part of the organization, and bilingualism is an issue for many of those countries.
I think we saw it a lot more in the past than we do now. For some reason, Global Affairs Canada’s role in promoting official languages around the world seems to have diminished. Bill C-13 references the issue specifically. I think promoting official languages on the world stage is vitally important.
Senator Clement: Good afternoon to you and your officials, Mr. Théberge.
I want to follow up on what you said in response to Senator Moncion’s question. It also ties in with a comment you made in your opening statement about retaining French-speaking immigrants in communities and helping them thrive.
I’m going to talk about Cornwall, where I’m from. I have to tell you that there’s a lack of consistency across the various levels of government, particularly at the municipal level.
I’m following the proceedings of the inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act, and the lack of communication between the various levels of government is emerging quite clearly, especially between the federal and municipal governments.
The integration and retention of newcomers happens in the community. I met with some French-speaking immigrants in Cornwall a few weeks ago. I realized that, for them, dealing with IRCC and going through the process to become a refugee or claim refugee protection is a highly bureaucratic process. That’s not where integration happens, though. It happens in the community. I’m very glad to hear about the innovation centre in New Brunswick. That’s not the case everywhere.
How do you think we can overcome that inconsistency, and ensure that municipalities and communities are directly involved? Do you have any recommendations?
Mr. Théberge: You are absolutely right when you talk about the importance of municipalities. The municipalities — you know this better than I do — are the level of government that is closest to constituents. When immigrants are welcomed into our community, into our municipality, it is up to that municipality to provide services. Currently, what I see in the immigration process is that there are many players, many actors and many stakeholders. Some are part of the federal apparatus, some are consultants, some are agencies funded in part by the federal, provincial or even municipal government.
I often wonder if these host agencies have the resources to properly accommodate these individuals.
I recently co-chaired a conference on immigration, diversity and inclusion. The point that was repeatedly raised was housing, to determine where we are going to house these people, and employability. Do we have the infrastructure in place to accommodate them? If we don’t have jobs, these people will go where the jobs are.
This brings me to the following question: are jobs available in French or only in English? This will have an impact on language choice, especially if they have a choice between French and English.
Municipalities are at the heart of all of this. So, we have to make sure that the resources are where they should be. It’s extremely important that these agencies be well-funded to welcome immigrants properly.
I’m not an immigration expert, but the other point is that you need to know what the real needs of immigrants are when they come to your community. Once you know that, you have to ask yourself if the community has the resources and tools to meet those needs.
I once participated in an immigration focus group. A woman told me, “You know, Mr. Théberge, we are not here to save the francophonie; we are here to earn a living.” Immigration is a personal life project, so to make a connection with what you are saying, we have to ask ourselves how we can arrange the life project of these people and the resources to ensure that this can be achieved in our communities.
Senator Clement: I would like to ask a supplementary question.
You said you are optimistic; I don’t know if you are optimistic by nature, but you said in your presentation today that you are optimistic. You tied that to the 2021 survey results. Can you elaborate on why you are optimistic? Why are you optimistic when you see the results of this survey?
Mr. Théberge: Being optimistic is part of the job description when you work at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.
To go back to the Environics 2021 survey, it is similar to the survey that was conducted in 2016. It found that about 87% of Canadians of all ages, wherever they are located, support the goals of the Official Languages Act.
There was also a series of questions about the importance of a bilingual Prime Minister, for example. For most Canadians, the Prime Minister must be bilingual. We also talked about senior officials and ministers. Among the public, the issue of bilingualism has become normalized.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of activities we can do to support this. For example, there are immersion programs, such as the French as a second language program. The other element is obviously about supporting our communities.
The survey also showed that there was very strong support from official language minority communities. People see the connection and don’t see any contradiction between diversity and official languages. I think it was Richard Nixon who talked about the silent minority; I think the survey shows what all Canadians think. It’s important to make sure that we have programs in place to support that philosophy of bilingualism, whether through immersion schools, francophone schools, a post-secondary education system for communities, and so on.
I think that Canadians have grasped the concept of official languages and bilingualism very well. That is why I am optimistic. I’m always optimistic when I go to a community.
People talk about the fact that there are waiting lists for immersion schools and that newcomers often want to enrol their children in immersion schools, which tells me that they have understood the concept of bilingualism and two official languages. I participate in a lot of citizenship oaths, and you can see that it is a concept or principle that seems to be very well understood by these people.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we move on to the second round, I would also like to ask you a few questions. Concerning francophone immigration, in the brief you submitted to our committee, you recommend that the objectives, targets and indicators of the francophone immigration policy be effectively linked to the objective of maintaining and increasing the demographic weight of minorities. If memory serves, you do not talk about restoring demographic weight. I don’t think you use that term.
Do you support the notion of a “restorative target” as proposed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada?
Mr. Théberge: I think we use the word “restorative” or “improvement,” whatever. It is clear that we need to try to restore the demographic weight between the two communities. To do this, it is obvious that the 4.4% target is insufficient, and if we maintain this 4.4% with the new immigration targets that the federal government set a few weeks ago, the gap will continue to grow. At some point, this will have very negative consequences on the communities in terms of access to services, infrastructure, and so on. We must have an ambitious target. The FCFA and other demographers are proposing targets. One thing is clear: The 4.4% target is not enough.
The Chair: Thank you. I would like to hear from you on the issue of port and airport authorities.
We’ve heard that there are differences in terms of requirements. In your opinion, should the legislative provisions applicable to port and airport authorities be harmonized? It was understood that there were differences and requests to harmonize this. What are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Théberge: I think anything that affects what I would call the “travelling public” should be harmonized. Our choice of mode of transportation should not have an impact on our language rights. If we take a ferry, train or plane, I think the rights should apply to anyone who is part of what I call the “travelling public.”
For example, with respect to airport authorities, the decision in St. John’s has been appealed, and it clearly defines who is the “travelling public” and who is part of it.
The Chair: What do you think of the comments that Bill C-13 should include provisions to protect federally regulated private businesses or federal institutions from vexatious litigation?
Mr. Théberge: I think we need to agree on the definition of “vexatious litigation.” If you’re in court, it’s always adversarial. We need to let the courts decide what is vexatious and what is not.
The Chair: Okay, thank you. We’ll move on to the second round.
Senator Gagné: I have a quick question about the increase in complaints received by your office over the past year. I know it’s related to two specific issues. Do you still have the human and financial resources to ensure that complaints are handled in a timely manner?
Mr. Théberge: I would say that the office of the commissioner has not been structured to respond to the volume of complaints we had last year. For a number of years, there was a certain rate — 400, 500 or 600 complaints a year — and now it’s double the number and close to triple that number.
I think that, if we really want to be able to handle all of these complaints in a reasonable amount of time, we need to look at the resources, which have not changed for at least 10, 11 or 12 years. It is also important to make the connection with Bill C-13 because in Bill C-13, it is a matter of a new language regime. The commissioner is being given new powers that will require expertise that does not currently exist within the office.
On the issue of complaints, I often tell staff that investigating one complaint at a time will not resolve systemic issues. In addition, I think that what is proposed in Bill C-13 in terms of compliance mechanisms will enable us to address certain issues from a systemic perspective. This year, we will not reach 5,800 complaints, but there will still be a significant number of complaints. Of course, this puts pressure on all the staff, but we are also doing two things at the same time. We are preparing for Bill C-13, and we are dealing with day-to-day issues. It is clear that, from now on, we will have to look at the real needs of the office in terms of resources, so that it can fulfill its new mandate.
Senator Gagné: Thank you. You’ve started to talk about the topic of my other question: Have you ever assessed the resources required for Bill C-13, if the bill was passed as proposed?
Mr. Théberge: We started with a legal analysis of all of the powers of the office and the impact that this will have. For example, the bill talks about mediation. We don’t currently mediate in the office. So we will have to create a mediation unit. Currently, we don’t enter into compliance agreements and we don’t issue orders. We will need to have staff to do this.
The other element in the bill is that we have to promote the legislation. The bill clearly states that we must promote the legislation, especially the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act, UFFRPBA, to federally chartered private companies. Yes, we are looking at that. I am very aware of Ms. Freeland’s comments in recent months about the government’s limited resources. We’re going to try to show that this is a new piece of legislation with new obligations, and we clearly need new resources to do that.
Senator Gagné: Considering Minister Freeland’s comments, this is a concern that you share with other francophone organizations, given the objectives found in Bill C-13 and the action plan.
The Chair: I agree. The office of the commissioner has an extremely important role to play and will have an increased role to play, so we hope that you will be given the right resources to do your job.
I’m going to ask you to be very succinct, as we have to wrap up at 6:15 p.m.... So we have a bit of time.
Senator Moncion: I’m glad I have more time because I’m going to ask the commissioner to be creative in the next answer.
When answering the first question I asked you, you already addressed the topic of new immigration policies. I would like to hear you on some of the specifics that would be part of this new policy. I would like to know if you see the need, for example, for there to be specific elements with respect to New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario in terms of demographic weight, how to address that or how to address it in this policy.
Should we consider setting levels or quotas if this policy mentioned source countries where we would get our immigration? You did give some examples earlier, but I would like to hear more about the specifics in relation to the policy.
Mr. Théberge: You have an excellent point about provincial targets. Immigration is a shared jurisdiction. For example, provinces play an extremely important role in determining how many immigrants they are willing to accept.
When we talk about a target of 4.4% francophone immigration, we are talking about the entire country. If the target were 12%, it would still be for the entire country. It is clear that the realities in New Brunswick are different from those in Manitoba or the Yukon. We have to negotiate agreements between the provinces and the federal government. For example, in New Brunswick, it is almost automatic that 32% to 33% of immigrants have to be francophone because, last year, this figure was 19%. That is a step backwards. I believe that, in Ontario, they had already set a target of 5%. Did they reach it? I don’t know. In Manitoba, they’ve already set a target of 7%. There is an important negotiating role to be played between the provinces and the federal government, and that is where we have to make sure that we advocate to the provinces to ask for the right number of francophone immigrants.
Quebec may be the province with the most autonomy in immigration. The federal government always sets the target in a general way, whether it is 350, 400 or 500. Afterwards, a negotiation takes place between the two levels of government. In Quebec, during the last election campaign, there was a lot of talk about different immigration thresholds, from a very low threshold to a very high one. Today, I read an article that said that in X number of years, Quebec would account for 18% of the Canadian population. I think there are decisions to be made in Quebec, for Quebec and by Quebec.
We also need to make decisions in each province and territory based on the demographic needs of francophone communities. If, in Ontario, the figure is 2%, that is a significant decline. If it’s 19% in New Brunswick, even that is a decline. If it’s 2% or 3% in Manitoba, that’s a decline. You have to understand the role of the provinces. They negotiate with the federal government. So that’s perhaps the first thing that must be recognized: the need to differentiate targets according to the communities. To me, that’s obvious.
Senator Moncion: Should the government slow down anglophone immigration to let francophone immigration catch up?
Mr. Théberge: A poll came out last week saying that about 75% of Canadians support the federal government’s proposed immigration levels. We are left with the question of who commissioned the poll, but that’s another issue.
It’s important to recognize that there is relatively high support for immigration in Canada that responds to demographic, economic and humanitarian needs. Canada is known for welcoming a large number of refugees. I think that current demographic needs are due in large part to our aging population and the labour shortage. I don’t think that’s a reason to decrease immigration. However, I certainly have a problem with these new targets being set without actually looking into francophone immigration. They simply stated that they would maintain the target at 4.4%, continue to do what they did before, and improve some things.
The only way to reach that 4.4%, or whatever the number happens to be, is by developing a specific policy. Currently, what I’m hearing from the government, which clearly stated it a few weeks ago, is this: “Here are our targets for 2022-2023, and we are going forward.” To my knowledge, they have not made any changes.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question. Some say that for francophone immigration, we should also target countries that speak neither French nor English. What do you think? We hear from various sources that, in terms of francophone immigration policy, we should target countries where we could draw in people who speak neither English nor French, then integrate them into the French language.
Mr. Théberge: The only way to succeed with this approach is to have very high-quality training programs in place. Earlier, when I talked about services for newcomers in our communities, I’m not convinced that we currently have the programs in place to do it.
The Chair: Thank you for your answer.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, I was listening closely when you mentioned some of the themes in the systemic plan. In the context of Bill C-13, people are asking how we can reconcile the vision of francophone minority communities with that of anglophone communities in Quebec. With your experience, do you agree with the Quebec Community Groups Network, which is in favour of withdrawing Bill C-13 in its current form?
Mr. Théberge: No, I believe that Bill C-13 is very promising for the future of official languages in Canada. At this point in the process, I think we should move forward.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, with your experience, do you and your team agree with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, which is in favour of accelerating Bill C-13’s passage by bringing the debate to an end?
Mr. Théberge: As I told the House of Commons committee, we consulted everyone. Everyone wrote reports. Every stakeholder has spoken. Furthermore, there is a clause in the bill that says after 10 years, we can re-examine it. I think that the time has come to act.
Senator Mockler: You are not a parliamentarian, but you have advised many parliamentarians. How could parliamentarians ease the fears around Bill C-13?
Mr. Théberge: There are two sections in Bill C-13: it promotes and [Technical difficulties] French, on the one hand, and on the other, it recognizes the very specific importance of both official language communities in Canada. And so, the bill is divided in two. There is the section on official languages, which deals with Part I to Part XII, and the UFA; that’s different. In our brief, we suggest codifying the concept of substantive equality in the UFA. We think it would respond to several people’s concerns.
The Chair: Still along the same lines, do anglophone communities in Quebec have any fears about losing their rights? Are these fears legitimate, and how do they fit into Bill C-13? Are anglophone minority communities losing any rights?
Mr. Théberge: The bill takes an asymmetrical approach, which supports promoting and protecting French, but not necessarily at the expense of English. As I said earlier, the bill clearly states that English and French have equal status. It’s stated very clearly. The UFA is where we grant particular rights to a community. We outlined our position and stated that the concept of substantive equality could be codified. There is nothing to prevent French from being promoted and, at the same time, protecting both communities’ language rights.
We can do both at the same time. I think that Bill C-13 is trying to do it, in the sense that it is already legislated in Bill C-32, but now we’ve divided it in two. I can understand the concerns of English-speaking communities in Quebec, and I’ve spoken with them many times. You asked me this question some time ago, and I answered that legislators had to be creative to find a solution.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Mégie: Mr. Théberge, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada proposed that an assistant deputy minister’s position should be created to take charge of francophone immigration. Do you think it’s relevant, given everything we have just discussed together? Is it necessary to continue, to improve and develop policies? Wouldn’t that be a way of helping to implement the whole system?
Mr. Théberge: Certainly. We need a branch or division tasked with francophone immigration, led by an assistant deputy minister responsible for francophone immigration. As you know, several federal departments have assistant deputy ministers responsible for francophone education. In areas where that type of position does not exist, there is a noticeable impact on programs and education. Within the federal government’s structure and organization, it is extremely important to recognize the importance of francophone immigration by granting it the necessary resources.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, I certainly don’t want to be the last one to ask the last question or, as they say on Tout le monde en parle, to ask the “killer question.” With the vast experience you’ve accumulated throughout the country and in our communities, be they anglophone or francophone — I could even include Indigenous communities —, can you tell me which entity would be the best choice to administer Bill C-13? Canadian Heritage or the Treasury Board?
Mr. Théberge: In my opinion, it would be the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board is a central agency that influences the entire federal administration, whereas Canadian Heritage is a department with a specific mandate. By the way, nothing prevents Canadian Heritage from continuing its work in the field of official languages. With the Treasury Board, I see an institution able to monitor all official languages activity, develop policies for the federal administration as a whole and implement them throughout the entire federal government. Canadian Heritage can certainly continue working with communities, just as that department has always done.
I think we need a single authority within the federal administration, one that can talk to all departments in all institutions. I think it should be a central agency like the Treasury Board. In the past, it was the Privy Council. It depends, but I think that this idea of governance and a structure… We can have the best possible bill, but if we don’t have a structure to ensure its implementation, we won’t get the desired results.
Senator Mockler: Mr. Théberge, what would you think if the responsibility fell directly under the Office of the Prime Minister?
Mr. Théberge: Honestly, I’ve never thought about it, so it would be hard for me to comment on the subject.
In New Brunswick, it falls to the premier, but I have no comment.
The Chair: Thank you for your question, Senator Mockler, and thank you for that reference to New Brunswick, commissioner. We’re nearly at the end.
I would like to hear you on the official languages maturity model. Has this tool led to improved compliance? Can you give us any examples, in fact? How has this tool been effective?
Mr. Théberge: With the little time I have left, I would say that the maturity model is not a tool to measure compliance, but to measure the state of processes and procedures in place for implementation. Have we set up the system required to do our work? Elections Canada participated in the process that led to creating an action plan. To date, about 40 federal institutions participated in the diagnostic process as part of their administrative process.
I will conclude by saying that, within federal institutions, official languages are very often found among a few highly proficient individuals. However, once they leave, institutional memory goes too. The maturity model is in place to ensure that you have documented official languages processes and procedures.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that comment, and thank you for appearing before us today. Your participation is always enriching; it helps us to do our work, to take an in-depth look at official languages issues and, in this specific case, issues around francophone immigration. Thank you, Mr. Théberge, Mr. Leduc, Mr. Labelle and Ms. Giguère. Thank you for your work at the commission. You certainly offer the commissioner a great deal of support, to our benefit and to everyone else’s.
We will now suspend the meeting, while we welcome our next panel. Thank you again, Mr. Théberge.
We will now resume the meeting. We have before us representatives from four post-secondary institutions responsible for recruiting foreign students for their respective institutions.
From the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, we welcome Mr. Juan Manuel Toro Lara, Director, Enrolment Management. From Université Sainte-Anne, in Nova Scotia, we welcome Mr. Luc Tardif, Director of International Recruitment and Immersion Schools, Recruitment Office.
From the Université de Hearst, in Ontario, we welcome Ms. Samantha Losier, International Office Advisor. Finally, from the Université de Saint-Boniface, we welcome Mr. Christian Perron, Director, Recruitment and Student Services.
Welcome to all of you, and thank you for accepting our invitation. We will now start with testimony from the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. Mr. Toro Lara, you have the floor.
Juan Manuel Toro Lara, Director, Enrolment Management, Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick: Good evening, honourable members of the Senate. My name is Juan Manuel Toro Lara, Director of Enrolment Management at the CCNB, the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick. I’m very pleased to address you today and to give you a brief overview during my speech of the CCNB’s specific contributions to francophone immigration in New Brunswick.
The CCNB offers about 80 programs within its 16 program families. They are offered in New Brunswick’s francophone regions by its five campuses, which are located in Bathurst, Campbellton, Edmundston, Dieppe and the Acadian Peninsula.
Since the CCNB’s founding in 1970, we’ve made a profound contribution to the vitality of the province’s francophone communities.
Before 2015, the proportion of the CCNB’s international student population was relatively low, and clustered mainly in the greater Dieppe area, New Brunswick’s most important region. Since 2015, the CCNB’s international student population has started settling elsewhere, in the province’s different francophone regions.
Over the last 10 years, particularly since 2015, the CCNB is seeing real diversity among its student body. The institution succeeded in diversifying not only its students’ geographic origin, but also their destinations in New Brunswick. The CCNB is also working to diversify its student clientele to meet the needs of a new clientele. This diversification is due to the arrival of refugees and many immigrants who need language classes and remedial training to improve their professional integration.
Over the last several years, due to rigorous management of its student body, the CCNB has contributed significantly to revitalizing the province’s francophone communities.
For the current year, we have a total of 2,103 students; of those, 1,144 are from 30 countries, mainly the African continent. For the current school year, the international student body represents 44.8% of the CCNB’s total student body.
In the regions, our international students have made their presence felt by their immediate contribution to the economy, specifically through the part-time jobs they take while studying, and obviously through the jobs they obtain at the end of their program.
The CCNB’s 2022-27 strategic plan includes important elements for recruitment: welcoming, integrating and retaining international graduates in New Brunswick. Furthermore, the 2022-27 plan includes results pertaining to equality, diversity and inclusion. This will help us improve training by including prior learning about the construction of francophone identity among assessed social skills. The goal is to help students to grow. As well as technical skills associated with their program, soft skills are associated with successful integration into francophone communities. The CCNB considers that these real actions will reinforce our international student population’s preparation and have a positive impact on retention.
The international student population represents a truly promising pool for recruiting francophone immigrants. International graduates are ideal candidates for immigration, because they have received Canadian training, during which they successfully established links with communities. Increasing training efforts for international students and newcomers is also a way of reducing the burden of recognizing immigrants’ credentials, especially in regulated professions and trades.
The CCNB’s contribution is measured in real results, of which we are especially proud. In June 2022, about 300 international graduates applied for postgraduate work permits. This is an ideal pool for recruiting francophone immigrants in New Brunswick. These 300 graduates represents about 91% of our international graduates, and approximately 31% of CCNB’s graduates. This is all possible thanks to the framework set up by our teachers and support services, which contributed to the local economy and had a considerable impact.
In addition, through an agreement with IRCC, CCNB provides language training in French and English for refugees and immigrants in the Atlantic provinces. In addition, this year, the CCNB has been mandated by the New Brunswick provincial government to provide English language skills development for the international student population. This can, we believe, have a major impact on job retention in the francophone region of the province where students will be exposed to English.
As you can see, the CCNB is a partner of choice in supporting the government’s francophone immigration efforts. The work of planning, managing and offering services has been carried out for several years in close collaboration with the provincial government of New Brunswick and the federal government. We are very grateful for the support we have received, but we are also aware that there is much work to be done.
I will close by saying that, despite the good results of our institution, we still have many challenges and we would like to have the opportunity to work together, particularly with the collaboration of IRCC, to attract bona fide candidates, recognize regional francophone realities in policy development, recognize the impact of post-secondary institutions on francophone immigration, and recognize the lack of consultation on the alignment of initiatives targeting the international student population.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Toro Lara. We will now continue with Mr. Luc Tardif, Director of International Recruitment and Immersion Schools, Université Sainte-Anne Recruitment Office. Mr. Tardif, the floor is yours.
Luc Tardif, Director of International Recruitment and Immersion Schools, Recruitment Office, Université Sainte-Anne: Good evening to all of the senators. Good evening to my colleagues, whom I usually see all over the road. I am sad to see them only in virtual format.
Université Sainte-Anne is the only French-language post‑secondary institution in Nova Scotia, and has been since 1890. The face of our university has changed a lot since it was founded, and the arrival of many international students has helped this small Acadian institution, which is extremely important for francophones and francophiles in our province, to grow and open up to the world.
This influx of new brains from all corners of the global Francophonie, but overwhelmingly from the African continent, has had the effect of diversifying our student body and our rural community population. It is partly because of this that our university now has 620 students, of whom approximately 30% are international students. This is the highest number since its inception 132 years ago. This number may seem insignificant for larger communities with a very large francophone majority, but in our Acadian communities where young people tend to leave for urban centres, it is quite different.
The reason I am here today, however, is to talk about the difficulties we have in bringing new recruits to us each year. There are obviously several factors that explain this situation, some of which are not the responsibility of our university or the Government of Canada. But, according to our observations, there are nonetheless changes that should be made that could greatly help Canada’s francophone institutions attract more international students.
The most important challenge is, as you might expect, the issuance of visas. It is important to know that we do not expect Canada to suddenly start accepting all applications for study permits from Africa. However, how can we deny visas to students just because they want to come to Canada to study simply to immigrate, when we are clearly looking for skilled immigrants?
Why is it that those with undergraduate and graduate degrees who want to come to Canada for college-level vocational training are almost routinely denied a study permit? Yet this is something that Canadians do with no problem. Why shouldn’t Africans change their minds too? With the labour shortage facing Canada, it seems to me that this is part of the solution.
I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention that visas from 16 countries are processed in a single visa processing centre in Dakar, Senegal. You can probably imagine the delays this causes, and these delays in turn cause discouragement and dropouts among our potential recruits.
It should also not be forgotten that francophone institutions outside Quebec must constantly fight to exist in the eyes of immigration officers. It is very common for students to be asked why they chose one of these institutions instead of going to Quebec. This situation improves every year, because we make ourselves known through our presence at fairs in the Maghreb or in sub-Saharan Africa, but when there is a change of guard in the embassies, everything has to be redone.
I feel that greater collaboration between Canadian universities and visa offices around the world would alleviate some of the frustration created by this situation, because if we knew the status of our students’ files, in some cases, we would be able to understand the logic behind the decisions that were made. Without these collaborations, all we see is that it is much, much easier for people from China, India or elsewhere to get a visa than for people from Africa. The problem is that students from these countries tend to go to English-speaking universities.
It is true that it is quite easy to obtain a student visa in France, but because of the agreements between France and Quebec, the vast majority of these students go to Quebec universities.
I am aware that I am not teaching you anything new by telling you about these problems; we have been repeating the same things for years. However, each rejection has a very significant impact on our university, on our community and on the lives of those people who see their dreams being dashed.
This is why we expect a more transparent and logical, but most importantly, a fairer system.
Canada is looking for qualified francophone immigrants; we are one of the francophone institutions that can help our country achieve this by qualifying them here. All we ask is that we be given the chance to do so to ensure that we continue to evolve, diversify and contribute to the vitality of our francophone communities, in Acadia and everywhere else in Canada.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tardif.
We now turn the floor over to Ms. Samantha Losier, an advisor at the international office of Université de Hearst in Ontario.
Samantha Losier, International Office Advisor, Université de Hearst: Good afternoon, and thank you. Since its founding in 1953, Université de Hearst has been a post-secondary institution by francophones and for francophones. It was and still is training the minds that drive and make Northern Ontario shine. In doing so, the Université de Hearst ensures the presence and quality of French in the region.
The face of the Francophonie is changing. The report entitled La langue française dans le monde, published by Gallimard and the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, indicated that in 2022, almost 50% of French speakers live on the African continent.
Well before these data were published, the education community in Ontario and in the Canadian francophonie was talking about the internationalization of its clientele. For the post-secondary sector, it was a strategy to create openness and, as Hélène Tremblay would say, to bring humanity to humanity.
In a concrete way, international recruitment has allowed Université de Hearst to reach out to exceptional people with an immigrant background. Some of them dream of calling Canada home. Collaterally, the influx of international students has become a mechanism that will allow us to maintain French in our regions for generations to come.
I will let my colleagues’ statements highlight the future and importance of French. In the precious minutes you are giving me, I will take the liberty of telling you the story of a small university that contributes to the recruitment, reception, support and development of newly arrived francophones.
They quickly become our colleagues, our neighbours, our friends, our spouses, the volunteers in our organizations, in short, the members of our communities.
For almost 10 years, Université de Hearst has been accompanying its student population, and this, long before their arrival. The knowledge we have acquired is the result of experiences, conversations, lessons, and skills that ensure the constant improvement of the personalized support offered to our student population. This work, it must be said, is of our own making. The funds, the valuable knowledge, the institutional services remain unavailable to our international students. Why not? Because of their temporary status, they are not eligible.
Supporting this clientele from French-speaking African countries is not without its challenges, challenges that many of us are relentless in highlighting and condemning.
If I am today a Regulated Immigration Counsellor for International Students (RICIS), it is because Université de Hearst felt it had an obligation to its students and wanted to help them navigate the muddy and turbulent waters of immigration, as soon as they obtained a study permit which, unfortunately, remains unattainable for many young dreamers.
The immigration guidelines can be learned by heart, but on the ground, the rules of the game remain an enigma. My colleagues have well highlighted the inequities and biases in the issuance of study permits before this committee and many others; studies have been conducted, reports have been written, and recommendations have been made.
Tools that are used to automate the assessment process are slowly becoming known. For example, there is Chinook, which extrapolates data from thousands of IMM 1294 forms and organizes them in an Excel spreadsheet, allowing for faster processing without a network. As a RICIS, I am committed to equipping applicants to prepare PDF forms, as well as financial records and cover letters, without even being certain that they will be opened and viewed in full.
If, by some miracle, a student manages to get a study permit, he or she will quickly face a new obstacle. Statistically, the path from student to permanent resident goes through several study and work permits. Each status has its own rules and conditions. More than 60 routes can lead to permanent residence. The steps remain precarious and expensive, but above all mysterious. One should never put one foot wrong. The threat of deportation is always a major concern for temporary residents. Unawareness, inattention, illness and the unexpected can quickly put an end to this dream.
I hope you will have understood that we can provide fruitful help. Immigration is not part of our mandate, but it has become an important, if not unavoidable, part of our work, not only to meet our own needs, but also those of our communities. We walk with our students to graduation and integration into the labour market.
Our francophone community partners take up the slack. For example, the caisse populaire, which hires many of our students, can attest to their outreach.
In short, we are humbly delivering, but on a silver platter nonetheless, a large quantity of future skilled workers, potential permanent residents who will enable the federal government to reach its precious targets. These targets are valuable to us too.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience with you. I hope I have convinced you that Université de Hearst and the post-secondary sector are a strategic partner, a leader in supporting these aspiring Canadians. In a few short years, we train competent, creative, ambitious, involved, but, above all, acclimatized people in every sense of the word.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Losier.
We now welcome Mr. Christian Perron, Director, Recruitment and Student Services, Université de Saint-Boniface.
The floor is yours.
Christian Perron, Director, Recruitment and Student Services, Université de Saint-Boniface: Good evening. Since 2012, I have been the Head of Recruitment and Student Services at Université de Saint-Boniface. I am speaking from St. Boniface, Winnipeg, on Treaty 1 territory.
The Université de Saint-Boniface (USB) is the only francophone university in Western Canada. It offers college and university education, with 30 programs in total.
Today, out of just over 1,300 students, international students make up nearly 15% of the overall student population. These students come from more than 20 different countries, but mostly from French-speaking Africa.
USB offers reception, orientation and ongoing follow-up services through its international office. As a minority institution, USB does not have the resources required to operationalize a transition-to-employment service. Take note that the tuition fees and markup factor are among the lowest in the country.
I hope that my presentation today can make you aware of the main issues that affect USB’s contribution to francophone immigration to Manitoba: The first issue is the high refusal rate of study permit applications, and the second is the branding of Canadian international education abroad.
First, over the past five years, USB has received an average of 900 admission applications per year. This translates into 400 formal admissions and then 85 new enrolments per year, a conversion rate of just over 20%.
In our view, this low conversion rate from formal admission to enrolment is due to the very high refusal rate for study permit applications.
I refer you, at your convenience, of course, to the address delivered on May 2, 2022, to this committee, I believe, by Mr. Martin Normand of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne. In summary, Mr. Normand spoke about the challenges of the high rejection rate, the lack of awareness of Canadian francophone post‑secondary institutions in embassies, the lack of resources to support the academic pathway of international students to promote retention, and finally, the lack of resources to facilitate the transition of an international graduate to employment. These barriers are very much alive and well for USB.
Second, for an institution the size of USB, with very limited resources and no economies of scale, strong branding and flagship recruitment events for Canada, particularly for the Canadian francophonie, that match our country’s aspirations for international education, and therefore for immigration, are paramount.
In recent years, EduCanada fairs have become increasingly scarce and have been replaced by other, often very expensive options whose origin, quality, and sometimes even legitimacy we are not aware of. USB often does not have the luxury of participating in more than one event in each of these markets. For us, it’s not a matter of choosing a fair, but choosing the right fair.
Finally, I would point out that USB invests a lot of resources and effort in preparing its activities, recruiting, welcoming, orienting, monitoring, training, retaining, accommodating and accompanying international students, but that it has to overcome obstacles and face risks that are, in this case, the responsibility of the federal authorities.
The rejection rate and the existence of flagship events are key issues for the Université de Saint-Boniface.
On behalf of USB, I recommend that measures be adopted to support minority post-secondary institutions in their efforts to contribute directly to the recruitment of international students and to increase francophone immigration. In particular, harmonization of messages on international education and immigration would be an asset.
In closing, I thank the committee members for their attention and send warm greetings from Manitoba to Senator Gagné.
The Chair: The senator has duly received them.
Thank you to our four witnesses for their very informative presentations. Let’s move on to the question period.
Senator Moncion: My question is for all four witnesses and is directly related to the financial contribution associated with international students. These foreign students come to Canada in search of an important education, but they also have a role to play in the profitability of post-secondary institutions in your communities and in the contribution of francophone students. I would like your opinion on their financial weight in relation to the operations of your respective universities.
The Chair: The question is for our four witnesses. Who would like to begin? Go ahead, Mr. Perron.
Mr. Perron: Our tuition fees and fee increases are among the lowest in the country. At the Université de Saint-Boniface, for most courses, the fee is doubled, so an international student has to pay twice what a Canadian student pays. The basic tuition fees are the same as what Canadians pay and 100% of the fee increase at the Université de Saint-Boniface goes to internationalization activities.
Essentially, the increased revenues enable us to have an international office, guidance counsellors for international students, mental health support, and so on. The net benefit is negligible for us because the revenues are equal to the direct and indirect expenditures for internationalization.
The Chair: Would another witness like to respond?
Mr. Toro Lara: At the Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, international students pay about twice what Canadian students pay. The significant increase in the international student clientele has generated revenues that have allowed us to develop new support services. Specifically, the CCNB offers support services for international graduates to obtain permanent residency. That is one of the free services offered to international students.
Mr. Tardif: At the Université Sainte-Anne, international students pay about $2,000 more than Canadian students. We have a type of scholarship system so they are not charged much more than Canadian students. I do not have the numbers, but I can tell you that international recruitment keeps us afloat. Canadians are having fewer and fewer children and people from the Acadian communities of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, where most of our students come from, tend to move to larger urban centres.
Definitely, it helps us financially, not necessarily on a per capita basis, but in the overall numbers.
Ms. Losier: I would say roughly the same thing as Mr. Tardif. We are being told that the survival of our institutions depends on international students and that their fees are more important precisely to keep our institutions open.
At the Université de Hearst, the difference is about $1,600 per year. In addition, while that is true, I am in an unusual position because international students make up 75% or 80% of our student body, a huge contingent. This can largely be explained by the situation in our regions, since young people and families are leaving.
While immigration is important for government as a whole, the targets exist, but it is not just the Université de Hearst that depends on this influx of new students to keep its doors open. Our employers and communities depend on them as well. Although they are a large contingent, I would not like to say that is why they are there. I would rather focus on our internationalization strategy, the benefits of this openness, the whole picture of interaction between the people of Hearst and people from Cameroun, with people eating poutine and ndole. I would rather focus on that than the financial aspect.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your replies. That is not always discussed with regard to university funding. I think it is the most important aspect of how international students contribute to the vitality of your communities. That was mentioned in your introductory remarks.
As to integrating those individuals, can you tell us about the government assistance you receive to integrate those individuals into your communities?
Ms. Losier: I would like to answer first since I talked about this in my opening remarks. Since I arrived at the Université de Hearst in 2015, I have strongly advocated for settlement services for our temporary residents. If the Université de Hearst has settlement services, it is because we created them, fund them through our budgets, and created an international bureau by training three people who have the RICIS designation. Our university created those services.
There are community partners whose mandate is to provide permanent residents with very good language and settlement programs. We always look for a way to work with them and make their services available to our students, who are not yet permanent residents but have that long-term objective.
We try to work with the francophone immigration support networks and settlement services, although we are not specifically part of their funding. We can always find ways of working with them. To satisfy their financial backers, they have to show that they have a certain number of permanent residents. Since there are not a lot of permanent residents in our communities right now, our students will become those permanent residents.
It is not reasonable to expect to miraculously put someone under contract after three, four or five years when the university has done all the work. We try to integrate and retain them by offering these future clients information sessions, activities or workshops. That is how we work with them.
Mr. Toro Lara: At the CCNB, we have focused on offering services to the international student population rather than being represented by intermediaries abroad.
Our operations and business models receive significant support from the provincial government, which assists us financially to support the settlement services we created with their help. Unfortunately, as Samantha clearly pointed out, international students are not on IRCC’s radar for settlement services, which they provide to permanent residents only. We also believe that federal support for direct services to the international student population could benefit the students here, while also presenting our institutions in a favourable light internationally.
The Chair: Thank you. Does someone wish to answer?
Mr. Perron: At Saint-Boniface, I can’t say the university itself offers settlement services; we do not receive additional funding for that kind of activity, but we deal with our community partners a lot, especially Accueil francophone, whose mandate is to provide settlement services to the francophone immigrant population in Manitoba.
Mr. Tardif: I would say roughly what my colleagues said. There is perhaps another initiative in New Brunswick, the Study and Stay program, and the Study and StayTM Nova Scotia program, which is provincial, which we conduct with EduNova. Workshops are offered to our students. In Nova Scotia, unfortunately, these workshops are offered almost exclusively in English. The workshops are given near the end of the student’s program and they are taught in English, so it is easier for them to access the workshops in English, but we would certainly like them to be available in French as well.
The Chair: Mr. Tardif, you referred to the Study and Stay program?
Mr. Tardif: Yes, in French, it is called Étudier pour m’y établir, a name I do not like.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thank you and welcome to Ms. Losier, Mr. Toro Lara, Mr. Tardif and Mr. Perron. Hello, Christian.
Are you able to track what your graduates do? If so, I would like to know what percentage of international students become permanent residents.
Mr. Perron: Right now, we are not really able to keep track of our international students after they graduate. Over the next 18 months, the Université de Saint-Boniface will be undergoing a digital transformation, and we hope our new systems will enable us to do that through our alumni network.
As to permanent residency, we have only the figures the province provides. Each year, the province contacts us and we ask for data from the province. We know that 60% of our graduates apply for permanent residency through Manitoba’s Provincial Nominee Program. Do others apply through the federal system? Possibly, but I don’t know.
Ms. Losier: The situation is similar at the Université de Hearst. We are about to get very good computer systems, but thus far, given our small test, we are all on a first-name basis.
The information I could provide is very qualitative. I can tell you that Simone is about to get permanent residency, that Diara was just hired by the Municipality of Moonbeam, that Étienne is very happy with his job at the caisse populaire. They are our first cohort of students who have gone from being students to obtaining a post-graduate work permit and then becoming permanent residents. The first students were about to apply for permanent residency at the start of and during the pandemic. Most recently, the applications of a number of students were accelerated as a result of temporary policies that sped up access to permanent residency for new graduates and francophone and anglophone essential workers in health care. The permanent residency application of a number of people was sped up. I do not have the numbers either, but I will be pleased to tell you about our students and the path they took.
Mr. Toro Lara: At the CCNB, 90% of graduates from the current year and last year applied for post-graduate work permits and received assistance from our immigration consultants as regards permanent residency. Our strategic plan for 2022-27 set a target of 70% retention in New Brunswick five years after the end of the program, and 75% for the first year after the program. We reached an agreement with the University of New Brunswick (UNB) to measure retention rates.
Mr. Tardif: At the Université Sainte-Anne, the situation is essentially the same as what my colleagues Christian and Samantha described, so we do not have exact figures. I can tell you, without a doubt, that well over half of our students ultimately obtain a post-graduate work permit. Whether it is 75% or 92%, I have no idea; I do not have any figures on that.
Senator Gagné: A clause in Bill C-13 pertains to immigration policy, which will be further developed after the bill is passed.
Once it’s possible to flesh out the policy, do you think it would be advisable to address aspects of the immigration of international students after they graduate?
Mr. Toro Lara: That would certainly be helpful for recruitment to our post-secondary institution, and also for the transition to permanent residency. I think the dual objective of our international students is an important issue. Based on our observations and conversations with students, this dual objective is the reason that many of our international students are rejected when they apply for a study permit.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to answer?
Ms. Losier: I fully agree. There is clearly dual intent. If we welcome people from francophone Africa, we know that many of them will want to stay, although some will not.
I think that the more programs there are to act as a gateway towards permanent resident status and to facilitate the process, the better it will be. For example, I have the privilege of sitting on the selection committee for a pilot immigration program in rural and northern communities, which we are lucky to have in our region and which has just expanded beyond the community of Timmins to include Université de Hearst’s campuses. If it were possible to have this kind of access for francophones and new graduates from francophone institutions, it could be a very attractive prospect for them.
Mr. Perron: I believe it would definitely be beneficial to harmonize the international education and immigration strategies and to have something covering all those aspects in a policy or act.
However, as my colleagues said, there might be some uneasiness about recruiting people via immigration when we already know that some students will be turned down on grounds that they can’t prove they will be returning to their country.
The harmonization of international education in terms of immigration would help and also open the door to collaborations with trade delegates and the EduCanada fairs, or to other options making it possible to work together more consistently.
Senator Mégie: In your addresses, each of you mentioned a number of figures, degrees and graduates who submitted an application. This aspect wasn’t clear to me. Could you specify whether it was in connection with a visa application or a work permit application?
I have some other questions to ask afterwards.
Mr. Tardif: In most instances, it was student visa applications.
Senator Mégie: Does your organization handle that? There was talk earlier of an office in Dakar that handled visas.
Are you aware of the process involved in obtaining visas, knowing that with the Chinook algorithm, many applications are blocked? Does your organization handle all that?
Mr. Perron: At the beginning of my address, I spoke about the conversion rates between official admissions and enrolment, and said that our conversion rate was approximately 20%. I mentioned that because I am well aware that in our markets, and particularly in francophone Africa, the refusal rate is in fact 80%. We believe these rates are connected. As it happens, I was talking about study permit applications.
Senator Mégie: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Losier: I’m going to put on my RICIS hat as a foreign student immigration advisor because we often use the words “visa,” “study permit” and “work permit” interchangeably, when they are really not the same thing. The visa is the stamp in the passport that authorizes people to be in Canada and the study permit or work permit is a status that allows people to study or work in Canada.
At Université de Hearst, for example, my role as an immigration advisor means helping people prepare their study permit applications, which are then processed at a visa office, often located at an embassy. As Mr. Tardif mentioned, the Canadian embassy in Dakar processes study permit applications for 16 countries in francophone Africa, where IRCC officers open the documents, analyze the information and consider whether or not to approve the application.
Once the students are here, we support them by giving them information about the number of hours they’re allowed to work and how to maintain their full-time student status in order to remain eligible for their work permit once they have graduated, after which we help them fill in their application for a work permit. We also give them contact names at IRCC or a referral to immigration consultants for advice on the next steps to follow to acquire permanent resident status.
That way, they know what to expect. As soon as they’ve obtained their work permit after graduating, they can immediately start looking for a job commensurate with their skills, accumulate the number of hours needed, and prepare their profile in Express Entry if they have applied under that program.
Senator Mégie: That clarifies a number of things.
In addition to dual intent, I just heard a proposal for a possible solution, which is to align education with the programs.
Are there other factors you would add or other recommendations you would like to make to improve the process, and access to education by francophone foreign students?
Mr. Toro Lara: I can try to answer your question.
Every year, IRCC closely reviews the compliance issue. Each post-secondary educational institution has to submit compliance reports. It’s simply an indicator used by IRCC to determine which students have been accepted in which institution, which students are enrolled, and which students are still enrolled. In many instances, the compliance rate is very high, and sometimes the institution itself does not know what it is.
We believe that enhanced collaboration with IRCC to exchange this kind of information, by which I mean the approval rate for study permit applications, could be very beneficial. It could have a major influence on increasing the number of international students who submit a bona fide application. As my colleagues mentioned, at Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick, we are in favour of more bona fide candidates, but not necessarily a system-wide increase in approval rates for all international students.
Senator Mégie: Do you have any other points to add?
Ms. Losier: I really like the point that my colleague just raised, which is the fact that we don’t just want to increase the number of candidates. It’s in our interest to have bona fide students, but they also need to have the financial capacity to come to Canada. We spoke about dual intent and bona fide. The other factor that causes many refusals is financial capacity and the inability to demonstrate financial capacity. It’s important to understand that bank accounts abroad do not operate like bank accounts here, meaning that people are not necessarily paid twice a month as employers in Canada do. They don’t use debit cards to show the usual transactions on their accounts. When it’s hard to demonstrate financial capacity, the decision is up to the discretionary power of the officer. That’s who decides whether someone has the capacity to finance their studies in Canada, or whether they have a credible link with their sponsor, and other details like that.
One solution that I find interesting is the Student Direct Stream, which began in five countries and will be extended to other countries, including those countries in francophone Africa where the steps required are much more demanding, but where the acceptance rates are slightly higher. We are now seeing more and more refusals in the Student Direct Stream. It may be an imperfect program, but I believe we’re on the right track.
If applicants are unable to give a clear picture of their financial status, with letters from their employer, bank statements, etc., they will be asked to put money in a Canadian account, to be returned to them during their first year of studies. It’s a program we could look at again, and it requires more consideration. In my view, it’s a good starting point.
Mr. Perron: I’d like to add a few details.
Did you know that while a lot of data is collected, there is very little data sharing? Twice a year, we are required to submit a compliance report to IRCC on all kinds of information about the status of people who attend our post-secondary institutions, and to do so every year until they graduate. Doing this requires a lot of work, but we haven’t yet understood what this information is used for.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that useful information.
Senator Dalphond: I was reading an article on the CBC website by journalist Louis Blouin about the Sommet de la Francophonie currently being held in Tunisia. He said that Canada was strongly criticized by other countries because of its policies that systematically refuse Africans who want to come to Canada to study. He wrote that Canada had been severely criticized because of its wholesale refusal to issue study permits to African nationals, with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada claiming that most of the time they intended to remain in Canada at the end of their education. But then I’ve heard university representatives say that they were introducing programs to encourage students to remain in Canada after graduation.
I believe that Mr. Perron and Senator Mégie alluded to this issue a little earlier. The lack of alignment was discussed and I believe that the two policies contradict one another. The need for immigration policy harmonization on the one hand, and the need for retention on the other, are contradictory. That said, the Prime Minister said in response to the situation and to the criticisms, including an article published in Le Monde, that this would have to change and that he had asked the minister, Mr. Fraser, to take appropriate action.
The minister said that he had been working on it since September.
My question is for the representatives of francophone universities outside Quebec. Since September, have you been contacted by the department of immigration or Mr. Fraser’s office to ask how you might participate in a policy alignment process?
Mr. Perron: Not to my knowledge.
Senator Dalphond: Yes, including the Association des collèges et universités?
The Chair: The Association des collèges et universités, for example, but have you been contacted and consulted individually on this matter?
Mr. Toro Lara: We were invited to an informal discussion, but not necessarily at that level.
Ms. Losier: We are talking to you today. We hope that things will continue in the right direction.
Senator Dalphond: Am I to understand that on the ground, good intentions have not yet yielded real results or led to concrete programs?
Ms. Losier: If I may, when we talk to IRCC and they explain dual intent to us, we want to make it possible for someone who wishes to become a permanent resident to do so, but at the same time, IRCC wants to make sure that if someone doesn’t manage to make progress for whatever reason, they will have enough reasons to leave Canada and return to their country. It’s hard to say, because even though we want to help good people who meet the eligibility criteria and the requirements to continue here, we don’t want to contribute to increasing the number of non-status people in Canada.
They protected themselves by coming up with this distinction in relation to dual intent. It’s not that we don’t want them to stay; it’s that we don’t want them to stay in the country illegally.
Mr. Toro Lara: The current context and the measures in place are asymmetrical if we compare the reality of francophone international students to anglophone international students. The size of the anglophone international student clientele has a major impact on public policy, at the expense of francophone communities. It’s as simple as that.
When I’m told that the approval rate is going to be increased, I still worry about francophone minority communities. It’s all very well to increase the approval rate, but in the francophone regions, the realities are very different from those in major cities like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
Without going into too much depth, let’s just look at housing and public transportation. Increasing the approval rate cannot be aligned properly without adopting concrete measures to address other factors found only in francophone regions.
The Chair: I have a question before giving the floor to Senator Clement. Are there instances of people who apply for study permits and who never show up at your post-secondary institutions because what they really want is to immigrate? Are there many cases like that? In our discussions about immigration issues, that one comes up as a factor that leads to the strengthening of acceptance criteria, because there are some people who show up at the institutions, but don’t stay. Their goal is to immigrate. Can you tell us about these situations?
Mr. Tardif: Yes. It’s hard to come up with numbers. As I said in my address, we have no contacts with embassies or visa offices. That means we don’t know the exact number of people. I can never be 100% sure whether someone to whom I’ve sent an offer of admission has submitted a visa application.
What is absolutely certain is that some students receive a letter from a Canadian institution, go through the study permit application process, come to Canada and never show up at the institution in question. The exact number is difficult to determine. I know for sure that there are at least one or two a year. On the other hand, based on what I’ve heard from friends who work in immigration, there are more than that at Sainte-Anne, but I don’t have the information I need to provide an exact number. That’s also the case for my colleagues elsewhere in Canada.
Mr. Perron: Manitoba sets itself apart from the rest of Canada because of its International Education Act and its Code of Practice and Conduct Regulation. When combined with the good intentions of our international office, it’s very unusual for us to be surprised by applicants arriving at Université de Saint-Boniface when we didn’t expect them. In instances when they arrive with an official letter of admission, and they register, we never see them and they end up unregistering; this happens once, twice or maybe three times a year at most, as Mr. Tardif said. It’s not often.
Ms. Losier: On that very topic, It’s a well-known fact that there are dubious agencies that sometimes send fraudulent letters of admission. I’m just back from the annual CBIE conference, where an IRCC presentation led to discussion of pilot cooperative projects with a number of post-secondary institutions that would share their lists of admission offers. That way, when officers open a file, rather than having to do a second check, they could immediately see whether it was genuine. This kind of co‑operation is very interesting. I’m sure that my colleagues here today and my other colleagues at francophone institutions outside Quebec would be willing to take part in a pilot project of this kind. The more we can work together with IRCC, the happier we will be.
Senator Clement: Good afternoon, and thank you to all the witnesses. You always hear about the fact that international francophone immigration is a matter of federal jurisdiction and subsidiarily, provincial jurisdiction, but no one ever talks about municipal governments. And yet, your students will be living in communities. They will be housed there and use public transportation. When I was the mayor of Cornwall, I found that IRCC did not communicate very much with the cities. Do you have partnerships with your cities and how well does that work? What’s it like?
Mr. Toro Lara: In New Brunswick, we work very closely with the municipalities. They are invested in all that. It’s only very recent, but they are committed to and engaged in the issue of international students. In my presentation, I briefly mentioned that international students have often got through under the radar of several development stakeholders, but now, owing to the significant increase in the number of international students, new players, including the municipalities, are taking a considerable interest in it. We are pleased to note that in New Brunswick, all the municipalities, particularly the larger ones, are interested in working with us.
Mr. Tardif: I can talk about the Clare region, where Sainte-Anne University is located. There is an initiative with the municipality called Clare : Communauté francophone accueillante, where the public and immigrants commingle. International students are part of it, even though they aren’t necessarily immigrants at the moment. We have meal nights when we ask this person from that community to prepare something, and the community attends. We organize shows, presentations and all kinds of initiatives like that. We work with the municipality on it.
This initiative has been around for two or three years. We’ve always worked with the municipality, but yes, there are initiatives like this and, recently, there have been more and more of them. There is increasing diversity in the community, and not just at the university.
Ms. Losier: We’re all guilty at times of working in isolation. That said, I love your thinking.
It’s true that municipalities are really a key partner for universities. Sometimes, you think you’re alone in doing this work and you need their help, because you’re supporting people who are going to buy their homes, work on their committees and serve on their municipal councils. We often seek that co‑operation. I can speak to that in concrete terms.
There was a wonderful initiative last fall called Chez nous, c’est chez vous. It’s worth checking out our exceptionally beautiful video and the amazing photos. The goal of the initiative was to bring newcomers, students, workers and community members together for a uniquely Canadian experience in Northern Ontario. We went to a lake, slept in tents, made music by campfires and ate s’mores. It was truly a wonderful experience. We came away with nice connections. Now, people greet each other in the street, and students may get invited to people’s homes for dinner. We’re trying to create more experiences so that students, newcomers and the new owners of the restaurant or gas station don’t stay isolated. This is all about creating more cohesion and opportunities for these people to interact and connect with each other.
Senator Clement: Mr. Perron, you talked about the strong brand image that would be required — the image of Canada, I guess. Do we have a good brand? Have the issues we’ve been talking about since the beginning of our conversation damaged Canada’s image?
Mr. Perron: Yes, I sincerely believe that Canada has an excellent brand identity for international education, whether in the Francophonie or the Anglophonie. However, if you think about the comments that have been made this evening, if you hear it said here and there in other countries that Canada seems to have a penchant for refusal, I think these are things that can certainly damage our country’s reputation and willingness to recruit students, sometimes for immigration, but sometimes not.
There are still students who go back to their home countries, because the goal is to bring that knowledge back home. A brand, like a reputation, is something that needs to be nurtured, and it’s an ongoing job. We need to think about what we can do to maintain a reputation, and not just for Canada, because there is also the question of branding for Canadian francophone post‑secondary institutions. ACUFC members are far less well known than the post-secondary institutions in Quebec. This is a reality; there is certainly work to be done on positioning and brand image.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Mr. Tardif: As I said, I’m in Morocco right now. I’ve seen a lot of students in the last three days, and I can confirm that students are really attracted to Canada and have a good opinion of Canada. In general, those who have heard about the visa process still have a good image of the country, but not of our visa system.
The Chair: Okay. We’re slowly coming to the end. I’d like to ask you a question about francophone immigration policy. Bill C-13 contains a provision asking the Minister of Immigration to create a francophone immigration policy. I’ve been listening to you since the beginning, and I’ve noticed that an incredible number of stakeholders are involved. You are post‑secondary institutions, but you have become immigration specialists despite yourselves, and you work in your communities with other networks and other authorities.
Do you have any recommendations for us on what the francophone immigration policy should contain in terms of support for the coordination and consistency of immigration interventions in the regions? In the past, we’ve heard witnesses say that immigration should be regionalized. We need to develop more regional immigration strategies.
Do you have any advice or recommendations about who should be responsible in the regions, given that there are a number of players? Who is taking on the coordination role in your regions? My question, in general, is do you have any recommendations to ensure greater consistency in the work on immigration in francophone regions?
Mr. Tardif: Once students are on site or before they even arrive?
The Chair: Before, during and after.
Ms. Losier: For the before, I’d like to compare this to a recruitment fair. When we go to recruitment fairs, many of us are right next to each other, and we’re asked if we’re competing against each other and why we work together to come to the fairs.
We think that each person and each institution has their own unique characteristics that will match what a person is looking for. So someone will quibble with what I say about the Université de Hearst or with what Mr. Tardif says about Université Sainte-Anne, the CCNB or the Université de Saint-Boniface. As far as regionalization is concerned, we have to let people make their region shine and decide. It’s a bit like the ACUFC, which seeks to work with or support francophones outside Quebec, especially those in small communities who need something to have their place and to be considered equally with more well-known destinations such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. I’ll let my colleagues speak to that.
Mr. Perron: I’ll start with a caveat. It’s important to understand that international education and the recruitment of international students are one of the strategies that support francophone immigration. It’s not the only strategy. This means that the Université de Saint-Boniface is part of the francophone immigration network, which includes more than 15 different organizations in Manitoba. When it comes to regionalizing immigration, we’ll have to work with our community partners who are part of the grand strategy of francophone immigration in Manitoba.
I agree with Ms. Losier regarding pre-arrival. On arrival, there’s a harmonization between international education and immigration. I’m going to go down a notch; there is also harmonization within federal bodies, such as IRCC, embassies, customs, but it all seems to be deharmonized at times. There are also challenges in arriving in the country and crossing the border, and then getting to the communities.
I don’t think I really answered the question.
The Chair: That’s a very important and relevant insight.
Does anyone else want to weigh in?
Mr. Tardif: If we could train new embassy employees and make them aware that there’s a French fact outside Montreal, we would already have done some of the work. I don’t think it’s out of malice, but rather ignorance. Embassies don’t know that we exist, and even in Canada, some people don’t know we exist. We have work to do within Canada, but I believe that embassies can help us do that work outside Canada. We do it through missions abroad, but the embassy could help us by knowing that we exist and what we are.
The second thing doesn’t necessarily apply just to students, but to anything to do with immigration. Canadian government websites are the least sexy on the planet, and it’s very difficult to navigate to find the information you’re looking for if you don’t know where to find it. For example, how do you apply for a visa? There’s a list, but there’s no hyperlink. You have to find the place where you need to do what’s on the list. It seems that the people who built this website have never seen websites before. I think making it easier to navigate the website could help make fewer mistakes. This doesn’t just apply to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tardif. Mr. Toro Lara, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Toro Lara: I’m not going to repeat what my colleagues have already said, but I think that it’s important and that it’s time for the government to recognize post-secondary institutions, not just as educational institutions, but also as partners of choice when it comes to immigration. We are bona fide institutions. We’re looking for bona fide candidates. It’s in our interest to work together. We have the same goals. The recommendation I would make is that we should work together and consider ourselves partners so we can work together.
The Chair: Mr. Toro Lara, Mr. Perron, Ms. Losier, and Mr. Tardif, thank you very much for your comments and for the important work you do. Your reflections will help us draft our report on francophone immigration.
Colleagues, we will conclude on this point. I want to remind you that next week, on November 28, we’ll start our meeting at 4:00 p.m. and end at 7:45 p.m.
Thank you very much, everyone. Have a good week, and thank you for your interventions.
(The committee adjourned.)