THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, January 30, 2023
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; and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator René Cormier (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick and Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
[English]
Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin, British Columbia.
The Chair: Welcome to you all, and welcome to Angus Wilson, our new committee clerk.
I wish to welcome all of you and viewers across the country who may be watching. I would like to point out that I am taking part in this meeting from within the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg Nation.
Today we continue our study on francophone immigration to minority communities. Our meeting is in two parts of roughly one hour each. For the first part, we welcome Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General; and Stephen Thompson, Director of Government Relations, Policy and Research, from the Quebec Community Groups Network.
Thank you for being with us. Welcome to the committee. We will hear your opening remarks. They will be followed by questions from the senators. Ms. Martin-Laforge, the floor is yours.
Sylvia Martin-Laforge, Director General, Quebec Community Groups Network: Good afternoon, Senator Cormier, Senator Poirier and honourable members of the committee. It is nice to be back before you. Our president, Eva Ludvig, sends her best regards. Stephen and I will share the time with you during this hour.
The Quebec Community Groups Network is always pleased to be invited to participate in studies conducted by the parliamentary committees. Part of our mandate is to help parliamentarians understand the priorities and concerns of Canada’s English language minority community in a formulation of legislation and national policies.
We are happy for the opportunity to contribute to this study on the development of, in your words, “an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy” to support Canada’s French linguistic minority communities. English-speaking Quebec is an authentic and natural ally for francophone official languages minority communities.
Within a national francophone immigration strategy, for example, our community could play a role in helping the English-speaking majority understand and support the need for demographic renewal of francophones OLMCs. We could also continue to support research activities and forums addressing official language minority immigration and community adhesion.
The post-secondary institutions of English-speaking Quebec are important vectors of immigration. Here, one could envisage the governments of Canada and Quebec leveraging the attraction of these institutions to include more French immersion and second-language French programs that lead to government-recognized French language competencies. They could also be used to assist in teaching French to newcomers and providing tailored, job-specific French-language training. This, in turn, could be an important source of demographic renewal for OLMCs.
Unfortunately, English-speaking Quebec has not been a factor in federal immigration policies for two reasons, in our view.
The first explanation is the policy vision is too narrow, focusing on demographic renewal — immigration as a tool to halt and reverse numerical and proportional decline. The population of English-speaking Quebec, on the other hand, is growing. The population of francophone communities outside Quebec, unfortunately, is declining. However, demographic renewal is one of six vitality indicators.
Immigration to an official language minority community means more than increasing population numbers. The study’s order of reference asks the committee to study the impact of a national francophone immigration strategy on the development and vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec.
Another question may have been the following: Why are we left out? We demonstrate in our brief why English-speaking Quebec has a place in Canada’s immigration policy.
Stephen Thompson, Director of Government Relations, Policy and Research, Quebec Community Groups Network: The second reason that English-speaking Quebec is not a factor in federal immigration policies is the Government of Canada’s extremely risk-averse approach to the implementation of the Canada–Quebec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens.
We believe that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is failing to meet its legal obligations to our community for fear of offending the accord. Although we go into some detail on this in our brief, the time available and the committee’s focus preclude an exhaustive study. We recommend that more research and consultation must be done by the government on this topic and suggest it might be an interesting area of study by Parliament. This is a topic relevant to both English and French linguistic communities in the wake of last year’s Federal Court of Appeal decision in Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) and what that court’s finding now means to intergovernmental agreements.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We believe English-speaking Quebec could play an important role in supporting a federal national francophone immigration strategy. English-speaking Quebecers have always been at the forefront of Canadian bilingualism and are living proof that multiculturalism does not threaten but enhances the French-speaking nation of Quebec. We can play a role in championing immigration to French OLMCs with the English majority. I think that’s very important.
The protection and promotion of French are dear to the hearts of English-speaking Quebecers, but the way forward embraces the Canadian values of bilingualism, as a minimum, and multiculturalism — values reflected in English-speaking Quebec.
Mr. Thompson: IRCC has been too timid and risk averse with regard to the accord. It has misunderstood the accord’s relationship with and the effects on the Government of Canada’s legal and constitutional official-language obligations, especially with regard to their relationship with English-speaking Quebec. This situation has been allowed to continue because of Ottawa’s policy focus on francophone immigration as it relates to demographic and demolinguistic renewal, rather than a more holistic view that encompasses all vitality indicators and the delicacy surrounding immigration in the Ottawa-Quebec relationship.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: We now end our opening remarks, and we look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you so much for your presentation. We will now start our questions and answers.
[Translation]
I would ask the people around the table to move away from the microphones so as not to create interference should this occur.
Senator Gagné: Ms. Martin-Laforge and Mr. Thompson, welcome and thank you for being here this evening. I want to express my appreciation for the content of the brief that you sent to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
It is clear that Quebec’s anglophone communities want to play a leading role in Quebec and in Canada. You have expressed that very well in your brief. You have also articulated very well the rationale behind your desire to participate in the development of the immigration strategy, especially for newcomers to Quebec society, through English-speaking institutions and communities. In your view, this would enhance the vitality of the communities you represent.
You want to be consulted and be part of the strategy. The federal government did announce increased immigration levels recently.
[English]
Could you let us know what your thoughts are at QCGN on the increase in immigration levels announced by the Government of Canada and if that would have either a positive or a negative impact on Quebec’s English-speaking communities? You can start with that and then I have other questions I would like to ask.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Many years ago, we had given a brief to the National Assembly on levels of immigration for Quebec. Our community felt very strongly that immigration levels in Quebec should be raised. That was for the Quebec province. We haven’t surveyed recently on this, but, in general, our community, English-speaking Quebecers, is diverse. We are from many countries here in Quebec, and the tendency has always been to be a welcoming host society.
You will probably hear from Jack and maybe from Chedly on this as well, namely, that the majority of English-speaking Quebecers are supportive of higher levels of immigration because of our inherent diversity here in Quebec. English-speaking Quebecers are made up of many generations of people from all over the world. We have a very diverse population.
Mr. Thompson: In addition, higher immigration levels can be a double-edged sword. You will know that one of the big challenges of English-speaking Quebec is economic security, employment security and our community being overrepresented in the LICO and having lower median incomes than the majority. That means we are overrepresented, for example, in the homeless population and in folks that don’t have security in home and shelter. We bring in lots of new immigrants, which is good for business and good for us. That’s economic development and it is good for the province. At the same time, however, it puts a strain on the housing stock — especially the rental housing stock — and it puts strain on the health system. Of course, English-speaking Quebec has a role to play as a very diverse community, as Sylvia said. However, it points to the importance of close cooperation between the federal and provincial governments in implementing immigration policy to make sure that the services are available for folks when they show up.
Senator Gagné: Another question is about the fact that municipalities across Quebec vowed to keep bilingual status. What would be their implication in trying to attract immigrants to their communities? Are they well organized not only to attract but also to integrate and retain those immigrants?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: In Quebec, the municipalities are definitely creatures of the provincial government. We are happy that 47 of these municipalities are working to retain their bilingual status because the citizens in these communities are very attached to their services in English. I am not sure what role — and perhaps Stephen can help me out on this — the municipalities have at the National Assembly table with the government in creating space and creating policy for immigrants.
We know that many immigrants come to Montreal. There is the hope that they will go into these regions. English-speaking Quebecers could offer programs to help “francisize” some of those immigrants that come in with a first official language that is English. Over many decades and generations, we have been a host society. We know how to welcome and bring attachment to those newcomers coming in. I’m not sure — perhaps Stephen can help me out on this — what place the municipalities have at the table in the formulation of programs and services in municipalities.
Mr. Thompson: I will give two quick examples. The first one is a small one from where I am. I am quite proud of it. I’m not a Montrealer; I am from Montérégie. My local English community is Otterburn Park with now a small, declining population of elderly anglophones who live out there. I’m just looking at the story in my local paper here where Otterburn Park proudly passed its resolution to remain a 29.1 municipality able to offer services in English. The reason given by the mayor was because it was good for the community. It was good for both the francophones and the anglophones in that community that they could maintain their bilingual status and provide those services, not only to care for an aging population but also to attract business to Otterburn Park.
The second big example, of course, is the Voice of English-speaking Québec, their newcomer program. A number of years ago, they appeared before the committee. I alluded to that in the brief. They could not get funding from either the federal or the provincial government for their newcomer program project. That funding came from the Ville de Québec. The municipal government paid them for the newcomer program. Why? VEQ sat on the regional economic development table for Quebec City, and they viewed anglophones as an important lever to attract IT workers to the Quebec City region when Quebec was building up its animation industry. Of course, the insurance industry in Quebec City also relies heavily on having an anglophone community there as a lever for attraction. Those are two quick examples.
[Translation]
Senator Moncion: My question is about the immigration of anglophones to Quebec. I’d like to hear from you on this subject, because you mentioned that Quebec’s anglophone population is not declining, but rather growing. Which of the immigration strategies you mentioned could be useful to the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN)?
[English]
Ms. Martin-Laforge: May I just check on the question again? You are asking what strategies are important for the English-speaking community in view of the demographics that we are facing, which is an increase. Is that your question, senator?
Senator Moncion: Yes, and about immigration because this study is about immigration. How is that impacting your communities? You said in your comments that the English population in Quebec is growing. On the other side, francophone immigration is reducing, so I just want to hear you on this.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: This is probably going to be a two-parter, with Stephen working on the second piece of this.
In terms of immigration, what has been particularly interesting for us in examining and monitoring the small but important success of the francophones in the rest of Canada is they have been able to have newcomers — immigrants — attach to the French-language communities in the different cities. Attachment culturally and linguistically is what the francophones in the rest of Canada want from the immigrants coming in, but 4% was not enough; 12% is what the FCFA is looking for.
In Quebec — and this is a long tradition and history in English-speaking Quebec — the people who are coming in are not necessarily coming in to be part of the English-speaking community; they are coming in for different reasons. The attachment to the notion, the concept and the framework of English-speaking Quebec is not —
[Translation]
— this is not at the strategy’s core.
[English]
The English-speaking community over the last 50 and 60 years has identified itself more and more as a minority community because 60 years ago, I don’t think that many English-speaking Quebecers — “anglophones” — would have seen themselves as part of a minority.
Now in Quebec, more and more English-speaking Quebecers see themselves as a minority. They are not anglophones; they are Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Punjabi. They are so diverse that the sense of belonging to a minority community is not quite the same. So the strategy for English-speaking communities in Quebec has not been, in our opinion — and we need more research on this. We’ve been saying to IRCC that we need to look at what a strategy for connection to community would look like in Quebec. It can’t be the same as in the rest of Canada, and we believe in what the rest of Canada is doing.
[Translation]
This involves focusing on the French-speaking community.
[English]
In Quebec, if that’s what we wanted to do, it would be a different thing because they can’t come to our schools as a result of Bill 101. The insertion into the English-speaking community is different, so we need our own strategy.
We’ve been asking IRCC for years now to help us figure out what it would mean in Quebec to have an immigration policy. I don’t think we’d call it an immigration policy. Even the term would probably be different. We are so different, but we are encouraging this to be done in the rest of Canada because we don’t want that decline in the rest of the country. What’s being done in the rest of Canada cannot be done in Quebec.
The Chair: I will ask my first question in French.
[Translation]
I would like to understand this better. For example, you talked about immersion and the fact that post-secondary institutions could contribute to immersion in Quebec. Can you tell me more about that? What is the situation right now? What contribution could be made? How could the federal government help newcomers to Quebec who do not speak French have access to immersion? You know that, in New Brunswick, immersion courses have just been eliminated, to the great displeasure of the francophone and anglophone communities. I would like to hear from you on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: I want to clarify the question, senator. In our brief, we talk about the role of our post-secondary institutions to provide a bilingual or French immersion experience for folks and then to create a pool of potential people who could then move out of Quebec and supply demographic renewal for francophone minorities outside of Quebec. That avenue is still open to us for now, but the window is closing.
I will just remind the committee of the new restrictions on attendance to English CEGEPs for non-eligible folks. That has not hit the universities yet, but there is nothing that prevents the government from applying those same measures to the universities.
While the window is open, Quebec has post-secondary institutions that provide English post-secondary services in French immersion programs that produce French bilingual graduates.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer. My second question concerns the criteria you were speaking about at the beginning of your presentation. In its current form, is Bill C-13, for example, omitting the effects of immigration on other key indicators of community vitality, such as the community’s ability to participate in a wider linguistic environment?
In addition to francophone immigration policy, do you believe the Official Languages Act should prescribe the adoption of an official language minority community immigration policy in view of encompassing all vitality indicators?
[Translation]
We often talk about demographic challenges.
[English]
You spoke about the other criteria, and I would like to hear more about that and how we could deal with those.
Mr. Thompson: Part of my job is to talk to federal institutions about English-speaking Quebec. These vitality indicators that we’ve put in the brief, I think they were probably produced five, six or seven years ago in a very good process run by PCH. It was very inclusive. It included the francophones, the anglophones and the researchers at both institutions. It was an inclusive process to come up with the six indicators that are on the first page of the brief.
When I go to big federal institutions, such as ESDC and Industry Canada, they have not heard of these. The problem is and the problem remains in Bill C-13 that the government has not fixed the command-and-control issue in Part VII. Who is in charge? Who do you go to when things don’t work? They still use terms like “coordination.” It’s still very permissive. It’s unfortunate because these individual institutions then go away and do their own research and their own consultations to come up with their own understanding of vitality indicators, and the communities are sitting there saying we just did that; why are we doing it again? Or we are the ones that bring it to the institutions that say here are the vitality indicators.
I don’t know what to tell you. I think the problems with Part VII are historic. They certainly go back to shortly after it was written, 1992. The joint committee studied the problems with Part VII. They are well known. We make clear in our brief that we don’t feel that Bill C-13 has gone far enough to fix the problems with Part VII, and we don’t think — it certainly hasn’t gone as far as the FCA decision that I mentioned in our opening remarks.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: To add something to that, we’ve often spoken of asymmetry in terms of implementation legislation we don’t agree to — I think you have heard us — but even asymmetry in terms of implementation application. Years ago, it was determined that immigration issues for the francophones and the rest of Canada were such that they had to have a national strategy on immigration. There was not, at the time in 2000 or 2002, a thought around what something similar would be — not quite the same — for the English-speaking community. Maybe because from a policy perspective, from a legislative perspective, in 1992, they had done the Cullen-Couture agreement that could have made a place for English-speaking Quebecers. We didn’t note that in the brief. There could have been some thought, there might have been some thought, but no one continued with that idea.
So Bill C-13 and any vision of the federal government around asymmetry has got to be very well considered in terms of what does one do with the English-speaking community of Quebec. What is innovative, effective, fair, equitable for the English-speaking community of Quebec?
The Chair: Thank you for that answer.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: My question for Ms. Martin-Laforge will be in French.
What I understand you said earlier is that some immigrants from a number of countries and origins, from China and everywhere, do not consider themselves part of a minority population when they arrive here. Does that mean that they feel so comfortable in English and so well immersed in Quebec’s anglophone population that they don’t see themselves as part of a minority population? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Academics will be appearing after us and will be able to answer you in more detail; I am thinking in particular of Mr. Bourhis.
I would tell you that these newcomers come to Quebec for economic, family and other reasons. I will give the example of the Chinese community, which I do not know much about. But I know that these people come to Quebec because they are invited to invest in Quebec. They may have friends, but they are part of their own minority. The attraction for immigrants is not quite the same as when you are Franco-Ontarian, Franco-Manitoban or Acadian. There is something waiting for them in Ontario or in Acadia. There is a community that is strongly supported by federal government funding that is there waiting for them. It gives them a sense of attachment that brings them to the country.
We do not have that in Quebec. People come here and are attached to their own Chinese, Punjabi or other communities. The situation in Quebec is different from the situation of people whose language is English. These people can go anywhere in Canada and they don’t need to come to Quebec. These immigrants come for different reasons.
I was also saying that we need to do more research on this topic. It’s often frowned upon by the Quebec government to try to reach out to new immigrants to become part of our community.
[English]
It’s a zero-sum game here in Quebec.
[Translation]
You are part of the francophone community or the anglophone community. In Bill 96, as we have seen recently, the barriers are increasingly present for anglophones and francophones. You speak English or you speak French.
Senator Mégie: I had a second question that is similar to this one, but I’ll save it for our other guest. Nowadays, given that the pathway to immigration is through temporary channels, especially for foreign students, Bill 101 does not affect them when they go to university when they arrive in Quebec.
How would you see the role of the QCGN, even though you just told me that the Quebec government does not want you to reach out to them? You said, on the other hand, that you would be part of a francization plan so that English and French could coexist. How do you see the role of the QCGN, which could perhaps help with the francization of these people who arrive in the country? Is that possible or not?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: It is absolutely possible. Stephen spoke a few minutes ago about the Voice of English-speaking Québec program. In fact, that program was funded by the municipality.
I am an anglophone and I speak French. There are many people like me who speak French even though they are anglophones.
We are poster children for francization. We don’t necessarily speak French at home while brushing our teeth. You heard Minister Roberge talk to us last week about brushing our teeth in French. But we do speak French. What does it mean to be part of the anglophone community in Quebec? An anglophone is someone who speaks French, who can work in French, who watches television in French, but who can also watch it in English. When I talk about the zero-sum game for English-speaking Quebecers, it means that we are here and we can do francization. We are an extraordinary element of welcome and francization.
Learning French with the support of someone like me, whose first language is not French, instills courage; there are plenty of others like me who want to do the same.
When it came to welcoming Ukrainians into our English-language schools, Quebec said no.
As long as the federal government plays this game of saying that in Quebec it’s a zero-sum game and you don’t have to do this or that, it will be so. The Ukrainians who have moved here and who speak English, for the most part, cannot attend our English-language schools when they come to Quebec, even temporarily. Even though our schools are emptier than those of francophones, even though the French-language schools are full to capacity, they cannot access our schools. It’s not for lack of trying; it’s that it’s a zero-sum game.
Senator Mégie: Since you said that the anglophone minority in Quebec was not in decline, why is it so problematic that Quebec is going down the road of francization, since it is French that is in decline? In everything and in life, it is what we lack that we go looking for. When you don’t lack it and you have enough of it, you don’t touch it. What do you think?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Stephen is my numbers guru. I would say that French — The number of anglophones who speak French is increasing; the language of work in companies is stable or, in some places, it’s getting better. What is declining is the language spoken at home. There are aspects of French that are declining, but in the overall workforce in Quebec, there are more and more immigrants who are succeeding in speaking French because they went to school and they have classes in French.
I would tell you that, at home, I see people who work in services in our apartment and they come from all over.
[English]
They come from Asia and South America, they are all speaking French. Great.
[Translation]
However, when they talk to each other, if it’s two boys or two girls speaking Spanish, they don’t talk to each other in French. They talk to each other in English to tell each other that the broom is over there or whatever.
So there you have it: The problem of the decline of French is very complex — I don’t need to tell you that — but all of this affects the important elements in relation to an immigration strategy where Quebec anglophones and the English-speaking community could help with francization.
The Chair: Before I give the floor to Senator Moncion again, I’ll try to understand this very clearly. Are we to understand that a national strategy for francophone immigration has a negative impact on the anglophone community in Quebec? Do you see a negative impact, or is the issue more about the resources that you could have access to that would allow you to contribute to a national strategy?
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Two things are at play, Mr. Chair. The rest of Canada could help promote the fact that there should be more French in the rest of Canada. That’s for sure. Speaking French, speaking multiple languages and speaking French in a bilingual country is absolutely — it’s not essential, but it’s desirable.
Where we have difficulty is that a national strategy is not a national strategy — it’s a national strategy in relation to francophones. It is not a national strategy for official language communities. There is no national strategy, at least in our opinion, for minority communities, because the strategy is aimed at francophones outside Quebec, not at anglophones in Quebec. There are two components to this, at least two components.
The Chair: What should be in a national official languages strategy that would enable you to serve and contribute? This is about how you could contribute to this great strategy.
Ms. Martin-Laforge: Immigration Canada should help us get the resources we need, or francophones outside Quebec could call on us to participate in their masterpiece, which aims to welcome 12% francophone immigrants. We could sort of participate in all of that, but at the same time, Immigration Canada could help us figure out how to do it in Quebec, in terms of research, to have a counterpart, if you will, and for IRCC to do what it needs to do for anglophone immigrants who come to Quebec.
[English]
In Stephen’s presentation, he talked about the federal government’s responsibility to the vulnerable populations that come to Quebec that are first official language spoken that are not covered by the accord.
We challenge IRCC to look at the gaps, how we could help or we could promote the francophone national strategy, but also to have a piece of a strategy for newcomers, immigrants to Quebec, who would like to connect with the official language minority in Quebec.
There are gaps.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that answer.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, this is very interesting. You raise some complex issues.
I note that, in your May 2022 brief to the House of Commons, you mentioned that the 2016 census indicated that there were 1,100,000 anglophones or English-speaking people in Quebec. In your recent press release in December, based on the latest census, you stated that there were rather 1,300,000 anglophones or English-speaking people. According to your brief and your December release, there has been an increase of 200,000 people in five years. To what do you attribute this significant increase in the number of people who say they speak English?
[English]
Ms. Martin-Laforge: I will ask Stephen to answer that question.
Mr. Thompson: Sure. I’m not going to address the specific number in a press release or different numbers that we use. It’s a very complicated environment. No one agrees on numbers, as you know, and you have two experts coming up in the next hour. You can ask them about numbers all you want.
Our numbers are very simple. At the QCGN, we use the FOLS — first official language spoken — corrected numbers. We take the FOLS English or FOLS French and we add to it half of the English-French response. That’s the number used by the Government of Canada until this year. That’s to determine language obligations at federal points of service.
We know that number corresponds to the size of English-speaking Quebec by work done by Jean-Pierre Corbeil when he was still at Statistics Canada when he validated those numbers with data he received from the RAMQ and the SAAQ, so we know it’s an accurate way to describe the size of English-speaking Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: I think one of your main points is that the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa about the selections of immigrants does not address the need to have a certain proportion of English-speaking immigrants.
Isn’t the problem the fact that the official policy of immigration is one thing — and there is the 50,000 number the Quebec government is aiming at — and the fact that we also have other people coming to Quebec and applying to get resident status, both through regular and irregular ways? For example, in 2022, on top of the 50,000 immigrants that are the target of the government, through Roxham Road, 30,000 to 35,000 people came to Quebec to seek status. Another 29,000 came to different places in Quebec through the regular ways, either through airports or points of entry, such as customs offices.
So out of this proportion of new people coming to Quebec, which is higher than the number under the agreement, the official numbers — it is 60,000 compared to 40,000 to 50,000 — what is the proportion of those who are francophone or those not selected by the Quebec government; they are not meeting the requirements but are coming as refugees seeking refugee status? What is the size of the proportion who are anglophone or whose first language is English?
Mr. Thompson: We don’t know that, but you have an expert coming up in the next hour. If anybody knows that number, it’s Mr. Chedly Belkhodja.
One of the other things that Chedly might talk about in the next hour — and it gets back to Sylvia’s point and our main point in the brief — is what role could and does English-speaking Quebec play in the integration of those folks when they come to Quebec. There are a lot of mom-and-pop NGOs down at the border with blankets and hot food. They are not down there on any government’s dime; they are down there using their own money or via small NGOs that they have formed. A disproportionate number of folks doing that work are anglophones. It is the same with the immigration services done in the City of Montreal by the archdiocese of Montreal in the Filipino community. If that community can’t deal with it and can’t turn to the government for integration, it turns to the church.
There is a lot of informal civil society integration going on external to government. We have to ask ourselves, from a policy perspective, if that is smart public policy. Do you want newcomers to your society to be integrated by civil society; by government; or in a partnership between government and civil society, which is done in the rest of Canada? We’re suggesting that the third model is the best model.
As a part of Quebec civil society, we think English-speaking Quebec should be part of that.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you. Because we have the formal legal immigration and, on top of that, the refugee status coming through legal ways, and then those coming through the irregular Roxham Road. That makes the situation complex in Quebec.
The Chair: I agree with Senator Gagné that the brief you sent us has really good information. I could have some questions around it.
I will go to one piece of information you gave us. I think it was the relation between IRCC and English-speaking Quebec. The fact that IRCC recognizes its obligations and has not determined the impact of their decision and initiative and has not made any sustained efforts to mitigate those impacts would, on its face, seem to fail to meet the legal test established in Canada. Now you’re talking about the Commissioner of Official Languages v. Employment and Social Development Canada.
Can you speak to us about that statement?
Mr. Thompson: For a long time, we have felt that IRCC is not living up to its obligations under Part VII of the act.
Sylvia was a pioneer in getting IRCC involved in our community. Your committee has heard about this in years past, with IRCC committing a very small amount of money — $500,000 a year, I think — to research projects in the community. That has all stopped. That has not been happening; to our knowledge, that hasn’t happened for three or four years. All contact that we had — we were doing some good work with IRCC for a few years, and it all stopped. Why? Because that work was being driven by senior leaders who changed positions. New leaders came in and, suddenly, the last time Sylvia and I met with an ADM at IRCC, we were told the accord was a “quasi-constitutional accord.” In law, there is no such thing as a “quasi-constitutional accord.” That gives you the institutional culture or institutional response to what the accord means.
What makes this intriguing now is the FCA decision last year. We always had a contention that they weren’t living up to their Part VII obligations, but as everyone knows, no one really knew what those obligations were before last year’s Federal Court of Appeal’s decision. Now, we do. We know there is a two-part legal test. We now know the Government of Canada has an obligation to ensure that, in intergovernmental agreements, there are linguistic clauses that allow the Government of Canada to come into those agreements and fix situations where English and French linguistic minority communities are being harmed by those agreements.
The landscape has changed.
We didn’t have time to go into the full legal analysis of the accord and the FCA decision — that’s a good master’s thesis for anybody listening — but we think that’s an excellent area of study. We contend that it’s IRCC’s responsibility to do that work and to make that work public as a starting point for us.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer.
I don’t see any other questioners, so we will conclude there. I want to thank you, Ms. Martin-Laforge and Mr. Thompson, for your presentations. Thank you for your relevant comments and information. They will be useful for our study.
Colleagues, we have before us now Chedly Belkhodja, Professor at the School of Community Public Affairs and Director of the Centre for Policy and Immigration Studies at Concordia University. We also have before us Mr. Richard Bourhis, Emeritus Professor from the Department of Psychology at Université du Québec à Montréal. Finally, we have Jack Jedwab, President and CEO of the Association for Canadian Studies.
Welcome to our committee. We will be happy to hear your presentations and then we’ll have a question-and-answer period with the senators.
We’ll start with Professor Belkhodja. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Chedly Belkhodja, Full Professor at the School of Community Public Affairs and Director of the Centre for Policy and Immigration Studies, Concordia University, as an individual: I would like to thank you for inviting me to this committee meeting.
I would just like to say how critical the francophone immigration file is. It is an issue that I know well. Growing up in Moncton, New Brunswick, I have seen how much the landscape of that city has changed. When we think of the ethnocultural diversity marked by immigration, we think of the permanent residents, the many refugees who have come to Moncton, such as in 2015 with the arrival of Syrian refugees, and also the international students.
It is obvious that this issue has become more important, especially in the context of francophone communities outside Quebec, particularly because of the demographic dimension. Therefore, francophone immigration is of great importance in the demographic weight of the communities, because of the issue of vitality. The concept of vitality, which is a concept that can be measured, also has a non-measurable dimension that is more difficult and finer; it is what makes a society.
The contribution of immigration, for me personally and as a researcher, has been mainly to understand the part of immigration in the flourishing of a small minority community, such as that of New Brunswick, such as Acadia, or such as other research fields that I have been able to experience in several parts of the country.
I would say that we need to encourage efforts on francophone immigration, and in particular the federal strategy. There are a number of initiatives that have been taken in the field, initiatives that I myself have documented, such as everything we see around the development of welcoming francophone communities. There are 14 welcoming francophone communities in the country. They are in the process of testing immigration practices and initiatives.
We really need to see the contribution of immigration through the prism of community vitality. I would also say — and this has been said by the QCGN in particular — that it must also be studied in relation to the notion of the sense of belonging of migrants. We talk a lot about vitality in a societal way, but there is also the question of the sense of belonging of people who come to settle in a community.
It is somewhat in this context that I will conclude my little introduction by talking about a few considerations from the experience of Quebec, from where I have been for the past 10 years. I often wonder about the role that immigration can play in the development of a community in a minority situation, such as the anglophone community in Quebec.
As we have already said, it may be more sensitive for political reasons, but Quebec is a society that develops a great deal through immigration. We talked about the number of permanent residents, but we also have to talk about temporary forms of immigration, foreign students, temporary workers and asylum seekers. The overall reality on the ground is essential for understanding. It’s important to dig deeper into research needs on these migratory dynamics within the context of the anglophone minority, such as the contribution of students, for instance. Many students come from Quebec’s anglophone universities and they want to stay in Quebec, but they are sometimes forced to leave. I’ve heard that from my own students, qualified students who sometimes have difficulty staying in Quebec and feel that they don’t belong in its society.
I would say that there’s work to be done on the level of services. We know that, for some time in Quebec, the migratory dynamic has been complex, as we’ve heard, with the arrival of different statuses. These immigrant populations have needs in terms of support and services.
I would say that we should take inspiration from the national strategy on francophone immigration for Quebec; not necessarily the recruitment component, but the integration and settlement components. Are there interesting things happening with francophone immigration? Could that inspire an approach for immigration projects to anglophone communities in Quebec? For example, I’m thinking of the concept of welcoming francophone communities and immigration regionalization. Interesting things are happening in Quebec with regionalization. We’ve often discussed it recently for economic reasons, but there’s also a regional community fabric, and anglophone communities are well aware of it.
In an urban environment, when talking about diversity and inclusion issues, there is a great deal to understand about Quebec’s reality. To conclude, I’m talking more about an immigration ecosystem within a minority context. I have been working on this issue for over 20 years. We have talked a lot about an ecosystem built from the very beginning to extend all the way to retention issues. How do we design an approach in line with Quebec’s reality? I will stop there and come back to it during questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Belkhodja.
Richard Bourhis, Emeritus Professor, Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), as an individual: Greetings to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. My testimony will focus on your immigration study and the issues from the point of view of anglophone and allophone minorities in Quebec. As a Québécois social psychologist, I offer you my assessment of the collective issues that anglophone and allophones minorities are experiencing with Quebec’s francophone majority.
[English]
Quebécois majority governments have undermined the institutional vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec in many ways over the last 45 years. In 1977, Bill 101 restricted access to English primary and secondary schools. As planned, the size of the English school system dropped to only 37% of its original size by 2018. That’s a big drop. The CAQ government’s adoption of Bill 40 in 2020 abolished French and English school boards. However, English school boards were spared abolition in the pending court case. The CAQ government adopted Bill 96 in May 2022 and, using numerous clauses, froze the access and size of the five English CEGEPs. Premier François Legault said that the anglo mother tongue population in Quebec was 8%, so they would only get 8% of places in anglophone CEGEPs from now on. In 2023, the CAQ government planned French-only international immigration.
Quebec will compete head-on against francophone minorities in the rest of Canada for French immigrants. Of course, refugees and immigrants to Quebec can only get access to French schools. These laws require anglophone and allophone Indigenous communities to reconsider their prospects as linguistic and cultural minorities in Quebec.
Here are five vitality clarification issues worth discussing. First, anglophone and allophone minorities who stayed in Quebec have proven that they accept the imperative of maintaining the status and use of French. In 1971, only 37% of anglophones were bilingual. By 2016, anglophone bilinguals grew to 70%. Today, 95% of the Quebec population has a knowledge of French. The English-speaking communities of Quebec are not responsible for the substantial status and spread of the English language in the world, including within Canada and Quebec. In North America, French will always be a minority language relative to English and Spanish. Eroding the institutional vitality of the English-speaking minority will never be sufficient to neutralize the international drawing power of the English language for francophones and allophones in Quebec.
Second, Québecois francophone national discourse invokes a threat to the French language from the presence of the English language spoken by anglophones and allophones in Quebec. CAQ Québecois francophone discourse invokes this threat to the French language as justification to erode the institutional vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec. The CAQ government laws reducing access to English schools and CEGEPs illustrates how the francophone majority can use its minority status at the Canadian and U.S.A. level to justify eroding the minority English education system at the Quebec provincial level.
Third, Quebec laws restricting the vitality of the English-speaking communities of Quebec are legitimized rhetorically by invoking that Québecois francophones are a fragile majority in the province. Can a formerly subordinated majority, such as Québecois francophones, admit that it has gained linguistic, political, institutional and economic dominance within its own territory of Quebec? Can Québecois francophones accept a paradigm shift by reframing their status position from a fragile majority to that of a dominant majority?
Québecois francophones are a dominant majority imbued with the psychology of a besieged minority, armed with all the tools of the Quebec state. This puts anglophone, allophone and Indigenous minorities in a precarious position, or situation, under the CAQ Québecois nation government.
Fourth, can the Québecois-francophone dominant majority develop the cultural security to view its own linguistic minorities as a responsibility rather than as a threat with suspect liabilities? Can Québecois francophones reframe anglophone, allophone and Indigenous minorities as assets contributing to the economic and cultural diversity of Quebec? Such reframing will make anglophone, allophone and Indigenous minorities feel more accepted in Québecois majority society. Québecois francophones, acting as a secure dominant majority, could view investment in the institutional vitality of its linguistic minorities as building social cohesion and enhancing the adaptability of Québecois society within the North American economy.
Fifth, Indigenous, anglophone and allophone minorities have the right to consider Quebec as their homeland as much as the francophone majority does. All pay taxes and have Canadian citizenship rights. Indigenous, anglophone and allophone communities built many of their own institutions in Quebec over the centuries. They have a collective right to protect and develop their languages, cultures and institutions without being stigmatized and excluded as traitors to the “nation québécoise.” Leaders of the anglophone, allophone and Indigenous communities have the right to develop the organizations they need to promote their defence and development of their institutional vitality in education, health and social services, the judiciary, municipalities, politics, the economy, cultural and sports industries, and within Quebec public administration.
To conclude, Quebec anglophone, allophone and Indigenous communities have the right to have their own mother tongues and cultures as pillars of their socio-affective identity, as unique and universal as the French language and culture is for the Québecois francophone majority. Quebec Indigenous, anglophone and allophone minorities, along with the francophone majority, have the right to endorse multiple national, cultural and linguistic identities including to Quebec, Canada and other nations, without stigma or exclusion.
Finally, Quebec anglophone, allophone and Indigenous minorities are as much part of the “nation québécoise” as are the francophone dominant majority. All have equal rights and duties as citizens of Quebec and Canada. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bourhis. Now I give the floor to Mr. Jedwab.
[Translation]
Jack Jedwab, President and CEO, Association for Canadian Studies: Hello and thank you for inviting me. I want to start by focusing more on generalizations about immigration and insisting on the need to raise public awareness about the issues, taking into account the reality of immigration in Canada. We don’t hear enough presentations that bring nuance to the reality that immigrants are facing. What we tend to hear, be it in Quebec or Canada, is what the state wants from immigrants, and not what the immigrant wants from the society they plan to integrate into. In that sense, I think the most recent census we’re using as a basis for many debates… We hold these debates based on the number of immigrants, and not necessarily on the quality of the experience for the immigrant.
We observe that there are more and more immigrants who define themselves in several ways. Multiple identities are clearly on the rise. In the census, that’s often reflected based on the immigrants’ contributions, and on the way the census is drafted in terms of measuring linguistic, ethnocultural or ethnoracial identity.
It is important to be specific and provide nuanced information to the public. Mr. Belkhodja mentioned various immigration categories, be it economic immigration, family immigration, refugees and temporary immigration, which is increasing significantly. But what is a temporary status? We don’t explain enough what that means.
In Quebec, Premier Legault talked about the importance of reducing immigration in terms of actual numbers, in order to successfully integrate newcomers on a linguistic level. It gives the impression that, for newcomers, the problem resides in their knowledge of French and their willingness to learn it.
However, the reality is that when Mr. Legault reduced immigration levels right before the pandemic, the number of temporary immigrants had increased significantly. That was not something Québécois society knew about. The same applied to the rest of Canada, which was not aware of the significant increase in the number of temporary immigrants, because industry is often the one to demand more temporary immigration.
To summarize, I would say that Quebec and Canada need much more awareness on the subject of immigration. We should not talk about immigrants as opposed to non-immigrants, because significant internal diversity exists in both categories. It’s not just about linguistic diversity. It also involves ethnocultural and ethnoracial diversity, and intersectionality within that diversity, which we should be aware of. It’s not simply a matter of focusing on the immigrants’ linguistic identity, even if that is important. I understand it’s the committee’s mandate to explore the vitality of a minority. That happens through better collaboration, not only between governments, but between linguistic communities.
To conclude, in the case of the anglophone community in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, where a lot of awareness needs to be raised, it’s better to leverage them and make them understand the importance of supporting communities’ vitality. I know that sometimes surveys can be discouraging when we look at attitudes, but we have to increase efforts to raise public awareness.
As my colleagues from the QCGN said, they are very open to collaborating to achieve these kinds of societal goals. I’ll stop there and give the floor to my colleagues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jedwab, and thank you to the witnesses. We will now start the question period.
Senator Mégie: My question is for you, Mr. Bourhis, since your colleague from the other group of witnesses told us to address you if we needed numbers and data.
If the anglophone population grows proportionally with the rest of the population, how does it vary? I heard other witnesses say it wasn’t all that fragile. You said it was a fragile minority, but in terms of the numbers, can you prove it? Both populations are growing. So, what is their proportion of that growth? Is the anglophone population growing faster than the general population? Do you have the numbers? Can you answer my question, please?
The Chair: The question is for Mr. Bourhis. Mr. Bourhis, are you able to answer?
Mr. Bourhis: It depends, because there are two measures, which are the first official language spoken and the mother tongue. Sometimes different conclusions are drawn regarding those two indicators. I’ll give the floor to Jack, who often answers this type of question.
Mr. Jedwab: There are three indicators for determining the anglophone population: mother tongue; language spoken most often at home; and first official language spoken.
Each of these indicators demonstrates a significant gap that could go up to 500,000 people between the indicators for English language mother tongue and English as the first official language spoken.
If we look at the numbers for English language mother tongue in the 2016 census, there were approximately 600,000 anglophones. There are now 638,000 anglophones, which represents an increase of 38,000 people over five years, which is 7,000 people per year. I don’t consider that to be a significant increase. It’s attributable in large part to temporary immigration, because a significant percentage of these temporary immigrants speak English as their mother tongue.
The Government of Quebec seems a lot less preoccupied, because industry needed immigration. On the one hand, we don’t talk a lot about the fact that the international pool of immigrants does not necessarily serve to maximize the number of francophones when the focus is on an immigrant’s economic assets.
On the other hand, I don’t necessarily agree with the official language spoken indicator the QCGN uses to assess the anglophone population. It results in maximizing the number of anglophones. For example, for people who come from the Philippines and speak that country’s language, they’ll say their first official language is English. They fall on the anglophone side of the indicator for first official language spoken.
Are the increases that significant? Everything is relative. In actual numbers, the francophone side went up as well. So, it becomes a question of percentages. Naturally, when 80% of immigrants have a mother tongue other than English and French, the percentage of francophones inevitably goes down, especially in Montreal. However, it’s the Government of Quebec that needs immigration. The pool of immigrants with French as their mother tongue is not necessarily available to meet Quebec and Canada’s economic criteria in terms of immigration selection.
Senator Mégie: I have another question on data, but this time on exogamous couples, meaning when a francophone person is in a relationship with an anglophone and they have children. Children from these couples have the right to access education in English. It increases the anglophone population’s numbers even more.
Even though some choose French within that population, what does your data tell you about that segment of the population?
The Chair: Who wants to answer this question? Mr. Bourhis, are you able to provide any information?
Mr. Jedwab: It varies significantly. It’s interesting because, during the last census, there was an unprecedented shift for exogamous couples over those five years. It gave the impression that these couples overwhelmingly turned to English.
However, I get the impression that it can be chalked up to changes in the census questions. I’ve commented publicly on the subject, and I think we have to be careful here, particularly with the data from 2021.
That said, it varies significantly between Montreal and the rest of Quebec, based on the model of a francophone mother and an anglophone father. There are many variations.
It is true that for exogamous couples, their child has the opportunity for English-language education. That was a major driver of growth, specifically outside of Montreal, when it comes to the anglophone network’s school enrolment. It went down significantly over the last years, but it was a significant driver of growth.
I think it all reveals what the public wants, especially the francophone population, which is to learn English. In the last census, we saw a very significant increase in the level of bilingualism among francophones. I think that, in Montreal, bilingualism is a fact of life. I understand that some people consider bilingualism to be a threat to French, but it is a fact of life in Montreal. We have to know how to manage the issue other than considering the whole thing as a threat if we want to ensure the vitality of the French language.
Senator Mégie: My other question is for Mr. Bourhis, who spoke earlier of the eroding vitality of the anglophone population and, consequently, of all legislation and current affairs in Quebec.
In light of everything I have just heard, I don’t see it. If I have heard correctly, Ms. Martin-Laforge did tell us that the anglophone population is increasing instead of decreasing. I would therefore like more details on the reasons explaining why the anglophone population will erode if Quebec continues to increase its population of francophone immigrants.
Mr. Bourhis: In the anglophone primary and secondary school system, due to Bill 101, the number of students in the anglophone school system was 171,000 students in 1971, and only 52,000 students were left in 2018. Looking at the entire school system population, we’ve gone from 256,000 students, including all mother tongues, to 96,000 students in 2018. So, we were at 37% of school enrolment before Bill 101.
Anglophones therefore experienced a decrease from 256,000 students to 96,000 students in their school system. It’s a significant decrease, which had an impact not only on the number of students, but also the number of people that could be hired to teach English, administer schools and even clean them. There was a serious decline of the anglophone school system in Quebec.
Since the CAQ took power, they’ve wanted to reduce anglophone and allophone access to CEGEPs. As Bill 96 is implemented, it will also reduce francophone and allophone access to the anglophone CEGEP school system.
As Premier Legault said, growth will be capped at 8.3%; in general, the Government of Quebec prefers to use mother tongue to calculate anglophones’ presence in Quebec, rather than the first official language spoken, because the latter gives a better picture of the anglophone population than their mother tongue.
So, for CEGEPs, we talk about mother tongue. Same thing for the primary and secondary school systems. We always talk about mother tongue. That is the only data we have, and that is the data the Ministry of Education uses.
That makes it a rather significant problem for primary and secondary education in the anglophone community. It will apply to CEGEPs in two or three years, and it will have an impact on that system. There are 5 anglophone CEGEPs, and 43 francophone CEGEPs; therefore, there’s a rather significant disparity. Of course, the majority of CEGEPs are francophone; that’s normal. So, those are the factors in the world of education that have a relatively significant impact.
In the health system, there are hospitals with bilingual status. There are unilingual francophone hospitals and hospitals with bilingual status, because part of the population speaks English as their mother tongue.
However, as regional populations decrease, or even that of some neighbourhoods, hospitals can lose their bilingual status, which can be a problem for anglophone and allophone minorities. Education and health are the two most expensive pillars for the government.
Senator Mégie: Thank you.
Senator Gagné: Thank you to this evening’s witnesses. Your presence is truly appreciated. Would one of you be able to tell me if growth in the number and proportion of Quebec’s anglophone population is mainly a result of international immigration, or also a result of interprovincial mobility?
Mr. Belkhodja: For this demographic issue, I’m going to let my colleagues speak instead because it’s not my specific field of research.
Of course, very recently the numbers have gone up, and that can also be attributed to immigration. Here I go again with all these categories; we often talk about permanent residents, but we forget that there are programs to attract highly qualified workers for the Montreal aerospace industry.
I feel that, given the language issue, we’re looking for highly qualified workers. We have all sorts of pathways to permanent residence, some of which start out with temporary status. Therefore, we’re now seeing multiple types of status. We saw the data not long ago; there are 50,000 permanent residents, but there are over 130,000 temporary migrants if you count all the categories.
Mr. Bourhis: Regarding interprovincial movement, irrespective of international migration, we have some fairly well-known data on that. To give you an idea, from 1966 to 2016, 350,000 native English speakers left Quebec to move to another province. That’s a lot of people if you add up all those years.
We also had allophones — people whose first language is neither English nor French, and who may also be trilingual and speak Spanish, English and French — who left Quebec. In those same years, 120,000 allophones left Quebec; it’s not just the people who left Quebec, we also need to take into account those who moved to Quebec. For the two numbers I’ve shared with you, of those 350,000 people, we differentiate between the number of anglophones who moved to Quebec from other provinces and the number of anglophones who moved to other provinces. We always have more anglophones leaving Quebec than moving to Quebec. That’s how we arrived at 350,000, which represents a net loss of anglophones who have left Quebec.
The same thing goes for allophones: 120,000 of them left Quebec. Remember that we stopped in 2016. I haven’t seen the numbers for 2021. Quebec has also experienced a net loss of 57,000 francophones who moved elsewhere in Canada, as opposed to the fairly small number of francophones who have moved to Quebec from other provinces, such as Acadians or Franco-Ontarians. Generally speaking, over that long period, we saw many more anglophones moving away than francophones or allophones.
Senator Gagné: I believe Mr. Jedwab talked about the quality of the immigrant experience. Am I right?
Mr. Jedwab: Yes. I just said that we hear the host communities’ requests or needs, we hear what the government expects of immigrants, but we don’t listen closely enough to what immigrants arriving here want. That needs to be taken into account from an integration perspective. It’s a two-way street. We need to strike a balance between the new arrivals and the host community, and not only consider what the host community needs and wants.
Immigrants have diverse personalities that must be taken into account in their integration. Integration is multidimensional, not one-dimensional.
Senator Gagné: Have any studies been done on people’s experiences moving to Quebec to determine what makes them want to stay in the country and integrate into society?
Mr. Jedwab: There are studies, some were even done by the Quebec government. In fact, with respect to interprovincial movement — Mr. Bourhis mentioned this — one study points to a fairly significant amount of secondary immigration, where people settle in Quebec and decide to leave within nine years. A disproportionate number of these individuals did not speak French. So we can only conclude that francization programs are important. On the other hand, we’ve seen others who spoke French and left Quebec within that time frame to move to other provinces.
Having said that, I’d like to round out what Mr. Bourhis said. Based on the most recent data, for the first time in 50 years, we’re seeing a bit of stability in terms of interprovincial movement for Quebec in general, not just anglophones. So the increase in the anglophone population over five years, which I mentioned earlier, was quite surprising, albeit not huge. It was due in part to immigration, both permanent and temporary residents. When you’re talking about 30,000 people over five years, that’s 6,000 people a year, which is a small number, but it’s a major increase because of the five percentage points.
As we know, in Quebec and Canada, immigration is virtually the only way to grow the working population across the country. The only way to grow the anglophone community is through immigration. For that matter, the same is true for the entire population of Quebec and for the francophone population.
The Chair: Thank you for your answers.
Senator Moncion: I’d like to thank the three witnesses, as well as the previous witnesses. They are leading us to seriously reflect on the situation of anglophones and allophones in Quebec in relation to that of francophones outside Canada. We see a lot of similarities between what people are experiencing in your province and our experience as a minority in other provinces in Canada.
I have a few questions for Mr. Bourhis.
You talked about people who left Quebec and of the loss of anglophones and allophones who moved from Quebec to other provinces. Do we have data on the reasons why those individuals left Quebec? Based on the economic situation in our country, we’ve noticed surges of immigration at certain times because jobs are available in some provinces and not in the province where people are living. Now, with full employment across Canada and the labour shortage, people are tending to stay in their communities because they can find work; from a financial perspective, they’re able to function.
Do you have more concrete information on this?
Mr. Bourhis: The data that economists have long used is the gap between wages and job opportunities. It’s the best way to predict interprovincial movement of populations. I’m not talking about international immigrants, only interprovincial movement. As you said, people who have Canadian citizenship will go to the province with the best jobs and the highest wages. For economists, that’s the best predictor.
When we do more qualitative studies, we ask people. We don’t have huge samples. I did a study where I looked at McGill University students born in Quebec; they’re anglophone students. We asked them why they would want to move outside Quebec. The number one reason was to get a better job.
Another reason they gave was that they had friends, family or acquaintances living elsewhere in Canada; I would call that socio-emotional reasons. A certain portion of the students who were statistically realistic said that they felt less comfortable in Quebec because they were anglophones born in Quebec. We’re only talking about Quebec-born anglophones whose parents were born in Quebec. Some said they felt less comfortable in Quebec and therefore went to another province. They left Quebec in that order of priority.
With respect to the francophones who wanted to leave Quebec, the decision was primarily motivated by employment and socio-emotional relationships. Naturally, they weren’t the least bit concerned about discrimination because they were in the majority in Quebec.
Those were the two most important factors, better wages and employment, and the desire to be close to someone dear to them and significant from a socio-emotional perspective. Some felt discomfort.
That’s what I can tell you about the reasons I know of.
Senator Moncion: Thank you. It’s an interesting observation, because all of this could be applied to other people who choose to move from one anglophone province to another anglophone province. At some point, language may no longer be a factor; instead, location, employment, or socio-economic status are more important.
Mr. Bourhis: Exactly.
Senator Moncion: One of the witnesses mentioned it, but I didn’t catch their name. What motivates someone to choose Quebec as their first port of entry? Whatever language they speak, you talked about Spanish and people who used Roxham Road.
What makes people choose Quebec as their first port of entry, if you will? You explained why people left Quebec, but why would they choose Quebec first and not the rest of Canada?
Mr. Belkhodja: Immigration is also an attraction strategy. Quebec is very present on the international immigration market thanks to recruitment and promotion mechanisms. Before Quebec even recruits, it promotes: Journées du Québec events are held in Paris, Bogota, Marrakesh and Rabat, as well as Asia and India. Canada holds events too. The whole promotion and attraction machine plays a key role in attracting immigrants. I’m talking more about economic immigrants. Universities do the same thing.
At the same time, all of this has become more complex because of the role of employers in Canada and Quebec. We have employers who are much more present at the table and will ask, demand, and require that immigration thresholds be increased. Employers will speak out. All of this comes into play and it’s a key mechanism that we need to understand.
I would say there’s that, and then you brought up Roxham. I’m currently doing research into Roxham Road. I’m following a group of anglophone Canadians in Hemmingford, Montérégie; these women cross the border to help migrants cross over in an irregular manner. At the same time, they’re showing solidarity; that’s another category. We don’t necessarily want to have them here and would like to make them invisible, but there’s a lot going on on the ground.
That’s kind of my message: I know less about the numbers and the big trends, but I have a lot of experience and I work in the field, whether it’s in francophone immigration or in relation to what’s happening in Quebec with anglophone realities. Some people do a lot of work on the ground trying to follow, welcome and integrate the individuals who choose to come to Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Thank you, that’s fascinating.
Mr. Jedwab, you talked about a “two-way street” for immigrants arriving in Canada who have certain expectations about the country they are leaving and their new home. You said that they don’t necessarily find themselves and recognize themselves in the new society they step into. I think if I left Canada and went to, say, Portugal, as an immigrant, I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find a society that’s as welcoming and willing to recognize my rights, for example.
I may be wrong — I see your face — but I’d like to hear you talk more about this.
Mr. Jedwab: I didn’t say that they didn’t find themselves in society. It’s possible that they won’t find themselves in society, based on the measures, legislation or other things adopted by governments that sometimes appear to be excluding them. I only wanted to say that immigration and integration are adaptation processes. You don’t necessarily adapt immediately. It depends on the immigrant’s personality, and that’s why we need to recognize diverse personality types in the integration process, which isn’t one-dimensional. So the immigrant has to adapt, but so does the host community because it must better understand the immigrant’s needs and get better at including them, while also taking into account this diversity that immigration represents. That’s more what I meant to say.
If I may, I’ll do a little advertising for one of my organization’s initiatives called the Canadian Index on Measuring Integration, or CIMI. It’s on our website; the index shows the gaps between immigrants and non-immigrants in 35 census-tract metropolitan areas across Canada, based on four key dimensions. It shows economic gaps while also taking into account socio-demographic factors. It measures and compares apples with apples, so to speak.
I believe your committee would find the CIMI very interesting if you want to see what works best in Canada in terms of economic or other dimensions of integration. It’s all based on the idea that integration is a “two-way street.” You have to look at the gaps in terms of income, for example, when you study an immigrant with the same personality as a non-immigrant. I urge you to have a look at it if you can.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re coming to the end of this panel. I have a question for each of you. I’d ask you to be brief, given the time we have left.
I would like to remind members that we are conducting a study on francophone immigration in relation to the development of a francophone immigration strategy. We’re trying to understand the impact of a francophone immigration strategy on Quebec’s anglophone minority communities. Each of you has spoken. Mr. Belkhodja, you talked about the issue of vitality; Mr. Bourhis, you talked about the impact of the Government of Quebec’s decisions on the erosion of institutions, particularly on the anglophone minorities; Mr. Jedwab, you talked a lot about awareness.
What role do you think the federal government should play and what action do you think it should take, since that’s what we’re talking about here, in order to take action on the issue of vitality that Mr. Belkhodja referred to, on the issue of awareness that Mr. Jedwab talked about and on the issue of the Government of Quebec’s actions with respect to the anglophone community in Quebec that Mr. Bourhis mentioned? My question is for all three of you, and I invite you to answer.
Mr. Belkhodja: We must quickly commit to truly recognizing the reality of immigration dynamics within a minority community, and therefore recognize that there are indeed things happening on the ground in urban areas in certain regions of Quebec. There are community stakeholders who are already doing a lot of work. There are organizations in Montreal that offer conversation courses in English. There is really a reality of this immigration that isn’t just the image we have of a very political message and a political position of the province and the government.
I would like to remind you of the transferability of the experiences of the national francophone immigration strategy project; it’s important to note that there are actions and initiatives in this strategy that can also be transferred to Quebec. I come back again to this model of welcoming communities or immigration in rural areas. In fact, we need to create an ecosystem with multiple players who are concerned with giving vitality to their community and welcoming in a human way all the migrants who come to settle there.
The Chair: Thank you for that response. Mr. Bourhis?
Mr. Bourhis: Another example of what people are doing in the field is that we created intercultural twinning that began at UQAM. We had foreign students and new immigrants who were learning French. They had trouble meeting francophone Quebecers, even at UQAM, simply because the networks were closed. We created intercultural matches between immigrants who were learning French and French-speaking Quebecers from UQAM to meet for two or three hours as part of the courses that were already being taught.
I can say that the reception and transformation of francophone Quebecers who have met immigrants and heard them talk about their migratory journey has had an incredible impact, helping them better welcome immigrants because they have a better understanding of what happened to them. Immigrants themselves are delighted to meet Quebecers and many have built friendships as well.
Interpersonal contacts can be created between immigrants. In fact, this is also done between French-language and English-language CEGEPs. The surprise is also great, “Ah, the anglophones are nice.” Anglophones say, “We’re the same, we have more in common than differences.” All this means that interpersonal contact in pleasant situations has a very positive effect for everyone.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bourhis.
Mr. Jedwab: In 2001, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, asked me to draft a roadmap on immigration and the vitality of official language committees in Canada. At the time, I wrote this roadmap for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages to support the vitality of immigration, particularly francophone immigration. It’s interesting that Ms. Adam chose an anglophone from Quebec to write this document. The reason I mention this is that we need to involve Quebec anglophones in the process, and we need to see if they are prepared — and I’m sure they are — to share their immigration experiences and knowledge. Their extensive experience in this regard can support francophones outside Quebec, and it would be better not to position them as adversaries, which is too often the case in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Belkhodja, Mr. Bourhis and Mr. Jedwab, for your contribution to this committee. Your thoughts, comments, and information will be useful to us as we conclude this study. Thank you for being here and for your contribution to Quebec and Canadian society.
Colleagues, we’re going to continue the meeting in camera to discuss committee business.
(The committee continued in camera.)