THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 6, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:05 p.m. [ET] to study the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act, and to study matters relating to Francophone immigration to minority communities.
Senator Rose-May Poirier (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. My name is Rose-May Poirier; I am the deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and I live in New Brunswick. Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné from Manitoba.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier, Quebec.
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: 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 Anishinaabe Nation.
Today’s meeting is in two parts of roughly one hour each.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, we welcome the Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Minister of Official Languages, to inform us about the Annual Report on Official Languages 2020-2021. We also welcome the minister in the context of our study on francophone immigration to minority communities. She is accompanied by officials from Heritage Canada: Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister; Julie Boyer, Associate Deputy Minister, Official Languages; and Jean-François Roussy, Senior Director, Policy and Research, Official Languages Branch.
Good evening and welcome to the committee. Thank you for accepting our invitation, honourable minister, and officials. We are ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators. Minister, the floor is yours.
The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, P.C., M.P., Minister of Official Languages: Thank you very much, honourable senator. I am pleased, as always, to be here with you. Honourable senators, I would also like to highlight that we are meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
Thank you for inviting me to appear on the topic of the Annual Report on Official Languages 2020-2021.
I will seize today’s opportunity to raise some files of interest within the framework of your very important work on the future of both of our official languages.
First, it is essential to pay attention to the Annual Report of Official Languages, because it gives a highly detailed account of the federal government’s accomplishments under Part VII of the Official Languages Act. It is therefore one of our best tools to account for our investments in official languages. Topics covered in this report include efforts put forward to develop official language minority communities and promote English and French.
[English]
The year 2020-21 was nothing but ordinary. We were at the height of a global health crisis.
[Translation]
Federal institutions mobilized quickly to better understand the needs of our communities. As such, nearly 500 organizations received financial support through the COVID-19 Emergency Support Fund for Cultural, Heritage and Sport Organizations. These organizations received a total of $9.6 million, which made a real difference on the ground. Furthermore, let’s not forget the additional $4 million spent to support students and new graduates facing unique challenges.
[English]
Since being named Minister of Official Languages in the fall of 2021, we have launched some major projects. We developed and tabled Bill C-13, a modernization of the Official Languages Act, and we carried out cross-country consultations on the next action plan on official languages. Work on these major priorities continues today.
[Translation]
Last summer, I went to meet with Canadians from all over the country.
I participated in 22 meetings, 15 in person and 7 virtual, to understand the realities, challenges and priorities of the Canadian public with respect to official languages. We received many interesting proposals that presented concrete and innovative ideas, thanks to the participation of over 6,500 Canadians.
With all this in mind, we then moved on to the next step, which was to draft the new action plan for 2023-28. The goal of the new plan was to fund initiatives that accounted for needs on the ground, as well as ensuring the vitality of our official language minority communities. The new 2023-28 action plan would also support the implementation of Bill C-13, which will modernize and reinforce the Official Languages Act.
[English]
I know you carried out your pre-study of the bill over the summer and fall, and you have already tabled your report. I would like to take a moment to thank the committee for all the work that you have done so far in advance for this important bill. Know that we are working hard in the other place to get the bill to you as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
We know we have to act quickly to slow the decline of French and re-establish francophones’ demographic weight throughout the country.
One of the ways to achieve it is through francophone immigration. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Mr. Sean Fraser, was in Sturgeon Falls, in northern Ontario, to highlight progress made on this file.
In 2022, francophone immigration in Canada outside Quebec was about five times higher. That’s a scenario we had not seen for 15 years. The number of francophone immigrants went from about 2,800 in 2006 to over 16,300 new francophone permanent residents in 2022.
However, we can’t stop there; we know we must do more.
[English]
Today, I would like to assure you once again of my full cooperation and thank you for your work on advancing the real equality of both official languages within this country. I look forward to answering your questions.
[Translation]
Once again, deputy chair, thank you for allowing me to say a few words.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, minister, for your opening statement.
[English]
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 microphones or to remove their earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
Colleagues, being aware of the time ahead, I suggest that the first round for each senator be five minutes, including questions and answers.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Minister, welcome to the Senate. The February 2023 edition of the Canadian Association of Agri‑Retailers’ magazine notes that 60% of agricultural businesses in Canada are facing labour shortages, and these shortages are causing thousands of dollars in lost sales. For that entire time, meaning about 60 years, the temporary foreign worker program has tried to limit these losses. One of the five pillars of the National Workforce Strategic Plan for Agriculture and Food and Beverage Manufacturing focuses on immigration and foreign workers.
One of the questions I’d like to ask focuses on programs that fall under your department. We know that these workers come from many different countries. Some witnesses said that the language problem reduces productivity when workers come here and don’t speak it. In your strategic plan, does it say anywhere that we should teach them the language before they come to Canada or after they’ve arrived? They have to learn French or English, because they’re coming from some countries where neither French nor English is spoken.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for your question, senator.
Over the last year, during which we held Canada-wide consultations, we heard a great deal about the labour shortage from one end of the country to the other, as well as the necessity of ensuring that our workers here with us can talk and communicate in one of the two official languages.
It is important for the government to make sure it equips people so that they can communicate adequately. I think the government has a responsibility. We cannot forget that employers also have a responsibility to make sure that these services are offered to employees so they can do their work. As you said, especially in the field of agriculture, we recognize the massive labour shortage. Again, we must make sure to accommodate them fairly and equitably so they can communicate in their language.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I have a slightly shorter question.
I talked about the agricultural sector. There are more affluent and educated people who manage to access higher functions and live here for a very long time, but never learn French. As part of the studies on francophone immigration, what will the strategy include about knowledge of official languages for appointing important figures? I’m thinking of a Governor-in-Council, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada or people like that, for example. How important is knowledge of both official languages to access such important positions?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: First of all, executives absolutely should set the example when it comes to bilingualism in this country. I think we really do expect it. Yes, they should set an example.
Like it or not, as Minister of Official Languages, when I came into contact with Canadians throughout the whole country over the last year, they told me they want to be sure they can access services in the language of their choice. In the end, that is what is important to them: getting services and being able to work in the language of their choice.
With Bill C-13 and the whole issue of private businesses under federal jurisdiction — That is why we created the new bill: to make sure employees in Quebec and regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec have the right to work and be served in French.
To answer your questions about high-level officials more specifically, I think they should set an example. When I listen to Canadians from one end of the country to the other, what they really tell me is that they want to be able to access services and work in French.
Senator Mégie: Even if the big boss doesn’t speak a word of French?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: As I said, I really think that high-level officials and executives should set an example. When I talk to Canadians, what they tell me is that their priority is being served in French and working in French.
Senator Mégie: Thank you very much.
Senator Moncion: Welcome, minister, and welcome to the people with you.
My question focuses on recruitment abroad and host communities. This program was mentioned several times when the committee met with witnesses. Many talked about the success of this program. It remains a pilot project, which you set up in 14 communities. What is the future of this program in the next roadmap?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: The pilot project produced great results. I really hope we can expand this program because, in the end, we were able to get very positive results. We continue to work very closely with our key partners to make sure we can go forward and continue this essential work.
Senator Moncion: Very significant challenges remain, since the issues of housing and recognizing academic credentials came up. Efforts focused mainly on professors in French-language programs. I’d like to know to what extent the program will expand or be more limited.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: You raised issues which affect us all, obviously.
If we talk about immigration levels, affordable housing and recognizing prior learning, all too often, when I come to Ottawa during the weeks when the House is sitting, a taxi driver drives me to my hotel and tells me that they used to be a doctor or a dentist. We are currently studying the file on recognizing prior learning.
Once again, as part of our agreements and the work we do with the provinces and territories, I can say that Minister Fraser wants to make sure he sets up agreements with the provinces and territories to be able to resolve the issue.
Like it or not, recognizing prior learning often does not fall under the federal government. However, we all have the responsibility of working with professional associations to find a way to go forward and make sure that the work is done.
In November 2022, Minister Fraser announced an appropriation of over $80,000 to help provinces and territories set up programs for developing skills and recognizing our immigrants’ credentials. We are deploying ongoing efforts in this sector to resolve the issue.
Several of my colleagues said if we want to attract professionals with significant skills in specific professions, we also have to make sure they’ll be able to work in their field. To do so, we have to provide incentives. We have to make sure provinces, territories and associations do the work required to address the situation.
As for the issue of housing, Mr. Fraser said it well: we want to make sure we select the immigrants who come to Canada. Different categories of immigrants come here. Of course, we have a labour shortage in certain sectors, such as carpentry. We have to make sure we conclude agreements that facilitate immigrants coming here to Canada.
That said, it’s obvious we’re facing issues. I’d rather work on issues to increase the population rather than see it decline. No one wants to see hospitals close because of a declining population. On the contrary, we want to make sure we can face these issues with a growing population.
Senator Moncion: I have a question about immigration levels. This year, I think Ontario was the only province to reach its francophone immigration target. What are your objectives in terms of immigration levels for the rest of the Canadian Francophonie?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Last January, I was very pleased to announce we had finally reached the target of 4.4% for francophones outside Quebec. It took 15 years to reach that target. However, even though we did reach the target, we have to be bolder and have more ambitious targets to make sure we increase it.
In the census data published in August and the fall of 2022, we see a decline in demographic weight. As the federal government, we have work to do to make sure we address this reduced demographic weight.
I’m very pleased to be able to work with Minister Fraser, because he really cares about this file. We want to do absolutely everything to address the reduced demographic weight. We want to make sure we have an ambitious immigration strategy with targets and indicators.
Another example of a program trying to promote francophone immigration is the Centre for Innovation in Francophone Immigration. It opened its doors last fall in my region, Dieppe, in New Brunswick. We absolutely want to know the issues and challenges people face when they come to our country and how we can attract them here.
As part of this initiative, I hope we will be able to not only attract people here, but also be able to keep them in our ridings and regions. It’s not just about large cities, but also about regions outside Quebec. We want to keep them in Quebec, of course, but we want to make sure we can welcome them and retain them in all our regions.
I often say we all have a role to play. Governments at the municipal, provincial and federal level have a role to play. Non‑profit organizations do extraordinary work on a regular basis to welcome immigrants. As individuals, we also have a role to play. Immigrants need to integrate into our communities, but we also have to integrate ourselves into their everyday lives. We all have a role to play to make sure we do a good job welcoming immigrants and ensure they stay in our country.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, minister. I remind everyone they mustn’t go over the five-minute time limit.
Senator Gagné: Welcome, minister. Thank you for sending us the report. It’s good to see the graphics, because there had not been a great deal of change for over 10 years. We’ve started to see more funding lately.
I must admit, when I look back, those years were difficult for me because funding didn’t go up. That meant there was actually a cut. You must understand that when costs go up and funding is always maintained at the same level, it’s extremely difficult to be able to offer the same quality of services to members of the community and, for my part, to the students at the Université de Saint-Boniface. It’s important to highlight that.
It is also important to be able to announce funding fairly quickly for the new Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028. The longer we wait, the more communities and facilities will have to readjust. They’re hoping for good news. Perhaps I should ask the killer question, if I may put it that way: Will the new Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028 depend on passing Bill C-13, or are we expecting it to pass? Study of Bill C-13 is taking longer than what I was expecting, and I’m sure that’s the case for you as well.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That is a very good question.
First, it’s obvious that within the framework of the last action plans, funding envelopes went up by about 20%. There had been no increase for years. Organizations stated their case and said they needed an increase. We were therefore very happy to see the increase in funding.
During the most recent consultations on the upcoming action plan for 2023-28, we again heard about the issue of increasing funding, loud and clear. Canadians are not the only ones dealing with inflation. Of course, costs for non-profit groups throughout the country are higher. Rent costs a lot more and organizations want to be able to pay their employees. Often, employees end up changing sectors. They leave their jobs to go work in another field to get a better salary. During our consultations, many themes came up, and the issue of increasing funding envelopes came up at all our roundtables.
We are all hoping — and I’m impatient, just like other stakeholders all over the country — for Bill C-13 to pass soon. The bill is still being studied at the parliamentary committee. If the bill does not pass soon, we will still be able to proceed with tabling the action plan for 2023-28.
I want to highlight that stakeholders also asked us to table the action plan sooner rather than later. Non-profit organizations will no longer have a line of credit after March 31. We also have to be sensitive to that. Ideally, it would be good for the bill to pass soon. It would allow us to do everything at once. However, if that’s not the case, we can still implement the action plan.
Senator Gagné: I am sure the communities will be happy to hear it.
As for the whole issue of immigration, you reached the 4.4% target. We know, however, that the 4.4% target was based on the 2001 census, I believe. We haven’t reached that target for all those years, but there is hope.
If we manage to hit the target, we might be able to do even better next year. For all intents and purposes, does the ability to hit the target mean we are now able to set higher targets to finally overcome the shortfall from all the previous years?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That is a good question. I think we should be ambitious. If we consider the entirety of demographic decline in this country, year after year, it’s important to have an ambitious strategy. We’ve all seen the census data for last August. Again, we see French declining. To compensate for this demographic decline, francophone immigration must be a key aspect.
Again, I’m very happy to have the support of my colleague, the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, so we can work tirelessly and make sure we remain ambitious. Not only do we have to set a target — a number is a number — but we also have to do the work required to reach it. We are committed to ensuring the required work gets done. Again, we see the numbers going down back home in Acadia, and I’m worried about it. We have to do our fair share of the work needed to set targets and reach them.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome once again to the committee, minister. There’s something that worries me somewhat about the government’s vision. You prepared the action plan for the years to come, which must be almost finished. Consultations are wrapping up. At the same time, we note that the parliamentary committee modified a significant part of the bill; responsibility for general supervision of government activity will now fall under the Treasury Board Secretariat, rather than your department.
Was the government considering a plan B? Is the government ready to act as a result of it, or is this an impasse that will delay passage of the bill or your action plan? Is there a plan B that says the Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for supervision, that you’re ready to work with TBS to undertake that function?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: First of all, when we tabled Bill C-13, we were clear when we said this bill would go further than Bill C-32 in terms of cementing the Treasury Board Secretariat’s role, because it does have a key role to play. In doing so, we conferred the authority to evaluate, verify and monitor. That means we will continue to closely monitor what is happening in Parliament. Again, I am certain we will finally have legislation we can implement. At this point, we are monitoring parliamentary deliberations very closely. Members of the committee are independent; they share their opinions and points of view. At this point, we’re monitoring the situation.
Senator Dalphond: It is highly unlikely for the bill to pass before March 30. The government — your department in particular and government activity in general — is therefore preparing an action plan for the next five years based on the bill’s broad outline, regardless of who will be responsible for reporting on its implementation, if I understand correctly.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Exactly. The action plan for 2023-28 is really a roadmap, a work plan for the next five years. There are many aspects. Yes, the bill’s implementation will, of course, require funds to access required resources. Again, I’m really looking forward to moving ahead and making sure the funds and resources needed are available to support official language minority communities from coast to coast. They made heartfelt pleas and told us they needed help to do the work that needs doing.
Senator Dalphond: Of course, support for the five-year plan requires significant funding. That means the Treasury Board Secretariat will have to be involved in any case. I assume you are working closely with them?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Yes.
Senator Dalphond: As for the issue of immigration and the ability to attract immigrants, I’m rather pleased to see that Ontario reached the 4.4% target. In one sense, isn’t Ontario’s situation unique? It’s the most significant economic hub in Canada. Those who come from somewhere else, French‑speaking Africa or Europe, know Ontario will have more opportunities for jobs and careers, as well as more services.
In the programs we’re designing now, isn’t it necessary to strike a balance between the lesser attraction to other provinces and the draw to Ontario?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: We all have a responsibility to do what’s necessary to promote our regions. I can speak as an Acadian. Back home, we have economic development strategies not only to attract francophones, but also to give them the opportunity to discover Acadia and see we can live and work there in French.
Yes, of course, there’s a significant draw to Ontario, but other regions in the country are also very attractive. When we talk about the issue of economic development — and I will put on my hat as Minister for ACOA — it is a very interesting and important component. In this case, I see that official languages and my economic development file go together. Investments are necessary and needed to attract people and present a strong francophone showcase in our communities.
Senator Clement: Welcome to the minister and her colleagues.
Senators often hear me talk about municipalities, because I was the mayor of Cornwall. I truly believe that immigration, reception and integration happen at the municipal level. That’s where it happens. I will be critical of the federal government, very critical. There’s often a lack of communication between the federal government and municipalities. We always talk about partnerships, but often, municipalities don’t really feel like equal partners. However, social and economic development, integration and reception happen at the municipal level.
I’d like to ask you a question. I’m sure you met with municipal representatives during your consultations. How do you see the role of municipalities? Cornwall wasn’t selected as a host community. That’s all well and good, we don’t hold a grudge. We pulled ourselves together. In fact, the local ACFO became one of the most effective organizations thanks to our francophone community’s perseverance. One must be effective to attract and retain people. Walking here from my office in East Block, I met a brilliant refugee who was from Cornwall and is now in Ottawa, because even in Ontario, small regions lose people to Toronto, Ottawa and Kingston. There’s a lack of information and a lack of communication.
It is true that provinces play a role, but we as municipalities don’t always feel like we are equal partners. I’d like to know about your vision of a municipality’s role. How do you see better communication developing between municipalities and the federal government? Recruitment, attraction and retention happen one municipality at a time. Cornwall and other municipalities have a francophone presence. We are waiting. We want to be equal partners.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That is a very good question. Thank you, senator. Again, I want to talk about my experience. My mayor in Moncton was a champion for francophone immigration.
Senator Clement: [Technical difficulties].
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: We developed very close relationships to make sure we correctly understood the issues and opportunities for people in the region. It’s where we live.
We’ve had conversations and meetings not only with people from the municipality, the mayor and city councillors, but also with the province and federal government. We meet regularly to discuss different issues, be it francophone immigration, immigration in general and everything else.
You are absolutely right to say, as I said earlier, that we all have a role to play in attracting and retaining people in our region. Municipalities play a key role. Whether we like it or not, they grant funding to support all community activities. It’s often done through partnerships with municipalities, provinces and the federal government.
We all have a role to play to make sure we can better align with provincial and municipal priorities.
Senator Clement: What did you hear from municipalities during your travels?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: First of all, municipalities are looking for more people. The issue of immigration —
Senator Clement: Regarding competition, one against the other?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I would dare to say yes, a little. We are looking into the issue of the labour shortage and teachers; I could even name all the professionals, as such.
We heard loud and clear from all the regions and municipalities involved in our roundtables that there is strong demand for more francophone immigrants, as well as for the services needed to welcome them properly. It was raised many times.
Ten years ago, when I started getting involved in politics, there wasn’t much talk about francophone immigration, at least not back home. Now, all the municipalities and provinces I consult, be they rural or urban, are looking to recruit and attract immigrants, especially francophone immigrants in regions with a strong francophone presence.
So yes, it might be a competition. Not only do we have to make sure we are competitive, but once immigrants arrive in our communities, we have to support and guide them properly, because we want them to stay.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Good evening, minister. I’ll continue with the immigration file.
We know there are currently about 4.8 million applications and about 700,000 files have been processed. Obviously, we haven’t looked at all of the committee reports, but there’s still a growing imbalance, especially in Quebec. That leads me to talk to you about the gaping hole in our border, Roxham Road.
Obviously, I consider Roxham Road a threat for immigration to Quebec. We also just found out this afternoon that the mayor of New York was paying for the transportation of immigrants who wanted to come to this hole in our border. On December 14, the Minister of Public Safety, Minister Marco Mendicino, said an agreement had been struck with the Americans regarding Roxham Road.
About a dozen days ago, the Minister of Immigration, Mr. Sean Fraser, said the opposite. Do you have another version of the situation? As you know, right now, Roxham Road is a serious problem, as much for Quebec — It’s especially the case for the city of Montreal, because Place Dupuis is overflowing; we don’t know where to house them anymore, and there’s even talk of opening the Olympic Stadium. Furthermore, it remains that these people are entering the country illegally.
Do you have an answer for us today on immigration and the gaping hole at our border? It’s all well and good to talk about immigration, but we still have to receive these immigrants and treat them well. Currently, when we see all the problems in hospitals and schools, and we see the lack of housing, I’m not sure we can treat them as we would like in Quebec.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Thank you for the question, senator. I’d like to be able to give you a longer answer to that question —
Senator Dagenais: It can be short, minister.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Again, I think that would be a question for Minister Fraser and Minister Mendicino.
I recognize that these files are taken up together, because it’s a legal matter. We want to make sure people are welcomed properly among us once they arrive in Canada and Quebec. However, I think both ministers are better able to answer the question.
Senator Dagenais: I would like to come back to Bill C-13.
Can you explain to us why, in the bill’s preamble, the excerpt recognizing the principle of a “common language” in Quebec was withdrawn?
Aren’t we setting the stage for the prime minister to fight with Quebec over language rights?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: First of all, nothing was withdrawn at all, unless I misunderstood the question.
Senator Dagenais: My understanding was that the text in the preamble recognizing the principle of a common language in Quebec was withdrawn. I’m told those words were withdrawn.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: No, it’s the opposite. That amendment was tabled at the committee during last Friday’s meeting on February 3, and the amendment did not pass.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, minister, that’s reassuring.
Coming back to immigration, they say it’s obvious, it’s essential for preserving French. Can you briefly explain to me how we can save French with increased immigration? These people don’t all speak French, in fact.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: No, but I think if we look at data from last year, we see that we were able to attract 16,300 francophone immigrants outside Quebec. We still need to make sure we have immigration policies to attract people, and also to make sure they’re francophones.
Minister Sean Fraser will come to your committee, and maybe he can give you more details, but I will still give you an example. This spring, with the Express Entry program, you get extra points if you speak French. We want to ensure that not only we can attract immigrants, but that they are francophones.
I think if we can set up this type of program, it will make a real difference. Immigration offices are open in different African countries, once again, to make sure we can recruit candidates in the pool of francophones and attract them to Canada. There is no single magic solution to fix it all, but I can tell you the minister and his officials are seized with the francophone immigration file; it is a priority.
I believe you already had Minister Sean Fraser appear here, and I am sure you noticed he wants to improve his French too. He did not speak much French a year ago. We see that he cares about it. We have a very good working relationship, and we want to move forward together to make sure we reach those targets. It is not just a number; we have to actually achieve the targets we will set.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, minister.
The Deputy Chair: Before moving on to the second round, I have a brief question, if I may; I will only ask one.
Minister, thank you for being here with us again. I greatly appreciate it, and it is a pleasure to see you again. My question is on the Official Languages Commissioner’s second recommendation in his June 2022 annual report. I quote:
I 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 Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v Canada (Employment and Social Development).
Could you share with this committee any progress made with this recommendation?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That’s good news and it’s included in our bill. We want to be absolutely sure to deal with this recommendation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moncion: The question I’m going to ask is on behalf of Senator Cormier. So, it’s as though I don’t count in the second round.
The Deputy Chair: Very well, I’ll allow it.
Senator Moncion: On January 31, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages modified the preamble of Bill C-13. It added that the federal government, and I quote:
. . . recognizes the importance of francophone immigration in enhancing the vitality of French linguistic minority communities, including by restoring and increasing their demographic weight;
In response to a question asked by a member of the committee, Mr. Alain Desruisseaux, Director General of the Francophone Immigration Policy and Official Languages Division, said the following and I quote:
. . . by using the word “restoring,” the bill includes an obligation of result. This is an area of shared jurisdiction, where the provinces and territories also have a significant contribution to make. . . . So there would be a risk, because the federal government doesn’t control all the parameters here.
Senator Cormier is asking if you agree with your colleague. If so, he requests that you provide more detail about the nature and scope of the famous risk Mr. Desruisseaux talked about.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Please thank Senator Cormier for his question. I will give the floor to our deputy minister, Ms. Mondou, who can explain the technical aspect of that question.
Isabelle Mondou, Deputy Minister, Canadian Heritage: Perhaps my colleague Julie Boyer, who was at the committee, can fill out my answer.
Mr. Desruisseaux is a colleague from the Department of Immigration; he is therefore a specialist on the subject. He was trying to say that when restoring something, normally, we’re highlighting that we have control over the way to proceed. We therefore have all of the tools in our hands, because the word “restore” comes with an obligation of result.
He was therefore trying to say that, with respect to immigration, the provinces have a role to play, as do municipalities. We talked about it earlier. There are many actors. For that reason, he found that the term “restore” created an obligation of result for one of the players, whereas many players are involved. That is why he was talking about a risk. We’re creating an obligation that does not fall entirely under the federal government’s control. That means it’s essential to establish a partnership between the different players. That is the risk to which he was referring.
Senator Moncion: I really like the fact that there is an obligation of result. We often use the word “restore” lightly, and we have few occasions to be sure of results or to make them real. Thank you very much.
Senator Gagné: I will also come back to the issue of catch-up targets, with regard to immigration.
To be in a position to get caught up, our estimate is that, technically, we need relatively high targets: 12% in 2024, and up to 20% in 2036. Those targets were put forward by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. Is it realistic to think we can reach those targets? Is there hope?
Indeed, technically, we still see a certain percentage of the francophonie being practically eliminated. That’s a big challenge. Finally, the question to ask is: How do we make sure we get sufficiently caught up to avoid losing their demographic weight, which has already been considerably weakened, and revitalize our communities in Canada?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: That is a very good question, and it is not simple. First of all, of course, it’s very important to establish an ambitious target. However, in my opinion, it’s not just a number. We still have to make sure the objectives are clear; not just the numbers, but also the ways of achieving them.
Once again, I’m coming back to the fact that it’s important to make sure the federal government does its fair share, that it makes the required investments to recruit and retain immigrants; but the provinces, municipalities and all communities have to do their share too.
I repeat: what is important is not just the target, but the application of concrete measures. The Centre for Innovation in Francophone Immigration, which just opened back home, wants to look into the issues and the ways of accessing a broader pool of francophone immigrants applying to come and live here. That’s a significant part of the essential work that must be done.
Yes, the federal government has to play a leadership role. We have to make the required investments and work very closely with all our partners to make sure everyone participates to resolve the issue.
Just like you, I am greatly worried about this. I’ve seen targets proposed by different community groups. That’s important. But once again, concrete action is what’s most important, what we can do to make sure we can reach these people and they integrate into our communities, stay in them and become Canadians.
Senator Gagné: Are universities and colleges also committed to this recruitment strategy? Those are places where people come to adapt, where they have support. They can contribute and then choose to stay. Even if we see migration within different provinces, at least they stay here, in Canada.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: It’s a very significant pool for our official language minority communities. We have a multitude of international students on campus at the University of Moncton. They spend four, six or eight years there, they integrate and then they want to stay. Again, it’s a significant pool. It’s still not the only pool, because we set ambitious targets to attract people here to Canada. It can’t just be international students, but when it comes to the Francophonie, I think we will achieve something truly valuable, and it is a very interesting pool for reaching our objectives.
Senator Dalphond: Following up on Senator Gagné’s questions, there is the idea that the program cannot succeed without the provinces embracing it themselves. For example, I see that in your province of New Brunswick, the target was 33% in 2022. According to your report, they only reached 22.7%. They are still far from the target.
I also see that in Manitoba, according to a Radio-Canada article from December, the provincial government abandoned its target of 7%.
Is there reason to be worried about the lack of cooperation from the provinces, which might explain in part the fact that our targets look unrealistic?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Again, it’s important to make sure we work very closely with all the actors. I often meet entrepreneurs looking to recruit people. There is enormous demand, and they are looking at all the programs to hire people as quickly as possible. We have an important role to play to make sure it happens. Provinces have a key role to play, and it’s important to make sure we do the work required to increase the rate of francophone immigration, not only in large centres, but also in rural regions.
During our cross-country consultations last year, I was in a region of Newfoundland and Labrador where the francophone population is very small. And yet, they are proud to be francophones. They want to make sure they do everything possible to preserve and promote their language. To do so, they want to attract francophone immigrants.
Again, we all have a leading role to play and we have everything to gain with francophone immigration. It’s not just about filling gaps and spreading out the demographic weight. It’s also about having a bilingual francophone population, which is a socioeconomic advantage.
Back home in Moncton, New Brunswick, maybe we didn’t hit our targets and our objectives from the previous year, but when we look at the issue of bilingualism for our province — How are we attracting various centres and businesses that are ready to set up back home? It’s because of our bilingual workforce. Again, we have to promote this advantage, because it’s an economic advantage and it is essential.
Senator Dalphond: I was more interested in knowing if you’re satisfied with the cooperation from the provinces, specifically your province of New Brunswick, or even Manitoba.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: I repeat, there remains work to be done when it comes to increasing immigration targets. We have to continue to work with our provinces and territories so that this file, which I care about, can move forward.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for answering my question directly.
Senator Dagenais: Minister, during the committee meeting, I read an article published in Le Journal de Québec. It says that Bill C-13’s preamble recognized French as Quebec’s “common language”, and that Ottawa would grant Quebec all the latitude required for language management as reflected in the Charter of the French Language.
In the article, it says that all disappeared from the bill’s text this week. Members of Parliament Marc Garneau and Anthony Housefather supported an amendment. It also says the reference to the Charter of the French Language was supposedly necessary.
It seems that a problem came up with Bill 96, which led to MPs Marc Garneau and Anthony Housefather supporting the withdrawal of the amendment to Bill C-13’s preamble. I invite you to contact them. You said the amendment was rejected, but in the article, it still refers to Quebec’s famous Bill 96.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: If I may, Ms. Boyer can clarify that point.
Senator Dagenais: I was sent this article, written by Antoine Robitaille for the Journal de Québec. It reports that the amendment was withdrawn from the preamble, and that it’s all connected to Bill 96, which is making a lot of noise, if I can put it that way.
Julie Boyer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Official Languages, Canadian Heritage: I’m happy to answer your question. I have Bill C-13 in front of me, as well as a binder with the amendments that were passed and rejected.
The minister was right when she said nothing was withdrawn from Bill C-13. In fact, Quebec’s Charter of the French Language stipulates that French is Quebec’s official language. It’s right there in the bill; it passed.
What was rejected was an amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois. It added the words “the official and common language of Québec” and did not gain the committee’s support. Aside from that, nothing was withdrawn from the bill, which thoroughly describes linguistic management conferred by Quebec’s Charter of the French Language, the document which recognizes French as its official language.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Boyer. I appreciate the clarification.
The Deputy Chair: My last question is for the minister. Since 2013, no senator has represented Acadians in Nova Scotia.
In 2022, the province welcomed 795 immigrants who identified French as the language they are most comfortable with. That is 180 more immigrants compared to 2021. That’s good news, because Nova Scotia’s goal is to double its population to 2 million inhabitants by 2060.
In the current context, is there reason to be concerned? How do you plan to support francophone immigration within the framework of Nova Scotia’s demographic growth strategy?
Ms. Petitpas Taylor: Obviously, it’s good news for the whole issue of immigration in Nova Scotia. However, we have to pay special attention to it and make sure there isn’t another demographic loss in the province. As we implement the strategy to attract francophone immigration, we will have to work very closely with the province to make sure it is doing its fair share to attract francophone immigrants.
I had the opportunity to talk with the Minister for the Francophonie, and I know he is also very passionate about the issue of francophone immigration. He does not want to see demographic decline in the country. As for the francophone Acadians in Nova Scotia, they also want to make sure their community will be able to continue to grow in the years to come.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Minister. I also thank our witnesses for their appearance, which is greatly appreciated. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes to wait for our second panel of witnesses to arrive.
[English]
Colleagues, we now welcome officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. We have Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister; and Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Integration. Welcome, and thank you for being with us.
Ms. Fox, I will pass the floor to you for opening remarks. We are asking everyone to stay within the five-minute maximum for presentations and also for questions and answers, so that we can get everyone on board.
[Translation]
I thank my colleagues. Ms. Fox, the floor is yours.
Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you very much. Good evening and thank you for welcoming me today. I’d like to begin by acknowledging that I joined today’s meeting from the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
Immigration plays a key role in supporting Canada’s immediate economic needs, reversing our longer-term downward demographic trends, sustaining our official languages, and continuing to support humanitarian needs as part of the global community.
In 2019, IRCC announced a comprehensive Francophone Immigration Strategy to try and reach the 4.4% target of French‑speaking immigrant admissions by the end of 2023. This target was established in consultation with community stakeholders. In addition to the 4.4% target, the strategy supports the successful integration and retention of French-speaking newcomers and strengthens the capacity of francophone minority communities.
I am very pleased to say we achieved the target of 4.4% French-speaking immigrants admitted outside Quebec by the end of 2022, reaching the government’s goal one year earlier than planned. However, we know the work must continue.
In 2022, Canada welcomed over 16,300 francophone newcomers outside Quebec, which is three times more than in 2018. This is the largest number of francophone immigrants accepted outside of Quebec since 2006. The increase is due specifically to the Francophone Immigration Strategy.
These French-speaking newcomers have already begun to enrich and contribute to their new francophone minority communities. They will support the preservation of the French language and help address the labour shortages across Canada, which will be beneficial to population growth and economic prosperity in francophone minority communities outside Quebec.
We reached our target through concrete actions, including allocating additional points to francophone and bilingual candidates under the Express Entry system in 2020; introducing the time-limited temporary resident to permanent resident pathway in 2021 that had no cap; and improving promotional activities in Canada and abroad, including the Destination Canada Mobility Forum.
Financial investments made through the Action Plan for Official Languages 2018-2023 provided nearly $500 million over five years to support official languages, including $40.7 million for francophone immigration initiatives.
We will strive for even more in the coming years. Groundwork is being laid for a new francophone immigration policy, including a new admission target beyond 2023 that will be ambitious, realistic and attainable. We have set up a working group, cochaired by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, to inform and guide the work being done to develop the new francophone immigration policy and associated consultations.
We have also proposed a set of initiatives for the upcoming Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028. These initiatives respond to advisement stakeholders and support the legislative proposal set out Bill C-13 and related administrative measures to implement the modernized Official Languages Act.
We will continue to work in close collaboration with partners to provide francophone minority communities with the tools they need to welcome and retain people who want to set down roots in these communities.
In closing, I hope I have given the committee good sense of what my department has done to provide newcomers with incentives to settle in francophone minority communities across the country, and what we plan to do going forward to achieve new and ambitious francophone immigration objectives in the years to come. With that, I would be pleased to answer the committee’s questions.
Senator Dalphond: Welcome to the committee. First of all, I’m delighted by the fact that francophone immigration outside Quebec reached the 4.4% target. You said it was three times higher than in 2018. Those are also interesting numbers. Was a detailed analysis done to try and explain the upswing in francophone immigration?
For example, during the pandemic, were their files delayed for a year or so, leading to less immigration, followed by a sudden accumulation and suddenly, several immigrants arrived in the country? Secondly, did the Express Entry program or additional points play a role in the increase? Was there a detailed analysis to see if this is sporadic, or is it a trend?
Ms. Fox: Thank you for the question. I’d say it was a series of measures that exerted some influence in our ability to reach the 4.4% target. It started in 2019, with development of the strategy. Within our department, when we have a strategy and objectives, our teams work together to try and reach them, not only in the sector responsible for francophone immigration, but also in the operations and policy sectors. That’s one of the reasons why we saw an increase.
The second reason can be explained by the additional points in the Express Entry program. We were really able to go and get francophone immigrants. With these new, more flexible approaches brought forward by the bill, which will come into force in spring 2023, we will be able to go and get francophone immigrants in the pool. Those two aspects helped us quite a bit.
The last reason is temporary residents moving towards permanent residency. We observed increased progression through our programs. To give you an idea, for all admissions in 2022, we looked at the process of going from temporary residence to permanent residence. We are talking about 37,000 people altogether, of whom 3,700 are francophones. Those collective measures allowed us to reach the target, but we really emphasized the strategies.
Finally, I’d say there is another aspect, which is our presence and the promotional work we do abroad and in Canada. We presented Destination Canada, where we really emphasized early childhood education and sectors that needed francophone immigrants. If we want to be more ambitious, we will have to continue these efforts.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you for those answers. I’m going to use Ontario as an example, which reached its 4.4% target. It reached its average, unlike Manitoba and New Brunswick. The target might be too ambitious for now.
Was there a more detailed analysis done to determine if people who came to Ontario all went to the Greater Toronto Area? Or did they spread throughout the entire province? Did people go to Cornwall? My colleague noted that Toronto and Ottawa are not the only cities in Ontario. Did some settle in Northern Ontario? Are francophone immigrants going to locations where they can hope to live in French, or are they heading to large cities instead, where French is less important?
Ms. Fox: We are working closely with provinces who reached their own targets. Federal, provincial and territorial agreements are one way to reinforce everything between Canada and the provinces and territories. Furthermore, for New Brunswick and Ontario, we added an appendix to the agreement highlighting francophone immigration targets. It allowed us to work together.
Indeed, more generally, immigration trends towards large cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. We have to make an effort to regionalize immigration, and it doesn’t stop with francophones. Data tells us where people settle. The number of communities with complete integration services went up to 14, which allows us to push some immigration towards those cities. But we will have to make more of an effort there, because we have people with family ties, or jobs they plan to start, and they are located in the big cities. Francophone immigration requires effort, but we have to go beyond just that.
Senator Moncion: My question is on the choice immigrants make. You mentioned you have initiatives, such as Destination Canada Mobility Form, where you recruit abroad, and so on. What leads to immigrants choosing the bigger cities? You talked about regionalizing immigration. What criteria explain why immigrants choose one province over another?
Ms. Fox: Many different motivations exist. It could be family reunification, a job offer or knowing Toronto or Vancouver really well, for example. A broader effort is needed to really talk about other options. I would point to some pilot programs and other programs, which became permanent, that promote Canada’s regions. For example, the Atlantic Canada Immigration Program pilot project leads to permanent residency and ensures better coordination between the employer, the community, the federal government and provincial governments.
How can we influence those choices? By working closely with other partners to make sure that when people make their choice, they understand they have opportunities with good employers who participate in the programs. Motivations vary, but we’re in a situation where affordable housing in big cities like Montreal or Toronto is problematic. We want to encourage employers and we’re working with them to improve the situation.
Integration into the community means we have positive results in terms of retention. We need programs to allow a spouse to have access to a work permit to. If both members of the family have settled, and if their children go to school, it leads to a different kind of retention. We see it in New Brunswick. We work with six large employers, such as Groupe Savoie Inc., Cooke Aquaculture and J.D. Irving to try and see how we can retain these populations in cities where francophones are often the minority community.
Senator Moncion: We also met with college and university representatives who told us about the challenges they had, because they also recruit students from abroad. When comes the time to retain them, since they often want to stay after their studies, they have so many problems. We identified this problem in Quebec and it made headlines. The different stakeholders we met talked about it.
Could you tell us about the challenges of retaining or integrating young francophone students who come to study here? What solutions were implemented to fix the problem, or to deal with the challenges of keeping them here? There must be political issues between countries.
Ms. Fox: Obviously, since my arrival at the department, the international student file has been very important. I’ve had many conversations with stakeholders, because it’s a very complex file. There is very significant demand from international students who want to come to Canada. Last year, we processed 739,000 applications for study permits in Canada. That includes new applications and extension requests for existing applications.
The system is under pressure to process them. The first challenge is really the volume. We also have to decide on a system that puts integrity first. We’ve seen it in the media. There is also some abuse of study programs, which raises challenges for the federal government, institutions and students, who find themselves in a complex situation that makes them vulnerable. First, we have to look first at reviewing the system’s integrity, then work closely with credible institutions that have proven their integrity, to ensure we have a system that works well for students and for the country.
We also have to look at what’s in immigration legislation as it pertains to dual intent, such as a student who comes to the country temporarily, but would like to stay permanently. We have to look at why sometimes the department’s decisions in one file seem negative, because the immigration officer takes dual intent into account. We have to look at the problem closely and see if changes are necessary, because a foreign student who studies in Canada for four years and can work in a community is a promising candidate for the future of immigration and retention. That’s a second challenge.
If there’s a model that really interests me, and you may have heard about it, it’s Nova Scotia’s. They have a program called EduNova, which focuses on integrating students. Once a student arrives, they have support within an academic institution. Then, there are supports to pair students and employers to offer linguistic services and technologies, such as applications that ensure integration into the community and connection with other students.
The entirety of all integration and retention programs is another aspect that needs to be reviewed throughout the country, but it’s an interesting model. Obviously, we will have to invest if we want to keep these people long-term. We also have to look at the data on successes achieved, to see which population achieve the most success and why, then base our decisions on existing data within the department. These are not easy files. They include complexities, and we may have to revise our programs and policies to see how we can change certain aspects to keep students in Canada.
Senator Moncion: Thank you very much.
Senator Gagné: In the answer you gave to Senator Dalphond, you mentioned that the cooperation agreements included an annex for Ontario and New Brunswick. I noticed Manitoba is not included in the annex. I am a Manitoban, and I am aware that Manitoba set its immigration target at 7%. We requested more information and since then, we’ve heard nothing.
How does it work when a province contributes to immigration efforts? How are we able to identify targets and support the province in achieving that objective, which is 7% in Manitoba?
Ms. Fox: Indeed, both provinces have annexes. Agreements between the different provinces expire at different times. The moment we renew an agreement gives us the opportunity to add the annex. Manitoba did indeed note that the 7% target was its objective.
How can we work together to achieve these objectives? First of all, what gives us a little more flexibility are changes to the Express Entry and Provincial Nominee Program. Provinces have a program that allows them to nominate candidates. With the Express Entry program’s flexibility, it means a province can make more selections based on categories, such as health resources and information technology. Another province may choose to target the construction sector, for example, but it can also target francophone immigration.
On our side, it will be even more important to work with provinces and territories, because we’re increasing our targets and immigration levels year over year. We’ve presented our multiyear plan and for 2023, we are at 465,000 permanent immigrants, which is an increase of 25,000 compared to this year. It’s rather considerable. By 2025, the plan has a target of 500,000 permanent residents. With that volume, it will be even more important to work with the provinces on provincial nominee programs and programs on the federal level to better target our efforts.
Provinces and territories also put forward an idea. There are many joint economic missions and promotions, but can we be more precise when promoting francophone immigration? For example, if there are needs in the construction sector throughout the country because of a labour shortage, and we want to pair up with countries like Lebanon through a francophone immigration target, we could develop strategies. Federal-provincial cooperation in this matter could help us achieve our objectives.
Senator Gagné: I see. Have you started conversations with francophone communities in different provinces, such as the Société de la francophonie manitobaine, Conseil de développement économique and Association des municipalités bilingues? At the end of the day, all these organizations support many immigrants, students, the Université de Saint-Boniface, and so on. I know this relationship is a federal-provincial relationship. But in practice, the community has to be at the table. Is it being done, and how is it being done?
Ms. Fox: Absolutely. We’ve tried to make an effort over the last years, not just with the level of investment. At this point, we’re investing over $60 million into community groups able to help us with integration. Also, over the last three years, we went from about 50 organizations to 80 organizations throughout the country; these are francophone organizations with whom we have a direct relationship on the level of investment. It creates links not only for promoting francophone economic immigration, but also for responding to humanitarian crises through the country.
As we know, in a crisis, we often need a network and an ecosystem that can react quickly. Improving our relationships with people on the ground will help us be better equipped to do so. Could we do more? I think that with our deliberations on the 2023-28 action plan, we could reinforce those efforts, but we’re not necessarily relying on just the provinces and territories to start those conversations.
The last thing I would add is that with one of the pilot projects in a rural and northern sector, in cities like Sudbury and Timmins, there can be links. We’re trying to see what works well between us — the municipality, employers and community groups — to integrate people and see them succeed.
There are different strategies, but it remains a challenge. It’s not easy, but we’re trying to amplify our efforts.
Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Integration, Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada: All the work being done in terms of settlement services is done in collaboration with communities. We run several consultation and codevelopment roundtables.
In Manitoba’s case, for example, the Société de la francophonie manitobaine is working very closely with us to offer settlement services, and it developed expertise with accommodating refugees. It accommodated over 500 refugees in Winnipeg last year. That’s a significant achievement. They are not necessarily francophone refugees, but they are people who will settle in the province and did receive services from a francophone organization.
Senator Gagné: Thank you very much.
Senator Clement: Welcome to Ms. Fox and Ms. Scott. I’ll continue with the theme of communities and municipalities in particular.
Ms. Scott, you said some very interesting things. Immigration, including francophone immigration, is a fundamental societal project. It’s about building a nation.
During their integration, it’s mostly municipalities who welcome immigrants. The role of a municipal council, of a mayor, is powerful; it’s fundamental. And yet, the federal government still does not always consider municipalities as an equal partner. We belong to the provinces, so it complicates communication between the federal government and municipalities.
I will give you a real example. In Cornwall — indeed, Ms. Scott, you talked about a refugee —, we now have hundreds and hundreds of refugees, because we have a conference centre able to welcome them. There’s been no communication between IRCC and the community, the people in Cornwall. It’s a societal project, and we’re pleased it’s happening, but the federal government doesn’t talk directly to mayors or people on the ground. I go home on the weekends and people ask me what’s going on.
How do you see the municipality’s role, and how are you going to improve direct communication with such an important partner in this project?
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for the question. Actually, this reminds me somewhat of my previous role. I was at Indigenous Services Canada. Often, when Indigenous communities up north were being evacuated, we’d use the centre in Cornwall because it had community spaces, spaces for children, housing and a cafeteria. It’s a very beautiful centre. Right now, as we speak, you’re entirely right; there are asylum seekers and refugees in Cornwall.
What can we do to improve things? Obviously, we have a lot of active conversations with people who operate the centre and groups who support asylum seekers. You talked about conversations with the mayor and affected cities. Often, I have to say — In some provinces, to be honest, there’s always concerns when the federal government interacts directly with municipalities because it’s important for those provinces to have coordination. It should not prevent anyone from contacting a mayor at the same time as the government of Ontario. Communications are possible. I will note it because it is a very good point.
I agree entirely when you say municipalities play a key role. When I look at our project, with its ambitious immigration targets and absorption capacity, we know communities are really going to live it. Do they have housing, municipal transportation, services? Do they have the required infrastructure?
Those are conversations we want to have with municipalities. Sometimes they happen with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and other groups, but sometimes direct communication is important. Duly noted.
Senator Clement: Thank you very much.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Fox. I already mentioned this to the minister: In 2022, there were 4.8 million immigration applications, but only 700,000 files were processed. That’s a performance of less than 20%.
Isn’t there some inconsistency between the immigration levels we want to take on? Who sets immigration levels? Is it politicians or is it high-level officials, who then become responsible in a way for public servants’ work overload?
Ms. Fox: Obviously, we’ve had challenges with our systems and the applications we receive. I think the COVID-19 pandemic and border closures had an impact on volume.
There may be two strategies, or two facts, I’d like to put out there. The first is permanent residents and our ability to reach the thresholds identified in our plan and our immigration levels. There is a process according to which officials give advice. Cabinet then makes a decision on immigration levels for the year, and those decisions are presented to the House. It allows us to do our financial planning within the department. It led to us reaching our targets last year. That means 440,000 people settled in our country and we processed all those applications.
Beyond that, temporary residency is more problematic for the department, because we don’t have any control over the number of students and number of visitors. We also sometimes have applications based on humanitarian grounds. For example, looking at Ukraine, we processed nearly 500,000 applications, and more than 100,000 people settled in Canada temporarily. So it means there’s a lot of pressure on the system. For our part, we are studying how we could use more flexible technological and IT systems, and how we can change our policies to make them less rigid.
We have taken steps to make sure we are working on getting caught up with processing applications. We’ve made significant progress, but we have to continue.
I gain confidence from the permanent residency file; we were able to reach the volume in the established plan because we are funded and can plan for arrivals. To give you an example, we had to process nearly 500,000 applications to bring in up to 440,000 people, because we can’t necessarily predict when someone’s going to decide to move. Will it be in November or in February? There is a bit of science and a bit of forecasting to figure it all out.
Indeed, we have to keep reviewing more efficient ways of processing applications. We’ve hired more staff to help us right now, but over the long term, we have to review processes and technologies to help us process applications.
Senator Dagenais: I would like to come back to a subject raised by Senator Clement. How do you assess the costs for a province or municipality when it comes to the decisions you make? What type of discussions are you having about this, specifically with Quebec? I’m thinking specifically of the gaping hole at Roxham Road, which brings a tremendous number of refugees to the Montreal area, and it’s costing the province of Quebec very dearly. There are even delays with reimbursement, because the federal government is the one who has to pay.
I’d like to hear you on assessing costs for municipalities and provinces in terms of the decisions made by your department.
Ms. Fox: Thank you for the question. We are working with provinces and territories to assess the immigration plan. The Honourable Sean Fraser chairs a forum where provinces and territories meet to determine needs and talk about immigration issues.
This year, instead of looking at the immigration plan on an annual basis, we decided to give Canada, provinces, territories and municipalities a three-year overview. It gives a better idea of arrivals and getting the required support and guidance. So it’s a planning tool.
I’d say that ministers do meet, but we have very regular conversations within the department with provinces and territories to get the planning done. I think that aspect is important. We also sometimes look at regional realities, which are very different. The Atlantic immigration plan led us to review immigration issues and demographic changes in the Atlantic provinces, because they were very different from Ontario. We still try to keep our approaches flexible.
Canada and Quebec signed a separate immigration agreement, and we’re working very closely with them. In fact, ministers spoke last Friday about the issue of asylum seekers to see how we can continue to collaborate and work together.
Indeed, Quebec noted the pressure on social services, and we are working with them on it. On the federal side, we have hotels throughout Quebec and Ontario to offer asylum-seekers safe housing. We decided to help expedite work permits for refugee claimants, since there is a labour shortage in Quebec, and this allows them to contribute economically to the province. Those are extremely sensitive issues.
Obviously, we care about the interests of vulnerable people. I went to Roxham Road. Those situations are very difficult. There is a system within the federal government, and we’re working with our partners, including the RCMP, and with the province of Quebec. I would say that we have regular conversations about asylum seekers. We want to support asylum seekers, as well as work very closely with Quebec.
Senator Mégie: I received a preliminary answer on visa processing times, so I’ll move on to another question.
My understanding, based on studying documents received, is that there’s a committee of experts mandated to look into francophone immigration outside Quebec. Who is on this committee of experts? Will this committee remain active as long as we don’t hit our targets, or is it there temporarily to share its thoughts on the strategy?
Ms. Fox: Thank you for the question. Ms. Scott might want to add something afterwards.
We developed an immigration strategy in 2019 that allowed us to do the work. We know we have to look beyond our francophone immigration initiatives within the framework of the official languages plan and establish a new target with our partners.
So, this group of experts lets us examine what the federal government should do regarding targets and flexibility in our programs, such as the Express Entry program, to make sure we have the means to encourage immigration in Canada, then go get those people in the pool. We have to make sure we have applications that help us meet our targets. The issue of targets will be very important and interesting, because we have to be realistic with our approach in terms of what is possible and when. Expert groups can tell us where the challenges are, and how we can adapt our programs and policies to meet those challenges and eliminate some existing barriers.
Ms. Scott, did you want to add anything?
Ms. Scott: We rely heavily on studies done on the target levels by the Commissioner of Official Languages and the FCFA. As the deputy minister said, a working group looked beyond the issue of the target and included the full complement of measures required to reach a more ambitious target.
Currently, we have a working group with the FCFA. It’s starting to work on developing a new policy, which will become a framework to set the department’s objectives, ways of measuring them and ways of reporting on our progress. This work is extremely important, because this policy will underpin future efforts to reach the new target.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. I will continue along the same lines as Senator Dagenais. You talked about visa application processing times.
Do you have real numbers based on what you are currently experiencing in terms of visa application processing times for the francophone immigrant population?
Ms. Fox: Just to make sure I understand correctly: only francophones?
Senator Mégie: Yes.
Ms. Fox: I could give you an overview of our pools, because there are temporary visas for permanent residency and for family reunification. In some cases, processing times outside Quebec and within Quebec are different, because Quebec’s targets differ from the federal government’s.
What we could do is sort the data again and share it with the committee and the chair. I don’t have it here. I would also say something interesting for the committee. We recently opened a new centre in Dieppe. It’s a francophone immigration centre that will focus on policies and services, as well as have a team that’s really — We have a team within the department with Catherine, but it reinforces the work being done with communities and organizations. It will be interesting to see how the immigration centre in Dieppe evolves. So it’s something to watch.
Senator Moncion: My question is on recognizing prior learning. When people come here, and we talked about this with the other panel of witnesses, academic requirements for recognizing prior learning vary from province to province. There is now a type of sponsored immigration, which means that in the case of some immigrants who come to our country, their credentials are recognized immediately and they can become operational. For example, they are doctors, university professors, engineers. I’d like to know how you are dealing with this file. You spoke earlier about economic immigrants. I just wanted to hear what you had to say about this double standard for welcoming immigrants into our country.
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for your question. I think that to start, we have a tendency to look at an immigrant to Canada within the framework of our programs: are they a refugee or an economic immigrant? In the case of an economic immigrant, what category do they belong to? What we are trying to do is take a step back. If we look at refugees from Afghanistan, asylum seekers or newcomers from Ukraine, they are sometimes categorized as refugees, but they have skills, knowledge and an academic profile that could be interesting.
So, on arrival, we have to look at the supports they need as refugees, but we also have to think about integrating them into the community and Canadian society. Some programs, such as the economic mobility program, go beyond looking at refugees from just the point of view of social services, and look at their potential economic contribution to the country. The department is thinking constantly about it.
The second thing I would say is that there is always criticism from the provinces and territories when federal programs come up. One of the criticisms we hear is that we are too focused on qualifications and skills. We heard that we look too hard for people with doctorates or specific knowledge, which impacts how points are calculated.
Instead of this system, could we move to a category system? If we need more electricians in the country, everyone in the provinces and territories will want to find a way to highlight this profession through the Express Entry program. It makes it possible to get francophone immigrants in that context.
The other level of complexity is there are often doctors or engineers among newcomers, but their skills are not necessarily recognized in Canada.
Senator Moncion: I just want to add one thing: It depends on where the immigrant comes from. If they have a doctorate from the University in England or France, it’s recognized almost automatically. When they have the same qualifications from Haiti or another country, they aren’t recognized. Many taxi drivers are overqualified for the work they do. There is a form of discrimination in terms of what’s happening there too.
Ms. Fox: It is not an easy question. Yes, the federal government can play a role in the framework for recognizing qualifications, but I think provinces and territories also have to recognize those qualifications; colleges too. During the pandemic, when I was at Indigenous Services Canada, I couldn’t send nurses from Ontario to Manitoba during a crisis because their qualifications weren’t recognized, even between provinces.
Within Canada, we have to look at how to recognize qualifications, and I think the provinces are starting to make significant changes in that respect. For our part, how do we work with provinces making significant efforts to recognize qualifications so we can leverage the talent we have in this country? Universities and colleges will have to do the same, because sometimes, there are more complex situations where someone is partially qualified relative to Canadian standards.
Can we fine-tune it all instead of starting from scratch? There’s also work we could do with Canadian institutions. I talked with Universities Canada and with colleges. There is an appetite for the role they could play. It’s a hot topic not just for health resources. We also have to look beyond that and see how we can recognize qualifications.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Fox. I’d like you to help me understand. People who go through Roxham Road are asylum seekers. Normally, asylum seekers feel like they are in danger; therefore they request asylum. How can they feel like they are in danger in the United States and come to Canada? I mentioned it to the minister: New York’s mayor is ready to pay for their bus or taxi and help them leave the city faster. How can we consider them asylum seekers? When they’re in the United States, they’re not danger, are they?
Ms. Fox: Indeed, as you noted, they really are asylum seekers at Roxham Road, because there are different ways of requesting asylum, either upon arrival at an airport or in an IRCC office. A student who wants to request asylum can do so at an IRCC office. Roxham Road is an irregular crossing; it is not a border. Our agreement with the United States for asylum seekers currently means that if someone tries to cross at any irregular crossing, such as Roxham Road, we are unable to send the person back to the United States. So they cross the border, and then we process their files here in Canada. We are having active discussions with the United States.
I read the articles on the mayor published in The New York Times and the New York Post this morning. Obviously, this is not something we’re encouraging, because it puts people in very vulnerable situations. We have to make sure we support them, because the people making this trip are actually in a very vulnerable situation.
While studying departmental data, we observed a significant increase last year. We are not unique around the world, based on what we are seeing with immigration in Germany or the United States, for example. Nonetheless, those volumes are high for Canada. We have to see what we can do to continue negotiating with the United States. Beyond that, we have to see which populations are coming to our country through Roxham Road, and how we can support them with work permits and integration. For now, it’s a challenge and we’re working closely with Quebec.
Senator Dagenais: I suppose the Americans aren’t in too much of a hurry to work on the agreement, because the entry to Canada suits them?
Ms. Fox: Bilateral discussions are ongoing. I participated in discussions last week in Washington. Canada continues to have active discussions with its partners. I think there is interest in terms of continuing to work with us.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, ma’am.
Senator Moncion: Thank you for your frankness and the information you’re providing. It’s extremely interesting. My question is on racism, which came up as a reason for refusal. There was an existing bias among those who approve or deny immigration applications. I’d like to quickly hear from you on this.
Ms. Fox: Within the department, we have to review our policies and programs and the way we operate within the department and the Canadian government. It is a fact; systemic racism exists within organizations, and we have to see why.
We have had many conversations within the department about the refusal rate for African students from francophone countries. We could see what these refusals are based on. We can sometimes look at certain legislative processes. Dual intent is something we have to study closely. If someone cannot prove they plan to leave the country at the end of their stay, technically, an immigration officer could say they are not convinced the stay is temporary. It represents a challenge. It’s not always an issue of individual racism, but racism on a systemic level.
We are conducting internal studies. We’ve created an antiracism working group within our organization. It’s part of the management table and it presents findings. We studied refusal rates for India compared to Senegal, for example. We’re constantly looking at it all. These conversations are not easy, especially for people who work within the department. I think it’s important to recognize there are improvements to be made.
It is not limited to people. If we look at the triage systems, IT systems and artificial intelligence — Those are not areas were currently using, but we have to see which biases exist within those systems. I have to say it comes in part from conversations and departmental culture. We visited some offices in Africa to explain the risks we take as an immigration officer. Perhaps we need to improve our risk tolerance and see how we could do things differently. Just with conversations within our team, we saw a change in acceptance rates. It doesn’t happen overnight, and the conversation must be ongoing, but we recognize that we have to do this as an organization.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you to Ms. Fox and Ms. Scott for coming. It’s greatly appreciated. That concludes our meeting today. Good evening to you all.
(Meeting adjourned.)