---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 8, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met with videoconference this day at 5:04 p.m. [ET] to study matters relating to the application of the Official Languages Act within those institutions subject to the Act and to study matters relating to minority-language health services.

Senator Rose-May Poirier(Deputy Chair) in the chair.

[Translation]

The Deputy Chair: I am Rose-May Poirier, a senator from New Brunswick and deputy chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.

Before we begin, I would like to ask committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.

Senator Moncion: Lucie Moncion from Ontario.

Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond from Quebec.

Senator Clement: Senator Bernadette Clement from Ontario.

Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.

Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.

Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.

[English]

The Deputy Chair: I wish to welcome all of the viewers across country who may be watching us today. Tonight, we begin our meeting with our new study on the impact of the cap on international student study permits for French language post-secondary institutions outside of Canada.

[Translation]

For our first panel, we welcome here with us today Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne; Jacques Frémont, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Ottawa; and Pierre Zundel, President and CEO, New Brunswick Community College.

We also wish to welcome those joining us via videoconference. Unfortunately, we are experiencing some difficulties with the sound of Sophie Bouffard, President of the Université de Saint-Boniface, who will join us as soon as the problem is resolved.

We also welcome Allister Surette, President and Vice-Chancellor of Université Sainte-Anne.

Thank you for accepting our invitation and welcome. We’re ready for your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from the senators. The floor is yours, Mr. Normand. You each have five minutes for your statements.

Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne: Thank you, Deputy Chair. On January 22, 2024, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, announced the implementation of a national cap on study permit applications for a period of two years. IRCC has capped the number of applications that will be processed in 2024 at 606,250 with an approval target of 360,000, so that there is zero net growth in terms of the number of valid permits.

Today, the ACUFC wishes to reiterate that it is extremely concerned about this cap, as are its members. We believe that IRCC erred in setting this cap by failing to take into consideration the new commitments incumbent upon federal institutions under the modernized version of the Official Languages Act.

In September 2023, it was estimated that 12,000 international students were studying at ACUFC member institutions, which represents approximately 30% of the total client base. According to IRCC data, it is estimated that, for the September 2022 school year, less than 2% of the total number of study permits granted in Canada were given to people who wanted to study at ACUFC member institutions.

The presence of these students generates significant economic spinoffs, but it is also vital to francophone communities. For example, these students meet various labour market needs while they are in school. They can also get postgraduate work permits to gain more Canadian work experience. Then, they can decide to apply to transition to permanent residency. According to a 2020 study, nearly 90% of international students in our network of institutions wanted to stay in Canada after finishing school. This success proves that IRCC should be relying on our institutions when setting its new, more ambitious francophone immigration targets.

Let’s come back to the act. IRCC did not take any positive measures before announcing a national cap to avoid or mitigate the direct negative impacts under subsection 41(7) of the act. In fact, the department offloaded its responsibilities regarding the development of francophone communities and created a disturbing precedent by leaving it up to the provinces and territories to decide how their allocation of students will be distributed among the designated institutions. Over the past few weeks, IRCC has been alluding to future measures and a pilot project to minimize the impact of the cap on our network of institutions. However, such measures have yet to be introduced, and it is becoming increasingly unlikely that they will have any real impact on the September 2024 school year, as they were supposed to.

Section 3.1 states that substantive equality is the norm for language rights. Federal institutions must therefore take into account the specific needs and distinct reality of language minority communities and develop positive measures to that effect. The cap was established taking into account the national average acceptance rate for the study permits, which is around 60%.

The cap was not aligned with the average acceptance rate at francophone and bilingual institutions, which is around 30%. This is inconsistent with substantive equality.

Let us not forget that the federal government made a commitment in the legislation to strengthen opportunities for francophone minorities to have high-quality learning experiences in their own language and to protect and promote the presence of strong institutions that serve these minorities. What is more, the policy on francophone immigration calls for an increased number of study permits issued to our members compared to 2023 numbers, a stark contradiction with the cap.

To that end, a truly positive measure in the spirit of the Official Languages Act would have been to make those who want to study French outside of Quebec a cohort exempt from the cap from the minute it was announced. On several occasions we also presented other solutions to prevent a negative impact on ACUFC members. We are collectively playing catch-up to repair the harm caused by the initial announcement.

For all these reasons, we are making two recommendations: that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announce, as soon as possible, positive measures to repair the harm caused to the post-secondary institutions in a francophone minority context by the announcement of a national cap on receiving applications for study permits, and that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat quickly develop clear instructions on the parameters for implementing the new requirements in the Official Languages Act.

The urgency to act is clear. Senior management at our member institutions who are joining us today will illustrate that clearly to you. The federal government is not only failing the first test of the modernized Official Languages Act, but it is jeopardizing the institutions and communities that it promised to promote and protect.

Thank you.

Jacques Frémont, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Ottawa: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would like to thank you all for inviting us here today to discuss the impact on my university, the University of Ottawa, of the Government of Canada’s recent announcements on international students.

Had our meeting taken place two weeks ago, the conversation would have been very different. Just before the Easter break, we received our quota from the Province of Ontario. The province chose to protect international students who want to study in French-language programs. Whew. That was a close call.

I must say that the University of Ottawa is pleased with the outcome, which significantly alleviates the concerns we had. Ontario institutions remain at a disadvantage, given that other provinces — including Quebec, which seeks to attract a lot of French-speaking international students — were able to make their offers of admission several weeks before we did.

I would just remind you that, this year, at the University of Ottawa, we are welcoming more than 48,000 students, with approximately 32% being enrolled in French-language programs, despite the fact that Franco-Ontarians represent 4.6% of Ontario’s population. International students account for 22% of our student population this year; of these students, about 4,000 are enrolled in French-language programs — 4,000 international students, that’s a lot of people — while the remaining 6,700 students are enrolled in English-language programs.

The targeted addition of our French-speaking international students is very important to ensure the sustainability and expansion of our French-language programs, especially in engineering, science and management. This is an important point in the context of Canada’s francophone minority.

That being said, this Senate committee meeting gives us an opportunity to reflect on how the changes were made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and how, in my opinion, he ignored his new obligations. The new Official Languages Act and its obligations have already been described, as has the violation of these obligations.

What can we learn from this experience? First of all, I want to remind you of three things.

First, there is the eminently vulnerable nature of minority universities and colleges in this country. All institutions need — and even depend on — their French-speaking international students. When you have 200 or 300 students and 100 of them are international students, believe me, there is no way around it: if they are not there, we will be in significant financial difficulty.

Second important reminder: The international student market, particularly the francophone student market, is extremely volatile. Most of our competition comes from Quebec. When Minister Miller announced these new measures, the shift could immediately be felt on the ground, within 24 hours. Social media unquestionably changes things very quickly these days.

Finally, I don’t need to remind you of the vital role played by colleges and universities within Canada’s francophonie in bringing together the talent needed by francophone communities, unobtrusive and scattered across Canada, to survive and grow.

In this context, what exactly happened? What is our take on the situation?

As we saw, the government policy, announced with no prior consultation, left institutions like mine trapped, sitting on the fence between the federal and provincial governments. In more practical terms, as institutions in minority communities, we were forced to frantically lobby the federal and provincial governments to get the number of spaces that we needed to keep our francophone university system intact.

Once again, the burden of justifying their existence has been put on the backs of minority institutions. It’s very disappointing, coming so soon after the Official Languages Act was passed. That is not the status quo. We had to step back and defend ourselves to survive, and most provinces understood, because there weren’t that many francophone students to protect.

Madam Chair, I have only one recommendation to make, but it is heartfelt. The law is there to be enforced by everyone, including by IRCC and the Government of Canada. If the Government of Canada can’t enforce its own law, I worry where we’re headed.

My second recommendation is the following: Whether in terms of ministerial, cabinet or government decisions, we need a consequential obligation to systematically examine the expected impact on minority populations. When there’s a cabinet memo for Indigenous affairs or the environment, for example, then the “environmental impact” or “impact on Indigenous Affairs” always gets measured.

There is a legal obligation that has been completely ignored. This has had a potentially lethal impact on certain institutions in minority communities. Fortunately, most of the provinces stepped up and did what the minister should have done in the first place, specifically, they protected Canada’s francophone colleges and universities.

I look forward to your questions.

Pierre Zundel, President and Chief Executive Officer, New Brunswick Community College: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the New Brunswick Community College, or NBCC, on this important subject.

I’d like it noted that I will be submitting a brief that will go into greater detail on some of the points I will be making today.

NBCC plays a vital role in the development of human potential and community capacity in New Brunswick. With over 90 programs of study, the college welcomed 2,300 new full-time students this year, 48% of whom are international students.

Like my colleagues who spoke before me, I want to emphasize how deeply concerned I am about the development and implementation of the new policy of capping the number of international students, a policy designed to significantly reduce enrolment. This could have a very negative impact on the entire Acadian society. Thanks to the increase in the enrolment of international students in recent years, NBCC has been able to pursue its mission and has actually increased its offer of high-quality post-secondary training programs for Acadians.

As a post-secondary institution, we need to maintain a certain level of enrolment in order to ensure the financial viability of our programs.

For instance, at our Bathurst campus, 63% of our programs are at least two-thirds international students. A reduction in enrolments will have a direct impact on our ability to offer our programs to Acadian and Canadian students. If we are forced by the new policy to reduce our programs or to limit access to French-language post-secondary education to Acadians, the consequences could be devastating for the survival of the French language in New Brunswick.

The context surrounding this discussion is that New Brunswick is faced with an acute, widespread labour shortage. Of the 133,000 jobs expected to open up over the next 10 years, only 56% can be filled by students graduating from the province’s high schools.

NBCC makes significant efforts to help these international students integrate into the local community. Ultimately, 93% of our international graduates apply for a post-graduation work permit and hope to stay in the province. By the end of their studies, they have already started putting down roots, thus contributing to the labour market and to society. Their contribution is essential in order to fill the 45% of jobs that New Brunswick graduates won’t be able to fill.

In light of this situation, we cannot understand the decision to implement a policy that reduces the number of francophone international students. In addition to putting a cap on the absolute number, the policy’s current parameters will end up skewing the distribution of graduates among the strata of society and the economy. The current policy exempts master’s and doctoral students from the changes to the study permit cap and from the changes relating to post-graduation work permits and spousal open work permits.

This distinction attributes different values to the different levels of study, with undergraduate and college studies being perceived as less important. Yet of the 133,000 jobs I mentioned earlier, 40% will require college or vocational education, whereas 24% will require university education. That seems to point to a significant misalignment between the policy and the needs of the job market. This new policy has the potential to seriously compromise francophone immigration to New Brunswick, which is essential for the future of the province’s francophonie.

The goal was to fix the very real problems in provinces like British Columbia and Ontario, but this policy is like using a machine gun to kill a fly, and there’s a risk that we could get hit too.

In closing, I recommend that the federal government put in place explicit mechanisms that take into account the distinct reality and needs of francophone communities that find themselves in a minority-language context.

I am pleased to discuss these recommendations with you in greater detail. Thank you very much for your attention.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Zundel. We will now move onto Mr. Allister Surette’s statement. He will be joining us by videoconference.

Mr. Surette, you have the floor.

Allister Surette, President and Vice Chancellor, Université Sainte-Anne: Ladies and gentlemen, honourable senators, thank you for welcoming us today and for conducting such an important study for Canada’s francophone postsecondary sector.

I represent Université Sainte-Anne today as Rector and Vice-Chancellor. Université Sainte-Anne is the only French-language postsecondary institution in Nova Scotia. It offers university and college programs as well as French second-language immersion programs and customized training.

The university is firmly established in its community. It is a partner of choice for increasing the vitality of the regions surrounding its campuses and of Nova Scotia’s Acadia in general.

The university delivers its education and services through its five campuses: one located in Halifax and the other four firmly rooted in Nova Scotia’s Acadian and francophone regions, coastal, rural and remote areas, and official language minority communities.

It has distinguished itself over the years by its firm commitment to active involvement in the communities it serves. Université Sainte-Anne is committed to supporting the development of these communities and ensuring their well-being and prosperity.

Our student population is made up of Acadians and francophones from the Maritime provinces, francophones from elsewhere in Canada, immersion students — mostly from Nova Scotia — and international students from a dozen countries, mostly African. Around 30% of our student population comes from abroad.

The university is a key partner in Nova Scotia’s francophone immigration action plan, which aims to grow the francophone population. Population growth is a priority for Nova Scotia. The province has announced its goal of doubling its total population by 2060.

For many francophone countries, as is the case for all our francophone institutions, obtaining study permits is already more complex and slower than at English-language universities. So this new bureaucratic step adds to existing obstacles.

It’s important to remember that our international recruitment markets are the result of years of work, and that new markets are difficult to develop. Add to this the challenge of recruiting for a small, rural institution. Because of our small size, our resources are limited compared to English-speaking institutions. This announcement has created uncertainty for potential international students. We will therefore have to intensify our efforts to reposition ourselves in these markets.

The cap announcement creates many steps in the admissions process for an international student. The result is a lot of bureaucracy for our small teams, which becomes difficult to manage.

The timetable for this year is very tight, which will surely lead to a decrease in enrolment in September 2024. Such a decrease has a multi-year effect on our institutions.

There’s one more challenge compared to English-speaking institutions: the acceptance rate, also known as the conversion rate. At Université Sainte-Anne, this is well below the 60% benchmark.

In fact, in some countries, our rate is less than 10%. There will also be an impact on our student population as a whole. The presence of international students affects the vitality of our campuses and the quality of the experience we can offer our entire student population. Canadians enrich their world view by rubbing shoulders with people from elsewhere.

Moreover, we need to maintain a certain level of enrolment to keep our programs running, so a 30% drop in clientele will definitely have an impact on our programs. As we also mentioned, we predominantly offer undergraduate programs, and we don’t benefit from the stability of students in graduate programs who are exempt from the cap.

Like my colleagues, I want to express my concern about the impact of this announcement for our French-language postsecondary institutions outside Quebec.

In closing, my recommendation is similar to the one that has already been presented, namely that the federal government must take into account the particular needs and distinct reality of minority language communities, and that it must develop positive measures to that effect, as it has committed to do through the new Official Languages Act.

Thank you for your attention. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Surette.

I’d like to remind senators and all our speakers not to lean too close to their microphone when speaking and to remove their earpiece to ensure that everything runs smoothly.

Dear colleagues, as you know, you have five minutes each for questions and answers. We can do a second round if time permits before the end of the first session.

I have a preliminary question.

Lawyers Mark Power and Darius Bossé published an opinion piece in Le Droit on February 15, 2024, asserting that Minister Miller’s decision was contrary to the obligations enshrined in Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Were you consulted by Minister Miller prior to the announcement of the government-imposed cap on study permits?

Mr. Zundel, please go ahead.

Mr. Zundel: I won’t comment on the legal aspect. However, I can tell you that we were not consulted about the changes that were announced on January 22.

Mr. Normand: At ACUFC, we were consulted on several measures being considered by IRCC to modernize the international student program since last summer. We were never involved in a specific consultation on the cap as announced on January 22, however.

Mr. Frémont: My answer is the same as my two colleagues. You should know that a complaint was filed today. Perhaps Mr. Normand would like to talk about it?

Mr. Normand: Yes. I was waiting for the right opportunity. I didn’t think this was it, but I’ll go ahead.

We can reveal that today, on behalf of its members, the ACUFC officially filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages regarding the decision to introduce a cap that was announced on January 22. Obviously, we’re waiting to hear back from the Office of the Commissioner. We’ll give them time to assess the complaint. It’s a well-documented complaint. We’ve documented both the actions we took to try to obtain restorative measures in recent weeks, the reasons for filing our complaint and the expectations we have of the Commissioner’s Office for next steps and for handling the complaint.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Are you done, Mr. Frémont?

Mr. Surette: Like my three colleagues, we were not consulted.

The Deputy Chair: Very well, thank you.

Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank all the witnesses for shedding light on this topic.

Do you have any idea of the purpose of these attestation letters that were instituted? What process is involved with issuing these letters? Are you familiar with it?

Mr. Zundel: I think I can answer the second question, which is the one about how the letters are issued. I may be answering the wrong question; please let me know.

According to the institution and province, it may be different, but in New Brunswick, we must first assess the student’s academic record to make an offer of admission, to deem them eligible. Then, the student is asked to make a deposit for the first semester’s fees, and the college will ask the province for a letter of attestation for the student in question. The letter will be received by the institution and sent on to the student, who must include it with their application for a study permit. That’s more or less the process we have to follow for issuing the letters.

Senator Mégie: But that process already existed. What does the attestation letter add?

Mr. Zundel: No. Previously, the student would apply to CCNB, the application would be assessed, and then an offer of admission would be made which would direct the student to IRCC to apply for a study permit. The province was in no way involved in the process.

Quebec has long been involved. However, that was not the case in Canada’s other provinces and territories until January 22.

Senator Mégie: I’m not sure whether any of you know the answer, but did the government study the impact this measure would have before introducing it? You weren’t consulted, so the measure wasn’t brought in following consultations.

Mr. Frémont: The measure applies to every university in Canada, in every province. We know that two provinces seemed to be having trouble. It was in Ontario mainly and British Columbia where abuses were observed. The purpose of the measure was to reduce the number of international students entering Canada in order to take back some control. In Ontario, in particular, some private colleges apparently had tens of thousands of students entering Canada, and those colleges were subcontracting it all to public colleges. The idea was to stop the hemorrhaging, so to speak. In doing so, all the colleges and universities in Canada were lumped together, and that’s how colleges and universities in minority communities were covered by it. That is the problem we have with the measure.

As it was, IRCC’s refusal rate was much higher for francophone applicants. The average refusal rate for francophone students from Africa was much higher than it was for students hailing from Europe, China, India and Pakistan. We were at a great disadvantage, and we immediately asked Minister Miller to put francophone colleges and universities under a separate umbrella or to shield them from the measure so as not to put them or their programs at risk. After all, it’s not that many people — we’re talking about a few thousand students. I met with the minister twice. He didn’t want to grant any exceptions. He listened to what we had to say and was sympathetic, but he didn’t grant any exceptions.

We therefore had to try to convince the provinces at the same time. The Quebec government wasn’t involved because it hadn’t met its share of students and attestation letters. Quebec already has the ability to issue attestation certificates under its system, so it wasn’t involved. This was going on in the other provinces.

The government policy was explained at length. It seems that there were problems related to housing, in particular.

To give you a sense of just how ill thought-out this was, I will tell you that 4% of the University of Ottawa’s residence beds are currently vacant. I can accept that universities were causing problems with housing, but that isn’t the case everywhere. The government is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Senator Moncion: Thank you. Your input is fascinating and impactful. On or about January 20, the government triggered a tsunami, affecting Canada’s French-language universities, in particular, and some English-language ones.

You just said the measure wasn’t well thought-out. It doesn’t seem as though it was thought-out at all. I think the government just wanted a quick, easy fix to a problem, something we’ve seen a lot recently.

Describe for us the short, medium and long-term effects of the government’s January 22 announcement, taking into account the financial situation and that impact. You talked about the impact on francophone minorities, but there is a financial impact. With that in mind, talk about the provincial dimension, if you would, and the provinces’ role in funding your institutions. International students are one factor, but tuition fees, provincial contributions and other factors come into play. This aspect took a toll right away, but others go back years and, as a result, you’ve gradually been heading towards the cliff’s edge.

I’d like to hear what all four of you have to say about that.

Mr. Frémont: In Ontario, it’s not complicated. This is year five of a freeze on tuition fees and transfer payments. The only way we had to relieve the pressure was international student fees. It was the only thing the government hadn’t regulated, and now, they’ve put a lid on that. The Government of Ontario was caught off guard, and we had to convince it to keep our levels for anglophone and francophone students the same. Cuts were made nevertheless, and decisions between Ontario’s colleges and universities had to be made. It was a major wake-up call for the government.

In Ontario, a panel of experts was formed to examine the funding of Ontario’s institutions. The panel’s report came out this past November, and the panel’s mandate specifically included looking at funding considerations for northern universities and French-language universities. The report contained recommendations, which the Government of Ontario responded to a few weeks ago. It addressed all the report recommendations, except those pertaining to francophone universities. Basically, our understanding is that it wants more money from the federal government. Francophone institutions are not being told that the government is going to ask Ottawa for more money. When it comes to funding for Ontario’s post-secondary education system, the elephant in the room is who is responsible for what. I could talk about it for two or three hours, but I will yield the floor to my colleagues.

Mr. Zundel: Each province has its specificities, so I can talk about the situation in New Brunswick. Colleges aren’t the same as universities.

When we told the government that the policy had issues, one of the things it said was that we had become somewhat addicted to the revenue from international student fees. Since the provinces had underfunded institutions for so long, institutions had to replace government funding with revenue from international students.

I can tell you that, even if the province had given us funding equivalent to what we get from international students, it doesn’t change the context: New Brunswick is still experiencing a severe and widespread labour shortage. Even if the province were to give us what we bring in from international students, that population would still be targeted because it wouldn’t be possible to meet labour market needs otherwise. That’s true on the French side and on the English side, but certainly on the French side.

[Technical difficulties]

Mr. Surette: We are in a unique situation in that we have 10 universities, 9 of which are anglophone. We are the only French-language university, and there’s a large community college. We are in the centre of all that.

As Mr. Zundel mentioned, another consideration is that the pool of prospective students for our French-language institution in Nova Scotia is extremely limited. The international market is important not just for our institution, but also for increased francophone immigration in Nova Scotia.

As far as our financial situation is concerned, our two main sources of funding are tuition fees and the grant agreement with the province. This year marks the first time in years that Nova Scotia is signing bilateral agreements specifically with each university. Before that, the funding allocation formula for universities was based on taxes that the province set aside for general funding. For years, provincial funding has been going up 1% or 2%, and obviously our costs are going up much more than that, at least 5% or 6%. The only way to make that up is through tuition fees. This is critical for our institutions when you consider that we are dealing with a population that, for us, is 30% — it can be larger for others.

I could go on and on about provincial funding, which presents two other major challenges for us. Since we are small, it’s very difficult for our institutions to cope with all the additional red tape. Our teams are small, and in many cases, they are already stretched to their limits. Requirements are constantly being added. Not only did IRCC introduce more red tape with the cap, but also, in our case, the province is asking us to say how we are going to advance broader government priorities.

We are also being asked to provide a long-term international student plan that meets various requirements. We have to indicate which countries we will be targeting, how many people we will be recruiting, whether housing is available for those students, whether we have adequate supports for international students when they arrive and so forth.

It’s about more than just funding. It’s also about the red tape that is being piled on. It’s very challenging for a small institution to handle.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Surette.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you to the officials from the various colleges and universities. This discussion is very informative and proves that we need to be asking these questions.

My first question is for the University of Ottawa official. You said that 4% of your residence rooms were vacant. Is that something new this year, or has it been that way for a number of years?

Mr. Frémont: It’s common.

Senator Dalphond: All right. You still have space to accommodate students, then.

Mr. Frémont: We don’t have a ton of room. It’s a few dozen spots. There is a set number for international students and for local students as well. Everyone is in the area, and it doesn’t create more pressure, since there is a bit of room in terms of residence space.

Senator Dalphond: Are the residence fees the same for local and other students?

Mr. Frémont: Yes, for a local student or student from Ontario.

Senator Dalphond: Is that the cheapest of all the options?

Mr. Frémont: A phenomenon we’re seeing now is that students in Ontario are moving to other parts of the province less because of the cost of living. We used to have more people from Toronto coming to Ottawa, but we have fewer of them now, and international students are making up for that amply. It’s evening out.

Senator Dalphond: Mr. Normand, you said something at the beginning of the meeting, and I’m not sure I understood correctly. You said that 60% of study permits were granted, but that it was only 30% for francophones. Can you explain what you meant? Are you talking about IRCC? Are English-speaking student applicants more successful?

Mr. Normand: Basically, yes. The study permit acceptance rate IRCC uses to set the cap is the national average, which is 60%.

Generally speaking, in Canada, an international applicant has a 60% chance of their study permit application being accepted. For French-language institutions in Canada, the average rate is 30%. The rate is so low because the prospective student pools are very different. English-language universities can recruit students from China and India, and for those applicants, the acceptance rate is 80%, 90% or even higher.

Mr. Surette referred to this earlier. Some institutions recruit students from African countries, and the acceptance rate for those applicants is close to 10% — even 0% in some cases. There is an imbalance. When a national measure like this one is based on the national average, it hides the reality: Francophones applying for study permits face structural barriers. That translates into an additional burden for institutions. They need help to make more admission offers in order to maintain a sufficient number of international students, one that is comparable to that of institutions serving the majority language community.

That’s why we are saying that, given the context, a French-language institution has to have a lot more admission letters under the set cap than an English-language institution, if the goal is to keep the same level of enrolment year after year.

Mr. Zundel: The difference in the conversion rates really creates a problem in the provinces.

Senator Dalphond: The conversion rate refers to the fact that, once the institution has offered a student admission, IRCC agrees to issue the permit.

Mr. Zundel: The student also has to show up in the end.

Mr. Frémont: Ultimately, the student has to choose to accept the offer as well.

Mr. Zundel: The result is a very unfortunate and risky situation. Take, for example, New Brunswick and its two community colleges, one English-language college and one French-language college. The English-language college’s conversion rate is 50%. In our case, it’s 36%. The province has a thousand letters to give out and is facing an acute labour shortage, so giving them to francophones would mean 360 potential workers, whereas giving them to anglophones would mean 500 workers. That puts francophones at a fundamental disadvantage.

Senator Dalphond: I see that Collège communautaire du Nouveau-Brunswick was granted 1,856 attestation letters. I assume they were allocated by New Brunswick. Is that right?

Mr. Zundel: Yes.

Senator Dalphond: That’s 20% of the province’s attestation letters.

Mr. Zundel: Yes.

Senator Dalphond: Is that significant, or is it a decrease in terms of what English-language colleges were granted?

Mr. Zundel: It’s significant, and I should say, it’s a bit like Ontario.

Senator Dalphond: You received favourable treatment, then?

Mr. Zundel: They did a good job. Proportionately speaking, they gave us more letters than they gave the English-language college because they knew our conversion rate was lower.

Senator Dalphond: The concern you had earlier was that you would be given less because, ultimately, it means that fewer people would be interested in staying, in becoming permanent residents and working in New Brunswick. Is that right? It didn’t factor into the equation.

Mr. Zundel: It didn’t turn out that way, but that was the dynamic. When attestation letters are in short supply, equity has to be weighed against the needs of the labour market. I don’t think the provinces should be confronted with those conflicting considerations, in the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

Senator Dalphond: I understand, but in practical terms, it worked out in your favour this year. Is that right?

Mr. Zundel: It didn’t work out in our favour, but the outcome was not as unfavourable as it could have been.

Mr. Frémont: One of the changes this year is that the federal government now requires all prospective students to show that they have access to $20,000. The requirement used to be $10,000. Even without the January 20 announcement, we had no idea how it was going to impact francophone numbers, since sub-Saharan Africa, the Maghreb and other markets are very cost-sensitive. Some markets aren’t at all. When it comes to China, people will still come no matter how much you tighten up the requirements. As it was, we didn’t know what impact the income increase would have, and now a second element has been added.

As we speak, we have no idea how many francophone students my university will have in September. The insecurity caused by those factors and the letters means that we don’t know how many students we’ll have in September.

Senator Aucoin: My first question is for Jacques Frémont. Was it your sense that Minister Miller had heard about certain concerns or was familiar with Part VII of the Official Languages Act?

Mr. Frémont: I reminded him when we met. His staff were clearly aware.

Senator Aucoin: What about Minister Miller?

Mr. Frémont: Perhaps he didn’t listen to what I said, but I was clear.

Senator Aucoin: I have a second question.

You said that, this year, at least at the University of Ottawa, you ended up getting more students or permits than you initially worried you would. Did French-language colleges and universities in the other provinces end up getting a decent share this year — perhaps in the past few weeks? Did the number of study permits turn out to be sufficient?

Mr. Frémont: My understanding is that a number of provinces did indeed play ball, because that was something the federal government had asked for in its negotiations with the provinces.

Mr. Zundel: The federal government granted New Brunswick a second batch of attestation letters last week. Unfortunately, it’s so late in the process that we won’t be able to use them for September admissions. They may not help until January.

I say that without knowing what this year’s conversion rate will be, as Mr. Frémont mentioned. If we have the same rate as last year, we could be okay. If it’s half of what it was last year, it will be devastating.

Mr. Surette: It’s the same for us. We, too, were fortunate that Nova Scotia gave us many more attestation letters than we were expecting.

You’re familiar with this, Senator Aucoin. Large institutions like Dalhousie University received almost the same number of letters we did. Clearly, the province played the same game here, knowing that our conversion rate was much lower.

The other impact for us, in terms of the conversion rate, is the need for an internal analysis to identify the countries that are most beneficial for us. We will be taking a more careful look at which countries are conducive to a higher conversion rate.

Senator Aucoin: I gather there’s no guarantee that the provinces will treat you as favourably next year, or in upcoming years, as they did this year, even though they could possibly have done more.

Have you thought of any solutions? What can we do to help you with that?

Mr. Normand: I’d like to say something, if I may. The cap was actually announced for two years. This fall, we’ll find out the numbers for 2025, and we may find ourselves in the same situation, having to lobby for the study permits to be distributed fairly.

Our members consider themselves lucky that the provinces gave them the number of letters they needed. Given the federal government’s linguistic duty to enhance the vitality of francophone communities, we shouldn’t be having to count on luck and the goodwill of the provinces to ensure the survival, sustainability and vitality of our post-secondary institutions.

Right now, the government needs to ensure that all federal institutions, including — but particularly — IRCC, understand their new obligations under the Official Languages Act. Furthermore, the government needs to give all those institutions the tools they need to respect the act, so we don’t end up going through this again and again. That applies not just to IRCC, but also to other departments, which will take it upon themselves to follow the precedent IRCC has set and not anticipate positive measures to avoid direct negative impacts on francophone communities.

Senator Clement: Thank you for your shock testimony. By shock, I mean that it sends a very clear message to the federal government. I want to continue along Senator Aucoin’s line of questioning. Over the long term, certain government announcements create instability and undermine your confidence.

In your strategic planning, how are you going to address a seemingly uncertain climate, which could be the case for years?

During Black History Month, students who had heard about these announcements came up to me completely devastated. You are counting on these students for recruitment. The better their experience, the more they will encourage others to come.

How are you talking to your current students in a reasonable and reassuring way? The question is for all the witnesses.

Mr. Zundel: We work very hard to support students when they arrive and help them integrate so they feel welcome, at home and wanted in the community. With the rise in international students in recent years, we hired people to focus on student integration and support, precisely to help them along. Many of them are immigrants themselves, so they really understand the experience of newcomers.

We also do a lot of equity, diversity and inclusion work on the program side, to learn everyone’s customs, not just within the college, but also in surrounding communities. Keep in mind that the international students attending our college also live in the community. My fear is that the measure announced on January 22 could play into an anti-immigration narrative. I’m not saying that was the intent, but it does add an anti-immigration dynamic that determines whether students feel welcome in Canada or not.

Mr. Frémont: Certainly, in the past, we engaged in overbooking, and we knew exactly the number we would end up with. Now, for the reasons I’ve explained, we don’t know. Obviously, we’ll be making adjustments to our strategic planning, as we build our understanding and ask every student the relevant questions.

We question the ones who don’t come to find out why. On the ground, we have to deliver different messages. First, Canada is still open to them, because the signal they got was that Canada was no longer open but Quebec was. Quebec has a grant program for French-speaking international students who study in regions. Everything outside Montreal Island is considered a region in Quebec. Sherbrooke and Laval are considered regions. Everywhere is a region. Quebec has a grant program where students pay in-province tuition fees.

Immediately, the wind changed. For years, the wind was at our backs and the backs of French Canada, with every institution receiving more applications. The week Quebec announced what it was doing, the headwinds set in. We are going to have to counter that. The image Canada is projecting to all students is that getting into the country is now difficult and they are going to have trouble. It is especially important to bear in mind that we are competing with the English-speaking world. The U.S., Britain and Europe provide responses in a matter of weeks. Here, IRCC issues visas within six months, if we’re lucky. Canada has an image problem, and it’s going to require work on the ground.

I have one last point. IRCC is aiming to increase francophone immigration levels from 4% to 6% and eventually 8%. Frankly, people on the ground can’t wrap their heads around that. The messages are totally contradictory. We’re turning students away even though they represent high-quality immigrants, so the messaging on the ground is contradictory. It’s not exactly straightforward. Embassies are doing their best. There’s been a lot of noise. The new policy doesn’t cover graduate studies, and some embassies have given out wrong information. It’s deterred people from applying in an extremely competitive market.

Senator Mockler: What you’re saying is alarming, but it’s not surprising. Being a senator from New Brunswick, I want to recognize Mr. Zundel’s leadership in New Brunswick’s community college network. Above all, he has always taken demographic weight into account, and that’s very important.

You said you weren’t consulted. Mr. Normand, did you reach out to the Prime Minister’s Office or ministers in writing to make them aware of the situation you are currently in?

Mr. Normand: The measure was announced on January 22, and we sent Minister Miller a letter on January 23 to share some overarching concerns we had following the announcement. We asked to meet with him right away so we could explain the context French-language institutions operate in and how we felt the measure circumvented the Official Languages Act. We were able to meet with him a few weeks later, and we met with his staff prior to that.

We meet regularly with the assistant deputy minister responsible for international student programming at IRCC. In all those meetings, we reiterate the differential impact the measure has on francophone institutions and especially the urgent need for action. A few days after the announcement, we promptly came out in support of our members and criticized how the measure had been announced. A few days after January 22, IRCC responded, saying that it was going to look for ways to prevent negative impacts from the measure on our members, Canada’s francophone institutions. That was a few days after the announcement. IRCC made that statement on January 24 or 25.

It’s now April 8, and we still don’t know what those measures are. As Mr. Zundel stated, with every week that goes by, it becomes increasingly impossible for us to impact the academic year starting in September 2024. If IRCC intended those projects and measures to impact the upcoming academic year, that window is closing. Prior to the cap, study permits had an average processing time of 13 weeks. It’s now mid-April; add 13 weeks, although no projects have been announced yet — it’s becoming unrealistic to think that we can make changes in time for September 2024.

Obviously, we’ll buy in once the measures are announced and we’ll be partners in their deployment. Once again, this creates an additional burden for our institutions which, as you heard, already carry a heavy load. We’ll deploy these measures with them, but they should have been announced on January 22 at the same time as the cap, instead of three months later, thereby jeopardizing the next academic year.

Senator Mockler: Has the department actually assessed the negative impact of a study permit cap on francophone post-secondary institutions outside Quebec? Has this information been shared with you?

Mr. Zundel: That would be a good question to put to the minister if he appears before the committee. I can tell you that we communicated that information through the ACUFC and Colleges and Institutes Canada. I met with the minister on February 8 and we talked about differential conversion rates and all the difficulties. So it’s not a matter of not knowing what the impacts are. There was clear, rapid and fulsome communication in that regard.

Senator Mockler: What expectations do you have regarding the review of the program criteria for post-graduation work permits? I’ve participated in three round tables in my province over the past three or four months. We talked about everything that students contribute to the province; they were simultaneously very moved and very concerned, if not shocked.

Mr. Zundel: One of the recommendations I consider essential and quite achievable would be to grant all francophone college and university programs outside Quebec the same exemption given to master’s and PhD programs, making the exemption applicable to all francophone programs. That would mean eliminating the cap and the changes made to post-graduation work permits. Spouses should also be allowed to work while their partners are students. It would be very easy to do that. The numbers aren’t high. We’re not talking about hundreds of thousands of students, but rather a small number. Therefore, it would be quite feasible. That would be our recommendation.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now begin the second round.

Senator Moncion: Thank you for giving me more time earlier.

Mr. Frémont, you said something that caught my attention. You mentioned that francophone educational institutions outside Quebec were competing with Quebec institutions for students.

Mr. Frémont: Yes.

Senator Moncion: I’m struck by that statement.

Mr. Frémont: You know, the francophone market is quite small. For all intents and purposes, most come from the Maghreb region and sub-Saharan Africa. Quebec had a lot of international students on Montreal Island because that’s where the diaspora was. When Quebec started to fiddle with tuition fees, as you heard, and when it confirmed that international student fees would increase from $17,000 to $19,000, it had a chilling effect.

The University of Ottawa lowered tuition fees to attract francophone students. When tuition fees in Quebec were $3,000 or $5,000 for students from Africa, we lowered our tuition fees to regain market share. Still, Quebec applied the fees, except for students from France and Belgium. As a result, Quebec stalled its international student market somewhat; then the Quebec government came out with a $35 million program over three years to lower tuition fees and encourage international students to settle in the regions. The regions are everywhere but Montreal Island. We noticed the difference immediately, because news travels fast on social media. There was a collective movement which turned into a kind of lottery. They wanted to make it possible to have local rights. We immediately felt a shift in our communities about a year and a half ago.

Senator Moncion: I’d like to hear from Mr. Surette and Mr. Zundel on that point. I’d also like to hear from you, because you represent people from just about everywhere. What has been the impact on your universities and colleges?

Mr. Zundel: You’re referring to the competition with Quebec?

Senator Moncion: Yes.

Mr. Zundel: With regard to the measure to which my colleague referred, given the relatively low number of students, the reaction on social media was almost immediate. Suddenly, our recruiters were being told, “I’m going to Quebec; I’m not coming to you.” Since we’re talking about only a few hundred students per year, this was not a disaster for us.

That said, with regard to the January 22 announcement, since Quebec already had a system of attestation letters and software in place, it was able to send those letters out immediately and potential students could apply more quickly. There’s no doubt that this gave them an advantage over us. Our first attestation letters were sent last week.

Senator Moncion: Mr. Surette, what about you?

Mr. Surette: We are a bit farther from Quebec, so there is less of an impact. The “marketing effect’” and the perception that people in other countries have of our institutions, as I’ve said, is that Canada is closed, for example, to the international market with IRCC’s announcement. What Quebec did with its tuition fees created a marketing effect, and that’s what hurts the most. Losing students has a direct impact on our institutions. Since Nova Scotia is one of the last provinces to receive the attestation letters in relation to the January 22 announcement, we didn’t know before the end of March, the end of last week, how many attestation letters we would get. In that time, we tried to see what we could do here to improve the situation.

I wasn’t able to respond earlier, but between the marketing effect, the need to wait and the uncertainty caused by the whole situation, I’m convinced that it will already be too late by September 2024. Given all the hoops we need to go through in our francophone countries, with the embassies and now the attestation letters, it’ll be too late for 2024. We hope we’ll be able to catch up in January 2025. Moreover, what really concerns me, for our institution and the others, is the fact that if there is a decrease in the number of students in one year, when most of our programs — especially at universities — are three or four years in duration, the impact will be felt for three or four years. So, it will take us time to catch up on the international market.

Mr. Normand: The day Mr. Miller made his announcement, he said at the press conference that Quebec hadn’t reached its cap and that there was room in Quebec for international students. He made that statement on January 22 and he was referring to a province which, as we said, already had an attestation letter system in place.

While our colleagues at universities across the country had to wait for the provinces to take action, Quebec had a two-month head start to send out its attestation letters. To be frank, Quebec has enough room under the cap to take all the international students outside Quebec. They could all transfer there tomorrow and Quebec would not reach its cap. Quebec has a comparative advantage over institutions in the Canadian francophonie and it’s difficult for the latter to compete.

Senator Mockler: In line with the questions about the mechanism, I’d like to know whether you believe that offering scholarships to francophone international students at post-secondary institutions outside Quebec would resolve the problem.

Mr. Frémont: Yes, without a doubt. If you’re asking what measure would have a strong and immediate impact, it would be scholarships. Francophone students are very cost conscious. There are brilliant individuals from families without the means to pay, and it’s clear that offering scholarships would be extremely helpful to them. The permanent residency requirements also need to be accelerated to allow access to citizenship. Such measures would completely change the dynamic. If we want to achieve 6% and 8%, and if you were to do that, I’m telling you it’d happen overnight.

Mr. Zundel: For example, for every Chinese student who comes here, there are four adults. Because of the one-child policy, four adults accompany a Chinese student coming into the country. A student from Africa belongs to a family of 10, and their financial means are not the same. You have to understand that, even if we give all the scholarships in the world right away, we won’t get the desired outcome because of the cap policy and the regulations.

Mr. Normand: The government of Canada is already offering scholarships to international students. The program is primarily managed by Global Affairs Canada. It was recently noted that our francophone institutions are benefiting very little from these programs, because the criteria are not well suited to institutions in the Canadian francophonie. Existing scholarships don’t meet the needs of francophone students and that has to change. It’s possible to take action through the international education strategy. Canada’s strategy expired on March 31.

So we’re waiting for a new strategy for 2024-29; this is one of the recommendations the ACUFC has made, namely that there should be specific scholarships for francophone students and criteria tailored to francophone institutions in the federal government’s scholarship programs for international students.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I have two questions. You can answer the first with a yes or a no, and anyone may answer. You mentioned several times that you think the government considered its obligations under the Official Languages Act when making these decisions. Do you think that all of this is also contrary to the new francophone immigration policy?

Mr. Normand: My answer is a resounding yes, and here’s why. The performance indicator for the francophone immigration policy is to increase the number of study permits issued to francophone students at institutions outside Quebec. So when the policy’s performance indicator is increasing the number of international students, the cap becomes a contradiction.

The Deputy Chair: Does everyone agree? Yes? Thank you. Here’s my second question. In your presentations, you all made one or two recommendations. Before we conclude, what’s your final message? Are there other recommendations or anything that you would like to say in conclusion? Be brief, because we only have a few minutes before the end of the meeting. Do you have anything to add that could help us with our study?

Mr. Zundel: If we wanted to coordinate all our efforts, I’d say that there should be an exemption for francophone students outside Quebec; we also need to eliminate the problem created when students express dual intent in their application for a study permit, when they say yes, they’ll go home, but, in fact, they’ll perhaps stay in Canada. Students are automatically penalized for that. Since there is a labour shortage here and we want them to come, I don’t understand why they’re being penalized when they say they might like to stay here.

Furthermore, housing measures were recently announced. So, federal student housing initiatives would allow us to increase our capacity to bring in international students. Essentially, it’s a matter of coordinating our efforts with the various policies in order to ensure synergy.

Mr. Frémont: I’ll be provocative, if I may. It’s time for the Canadian government to acknowledge that it is truly responsible for francophone minorities and higher education. That means that we need to stop subjecting institutions to the goodwill of the provinces. The federal government has the primary responsibility — we can discuss that, but the law confirms it. Therefore, if the federal government has that responsibility, it’s responsible for the survival of francophone communities across the country. Their survival depends on post-secondary institutions that enable francophones to contribute to the economy across the country. This means that the federal government needs to stop putting our fate in the hands of the provinces.

Mr. Surette: I don’t really have anything else to suggest, other than to re-emphasize the importance of consultation, particularly with the provinces and territories, to ensure they truly understand the impact of these measures not only on our post-secondary institutions, but also on the vitality of our communities. My recommendation is along the same lines; as far as I’m concerned, it’s all about consultation.

Senator Dalphond: I have a question. Is there any time remaining?

The Deputy Chair: Yes, you have three minutes.

Senator Dalphond: You spoke earlier about the competition for scholarships offered by Quebec. I also understood that international students were one way for the Government of Ontario to receive additional funding, particularly for the University of Ottawa. So who’s going to pay the scholarship?

In Quebec, the scholarship is offered by the Government of Quebec, so it assumes the cost of the scholarship. You would have to convince Queen’s Park to give you scholarships to attract francophones. I don’t know whether the federal government’s goal is to offer more scholarships, because that becomes an incentive for Ontario to sit on its hands and to let the federal government inject more money into the system every time, because we need to promote official languages.

Mr. Frémont: By asking the question, you show that you fully understand the dynamic. What’s clear is that ultimately, once again, we are putting our fate in the hands of the provinces, and we are at the mercy of the governments. We’re a minority that always has to fight to survive. I suppose the federal government could come up with a mechanism, but you are aware of the problem.

Currently, the federal government is the elephant in the room when it comes to funding. It requires the provinces to match funding for post-secondary education. This matching is partly paid for with general funding. I can tell you that’s a joke when it comes to research. Ontario rarely provides fund matching for language. So the federal government turns a blind eye to the fact that, basically, for the money it is going to give, the provincial match is the general grant we receive from the province. So it’s not paid for, and Ontario gets away with paying very little in return. At the Canada Foundation for Innovation and in major research competitions, this is really the problem we face. Institutions are caught in the middle.

The Deputy Chair: There’s about a minute left.

Mr. Normand: That will be enough to answer that question. One of Canada’s objectives is to diversify the source of foreign students who come to study in Canada. This is one of the objectives of the various scholarship programs in place at Global Affairs Canada. So the mechanism exists; the federal government already provides scholarships for international students.

If it’s serious and wants to continue working on market diversification — our francophone institutions are already diversifying markets, because they are not in China or India; they are elsewhere. These institutions want to work to provide equitable access to post-secondary education for all the world’s population.

The federal government could decide to develop a bursary program adapted to facilitate access to post-secondary education in French in Canada for students who are in a vulnerable position or who have fewer financial resources.

Senator Dalphond: Then give money to Quebec, because it’s English-speaking students from the other provinces who go to McGill?

Mr. Normand: That could be negotiated with Quebec; I’m speaking for the other provinces.

The Deputy Chair: Your time is up. I’d like to thank all four of you for joining us this evening. Thank you for all the information you’ve shared with us; it’s greatly appreciated.

[English]

Colleagues, for our second panel, we will be returning to our study on minority language health services. We again welcome Mr. Martin Normand, Director, Strategic Research and International Relations, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne. He is here with us in person. As well, welcome to Ms. Manon Tremblay, Director, Health, Consortium national de formation en santé, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne.

On Zoom, we have three witnesses: Mr. Daniel Giroux, President, Boreal College; Mr. Denis Prud’homme, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Moncton; and Mr. Hassan Safouhi, Vice-Dean, Campus Saint-Jean, University of Alberta.

Welcome, and thank you for being here. We are ready for opening remarks. There will be five minutes each, and then we will proceed to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Normand, we’re going to start with your opening remarks for five minutes in the language of your choice.

Mr. Normand: We’re addressing two topics with you today as part of this study.

The first concerns the financial contribution of Health Canada through the official languages health program to members of the Consortium national de formation en santé, or CNFS. Created in 2003, the CNFS comprises 16 of the 22 colleges and universities that are members of the ACUFC. Health Canada’s funding helps increase the number of bilingual front-line health professionals, thereby improving access to equitable health services in francophone minority communities.

The impact of the CNFS over more than 20 years is significant. Between 2003 and 2023, post-secondary institutions welcomed nearly 30,000 students into health programs, of which about 10,000 were supported in about 100 CNFS-targeted programs.

In the CNFS follow-up surveys of graduates of these programs, 98% of respondents report that they provide health services in French. In 2023, approximately 600 out of 2,000 first-year enrolments in CNFS-targeted programs are directly attributable to Health Canada funding.

Health Canada funding has also been used to develop and promote the concept of active offer of service in French, a measure that encourages users to express themselves in the official language of their choice.

Much progress has been made since 2003, but the work is far from done. Other witnesses, including provincial representatives, have shared with you the importance of significantly increasing the number of health care graduates who can practise their profession in French in order to meet the needs of francophone minority communities.

The statistical analyses we have carried out paint a picture of future needs. A brief will be submitted to give you more information on this topic, but here are some data that will illustrate the challenges ahead. In 2021, more than 37% of health care staff with knowledge of French and English in the professions targeted by the CNFS were 45 years of age or older. Among family physicians, that percentage was 43%. Among PSWs, that percentage was 41%. Many bilingual professionals are approaching retirement and will need to be replaced.

Various strategies are being implemented by governments to meet these needs. Health Canada’s model is very innovative. As we know, post-secondary education is a provincial responsibility.

Health Canada’s support is in addition to funds invested by the provinces to support the training of health professionals. However, Health Canada disburses the funds directly to the institutions concerned with the explicit agreement of the provinces. In each funding cycle, provincial governments confirm their support for Health Canada initiatives so that institutions can benefit from federal funding.

Our first recommendation is that Health Canada maintain and enhance the official languages health program as necessary for the years 2028 to 2033, based on its current delivery mechanisms.

The second topic we’ll be discussing with you this evening concerns language barriers for foreign-trained health professionals.

In March 2020, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, published a study entitled Occupational integration in healthcare by French-speaking immigrants living in minority communities. This study provided a detailed picture of the challenges faced by foreign-trained professionals.

To practise a regulated health profession in Canada, foreign-trained individuals must go through specific steps with regulatory bodies to obtain a licence to practise. This process occurs within each province or territory and varies from one profession to another. As a result, Canada-wide initiatives targeting structural barriers to entry into the profession are difficult to achieve by organizations like ours.

However, Canada-wide actions are not only feasible, but desirable in another area of action: language training. The IRCC study indicated that opportunities for foreign-trained professionals and French-speaking immigrants are more limited in the health care field, since English language skills requirements are high. The federal government can do something about this. In fact, language training for these two clienteles would benefit from being structured at the national level. The experience and expertise of ACUFC member institutions could be put to good use in developing this pan-Canadian strategy, so that our communities can benefit quickly and fully from this potential workforce.

Our second recommendation is that Health Canada, Canadian Heritage, Employment and Social Development Canada, and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada coordinate a pan-Canadian approach to English and French language training for foreign-trained health professionals.

My colleague Manon Tremblay and I will be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Daniel Giroux, President, Boreal College: Honourable senators, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I will echo the ACUFC’s comments by giving a few concrete examples of the benefits of Health Canada’s financial contribution to our institution and the language barriers our students face.

Boreal College is one of 24 public colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario and one of two French-language colleges offering training in over 80 post-secondary programs in French, 25 of which are unique to French-speaking Ontario. With 36 sites in 26 communities, it has a physical presence almost everywhere in the province of Ontario, but with Boreal Online, which now offers some 15 programs completely remotely, we now have a presence throughout Ontario and even Canada.

The college also offers skilled trades apprenticeships, literacy and basic skills training, continuing education, employment services, immigration and settlement services, and applied research services.

As a member of the Consortium national de formation en santé, the CNFS, Boreal receives funding from Health Canada through the official languages in health program. Over the past 10 years, Boreal has received almost $7.8 million.

Let me give you some concrete examples of what this funding has done for us.

Students in the dental hygiene program benefit from a completely renovated dental clinic at the Boreal site to put into practice the knowledge acquired with bilingual clients on campus. It even met all the public health requirements during the pandemic.

The addition of a practical nursing program on three new campuses now offers students and communities training at the Hearst, Kapuskasing, West Nipissing, Sudbury, Timmins, Toronto and Windsor campuses.

There is also the whole question of adding virtual simulation to the paramedical program.

In addition, in 2015, a full integration of the concept of active offer of service in French was completed to ensure that the student population is made aware of the importance of offering services in French and that this concept is put into practice during internships and at work.

Interestingly, the average retention rate for our programs at Boreal College is 90%. A study was done by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, which compared us with six English-language colleges where the retention rate was between 55% and 71%. This funding makes a real difference not only to retention, but also to the quality of training.

Another analysis using the results of the 2019-20 and 2020-21 graduate survey results shows that 85% of graduates of the [Technical difficulties] program at Boreal College who participated in the survey work in health, and that 96% of these health professionals work in a francophone minority community in Canada. I therefore reiterate the ACUFC’s first recommendation, that Health Canada maintain and enhance, as needed, the official languages health program for 2028 to 2033.

I’d also like to talk about language barriers. We talked about the recommendation to train professionals in both French and English. Another particular challenge I would like to address is the concern about language exams. For example, to become a practical nurse, professionals must write a provincial exam; to become a registered nurse, candidates must write a provincial exam to be eligible to practise.

On the bachelor’s degree side, the change was made in 2015. Attempts were made to use exams from the United States that had been translated. It didn’t work. The success rate for those who wrote the exam in French plummeted. People know that since 2022, for our practical nursing programs, we have used the same exam. So we’re very concerned about these same challenges. When students don’t pass the exam in French, they write it in English. This really calls into question the purpose of our French-language programs and the quality of our training.

One thing is absolutely critical: Although professional bodies are under provincial jurisdiction, these challenges exist across the country. So we’re asking for the federal government’s support in intervening with provincial authorities to demand that professional bodies provide equal opportunities for entry into the health professions for professionals trained in French and English. We would certainly be willing to work with them on that.

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer your questions.

Dr. Denis Prud’homme, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of Moncton: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Honourable senators, good evening. Thank you for your invitation to participate as a witness in the study on minority-language health services.

My objectives today are to share data with you to demonstrate how important it is for patients to receive these services in their mother tongue, and how important it is to increase the number of health professionals able to actively offer services in French.

The data I’m about to present to you are the result of studies by a research group interested in documenting the impact of the language barriers on quality, but also on the safety, of care offered in an environment of linguistic concordance, that is, when the physician speaks the same language as the patient, or linguistic discordance, in other words, when the physician does not speak the patient’s language.

For example, in one of our studies, we drew on the Canadian Patient Safety Institute’s first study, which was published in 2014-15 and documented patient harm or medical error in Canadian hospitals. A frequency of one in 18 hospitalizations — so about 6% of patients — was reported. One in eight harms may be the cause of death.

Harms can be categorized into four categories. However, two of these categories account for more than 75% of harms, namely, care-related conditions and medication errors.

In this study, we documented the language skills of physicians and developed an index that allowed us to conclude that if a patient received more than 50% of their care in their mother tongue, they were receiving care in a concordant language environment.

In this context, we observed a 36% decrease in the risk of harm in hospitals among francophones. There was also a decrease in the length of hospital stay and, lastly, a 24% decrease in the risk of mortality for francophones treated in their mother tongue.

Finally, in a synthesis of several recent analyses using health administrative data, we demonstrate that patients who receive care in their language generally have better clinical outcomes. These data show that the quality and safety of care provided to patients in official language minority communities, or OLMCs, could be improved by ensuring that French-speaking patients have access to services in French. To achieve this, we need to increase the number of health professionals who are able to actively offer health services in French in official language minority communities, which is why grants associated with the Consortium national de formation en santé program are important.

In short, like my colleague, I’m sharing the results of a recent survey of our 2019-20 graduates from our health programs. There are 13 professional health programs at the University of Moncton. It was found that 87% of graduates work in the New Brunswick health care system, particularly in communities with a high density of francophones, and 80% of them provide services in French every day. In addition, 50% of our trainees hold a position at one of the locations where they completed an internship, particularly in regions outside the major centres.

Given the exponential increase in the need for health professionals able to offer services in French to provide safe care, despite the announcement of a 9% increase in the grant to the Consortium national de formation en santé starting next year for the next four years — after a stable grant over the past 14 years, this amount is still less than the amount allocated to us in 2009-10, which was $3 million — we support the ACUFC’s recommendation that Health Canada enhance the official languages health program, in particular the grant to the CNFS, and support health research in OLMCs.

I could also share an experience on the New Brunswick government’s scholarships for international nursing students, which brings the tuition fees of our nursing students in line with those of other Canadians. We had access to 25 scholarships per year for the next 10 years. This program is so popular that after two years we have close to 100 international students in our nursing programs and have been able to fill multi-year vacancies at our northern campuses in Edmundston and Shippagan.

My final message is this: For francophones, asking to receive health services in French is not a whim; it can save your life.

Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Prud’homme. We’ll now go to Mr. Safouhi.

Hassan Safouhi, Vice-Dean, Campus Saint-Jean, University of Alberta: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

Campus Saint-Jean is University of Alberta’s all-French campus. It includes a multidisciplinary university faculty, a college centre and a language school. Every year, Campus Saint‑Jean welcomes many students who are new to Canada, the majority of whom are permanent residents. Their mother tongue is French. In situations of medical emergency or stress, it is important to be able to communicate with medical or nursing staff in their mother tongue.

I would remind the House that nearly 28% of Alberta’s francophone community is made up of newcomers who face a number of challenges, including a general shortage of health professionals and a lack of resource people to manage services for francophones. That is one of the reasons why the campus has the services of a French-speaking psychotherapist. That is why access to care in French is so crucial. This newly arrived population is often the most vulnerable. The linguistic minority setting can lead to isolation that has a definite impact on their lives, not to mention the rural environment in which many francophones are doubly penalized, first by geographic isolation and then by linguistic isolation.

Allow me to share an anecdote. As part of the bilingual bachelor of science in nursing program, at graduation we give graduates a magnetic badge to wear on their nursing uniforms that includes, in addition to their name, “Je parle français” — “I speak French.” Every year, we receive testimonials from former students on the impact of this simple badge when they treat elderly, isolated or non-English-speaking people. We hear about the visible relief and the smiles on patients’ faces when they realize that they can finally express themselves and communicate in French.

In terms of health care, Campus Saint-Jean offers a bilingual bachelor of science program in nursing in collaboration with the Faculty of Nursing, a specialized post-graduate certificate in speech-language pathology in a French-speaking environment, in collaboration with the Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, and a college program in health care aide training. These three programs are offered thanks to Health Canada’s financial contribution through the Consortium national de formation en santé. These programs are very successful.

For the health care aide program, we receive over 30 applications for 10 places. For the bachelor of science in nursing program, we receive more than 140 applications for 16 places, and that number will increase to 24 starting in 2025‑26. Those numbers are governed by the funding we receive. However, to be clear, the applicants for the programs are there, the demand from the community is there, but the lack of funding does not allow us to accommodate more students or increase the necessary infrastructure, such as experiential labs. We also cannot meet the demand for a nurse practitioner program, even though the community urgently needs one.

I would add that nearly two-thirds of our students come from immersion schools and have chosen to pursue their post-secondary studies in French. As a result, we have a large pool of French-speaking people. All that remains is to train them to meet the urgent needs of our communities.

Our recommendation is in line with that of the ACUFC, that Health Canada increase funding to strengthen existing health programs and develop new programs to meet the critical need for French-language health services for linguistic minorities.

Before I conclude, I’d like to express our gratitude to our community and government partners, the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, Health Canada, the Consortium national de formation en santé and the Réseau santé Alberta, without whom the program would not be possible.

Thank you for your attention.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Safouhi. We’ll now go to questions from senators. I would remind honourable senators that they have five minutes for questions and answers. If time permits, we will have a second round.

Senator Moncion: My question is for all the witnesses. Has the announced cap on study permits for international students affected your ability to recruit candidates for health care staff training programs? If so, do you think this will have an impact in the short, medium and long term on the shortage of French-speaking workers in the health care sector?

Mr. Normand: I’m going to make an introductory comment, and perhaps our colleague members can add to it. Right now, it’s hard to measure, because we don’t know what impact the cap will have on the 2024 school year. Most of our members are concerned about a drop in enrolment across all programs, including, potentially, health programs.

This cap could exacerbate labour shortages in some sectors, including health care, which could last for several years, because as we said, students who do not return in September 2024 and those who will not return in 2025 are two cohorts that will be lost in the long run. A pool of potential candidates for market positions will have disappeared. This could have an impact on the ability to offer services in French. Obviously, this is beyond Health Canada’s mandate in this case. I don’t know if our members want to add anything.

The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments from the other witnesses?

Mr. Giroux: Thank you. No doubt one of the elements is the conversion issue, which is based on historical fees. So, for Boreal College, the conversion rate would be 31%, considering the various criteria. If we were suddenly asked to increase the funds required from $10,000 to $20,000, that would have an impact on the conversion rate, of course. However, we don’t yet know the conversion rate, and that is a concern.

The second element is timing. We are already in the process. Often, students arrive in Canada late in the process. So the domino effect for these students who are going to arrive late, possibly in September 2024, possibly in January 2025…. These are often two, three and even four-year programs. So the domino effect can be incredible. Yes, there is enormous pressure right now on health professionals, especially bilingual professionals. We know that the percentage of people eligible for retirement is enormous, especially after the pandemic. There could certainly be consequences.

Dr. Prud’homme: Indeed, we don’t know yet what will happen to enrolments in our health science programs in September. One of the characteristics of health programs in general is that they are very structured, so there are very few electives. So, for programs that do not have these requirements, we will be able to make offers to students who arrive in the winter session, in January; this isn’t possible for many of our health science programs. We are losing a year in terms of recruitment for our health programs.

Senator Moncion: Given the shortage of health care workers, do your institutions have the resources needed to train enough French-speaking workers to increase the supply and improve the quality of services offered to language minority communities? Mr. Giroux, you mentioned earlier that you train people and that 86% or 90% of them stay in the communities. Do they stay in northern Ontario? Do they go elsewhere? The same is true for the others who stay in your communities.

Mr. Giroux: Clearly, the absolutely critical element is the internship. Normally, students are hired in the community where they do their internship. Often, students from Hearst come to Sudbury for training that isn’t offered in their region and return to their community for the internship. So, yes, they stay in the communities, and sometimes it’s not just communities in northern Ontario; it could be Windsor or Toronto. So, for our 37 sites in multiple communities, the source is huge. When it comes to the Consortium national de formation en santé, the ACUFC becomes absolutely critical. We don’t have the same numbers as the anglophones. I don’t have 250 students in our practical nursing program. So the numbers are much smaller. If you look at the cost analysis, the delivery costs are huge. Without financial support, it’s virtually impossible to provide the equivalent quality of training offered by anglophones.

Dr. Prud’homme: At the University of Moncton, generally speaking, 87% of our students stay in the province and 75% return to their home region. Like my colleague from Boreal College, we are increasing that retention by offering students an internship where they live, in their region. This keeps them in touch with the community and increases the chances that they will stay. To do this, they need financial support, because they have to find housing when they return to the region, so they have to find transport, find housing, and so on. That is where we should invest and increase funding to better support them and reduce the additional financial burden, because they have to keep their original apartment and add additional costs. It becomes a barrier for some of the students who don’t necessarily have family or cousins to host them for the duration of their internship.

Senator Mégie: Part of my question was answered, but I’m pleasantly surprised to hear that 85% of graduates in the field tend to stay in the field. According to Mr. Giroux and Dr. Prud’homme, 93% of students stay in the field and that’s good. However, is this meeting your need for health professionals?

Mr. Giroux: I can answer for Boreal College. It’s clear that we get calls every day from hospitals and long-term care homes, whether it’s for new graduates from the personal support worker program, or in practical nursing, radiomedical, massage therapy or ultrasound. It is currently impossible to meet these bilingual labour needs. Even in the central southwest region, in some communities, there are designated beds for francophones. They cannot meet the requirements because there aren’t enough French-speaking or bilingual professionals.

Senator Mégie: Thank you. Is it the same problem on your side, Dr. Prud’homme?

Dr. Prud’homme: Yes, it’s the same thing. Demand far exceeds the number of degrees that can be awarded on an annual basis, which is why it’s so important to use programs to accelerate recognition of the credentials of professionals from abroad, both in terms of clinical training and second language skills. This is especially the case in New Brunswick, the only bilingual province, where the francophone Vitalité Health Network has an obligation to provide services in both official languages. Once again, better support in this area would enable us to accelerate training and credential recognition and meet the needs of our two health care networks — Vitalité Health Network and Horizon Health Network.

Senator Mégie: This is something that has come up often in a number of meetings, although it doesn’t relate to health care. For example, Mr. Giroux told us that, at the undergraduate level, some exams come from the United States and are translated, which sometimes causes students to fail unfairly because they may have a good education.

We’ve also heard in other situations that people are educated in French at school, university or whatever, but when they get to the exam, they have no choice but to write it in English. That has been going on for a long time. Has anyone here thought about that? Do any of you have a way or an idea to help change the situation? I don’t know who could answer my question.

Dr. Prud’homme: I will let my colleague answer if he’d like to go first.

Mr. Safouhi: Go ahead. I will go next.

Dr. Prud’homme: The American exam is based on American culture and practices, so even if the French translation as assessed by translators turns out to be of good quality, Canada has different types of French. The exam is written in normative French. So although the French spoken by new generation in New Brunswick switches back and forth between English and French — it’s called Chiac — the exam in normative French will mean that the vocabulary used will not be familiar in clinical practice. This may bias students’ interpretation or analysis. Having the exam in both English and French would mean it would take longer to read the question, which may place additional stress on the student and affect their performance.

If you want a simple solution, nursing programs across Canada are accredited by professional associations, and universities also ensure that our students acquire the knowledge and skills when they graduate. An additional exam — especially one that is not Canadian — should not be required to certify the skills of these graduates. Such is the case for engineers in Canada for whom there are no additional exams. It’s the engineering association that certifies the competency of the programs. Access to nursing resources in particular could be improved and accelerated compared with the current situation.

Senator Mégie: Thank you. Are there any other points of view?

Mr. Safouhi: Yes, I can add something. We had a situation in the college health care worker program, where our students had to take a provincial exam in English. It’s a huge challenge. This year, we’ve reformed the program and are developing a more appropriate English course, in consultation with alumni, to give our students the chance to succeed and reduce the stress of writing the exam in English. The majority of students in this program are newcomers to Canada as permanent residents. Although their English is good in academic terms, it is very limited in practical terms, especially in the medical field. Our solution is to offer a more appropriate English course, so that our students can write the exam more easily.

Mr. Giroux: I’ll discuss what Dr. Prud’homme mentioned. Every health program is accredited. That in itself indicates that all the requirements have been met. If a student successfully completes the program, which is accredited, that means they shouldn’t have to write an additional exam. You mentioned other sectors. We see the same challenge in the trade and technology sector. When another threshold is added, meeting these skilled labour needs clearly becomes a major challenge. So we have to trust the accreditation process and believe that the students are of high quality. Not having an additional threshold like accreditation could be a solution.

Senator Mégie: Why don’t they have an exam in French, instead of doing another exam or learning English to do the exam? That’s kind of where I thought we could have come up with an idea.

Mr. Giroux: One of the challenges is that the pass rate when students write in French is much lower than the pass rate in English. This encourages students to write the exam in English. If the pass rate is 20% on the French side and 90% on the English side, when it’s time to write the exam, the risk of writing it in French is much higher. So students tend to take the English exam. Here is the challenge: If students are increasingly writing the exam in English, why enrol in a French program? This is a huge challenge in the medium and long terms. Solving this problem in the short term is absolutely critical.

Dr. Prud’homme: I would add that more and more students are writing the exam in English and developing greater confidence in working in English. They are turning to anglophone networks and institutions to the detriment of francophone ones. Those resources have been trained specifically for francophone institutions.

Manon Tremblay, Director, Health, Consortium national de formation en santé, Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne: One of the factors that makes students write the exam in English is the lack of preparatory material. In English, there’s a host of preparatory material. There are a lot of practice exams, which don’t exist in French. So that doesn’t help students pass the exam.

There’s something else: I’ve been told that in Manitoba, among other places, when students write the exam in French, they have to take a language proficiency test in English to practise the profession. So it’s easier for these students to take the exam in English. It also lowers costs, as the language proficiency test is paid for by the students. So when it comes to language barriers, we see that there are layers on top of layers.

Senator Mégie: Thank you.

The Deputy Chair: Let’s begin the second round now.

Senator Moncion: I had a question about everything to do with exams, to see what other solutions could be proposed. You did suggest a few. My question was along those lines. I think you answered it very well. I don’t know if you have anything to add. There really is a problem in that respect.

The Deputy Chair: Would anyone like to add anything?

Senator Moncion: I would go further: It seems that all areas of health care require competency exams at the end of education. Are there any other courses or programs offered that require final exams?

Ms. Tremblay: I can answer you when it comes to health because that’s my field, but in the regulated professions, yes, an exam is administered by the provincial body to give access to the profession. Licensing is a provincial responsibility, but all regulated training programs in French undergo a Canadian assessment to meet competency standards for training programs.

So, when we say that a profession is regulated, it means that, in a registered nurse course, the competencies expected or delivered by each of the training programs are usually the same, and each program must demonstrate how it ensures that students achieve competence. That’s crosscutting across Canada, but everyone has to pass an exam to enter the profession.

Senator Moncion: Does that include Quebec, or does Quebec have different standards?

Ms. Tremblay: No, in terms of training programs, Quebec has exactly the same standards and must submit to the same accreditation, as Collège Boréal’s president said. The standards are the same, but the exams are different. Every provincial body can choose the exam that gives access to the profession. At the moment, the NCLEX is in all the provinces, if I’m not mistaken — and perhaps Dr. Prud’homme can tell me — except Quebec.

Quebec has a different exam.

Senator Moncion: Which provinces is the NCLEX —

Ms. Tremblay: It’s for all the provinces except Quebec, if I understand correctly. In New Brunswick —

Senator Moncion: What is the NCLEX?

Ms. Tremblay: It’s an exam for registered nurses.

Senator Moncion: I see. Is there portability among provinces? For example, can a nurse who obtained her licence or permit in Quebec work in any Canadian province?

Mr. Giroux: Yes.

Senator Moncion: Do they have to take the exam again when they move to a new province?

Mr. Giroux: The professional bodies in each province provide one of the challenges. There must be accreditation. It may be different for some programs. For example, in the case of medical radiation, it’s a national exam. People can be sent to a number of provinces, except Quebec. Ultrasound is another such case.

So some professional bodies are different, but nurses normally have to have accreditation or participate in an accreditation process from the provincial association. That’s one of the challenges we face.

Senator Moncion: You all referred to 2028–2030 and talked about the funding that was available. I imagine it’s provided through programs that are put in place by the government. Dr. Prud’homme, you mentioned that this program had not been adjusted for inflation for over 14 years.

Dr. Prud’homme: Yes.

Senator Moncion: It has now been adjusted, but you’re worried that it’s only for a temporary period of four or five years and that you’ll end up with the same problem in a few years’ time, right?

Dr. Prud’homme: Exactly. The program started in 2009 — in 2010 for us. Initially, there was an investment of over $3 million, but that was reduced in 2010 and has been maintained until this year, 2024. So an increase of about 9% was announced, which works out to about $250,000 a year over the next four years.

If we look at the purchasing power between 2010 and 2024, it’s certain that we won’t be able to do the same things — support the development of new programs, offer more grants to students and modernize our infrastructure. At this point, purchasing power is clearly reduced. Obviously, we appreciate the 9% increase, but it’s still, in my opinion, below our needs, especially when we consider the health care crisis and the exponential increase in needs when it comes to various health care professionals.

For example, there is a shortage of psychologists, particularly in the public network. We know that, after their bachelor’s degree, psychologists have to complete a PhD in psychology. This requires a residency that must be funded, since the candidate studies full-time during their program.

We have eight positions, but there is a demand to double or even triple that number. These grants or new positions could also be associated with conditions, such as working in the public system for a certain number of years before going into the private sector. These are other mechanisms that should be involved to ensure that new professionals can contribute to the needs where those needs are. In our case, nearly 66% of our graduates work in the public system. There should be more incentives to increase that to 80% or 85%, as that’s where the needs are greatest, and not in the private sector.

The Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Senator Dalphond: I don’t know if the meeting will go on until we’re exhausted, but it’s getting late.

I had a question related to Senator Moncion’s question. In Quebec, the exam for nurses is in French; it’s mandatory. I think the American test was used and there were a lot of failures in the first or second year. Adaptations were then made. Why isn’t this new model being used, which seems to be working after the adaptations that have been made in New Brunswick or elsewhere?

Ms. Tremblay: I’ll let Dr. Prud’homme answer that question because he’s very involved in the issue. Obviously, I work with institutions outside Quebec.

Dr. Prud’homme: As I mentioned, even though there were improvements in the first two years, as you said, the failure rate was higher. There was some catching up, an improvement, since we obviously adjusted the mentoring to better prepare students for this type of exam. That has had an impact.

On the other hand, as my colleague from Collège Boréal said, we’ve noticed that there are fewer and fewer students in New Brunswick doing their nursing program in French and writing their exam in English. I see this as a problem, as preparing for an exam is also an exercise in consolidating knowledge and skills. There’s a whole new medical vocabulary that needs to be consolidated. As I mentioned, if they study for a year to prepare for their exam in English, they’re going to feel much more comfortable practising their profession in English afterwards. That’s a problem.

The other big problem is the lack of tools available in French to prepare our students to perform well in this exam. When we do have them, they are often available two or three years after they were released in English. By then, the exam has already started to undergo changes and modifications. For example, this year they’ve announced new question wording that will require less memory and more critical analysis. This means that there are longer texts that could have an impact on comprehension and performance.

Senator Dalphond: Support material must exist in French for Quebec, but it’s not the same material that’s used in New Brunswick, Ontario or elsewhere. Is that right?

Dr. Prud’homme: No. Quebec does not currently use the NCLEX exam. They have their own provincial exam. There has been talk of migrating to the NCLEX, but one of the barriers is precisely the lack of documents in French to prepare students for that exam.

Of course, if Quebec decided tomorrow morning to move toward the NCLEX, perhaps that would increase the critical mass of students who could buy these tools, so there would be an incentive for the producers and retailers who supply these tools. However, Quebec is not using the NCLEX for its certification at the moment.

Senator Dalphond: Someone who wants to become a nurse, who is in New Brunswick and is going to study in Quebec will be able to do so in French with French material, but it won’t be the NCLEX exam. Afterwards, it won’t be possible for that person to practise in New Brunswick, right?

Dr. Prud’homme: That’s the solution that was proposed. We reached an agreement with the Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec to allow our students to write the Quebec exam in French — an exam that is also based on Canadian culture. We had to put pressure on the Nurses Association of New Brunswick to reduce the barriers to recertification and recognition of competencies. All that is now in place, but it took several years to convince them and make things easier for our francophone students.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you.

Senator Clement: Thank you so much for your testimony, your careers and your work.

Dr. Prud’homme, you make a powerful statement when you say that providing services in French is not a whim. It saves lives. That’s powerful.

I’d like to ask some questions about data collection.

You cited research. Who funded that research? Do the institutions have enough resources to collect data to justify the work that needs to be done? Mr. Normand, you mentioned Health Canada. Investment must be maintained, but does it also need to be increased in terms of research and data collection?

I have a specific question for Mr. Safouhi. You mentioned that 28% of Franco-Albertans are newcomers. When it comes to needs related to intersectionality, would you say the needs are different? Can those needs be met?

Mr. Safouhi: To correct the record, francophones make up about 28% of Alberta’s population, and newcomers account for a fairly large percentage of the francophone community — roughly 22% or 23%.

Senator Clement: Do you want to answer the question right away about that population’s needs?

Mr. Safouhi: The population’s needs are tremendous. To establish a link, the Réseau santé Alberta is a community organization that looks at the issue of providing health care services in French. They have conducted studies. One is currently under way that will provide more details on needs. The results are expected in June, but it’s certain that especially with regard to care workers…. The number of seniors is increasing quite significantly in Alberta, in both the Edmonton and Calgary areas. We’re aware of the great needs in our community. Our programs don’t offer many spots — we have 10 spots a year. The program has been running for a few years.

In the nursing program, we’ve had a cohort of about 21 people on average over the past five years, but it’s going to stay at 16 because of funding, and increase to 24 students starting in 2025-26. However, this is still a very small number to meet the needs of an unevenly distributed community of over 70,000 people. We have a population distribution problem, and that becomes a huge challenge in meeting rural areas’ needs. The community is widely scattered across the province, which is also a big challenge to overcome.

So we need to significantly increase our graduate numbers, particularly in the care worker program. About 10 graduates a year is far too few to meet the needs of this community. We know that through our former students and graduates who visit us and remind us that the needs are there and that they are unable to respond to all the calls for tenders. All our graduates are hired immediately. Some are even approached before they finish their studies.

This is a situation that really requires action to be taken, and the only way to do that is to increase funding not only to strengthen the available programs, but also to create other programs. For example, two-year nursing programs would really benefit the community.

Senator Clement: Thank you.

Dr. Prud’homme: As far as research goes, I’ve been working on the health of francophones in a minority context for just under 20 years. We’ve been lobbying the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for over 20 years. The minimum funding we should receive for research would be the equivalent of the demographic weight of francophones outside Quebec.

If we want all Canadians to have the right to information on the impact of living in a linguistic minority context on the quality and safety of care, we need to conduct research using large data banks. We set up this research group about 10 years ago. This has enabled us to document, for example, the use of antipsychotics by francophone patients in long-term care who are in anglophone settings and who have higher frequencies than if they were in a francophone setting. This problematic situation is exacerbated among allophones. The mortality rate decreases by 24% for francophones, but it drops by twice as much — 54% — for allophones. An allophone who receives care in their own language is 74% less likely to experience medical errors.

In contrast, even for anglophones in a francophone setting, the risk of medical error is increased by 17%. This is not a problem that only affects francophones. It’s a communication problem and it has everything to do with Canadians’ right to receive services in their own language.

In terms of research, it is clear that CIHR is not taking the positive action that it, like IRCC, is required to take under the new legislation. Therefore, it is not taking action to ensure an equitable contribution of research funds reserved for researchers interested in issues related to challenges affecting access to safe, quality care for francophone minorities.

Ms. Tremblay: I think it’s important because Canada’s population is becoming increasingly diverse. I have to say that within the CNFS and training institutions, there has been a lot of talk about the active offer of health services.

This concept has evolved and takes diversity into account. We’re now talking about a culturally adapted active offer, which means that we need to train our student professionals more on the language to use, depending on the demographic they attend to. Taking this perspective into account is really a concern within training programs and the CNFS.

Senator Aucoin: Thank you. I don’t know what to say to you, as you’ve really touched me with your presentations and the challenges you face daily and have faced for years. Of course, the certificate or exam has always been a problem and still is, and I still haven’t heard of a miracle solution to this ongoing problem. The statistics we’ve just heard about the mortality rate increasing if services aren’t provided in the patient’s language are frightening.

I have a quick question about foreign students who come to study in the health services field. Do they do their internships in francophone minority communities? Are they hired in these communities and do they try to stay in these communities across Canada?

Mr. Giroux: I can answer for Collège Boréal. It depends on the program. For example, if we compare the personal support worker program with the two-year attendant care program or the nursing program, the employability rate varies a lot.

One of the challenges is the quality of English. This is a barrier for someone in a minority context, as documentation in Ontario is often in English, especially for hospitals. The quality of English is a barrier.

A one-year personal support worker program can take two years to complete because of the quality of English. It’s something that requires a great deal of energy.

When they get a job in the community, graduates stay in the community. It’s a really important element, and the loyalty is incredible.

Dr. Prud’homme: The same observation could be made at the university level. Employers are also learning. I don’t think we should forget about them, as they need to develop strategies to ensure that this diversity is better incorporated among their graduates. Sending our international students on internships in rural areas, where there are needs, is certainly a factor that facilitates recruitment and eventually retention in these areas.

Mr. Safouhi: Our program is not open to international students.

Senator Aucoin: I have a second question on this. Do you get feedback from employers in these minority language communities when you send foreign students to work or do internships there? Have you had any feedback about the fact that they may not have all the required English skills at the outset? Can anyone answer this question?

Mr. Giroux: For Collège Boréal, it depends on the community. There’s a very diverse community in downtown Toronto; that’s the norm. For them, the quality of English has always been a challenge. It wasn’t a culture shock. In more remote communities in the north, such as Kapuskasing, it becomes a bigger challenge, as there isn’t necessarily a critical mass and people aren’t used to seeing members of visible minorities. One of the factors — and I think Dr. Prud’homme mentioned it — is awareness. We are working to raise awareness among employers, and the key element is the desperate need for health professionals. Employers, but also other professionals in the community, are ready to support us with language support, mentoring, training and integration with other employees.

Integration is becoming absolutely critical. We are seeing more and more communities and employers getting involved because of the huge shortage.

Senator Aucoin: In relation to the research that the professor talked about, if I understand correctly, anglophone institutions or people who teach in health services receive more funding for research. I think what you’re doing is extremely important. Is there anything else you should be doing or that could be done? Do you have any other suggestions or recommendations?

Dr. Prud’homme: The main recommendation would be to receive, as I mentioned, our equitable share based on the demographic weight of francophones in minority situations. It is an obligation for CIHR to take positive action to ensure equal access to research funds.

Currently, we are getting some help from the Consortium national de formation en santé fund. However, since 2009, as the fund has remained relatively stable, the available funding to support research that was much more significant has decreased substantially. We’re forced to compete with Canadian health research institutions. Right now, competition is much higher and it’s much harder for researchers to get access to funding.

Senator Aucoin: Will Part VII of the new Official Languages Act be able to help you with this?

Dr. Prud’homme: Yes. For example, CIHR has launched a competition for the creation of research networks for minority language communities. They will fund one network for Quebec, one for anglophone communities and one for the rest of Canada. Since the 10 Canadian provinces have different health systems, we would normally have expected to have more than one network funded outside Quebec, as an example.

Of course, we filed a complaint with the commissioner to demand that CIHR comply with the provisions of the new Official Languages Act.

Senator Mockler: What you have shared with us is very important, especially when we see the needs in minority communities.

Dr. Prud’homme, I’d like to congratulate you. Last week, we held a round table in the northwest and we saw Dr. Dupuis-Blanchard, who holds the research chair on population aging. We talked about providing new care and modernizing health care for seniors.

Should language be one of the determinants of health in discussions with Health Canada?

My second question is this: What steps could the federal government take to prevent the erosion of language rights caused by greater reliance on privately provided services?

Here is my third question: Last February, I was part of a group of parliamentarians led by the Speaker of the Senate, Senator Gagné, on artificial intelligence and the health care that can be provided. I won’t say robots, as that scares patients.

I would like to know whether your institutions are looking into artificial intelligence and the importance of using artificial intelligence to improve the quality of health care.

I would like to hear from you on these three short questions.

Ms. Tremblay: Dr. Prud’homme, I understand that you’ll be holding a symposium on language as a determinant of health. I think that you can elaborate on this. It hasn’t yet been recognized. The impact of language on different factors has yet to be assessed. However, it’s still a research topic right now.

Dr. Prud’homme: More and more evidence suggests that language is a determinant of health. We saw this in some of our COVID studies. For example, news releases were issued much more often in English than in French at the start. The first wave of COVID affected allophones and francophones more than anglophones.

Was it because they had access to the measures slightly later, or because the translations and messages were less clear?

We see that language… When we look at the health status of francophones in minority language communities, a number of their determinants fare worse when compared to their anglophone fellow citizens or the majority population.

In terms of artificial intelligence and robotics, the Université de Moncton has developed a capacity that involves the health care system. This is one way to increase access to services, and in particular to support health care professionals and make sure that their patients really need medical expertise or the expertise of health care professionals at the right time.

This would give family medicine teams, for example, the ability to treat or monitor a greater number of patients with the support of artificial intelligence, while ensuring the quality and safety of care.

Mr. Safouhi: In terms of artificial intelligence, the University of Alberta is currently running a pilot project on virtual clinics. These projects provide telemedicine solutions, especially for isolated communities in western and northern Alberta.

Our challenge is mainly financial. We want the Campus Saint-Jean to become part of this type of initiative and to develop the francophone component. This could be an effective way to meet the needs of a community scattered across the province and to provide solutions for rural areas.

Artificial intelligence could be a solution here.

Mr. Giroux: Absolutely. I was lucky. I was the chair of the board of directors of a hospital in the Sudbury area. The issue of artificial intelligence is absolutely critical.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to identify or prevent the most serious challenges facing patients. Some services can now be provided in the community or at home. Patients don’t need to travel 8, 12 or 14 hours to reach a larger facility. Technology can help here.

Clearly, the active offer of French-language services and a qualified francophone and bilingual workforce will help support the public sector and discourage people from turning to the private sector. This can play a major role in the quality of French-language services.

Lastly, the other key component is the active offer of French-language services. We often talk about the active offer of French-language services in French programs. However, this should apply to all post-secondary programs and institutions. Heavy-duty mechanics and accountants alike are entitled to French-language services in their own communities and they must know this. It isn’t acceptable for them to hear that they can wait six to eight weeks for services in French, but can receive services immediately in English.

It’s important to inform people of the active offer of French-language services in order to support us, absolutely.

Senator Mockler: I’ve heard this before, and not just in the past three or four years, but for decades. I’m told that it takes time to recognize foreign credentials and that everyone is looking for a solution.

What can you do to speed up the process and recognize credentials more quickly?

Dr. Prud’homme: First, there’s a cultural issue. When it comes to recognition, we don’t want equal training, but a fair assessment. If we go looking for foreign-trained professionals, we must develop a strategy and change the culture. We mustn’t focus on identical content, but on clearly identifying areas that can be improved or updated faster, such as cultural knowledge of the Canadian health care system. We must also create shorter-term support programs and speed up the process of bringing these professionals into the health care system.

Even though the provincial governments have placed professional colleges in charge of recognizing skills equivalencies, this doesn’t mean that the governments no longer have any responsibilities. They must require a certain return from these associations. If resources are an issue, the associations must receive appropriate funding to ensure that they have the necessary resources to carry out this recognition. They must also ensure that they don’t take an inordinate amount of time to assess files, or make requirements beyond what might be acceptable for future immigrant professionals who want work in Canada.

Mr. Safouhi: It’s a matter of knowledge, if I may say so. Knowledge of the health care system is crucial. I’m familiar with the situation of foreign-trained health care professionals. My spouse is an obstetrician-gynecologist who trained at an academy of medicine. She obtained her license, which is called [Technical difficulty]. After four years, she entered university. After three years, a doctor isn’t allowed to remain inactive. She’s now working in the academic sector. I consider this a loss.

There are certainly cultural challenges. However, these challenges exist on both sides. When a patient is new to Canada and comes to an office seeking health care, the health care professional must acquire a certain level of knowledge. My colleague from the CNFS emphasized the need for this training a bit earlier. The CNFS used to provide training and even issued an intercultural competence training certificate a few years ago. It’s important.

A person trained abroad comes to the country with a different culture. This provides richness and diversity. Of course, knowledge of the Canadian system is important. It’s just as important to adapt cultural strategies. However, the process for getting to know the system and recognizing credentials should be sped up.

In my spouse’s case, it took three years to approve her training and eight months to approve her eligibility. This amounted to four years in which she couldn’t practise medicine. In the end, even though she received her licence, she couldn’t practise. She was told that she had to leave the country to practise for at least a year. We were lucky that the university wouldn’t let us leave.

Mr. Giroux: I think that it’s absolutely critical to trust post-secondary institutions. The professional associations give the colleges the authority to train and deliver these programs.

Colleges and post-secondary institutions can recognize documents and credits. We have measures in place.

I think that the longer part is intercultural training. Language training plays a key role that shouldn’t be underestimated. You need to speak a high level of English to work or practise in the field.

For me, the simplest solution would be to give more authority to post-secondary institutions and to rely less on professional associations, because it’s a nightmare. We must trust post-secondary institutions.

Ms. Tremblay: This is directly related to the second recommendation. The federal departments involved in the immigration and integration of professionals should take a more cross-cutting approach and identify the professionals from the start. We’re talking about English training. However, the French language is also often different. Regionalisms should also be taught.

We would like to see better coordination from the start of the application process. That way, we can identify these people early on and provide better support. That would make things much easier.

The Deputy Chair: Before closing, I would first like to thank the witnesses for spending all this time with us and sharing all this information. It’s greatly appreciated.

Before closing the meeting, I want to take the time to say a special thank you to our colleague, Senator Mockler. This is his last week with us.

I would like to thank you. I have known you for 25 years and I have worked with you. However, you did a great deal of work many years before that.

The senator has worked so hard, not only for francophones and Acadians, but for all New Brunswickers and people outside the province. I think that he has been a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages ever since his appointment.

We’ll miss you as much as you’ll miss us, and you’ll miss your work too. Dear colleague and friend, I would like to wish you a happy retirement. Since I know you, I doubt that you’ll stay retired for long. You’ll keep very busy.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for all that you have done for our committee, for official languages and for francophones across Canada.

(The committee adjourned.)