1.   Immigration and Official Language Minority Communities: Follow-up

On May 8, 2003, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages (hereafter the Committee) submitted to Parliament a report entitled Immigration as a Tool for the Development of Official Language Minority Communities. This first study on immigration in official language minority communities (OLMCs) was one of a series of projects initiated a year earlier by the federal government.

In fact, the year 2002 marked a turning point for immigration to OLMCs. On June 28, 2002, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) was amended, and new canons of interpretation for official languages were inserted in section 3.[1] This was also the year that the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) — Francophone Minority Communities (FMC) Steering Committee (hereafter the CIC–FMC Steering Committee) was created, which is responsible for immigration to FMCs.

The Committee’s report on immigration to OLMCs contained 14 recommendations. Those recommendations and the government response can be found in appendices A and B. The Committee notes that many of the recommendations have been implemented in whole or in part.[2] In Recommendations 1, 2 and 4, the Government of Canada resorts to various vehicles of information, both national and international, to promote Canada’s linguistic duality and the OLMCs as a possible destination for new arrivals.

In Recommendation 3, the Committee had asked CIC to set objectives for the next five years in selecting and retaining immigrants who speak the minority language. Objectives were in fact set in 2003 in the CIC-FMC Steering Committee’s Strategic Framework to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities. They were then reviewed in 2006 and again in 2009. The medium-term target for francophone immigration to FMCs is currently set at 1.8% by 2013, and the long-term target at 4.4% by 2023. The targets issue, which was raised by various witnesses during the present study, is addressed in part 4.1 of this report. It is important to note that in Recommendation 3, the Committee asked CIC to provide information about the above-mentioned objectives in the annual reports on implementation of section 41 of the Official Languages Act (OLA). While the 2009-2010 report does not contain information on the selection and retention of French-speaking immigrants, it does contain information on the rate of increase in the number of francophone immigrants between 2008 and 2009, participation by French-speaking immigrants in various CIC programs, visits to websites concerned with francophone immigration, and the proportion of new Canadians reporting French as their language spoken at home. Finally Recommendation 3 asked the Government of Canada to ensure that the funding allocated to CIC reflects a long-term strategy for the development and promotion of immigration for the benefit of official-language minority communities, and that this objective is reflected in the Department’s action plan. However, CIC’s 2008-2009 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration and the 2009-2013 Action Plan: Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA contains no financial data on the funding allocated to immigration to the OLMCs. CIC’s 2009-2010 Report on Results: Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA provides some information on the budgets of certain programs, but no financial report assembles or breaks down all of the funds spent by the Government of Canada in support of immigration to OLMCs.

In 2003, certain federal-provincial-territorial agreements on immigration did not contain clauses to preserve the demolinguistic balance of official-language communities pursuant to Recommendation 6 of the 2003 report. In 2010, most framework agreements contain clauses to promote immigration to FMCs. Among other things, the provinces are required to consult FMCs and take account of their needs in their provincial immigration strategies. This issue is given more thorough examination in part 4.3 of the present report.

In 2003, Manitoba was a leader for francophone immigration. In Recommendation 7 of the 2003 report, the Committee asked CIC to study the approach taken by the Société franco-manitobaine (SFM) and adopt its strategy in order to increase the chances of successful settlement for French-speaking immigrants. Without dismissing the work done in Manitoba, the government responded that it preferred to consider all past successes in developing programs to integrate French-speaking immigrants in FMCs.

The issue of recognition of the credentials of French-speaking immigrants was raised in 2003 in Recommendations 8 and 9. It is addressed in Recommendations 19, 20 and 21 of the present report.

With respect to Recommendation 10, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Western Economic Diversification Canada are represented on the CIC-FMC Steering Committee.[3]

In response to Recommendation 13 of the 2003 report, citizenship ceremonies are conducted in both official languages. In its 2009-2010 Report on Results: Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA, CIC states that a total of 2,224 citizenship ceremonies were organized in Canada in 2009. At these ceremonies, the oath of citizenship and the national anthem were in both official languages.[4]

Recommendation 14 asked CIC to consult the representative bodies of Quebec’s anglophone community to determine whether they would be interested in setting up a steering committee similar to that for the FMCs. This issue is discussed in part 4.2 of this report. Although no such steering committee exists at present, CIC has organized a CIC-Quebec Community Groups Network research project entitled Les communautés anglophones et le capital d’attraction et de rétention des populations immigrantes dans quatre collectivités régionales du Québec.[5]

As for the OLMCs, in the summer of 2007 the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) conducted a tour of various regions to compile a portrait of existing or emerging local immigration networks. Recognizing a need for increased coordination among the local network coordinators, the FCFA participated in the creation of the Réseau pancanadien des coordonnateurs en immigration francophone. As for the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), it participated in 2007 in the public consultations on immigration planning in Quebec within the framework of the parliamentary committee on 2008-2010 immigration levels: “In a brief to the National Assembly committee on immigration in 2007, the QCGN argued that immigrants whose first official language spoken was English could identify with the English-speaking community while successfully integrating into Quebec society”.[6] Furthermore, “[d]uring the Bouchard-Taylor commission’s ‘reasonable accommodations’ hearings in 2007 and 2008, the QCGN stated that the debate on the cohabitation of different communities was essential and that it should focus on the equilibrium between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority”.[7]

Since then, efforts have been made toward improving coordination between the priorities, plans and actions of the two levels of government and those of the communities. For example, the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie (MCCF) recognized in 2009 that “francophone immigration is an element essential to the vitality of the French fact in Canada and is of crucial importance to the Canadian francophonie as a whole”. [8]

There is no question that immigration to OLMCs is an important political topic, as well as a priority for the communities, which view immigration as a strategy for ensuring their vitality and sustainable development.

2.   Proceedings of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages

Since April 27, 2010 the Official Languages Committee has heard evidence from various stakeholders in the field of immigration. The Committee has considered comments from public servants in three provincial ministries, officials from CIC and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), researchers, the FCFA and QCGN, and workers in the francophone immigration community network.

One theme is emerging from this evidence with respect to francophone immigration to FMCs. It is the same finding that had been made by the Committee in 2003: the francophone minority communities are not receiving a sufficient percentage of French-speaking immigrants to provide for their resourcing and increase their demographic weight, thereby advancing their sociocultural development. The same finding applies to the anglophone community of Quebec.

The Statistical Portrait of the French-Speaking Immigrant Population Outside Quebec (1991 to 2006) published on April 6, 2010 by Statistics Canada shows that, in spite of the efforts of the federal government, the provinces and territories and community immigration networks across the country, francophone immigration to OLMCs remains relatively weak and sometimes even negligible in certain communities:

Overall, francophone minority communities outside Quebec received little benefit from the demographic contribution of international immigration, owing to the strong propensity of these immigrants to integrate into communities with an English-speaking majority. Moreover, the phenomenon of French-language immigration outside Quebec has become a matter of interest fairly recently, as has the question of its contribution to the development and growth of official-language minorities.[9]

Of course, many projects have been implemented since 2003. There are now networks of francophone immigration workers who facilitate the intake and integration of newcomers.[10] At the federal and provincial levels, there is a desire to promote francophone immigration to the OLMCs. Furthermore, various federal-provincial-community partnerships exist with the aim of orchestrating the actions of the many stakeholders.

While working within the parameters of the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration, the Anglo-Quebec community is trying to secure the federal government’s support for its efforts to recruit and retain English-speaking immigrants. Like the FMCs, it wants to profit from the demographic, sociocultural and economic contribution of immigration to guarantee the vitality and continuity of its community and its institutions. The Anglo-Quebec community is one of the most diverse in the country,[11] and believes it has a role to play in the full integration of English-speaking immigrants within Quebec society: “Indeed, the English-speaking communities of Quebec are excellent role models for new immigrants because, despite facing similar challenges, they have successfully learned to speak French and have respectfully integrated into Quebec society”.[12]

Despite certain progress, the challenges in 2010 remain the same as those identified by the community stakeholders in 2003. They are the recruitment, intake and full integration of immigrants in the OLMCs.

This report is intended as an evaluation of the initiatives taken by the federal government in the area of immigration to OLMCs since the tabling of the 2003 report. The time is right for such a study. The Strategic Plan to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities (hereafter, the Strategic Plan), published in 2006 by the CIC-FMC Steering Committee, will expire in 2011. It will be given a summative evaluation in 2011-2012 and a horizontal evaluation in 2012-2013.[13] The mandate of the CIC-FMC Steering Committee will also expire in 2011. It had been renewed in 2006 when the Strategic Plan was announced. Hence the recommendations made in this report may orient the federal government’s next strategic plan for immigration to OLMCs.

Based on the evidence collected, we shall first examine the importance of harmonizing the definition of a francophone/anglophone immigrant, and then reflect upon the definition criteria used to collect the statistics that guide immigration policies. Second, we shall explore federal governance of immigration to OLMCs. Next, this report will highlight the issues and challenges related to the three priorities identified by the witnesses and reaffirmed by the CIC-FMC Steering Committee at its meeting in May 2010.[14] Those priorities are the recruitment, intake and integration of immigrants in OLMCs.

3.   Defining and Counting Immigrants: Toward a New Canadian Profile?

3.1       In search of a definition

The fact is that changes over the years in the composition of the Canadian population tend to call for a redefinition or expansion of the concept of francophone group or community insofar as a significant number of persons whose mother tongue is neither French nor English nevertheless use French either predominantly or on a regular basis in their daily lives.[15]

In a spirit of openness and inclusiveness, governments as well as civil society are moving away from the traditional definition of “mother tongue” to identify the members of the francophone community. The adoption of more inclusive definitions of French-speaking immigrants is one strategy that partakes of the concept of immigration as a tool to ensure the vitality of OLMCs.

In 2006, the CIC-FMC Steering Committee proposed the following definition of “French-speaking immigrants”: “persons born outside Canada and residing in Canada whose mother tongue is French or who have knowledge of the French language”.[16]

In the same vein, the participants at the 2007 Summit of Francophone and Acadian Communities adopted a definition of the francophonie which includes “every person who chooses to live and communicate in French, regardless of his or her mother tongue or origin”.[17]

In 2009, Ontario also adopted a more inclusive definition of a francophone. The “inclusive definition of francophone” (IDF) adopted by the provincial government covers people whose mother tongue is neither French nor English, but who have a particular knowledge of French as an official language and who use French at home. The IDF thus includes a great many newcomers to Ontario.[18]

Broadening the definitions is a strategy whose effect is to strengthen immigrants’ sense of belonging to their host society. It also has important political consequences for the minority communities. Madeleine Meilleur, the minister responsible for Francophone Affairs in the Ontario government, explains the new definition as follows: “This new definition will give the government a more accurate picture of the demand for French-language services across the province and help ministries better plan for the delivery of these services.” [19]

The member associations of the QCGN[20] have also adopted a broad and inclusive definition of the Anglo-Quebec community in their Community Development Plan 2005-2010: “The English-speaking community of Quebec is made up of multiple communities that are diverse, multicultural and multiracial. These communities include citizens throughout Quebec who choose to use the English language and who identify with the English-speaking community.”[21] The Community Development Plan 2005-2010 is the product of mature reflection. Prepared for a five-year period, it is the result of wide-ranging consultations with the English-speaking communities of Quebec. The plan in question will be extended until 2012.

Given the impact that broadening the definitions can have on the fate of OLMCs, it is important for the definitions of the federal government, the provincial and territorial governments, and the OLMCs to be harmonized.

3.2       Counting immigrants by linguistic profile

What do you do when someone gives two answers? Do you attribute half to Francophones and the other half to Anglophones? If you say that you have two mother tongues, you do not exist. [22]

The definition of a French-speaking or English-speaking immigrant has an effect on the way that Canada and the provinces and territories count immigrants, as it determines the definition criterion (or variable) used in censuses and other demographic studies. The choice of variable affects the collection and above all the analysis of the statistics upon which legislators base their policies regarding OLMCs. Therefore the choice of variable cannot be arbitrary.

Several witnesses pointed out that the simple fact of favouring an exclusive variable over an inclusive one can have an impact on the offer of services to OLMCs and, where applicable, their capacity to receive immigrants. The criterion of mother tongue, although an important indicator to maintain, is considered by many as an exclusive criterion:

However, since the middle of the 1980s, because of the levels of immigration, which kept increasing, more and more immigrants tended to adopt English or French as their main language. It was considered by many that to use only the mother tongue variable—that is, English, French, or “other”, or “allophones”, which was used in the 1970s in Quebec—was somewhat restrictive. They wanted to take into account those who didn’t have French as their mother tongue but who could use French on a daily basis at work or in everyday life.[23]

Since 1989, the Government of Canada has favoured the FOLS criterion: “That’s why the Treasury Board asked Statistics Canada to develop a variable called ‘first official language spoken’ at the end of the 1980s—in 1989, to be exact. We derived two methods. One was adopted by the Treasury Board.”[24]

So the use of a more inclusive variable such as FOLS can favour the OLMCs. This finding applies to the anglophone community of Quebec as well as the FMCs:

Overall, in some places it makes a very important difference. If you look, let’s say, at Canada outside Quebec in general, there isn’t much difference between using the mother tongue variable or the first official language spoken variable, because we have 4.1% who have French as their mother tongue and 4.2% who have French as first official language spoken. In Quebec, it makes a significant difference, because 8% of the population have English as their mother tongue, compared with 13% of the population who have English as first official language spoken. What this takes into account is the attraction that English can have on immigrants in Quebec, or used to have in the past.[25]

The issue of the definition and counting of immigrants who’s FOLS is French and their inclusion in the statistics for the francophone group prompted many questions among the Committee members. The first concerns immigrants and citizens who give a double response on surveys and censuses in reporting both French and English as their FOLS. Statistics Canada treats double responses as follows: half the respondents in the French-English FOLS group are indexed as francophones and the other half as anglophones, so as to respect the relative frequency of use.[26] This was the procedure decided upon by Treasury Board in the 1990s:

The thing is that usually what the Treasury Board does is, and the approach that was adopted in the early 1990s was, because we couldn’t really attribute French or English to a fair number of immigrants outside Quebec, to split them into two groups. That is, they took half and put them along with the francophone population and took the other half and put them along with the anglophone population. Obviously, depending on the approach you take, if you include all of these people together, you have a population close to 130,000 people; if you split them up, you have a population of 100,000 people.[27]

Hence this is a federal strategy intended to boost the statistics on the number of French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec. However, this procedure denies legislators a complete portrait of immigration to OLMCs. On the one hand, the equal split does not reflect the true demographic weight of the anglophone community: “With regard to people who have both languages, this is based on the approach we use, of course. If we divide them into two groups, we see that English is very often the other language they regularly speak in the home, apart from their unofficial language or third language.”[28]

On the other hand, the portrait is not a faithful reflection of francophone immigration, since the French FOLS immigrants and the English-French FOLS immigrants are different:

The thing is, if you want to develop strategies to integrate immigrants into the francophone population outside of Quebec, we realized that this was important, because these immigrants — those who only have French, and those who have English and French — do not come from the same countries, do not have the same linguistic behaviours and characteristics as those who only have French.[29]

Therefore the variables that we are currently using, i.e., mother tongue or FOLS, distort the portrait of the anglophone and francophone immigrant population. Ms. Patricia Lamarre, associate professor jointly responsible for the Centre of Ethnic Studies, Université de Montréal, suggests that the indicators and the way that the government interprets the statistical data are not sophisticated enough to capture the linguistic complexity of Canada: “Our language practices on a daily basis are not considered—perhaps because they are too complex for the purposes of statistics, that aim to measure a linguistic reality by placing individuals in groups. When you do that, though, what are you actually doing? You are squeezing out or losing the reality for a great many Canadians, Quebeckers and immigrants.”[30]

Certain members of the Committee wanted to further explore the possibility of surveying the immigrant population and Canadians generally about their language practices. However, it is difficult to add questions to the national census form, which in 2006 already contained eight language questions.[31] There are, nevertheless, other sources that allow us to consider this issue. Important linguistic data, including the desire of Canadians to obtain services in the minority language, have been collected in the Survey on the Vitality of Official-Language Minorities (2006) and the General Social Survey.[32] What is needed is political will if we want access to new studies.

 The situation has changed since the evidence for this study was collected. Last June, the federal government announced by order in council that it would be eliminating the long census questionnaire in favour of a voluntary survey, the National Household Survey. There are plans to distribute this survey to 30% of Canadian households. Therefore the next population census, scheduled for May 2011, will not require a proportion of 20% of Canadians to fill out the long form. However, a simplified questionnaire will continue to be distributed to all Canadian households.

This decision has prompted an outcry of protest from many organizations. To respond to the recriminations of the FCFA, another order in council was published in August 2010, stating that the simplified census questionnaire of May 2011 will include additional questions on language in order to comply with the provisions of the OLA relating to offer of services to the population. In all[33], the simplified questionnaire of 2011will include five questions on language, while the, National Household Survey will contain eight questions on language.[34]

The issue with the definition and the count partakes of the foundations of Canada’s linguistic duality, and lies largely beyond the framework of this study. All the same, it has certain ramifications for immigration to OLMCs. It would be in the interest of the federal government, the provinces and territories, and the communities, within the framework of their partnerships, to harmonize their definitions and variables and to coordinate the treatment of their statistics in order to obtain comparable data on immigration to OLMCs. The result would be a more accurate portrait of the national situation, enabling legislators to develop programs and performance indicators that would promote attainment of the objectives for immigration to OLMCs. Consequently, the Official Languages Committee proposes that:

RECOMMENDATION 1:

That CIC and its provincial and community partners study the possibility of adopting the following definition of a francophone immigrant:

a)   a francophone immigrant is an immigrant whose mother tongue is French, or whose first official language in Canada is French if their mother tongue is a language other than French or English.

As for the definition of an anglophone immigrant, the Committee proposes the following definition:

b)  an anglophone immigrant is an immigrant whose mother tongue is English, or whose first official language in Canada is English if their mother tongue is a language other than English or French.

Following the example of the Canada-British Columbia Immigration Agreement (2010), the Committee recommends that the abovementioned definitions, if adopted, be included in all Canada-provincial-territorial immigration framework agreements. If they are not adopted, the Committee maintains its recommendation that the definitions be harmonized.

4.   Governance

[T]he future of the francophone immigration file will depend on strong leadership, better interdepartmental coordination, better intergovernmental cooperation and better linkages with the communities.[35]

At the federal level, governance of the immigration portfolio is provided by CIC. Like all departments, CIC is subject to Part VII of the OLA. Hence its programs have to contain positive measures which enhance the vitality of the OLMCs. In addition, the department must oversee implementation of the IRPA,[36] which also contains provisions relating to the OLMCs. Its section 3 stipulates:

3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are:

(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;

(b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;

(3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that:

(d) ensures that decisions taken under this Act are consist with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including its principles of equality and freedom from discrimination and of the equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada;

(e) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada…

Although the legal framework for promoting immigration to OLMCs is in place, the FCFA notes that no national policy exists.

4.1       The Strategic Plan to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities (2006)

In the field of francophone immigration, CIC is supported by the CIC-FMC Steering Committee.[37] Composed over 50 members divided into two components (the government component and the community component), the Steering Committee meets once a year to examine progress made and decide on the annual priorities for francophone immigration.

In 2003, it published the Strategic Framework to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities (hereafter the Strategic Framework). This Strategic Framework had five objectives: increase the number of French-speaking immigrants, improve the capacity of FMCs to receive newcomers, ensure the economic integration of immigrants, ensure the social and cultural integration of French-speaking immigrants, and foster the regionalization of francophone immigration outside Toronto and Vancouver.[38]

In 2006, the Steering Committee released the Strategic Plan to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities. This plan was intended to revise certain aspects of the Strategic Framework and to support the major directions set forth in 2003. The Steering Committee is supported by an Implementation Committee, which is charged with executing the Strategic Plan. CIC’s 2009-2010 Report on Results: Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA reveals the creation of a new entity. This new internal official languages steering committee will be chaired by CIC’s Champion for Official Languages and will be mandated to “establish a strategic vision for official languages and policies that will guide the Steering Committee and the Implementation Committee in their work”.[39]

In 2007, the Official Languages Committee submitted a report to Parliament entitled Communities speak out: Hear our Voice—The Vitality of Official Language Minority Communities. In its evaluation of the Strategic Plan, the Official Languages Committee agreed that: “in its present form […], the plan contains various weaknesses that seriously undermine the attainment of its objectives”.[40]

Those weaknesses include the absence of a statement of the actual number of immigrants living in francophone communities outside Quebec: “This is a considerable weakness since setting targets also depends on the ability to identify the initial conditions”.[41] The Committee feels that this situation stems from the definition and counting problem cited in the first part of this report.

The targets set out in the plan are also problematic. The primary objective of the 2003 Strategic Framework was to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants so as to increase the demographic weight of the francophone minority communities. The objective to be achieved was set at “4.4 percent by 2008”.[42] This target of 4.4% is equivalent to the proportion of the total francophone population living outside Quebec in 2001.

However, faced with the fact that “the number of immigrants who settle outside Quebec and whose mother tongue is French has varied between 1 percent and 1.5 percent”,[43] the Steering Committee was obliged to revise its objective. As a result, the Strategic Plan indicates that it will take 15 years to reach the annual target of 8,000 to 10,000 French-speaking immigrants to FMCs.[44] The CIC representatives have proposed the following synthesis:

[I]n September 2006 the committee launched the strategic plan to foster immigration to francophone minority communities. The key goal of this plan was to increase the number of French-speaking immigrants settling outside Quebec to 4.4% by 2023 to match the percentage of Canadians outside Quebec whose mother tongue is French, based on the 2001 census. An intermediate target of 1.8% by 2013 has been identified.[45]

However the intermediate target of 1.8% was not in the original plan:[46] it was identified in June 2009.

The Official Languages Committee had already recognized that, on account of the mobility of francophones and language transfer rates, the target of 4.4% determined on the basis of 2001 statistics was out of date. What is more, it did not make it possible to maintain the linguistic balance outside Quebec, or to increase the number of francophones living in minority communities. Here is what the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse (FANE) had to stay about the Strategic Plan targets: “A community member sits on the national committee. The issue was addressed in that forum. When the number came out, however, I was not at all satisfied [...]. I think it’s far too low to stimulate any renewal. In terms of changing it and how it was negotiated in Ottawa at the committee, I really don’t know. But to be completely frank, it is inadequate.”[47]

Lastly, the Strategic Plan contains no integrated performance indicators or time frames for tracking progress towards results.[48] As a result, the Strategic Plan does not allow CIC to properly fulfill its duties as stipulated in section 3 of the IRPA.

These major weaknesses can be explained in part by the fact that the communities were not sufficiently consulted during the development of the Strategic Plan. With regard to consultations, the FCFA stated:

However, there has been no dialogue concerning immigration, despite the fact that we work with the steering committee. The department has provided us with targets that it has set on its own, which are intermediate performance targets. We have not been consulted about either the targets or the indicators.[49]

Of course, regarding immigration, we have a committee which is jointly managed by the community and by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. This department established performance indicators for a 15-year period. When the performance indicators for the Roadmap were established, an interim target was also set, for which we were consulted, but our suggestions were not taken into account.[50]

It is disconcerting to note that the Strategic Plan introduced in 2006 and harshly criticized by the Official Languages Committee in 2007 has not been revised. Yet it has continued to be imposed as a reference for francophone immigration to Canada. Hence the end of the Plan in 2011 is an opportunity to order new studies and to consult appropriately with the FMCs in order to review the plans, policies and programs relating to francophone immigration to Canada. Therefore the Committee recommends: 

RECOMMENDATION 2:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, as well as the communities:[51] 

a)   by 2012, completely re-evaluate the targets and definitions contained in the Strategic Plan to Foster Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities (which is expiring in 2011), and specifically the anticipated increase in the number of immigrants settling in francophone minority communities;[52]

b)  consult the communities with the aim of establishing new objectives, new targets and performance indicators so that the new plan is an accurate reflection of the communities’ needs;

c)   consider, with the cooperation of the FMCs, the possibility of setting at 7%[53] the number of French-speaking immigrants that Canada wishes to receive each year in the FMCs;

d)  establish a time frame and develop a rigorous follow-up mechanism incorporated into the plan in order to regularly verify the results obtained;

e)   communicate the new strategy to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration before it is adopted, so that it can be evaluated by two committees with complementary jurisdictions in francophone immigration, if that be the wish of the said committees.[54]

The Committee also echoes the proposals made by the FCFA in recommending: 

RECOMMENDATION 3:

That the Government of Canada, after consulting with the FMCs and developing a new strategy for francophone immigration, set up a national policy on francophone minority immigration so that intergovernmental and interdepartmental cooperation can be better defined and the actions of the government and the communities better coordinated.[55]

4.2       Responsibilities of CIC toward the Anglo-Quebec community

Quebec’s immigration policy does not address the demographic pressures faced by the English-speaking community. Renewal is of importance to English-speaking communities across the province and of critical concern to the communities on the island of Montreal.[56]

There is no anglophone counterpart of the CIC-FMC Steering Committee. A recommendation to create such a steering committee had been made by the Official Languages Committee in its 2003 report.[57] The government of the time had responded that, on account of the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration, the federal government could not act to support the Anglo-Quebec community.[58]

However, this response in October 2003 could not take into account the major amendment made in 2005 to Part VII of the OLA. As a result, in 2010 CIC has to find innovative ways to fulfill its duties toward the anglophone minority of Quebec while respecting the Canada-Quebec Accord. In his annual report for 2008-2009, Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, proposed the following: “The English-speaking communities in Quebec would benefit from being able to share their experience in immigration and in taking into account diversity, and would also benefit from actively participating in public debates on the issue.”[59]

According to the QCGN, there was a lack of political will on the part of CIC to assume its new responsibilities under section 41 of the OLA: “We set up meetings. But when we come to Ottawa to meet representatives from Immigration Canada, we come with reality hats on, knowing that they will talk to us all we want, but when you look at the reality of the jurisdictions, what can we expect from them? They’re very careful about what they say.”[60]

Yet the anglophone community of Quebec is one of the most diverse in the country. According to one recent study, 30% of Anglo-Quebeckers are born outside the country, and 21% are members of a visible minority.[61] Nonetheless, according to the QCGN, recruitment and retention of immigrants pose challenges for Quebec’s English-speaking community: “The renewal of the English-speaking community is a huge challenge. Because we are not a host society anymore for the attraction of new immigrants, which we understand, that puts enormous pressure put on the demography.”[62]

To harmonize its recruitment efforts with Quebec’s immigration policy the QCGN has established ties with representatives on the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec in order to find a way to promote anglophone immigration to Quebec using an approach based on cultural diversity:

We think we need to talk about diversity, because Quebec’s structure in that jurisdiction is particular and supports a very important aspect in Quebec. But if you look at it from a broader perspective, there are things that a strong English-speaking community can bring. Over the past three years, we’ve been working very hard with provincial and federal representatives to start to think about this.[63]

The intentions of the QCGN are not in conflict with the objectives of Quebec immigration policy. The organization agrees that immigrants to Quebec should be integrated through the learning of French. On the other hand, the QCGN argues that English can help attract immigrants to Quebec, especially in the regions. This is another aspect of Quebec immigration policy in which the Anglo-Quebec community wants to participate:

We believe that closer collaboration with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, with the community, and with the government of Quebec is beginning to pay off. In small steps, we’re beginning to demonstrate that capitalizing on the community's role as an asset could help with immigrant retention in the regions, and retention means thriving communities and perhaps even growing communities.[64]

Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 4:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada recognize that the Anglo-Quebec community presents a model of linguistic integration for immigrants and that it recognize the specific role that this community plays in the integration of immigrants in the societies of Quebec and Canada.

That recognition of this specificity be taken into account when developing policies, programs and new partnerships on immigration, so that the Anglo-Quebec community too can obtain support under Part VII of the Official Languages Act and section 3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The QCGN is exploring various avenues to obtain federal funding for studies on anglophone immigration to Quebec.[65] In its 2009-2010 Report on Results: Implementation of Section 41 of the OLA, CIC describes a project which might meet the needs of the Anglo-Quebec community. A CIC-QCGN research project entitled Les communautés anglophones et le capital d’attraction et de rétention des populations immigrantes dans quatre collectivités régionales du Québec will complement research conducted in three regions of Quebec on the various aspects of attracting and retaining immigrants.[66] The Committee welcomes the fact that Statistics Canada has produced a statistical portrait of Quebec's anglophone population. Published in September 2010, the document, entitled Portrait of Official-Language Minorities in Canada—Anglophones in Quebec,[67] contains four sections that deal with the definitions of the English-speaking population of Quebec, the evolution of the population by mother tongue and first official language spoken, factors influencing the evolution of the population with English as a mother tongue and key sectors for the vitality of the community.

4.3       The Canada-provinces-territories agreements

The IRPA authorizes CIC to conclude accords and memorandums of understanding with the provinces and territories on concurrent responsibilities for immigration. Several provinces and territories have concluded one or more of these agreements (see Appendix C). To date, only Nunavut has not signed some form of agreement. Generally speaking, the framework agreements (main collaborative arrangements) contain clauses relating to the OLMCs. This is a direct result of Recommendation 6 made by the Official Languages Committee in May 2003.[68] However, this is not the case for all annexes to framework agreements or the various memorandums of understanding.

Furthermore, these clauses remain declaratory, and commitments to OLMCs vary from province to province. The clauses are limited to recognizing that immigration must enhance the development and vitality of official language minority communities, and to stating the obligation to consult the communities, take their needs into account, and meet the official languages needs of immigrants

Two major concerns on this subject were underscored in the Official Languages Committee’s report of 2007. First, these clauses may be interpreted differently from one province to another.  Second, they “do not include specific financial requirements”.[69]

In 2010, the FCFA made the same observation:

Another step forward is definitely the systematic inclusion of language clauses in federal-provincial/territorial agreements, as this committee recommended in 2003, and we want to recognize that fact. That said, however, we must monitor how those clauses are interpreted and enforced in the field.[70]

That being said, certain provinces have developed a provincial strategy on francophone immigration. While Manitoba’s contains a precise and ambitious target (7%) for francophone immigration, other provinces, such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, have none. Those two provincial governments are demonstrating a firm desire to recruit francophone immigrants in order to maintain the province’s linguistic balance. They are including the Acadian and francophone communities in the process of identifying immigrants. However, the absence of a specific target hobbles the communities’ efforts. Here is what the FANE had to say: “In that case, why is the Government of Canada letting the communities fight with the provinces to secure minimum percentages? Why, when it signs an agreement with the province, does the federal government not remind it that there is an official languages and dictate a specific percentage? At present, our small communities are knocking on the province’s door, but it is the federal government’s responsibility to set the numbers. That is how the recommendation should be made.”[71]

The FANE stated that it would like Nova Scotia’s francophone immigration target to be above 4%: “In Nova Scotia, 4% of the population are mother-tongue French speakers. As far as we are concerned, 4% is woefully inadequate and we would like the target to be between 8% and 10%, at the very least. Obviously, that is a minimum, and not a maximum. At the present time, […], we have figures that are not insignificant. We are actually approaching 6%, 7% and even 8%. It has even gone as high as 9% in recent years. What is important is to maintain these percentages and increase them.”[72]

This issue is also important to New Brunswick, the country’s only bilingual province, where 32.5% of the population’s FOLS is French.[73] The Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB) would like the provincial francophone immigration target to be 33%: “[…] in our discussions with the government, we are aiming for at least 32.7% of total immigrants. If the idea is to attract 5,000, at least 1,500 to 2,000 of them should be Francophone. I believe that should be the government’s objective.”[74]

For the action of the provincial governments to be coordinated with the communities’ priorities, it is essential that the provinces and territories set themselves targets for francophone immigration. Furthermore, those targets must be accompanied by financial requirements. Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 5:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada proceed without further delay with a systematic review of all memorandums of understanding on immigration between Canada and the provinces-territories to ensure that they contain all of the clauses to foster immigration to OLMCs.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

That the Department of Canadian Heritage through the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada through the CIC-FMC Steering Committee, encourage the provincial and territorial governments to:

a)   adopt precise targets for the short, medium and long terms on the number of francophone immigrants they want to receive in the OLMCs;

b)  support those targets with specific financial requirements.

5.   Issues and Challenges

5.1       Recruitment

Recruitment of immigrants is an undertaking shared by the federal government, the provinces and the territories and the host communities. It is a complex process with multiple facets. For the purposes of this report, we will limit ourselves to highlighting certain aspects of the recruitment process which, according to the evidence received, could be improved so as to assist stakeholders in their efforts to foster immigration to OLMCs.

First we will examine recruitment efforts overseas. Topics will include the Destination Canada program, the referral offices, and programs for the recruitment of foreign students. Second, we will examine the information that is provided to candidates for immigration, with a new look at how to promote the OLMCs as bilingual environments.

5.1.1. International recruitment efforts

i)    The Destination Canada program

For several few years now, the Canadian embassy in Paris has been organizing Destination Canada. This is a francophone immigration recruitment mission in which certain provincial/territorial and sectoral advocacy organizations, the FMCs and potential employers participate. According to Mr. Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, CIC, the program is a success: “Last year it was held in November with our missions in Paris and Brussels, and attracted over 2,200 people”.[75] The FCFA testified that it was a good program but ought to be expanded.[76]

Destination Canada is a program that targets candidates from Europe and North Africa.[77] However, Statistics Canada’s Statistical Portrait (1991-2006) has shown that in 2006, Haiti, the United States, Lebanon and Egypt figured among the top ten countries of birth for immigrants with French as their FOLS.[78] Referring to the experience in Quebec, the SANB reminded the Committee of the importance of recruiting immigrants from South America, given the linguistic and cultural affinities: “I believe there are some success stories in Quebec where Chileans, Colombians and Latin Americans are seen to be the immigrants that are most easily integrated into Francophone communities. That is why we are trying to recruit immigrants from the Latino community in New Brunswick.”[79]

Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 7:

That the Destination Canada program be offered in more countries of the Francophonie so that it extends beyond Western Europe and North Africa to the Caribbean and the Middle East, and so that it is also offered in Latin America.

ii)   Referral offices

 During his appearance, Mr. Linklater of CIC explained that there are “Foreign Credentials Referral Offices”[80] that offer services to support immigration candidates in the economic class who want to start a settlement process before leaving their country of origin. Presently Canada has three offices: in China, the Philippines and India. These are the countries with the highest emigration demand. CIC plans to set up a fourth office in London to serve the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and the Gulf countries.[81]

However, the FCFA has pointed out that such offices are still not available in the countries of the Francophonie:

Our experience in recent years has taught us the importance of orientation and preparation sessions preceding candidates' departure to facilitate their economic integration once in Canada. We know that these sessions are currently being offered in China, the Philippines and India, and soon will be offered in London. However, they are not being offered in francophone countries, and this is definitely a shortcoming that must be corrected.[82]

Since CIC plans to open other offices,[83] the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 8:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada also open referral offices in member countries of the Francophonie and that the programs offered in those offices be adapted to the specific needs of francophone immigrants and FMCs.

Furthermore, CIC should take account of francophone immigration in these future initiatives by incorporating a francophone component. It is the responsibility of the CIC-FMC Committee to ensure that these sorts of steps are taken.

iii) Recruitment of international students

International students represent an interesting source of potential francophone immigrants. Representatives from Manitoba have made international curricula a key element of their recruitment strategy: “International students, through the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, have been a key element of the immigration strategy: the transition of international students to permanent residence status through our provincial nominee program. The international student movement has been an important component of our immigration strategy under the provincial nominee program.”[84]

On the international stage, DFAIT manages projects to recruit international students. In 2006, that department created a unit called Edu-Canada “to coordinate the work of Canadian missions in the promotion of Canadian education abroad; to create a promotional campaign and the development of a new brand, now known as ‘Education au/in Canada’; to facilitate relations between provinces and non-governmental organizations and our missions abroad; and to develop a strategy to support student recruitment in priority countries.”[85]

Canadian overseas missions organize promotional events in education which take the form of trade fairs. According to DFAIT representatives, the Department is ensuring that the francophone market is targeted: “France, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt are priority markets of interest for francophone institutions in minority language communities. Other markets of interest for francophone institutions in minority language communities where we support marketing and promotion initiatives are Switzerland, Lebanon, Senegal, Mali, Ivory Coast and Cameroon.”[86] In addition, in many countries, the immigration section of Canadian missions is involved in providing candidates with information on procedures for obtaining student visas and student authorizations.[87]

With regard to francophone immigration to minority communities, DFAIT says that it consults regularly with regional and national francophone associations working in international education, including the Association des universités francophones du Canada, the Réseau des cégeps et des collèges francophones du Canada, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.[88] A list provided to the Official Languages Committee on 6 May 2010 by DFAIT representatives clearly shows that 17 francophone postsecondary institutions outside Quebec are participating in CIC recruitment initiatives.

iv) Federal-provincial-territorial initiatives to recruit international students

The federal government is supporting the provinces and territories in their student recruitment through various types of federal-provincial-territorial agreements: a memorandum of understanding on off-campus work permits for foreign students, a memorandum of understanding on the post-graduation hiring of foreign students, a memorandum of understanding on a pilot project to issue work permits to international students.

However there are no agreements currently in effect that contain provisions to assist in recruiting immigrant students for OLMCs. Statistics Canada’s Statistical Portrait (1991-2006) shows that 52.9% of immigrants outside Quebec with French as FOLS received their highest diploma in Canada.[89] Given that international students represent an important potential source of francophone immigration to OLMCs, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 9:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, revise in the next fiscal year the memorandums of understanding on off-campus work permits for foreign students, on the post-graduation hiring of foreign students, and on a pilot project to issue work permits to international students, so that specific objectives are included for the number of francophone international students that the provinces want to admit to FMC postsecondary institutions.

5.1.2   Awareness of the bilingual environment

The preparation that is done before the immigrant arrives in Canada is of particular importance for francophone immigrants. They have to be aware that in many cases the OLMCs are bilingual communities, and that English has to be learned in order to obtain a job. This was explained by Mr. Ben Rempel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Immigration Division, Department of Labour and Immigration, Government of Manitoba:

We feel that our job with the francophone immigrants we attract is to make them aware and to prepare them, and in fact, to promote Manitoba to those who see a bilingual lifestyle as an opportunity, not a setback. I think our success has been built on that.[90]

Furthermore, the Statistical Portrait 1991-2006 notes that: “English dominates as the main language used at work outside Quebec, even among persons whose first official language spoken is French. […] English is also used at work by 58% and 63% of French FOLS Canadian-born and immigrants”.[91]

A sound recruitment strategy must ensure that francophone immigrants are aware of this reality, since for their immigration to be a success—i.e., if they are to find a job and integrate fully in Canadian society—they will have to learn the majority language: “Also, there is a need to clearly establish the conditions that exist in those communities and not tell immigrants who are anxious to settle in these communities that English is not part of the reality they will face there.”[92] This is also the point of comments by Ms. Joëlle Désy, Nova Scotia Nominee Program officer: “In Nova Scotia, there are very few jobs that don’t require at the very least a knowledge of English. Newcomers must be aware of that reality. That is part of the information that must be provided to them before they arrive.”[93]

The Manitoba representatives offer an eloquent explanation of their vision of Manitoba as a bilingual environment, and its associated advantages:

It’s different from what Quebec offers, which is obviously the first choice for many francophone immigrants, but it’s an environment where you, your family, and your children can work and live in both official languages.

When we are overseas speaking to potential immigrants […] we don’t really try to persuade people not to go to Quebec. People who are looking for a 100% francophone lifestyle in Canada will choose a destination in Quebec, in all likelihood. But we find that there are people looking for a somewhat different experience.

The ability to live in a bilingual environment is often attractive to them, as is the fact that their children can be educated in French. They can live in a French-speaking community and can interact in French on a daily basis, but have the opportunity to learn English as well, so that's a bit of who we're speaking to, in some ways. They are attracted in many ways to what Manitoba has to offer, and there’s the fact that they can do post-secondary education in French.[94]

The same applies to immigrants who have only English as their FOLS and who want to settle in Quebec. The QCGN often repeated the necessity for English-speaking immigrants who want to settle in Quebec to learn French. The Anglo-Quebec community is in fact among the most bilingual in the country, and this linguistic profile is reflected in immigration:

As regards immigrants to Quebec, we have noted a marked improvement in their proficiency in French. The figures speak for themselves. In terms of the status of the French language, we can look at daily use of the language in the workplace and long-term practices in the home. They show that French is establishing itself. However, it is doing so in a context where there are other languages, including an interest in English on the part of both Francophones and immigrants. Therefore, the context is one of duality.[95]

According to Mr. Jack Jedwab, Executive Director of the Association for Canadian Studies, there must be more collaboration between the governments of Quebec and Canada and the anglophone community of Quebec:

I think it is also important, for the Government of Quebec, that the Anglophone community be involved in delivering that message to immigrants, in terms of the need to learn French. I think that Anglophones in Quebec, particularly the young generation, are very interested in learning French. […] So, there is a need to involve Anglophones in Quebec in the process of promoting French in Quebec as well as diversity, particularly within the Montreal community, and to ensure that no contradiction between the two emerges.[96]

5.1.3   A paradoxical situation?

Is there a paradox in recruiting immigrants to contribute to the vitality of OLMCs while at the same time asking them to learn the majority language as a condition of their full integration in Canadian and Quebec society? Mr. Charles Castonguay, Adjunct Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Ottawa, has demonstrated, with supporting statistics, that assimilation has been significant among the francophones produced by immigration: “I found that by the age of 45, francophones from abroad contribute more to the English-speaking population than to the French-speaking population in all the metropolitan areas outside the bilingual belt” (i.e., the zone of bilingualism surrounding Quebec).[97]

For Mr. Jack Jedwab, the personal enrichment afforded by learning a second official language should not be perceived as synonymous with assimilation:

We often hear this idea that there is a contradiction between belonging to an ethnic community, whatever it may be, and the desire to learn French or English. We see this kind of debate taking place in Quebec, as well as outside Quebec. But I think that if we include all groups in the process, and if they have the sense that they are truly involved in the process, that will better serve immigrants, the Government of Quebec and the federal government's goal of preserving the communities’ vitality.[98]

This is a debate which touches upon the identity of Canadians:

When we conducted the survey on the vitality of the official language minorities in 2006, nearly 50% of francophones outside Quebec stated, based on their experience, that they identified with both the francophone and anglophone groups. A kind of bilingual identity has emerged in Canada outside Quebec, and I would say that it’s quite an issue.

The question is as follows. Francophones have this dual identity. For example, they use English at work, but nevertheless contribute to the development of the francophone community, in community centres and at home, and they send their children to French-language schools. Can they cope with this bilingual duality or identity? Is it necessarily harmful? That’s an open question. There’s a whole debate over this.[99]

Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 10:

That the Department of Canadian Heritage, in collaboration with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, take the necessary positive measures to help immigrants and their host minority communities preserve their mother tongue and their culture as they integrate with their host community.

5.2       Intake

5.2.1   Expanding networks and services

This leads me to intake-related issues. As I said earlier, a number of francophone immigration networks have been established across the country. Some have already proven themselves, while others are developing. All need reinforcement. Achieving the objectives of the Strategic Plan, particularly with regard to the intake and integration of newcomers, will depend on our ability to support francophone intake and settlement structures already in place and to create new ones.[100]

There is no doubt about it: all witnesses agreed that intake is a critical step in the newcomer experience. Access to reception services (information, orientation, housing, employment assistance, language training, etc.) largely determines where an immigrant will choose to settle.

Intake services are provided in large part by the community immigration networks. Those networks work in partnership with and with the financial support of the federal government and the provincial-territorial governments. At present, there are many anglophone and francophone minority immigration networks working at full capacity. Considering all the intergovernmental and cross-sectoral initiatives that have been set up by the various stakeholders, the OLMC immigration networks are more in need of federal support than ever. They want not only to maintain existing infrastructures and services, but also to create new ones to meet the growing demand.

One striking example is the growth of Accueil francophone (Francophone Hospitality) in Winnipeg, Manitoba: “At the time, in December 2003, there was one person and the structure quietly evolved. Today, we have some 13 employees at Francophone Hospitality. When the centre opened, we took in 30 immigrants. Now the organization receives about 350 immigrants a year.”[101]

In his evidence, Mr. Jack Jedwab expressed how important it was for the federal government to commit to appropriate funding of intake services: “I’m favourable to supporting the direction of those immigrants who are recruited and attracted by the communities outside Quebec on the basis of community-driven initiatives to support francophones emigrating outside of Quebec, and that the federal government extends support to that idea but also provides the resources those communities require in order to properly receive those individuals.”[102]

This amounts to saying that there has to be serious planning of intake services in order to give direction to all the recruitment efforts undertaken by the various stakeholders. If there is not, the Canadian government’s OLMC immigration policy will be a failure.

This same need is being felt in the anglophone minority community:

In 2006, immigrants to Quebec for whom English was the only official Canadian language knew upon arrival that they represented approximately 20% of the total provincial immigration. That was up from under 16% in 2002. This proportion actually exceeds the share of Quebec’s English mother-tongue population, which stands at just under 10%.

Considering the important percentage of immigrants who are English speakers, we see that it’s inevitable that English-language institutions will be involved in the process of integrating newcomers and managing diversity.[103]

In his annual report for 2008-2009, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser, made just such a recommendation: “Moreover, it would be important for English-speaking community organizations to obtain the resources they need to continue working on integrating newcomers and helping them realize their full potential in Quebec.”[104] The Government of Canada must therefore be in a position to enable the Anglo-Quebec community to maintain its immigration networks and infrastructures as well as to create new ones as needed. Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 11:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada increase its intergovernmental efforts to assess the needs of the Anglo-Quebec community and provide it with financial support so that it can develop its immigration network, particularly in the regions.[105]

5.2.2   Rural intake services and immigration networks

Governments have been trying for years, by various methods, to encourage immigrants to settle in the regions: “We know that the regionalization of immigration has been a major issue for a number of decades. Quebec in particular has tried on a number of occasions to regionalize immigration over the past 30 years, with variable and mixed results.”[106]

Immigration nonetheless remains an urban phenomenon which also affects immigrants whose FOLS is French: “The majority of francophone immigrants outside Quebec—70%—are concentrated in Ontario. Furthermore, two-thirds of French-speaking immigrants live in three metropolitan areas: Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver.”[107] The same applies for English-speaking immigrants to Quebec, most of whom head for Montreal.

Access to employment and services and the existence of social networks largely explain immigrants’ preference for urban communities:

We are still trying to understand the reasons why immigrants settle in urban rather than rural regions. In general, immigrants believe they are more likely to be able to find a job in urban areas. Sometimes it’s also a matter of reunification with members of their own community that encourages immigrants to settle in urban areas.

It’s also very much a matter of networks that are already in place that can facilitate the integration of these immigrants. To give you a quick example, some studies have shown that the francophone members of the clergy in Ottawa play a central role in the integration of French-language immigrants who are members of their parish, through the support and services they offer them.

Rural areas are much more homogenous. The understanding of immigration issues is not the same and definitely not as acute as what you see in the urban areas.[108]

That being said, the rural OLMCs are not deserts, and there is a perceived need for intake services for newcomers. New Brunswick has obtained $10 million from the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality for francophone immigration, including in Acadian rural regions. And Carrefour St-Léonard (in New Brunswick), established in 2005, is an example of an institution that aims to build solid foundations in order to permit francophone immigrants to settle in rural regions.[109]

Manitoba is also making efforts to recruit francophone immigrants and allow them to settle in rural areas. For example, there are community representatives from rural regions in the Manitoba delegation that visits France every year to carry out recruitment.[110] In the flagship of francophone immigration that is Manitoba, their efforts are being crowned with success. Thanks to immigration, certain rural regions of Manitoba are in full expansion: “Probably our biggest non-urban migration of francophone immigrants so far is in our agriculture sector, with people buying farms and so on.”[111] Manitoba and New Brunswick are telling examples of the progress of francophone immigration in rural minority communities.

The question arises of whether the federal government’s programs and investments are mainly concentrated in the urban centres, and whether sufficient effort is being made to recruit and offer reception services in the OLMCs. Mr. Ibrahima Diallo, chairman of the SFM , expresses this issue as follows:

Now we’re increasingly seeing people who want to settle in rural areas, teachers, for example. That’s just starting and that trend must obviously be reinforced because if there’s no employment in rural areas, people won’t settle there. Perhaps it’s like the chicken and the egg. You wonder which comes first, but to attract people to those areas, they definitely have to be guaranteed work and a decent life for themselves and their families.[112]

Are the needs of rural communities truly being understood and taken into account in Canada’s immigration strategy? Although CIC has developed “a tool kit enabling the communities and small municipalities to know how to do their marketing,”[113] the Committee believes that more effort could be invested in immigration to rural OLMCs. Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 12:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in collaboration with the other departments, the provinces/territories and the OLMCs:

a)   consider the issue of intake and integration services for immigrants to official language minority communities in rural regions;

b)  set up a program and a special fund to assist rural regions that wish to create intake and integration services for newcomers;

c)   create a coordination round table so that both francophone and anglophone OLMCs in rural regions can dialogue and exchange best practices, and thereby develop new projects and help other rural communities attain their immigration objectives;

d)  promote rural OLMCs to economic-class immigrants who work in the field of agriculture.

Finally, when they appeared before the Committee, the representatives of the MCCF said that the conference “would be entirely prepared to play a role as ambassador and to encourage stakeholders so that more immigrants settle in the rural areas. However, we don't have any specific measures to recommend in that regard, but we are prepared to work in that direction”.[114] Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 13:

That the minister of Canadian Heritage ask the members of the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie to encourage stakeholders in francophone immigration to develop tools and strategies in collaboration with the FMCs in order to promote francophone immigration to rural areas, and that the same stakeholders provide appropriate funding to community projects related to the intake and integration of francophone immigrants in rural areas.

5.3       Socio-economic integration of immigrants in OLMCs

The evidence collected by the Official Languages Committee clearly shows that the integration of new arrivals in their adopted society is being prepared before they ever leave for Canada. The intake services set the tone for the immigrant experience.

The last theme considered by the Committee was that of integration. This is the best performance indicator of whether the OLMCs have the necessary tools, infrastructures and services to handle the conditions of immigration. One constant emerges from the testimony heard by the Committee: the socio-economic integration of immigrants is dependent on two closely related pillars: the school system and access to employment.

With regard to education and sociocultural integration, the Committee mainly heard evidence concerning the role of primary and secondary schools as agents of integration. Educational institutions play a key role in the language training of young immigrants. As to access to employment, the evidence also concentrated on the issue of language training and the recognition of newcomers’ credentials.

5.3.1   The school system and sociocultural integration

Don’t underestimate what schools can do for a community, all right?[115]

In OLMCs, school is a transmission belt for the community’s language, culture and values. Mr. Charles Castonguay confirmed that the fact of having a homogeneous French-speaking school system from day care to university has helped to reduce language transfer in New Brunswick.[116]

For immigrants settling in OLMCs, the school system acts as an agent of integration. Representatives from Metropolis[117] made an observation regarding schools that the academic community unanimously accepts: “Researchers and community stakeholders agree that in Francophone minority communities, whether rural or urban, the school is identified as an agent of community liaison that is vital in integrating children and parents as well. Some schools go so far as to offer courses for parents in English as a second language, in addition to Francization courses, to ensure that the family stays in the French-speaking community.”[118]

For example, francophone Ontario uses its schools to help young immigrants and their families adapt to their new host community:

Ontario is making a planned effort to integrate francophone immigrants in francophone schools. There are 12 francophone school boards in Ontario, and each of them has its own admissions committee. These admissions committees are governed by policies of our Ministry of Education. Their deliberate aim is to encourage these school boards to admit immigrants from francophone immigrant families.[119]

A high school in Ottawa, Collège catholique Samuel-Genest (CCSG), also meets needs on a human level: “For young newcomers, school is their second family. It's incredible to see the number of students who stay here after school, after the bell rings at 2:30, because they have nothing to do at home. They don’t have any mattresses, television, video games, and they don’t know the places or the community. So they stay at school.[120] Given the important role that primary and secondary schools play in the integration of young immigrants, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 14:

That the Minister of Canadian Heritage raise awareness among the members of the Ministerial Conference on the Canadian Francophonie of the urgent need to offer settlement and integration services to immigrants through French-language school boards. That the Minister encourage his provincial counterparts to open a dialogue with their respective ministries of education in order to offer multiyear funding to address the needs of young immigrants and those of education workers.

As stated above, schools play an important role in teaching the official languages. For some students, the challenge is improving their French. This is why Nova Scotia offers language training programs to school children whose mother tongue is not French. This allows children to follow the course of their education at the same pace as the francophones in their age group: “In primary schools, especially francophone ones, there are programs. There is a person who will help the students who are having difficulties because they don’t necessarily speak French, children whose first language is not French. So there is help available for children.”[121]

For other students, English as a second language courses are a priority. Ms. Kelly Bararu, a student at CCSG, stated: “However, based on my personal experience, what I found most disheartening when I arrived in Canada was not receiving any programs in English. That really isolated me from other students and I felt separate.”[122]

Schools do of course offer students courses to improve their French and to learn English as a second language. It appears however that the financial and human resources allocated are insufficient. Ms. Andrea Santana, a student at CCSG, stated that teachers had to volunteer their own time to help her improve her proficiency in both official languages. Ms. Santana noted that this had been a unique situation and considered it unfortunate that such assistance is not available to all students who need it:

The school offered me a summer course so I could learn French. The school's partnership with OCISO[123] enabled me to learn French through a volunteer teacher. During that summer course, I studied French from Monday to Friday. I hope that access to this kind of course will be easier for newcomers, particularly for those who know neither of the official languages. [...] My first school year was a real challenge because, even though I knew the subject in my mother tongue, I couldn't express everything I was thinking. However, during the first year, a teacher helped me at school and made it a lot easier to fit in with the other students. After only one year of training, I took the provincial language proficiency test. I'm really lucky since so many people fought for me and defended my interests like my volunteer teacher, Ms. Lanteigne, and Ms. Hortense from OCISO. However, it's so unfortunate for other newcomers who haven't had the chance to have as complete an integration as mine. You must establish integration and official language courses and provide access to them for newcomers by hiring qualified staff.[124]

Further to this evidence, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 15:

That the federal government and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, provide funding for language courses for young immigrant students in their next Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction[125] or in all other similar agreements.

The Anglo-Quebec community is also making use of its school system. In certain localities, schools are changing into Community Learning Centres (CLC):

Community Learning Centres, within the Anglophone community, through which small schools in remote areas were given video conferencing equipment. That means that people living in Harrington Harbour or Blanc-Sablon — regions that are far removed from everything Francophone — can connect to all kinds of cultural events in English. It could be 30 or so students in a small primary school who are thus able to visit museums such as the Canada Space Centre.

What is even more surprising is that these small schools are in contact with other English-language schools on the coast of Labrador. All of a sudden, an entire network has been built up in an area where people are — as is often said in Quebec about this Anglophone minority community living on the Labrador coast — wilting on the vine.

People say it has no chance of surviving, and that the population is in decline. But I was there in January and it was teeming with life. I think we have perceptions based on numbers that do not jibe with people’s reality. I would suggest that you visit the Community Learning Centres, which have transformed these schools into community centres that are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All of a sudden, the community has a place to go that is very easy to access, where people can play badminton on Friday night or do scrapbooking. Grandparents go there to tell stories to their grandchildren, because their own children are no longer there. It is an amazing experience that fills you with hope. It creates a community.[126]

According to this testimony, the creation of CLCs allows the Anglo-Quebec community, especially in the regions, to strengthen its sociocultural and educational network. There are presently 23 CLCs in Quebec, and coordination of this network is handled by the Learning English Education and Resource Network (LEARN), a non-profit organization which works in the field of education. On the francophone side, there are approximately 35 community-school centres (CSCs) across Canada (outside Quebec). However there is no umbrella organization for all of the francophone CSCs. The list of minority francophone CSCs and anglophone CLCs can be found in Appendix D of this report.

Mr. Jack Jedwab said that the CSCs could give rise to attractive partnerships between the provinces/territories and the federal government.[127] Canadian Heritage contributes to CSCs through an intergovernmental capital project under the “Development of Official-Language Communities” component of the Official Languages Support Program (OLSP). The Department’s support is directed to the construction, renovation or expansion of these types of community spaces.

 Under paragraph 7.3.1.3 of the 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 Protocol for Agreements for Minority-Language Education and Second-Language Instruction between the Government of Canada and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), the government reserves the right to approve complementary contributions for infrastructure projects. Therefore, recognizing the importance of the educational system, and in particular the CSCs, for the learning or development of a second language and for the sociocultural integration of immigrants in the OLMCs, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 16:

That the Department of Canadian Heritage increase its financial assistance in order to improve existing community-school centres and permit the construction of new ones in the OLMCs.

5.3.2   Access to employment

i)    Language training of adult immigrants

For the most part, FMCs are bilingual environments in which English is the main language of work. For francophone immigrants, English courses are an essential service and a determining factor in their integration into the labour market. While the services available do not always meet students’ needs, young immigrants receive guidance at school to improve their French and learn English as a second language. The conditions are different for adult immigrants seeking to enter the labour market. While the Committee recognizes that there is federal and provincial funding for language training for immigrants, the Committee looked into the courses offered to adults by OLMCs and at secondary and postsecondary institutions.

Ms. Julie Boyer from Metropolis shared an important observation that participants made at the first Metropolis event on francophone immigration, held in Toronto in 2007. Settlement agencies in francophone communities have a strategic interest in offering English courses to francophone newcomers themselves. “From that session, we learned that economic integration is the first step toward retaining French-speaking immigrants but that, outside Quebec, people need to speak English if they want to find work. As a result, French-language settlement organizations are called on not only to provide assistance with English-language economic integration, but also to develop Francophone networks.”[128] This is an interesting way for francophone communities to integrate newcomers into their networks while giving them the opportunity to learn English which, in francophone minority communities, is the key to finding employment. Donald Kenny from Université Sainte-Anne, in Nova Scotia, was also in favour of this idea: “Services aimed at integrating Francophone immigrants into our region, including services and training in English as a second language, must be offered on a priority basis by Francophone organizations. It is critical to involve the Francophone community in order to facilitate the social, cultural and economic integration of these immigrants into our minority community.”[129]

RECOMMENDATION 17:

That the Government of Canada encourage provincial governments to recognize that integration services for francophone immigrants, including training in English as a second language, should be offered primarily by francophone organizations, and that it provide multi-year funding for language training offered by francophone community organizations. The same principle applies to the English community in Quebec as regards French-as-second-language training for anglophone immigrants.

That the above measures take into account that some official-language minority communities are more influential in their region. Some official-language minority communities are large enough to warrant that an immigrant from the majority-language community learn the minority language in the interest of integration. The same measures should be taken if immigrants’ socio-economic integration in a region can be enhanced by learning the language of both official-language communities.

ii) Language training for refugees

With respect to language training, special measures should be taken for refugees who are not necessarily fluent in either of the two official languages. The case is particularly urgent in Manitoba, as the president of the SFM noted:

There is also the question of adult immigrants, whom we often tend to ignore, more specifically the issue of refugees. Manitoba takes in a disproportionate number of refugees among its immigrants. Sixty percent of immigrants who settle in French-speaking Manitoba are refugees. Even with all the challenges that entails, we absolutely have to consider enabling them to earn a diploma, to finish their secondary education and to go to university or to professional schools.[130]

Nova Scotia is in a similar situation. The communities do not have the resources to meet the needs of francophone refugees. “As regards refugees, our clientele includes a large number of refugees, but again, we don’t have any funding. Basically, all the money goes to ISIS.[131] We have made requests to CIC, but CIC recently replied that all the money had been given to ISIS, that there was none left and that they would see about next year. It’s a little frustrating. Halifax takes in some Francophone refugees, primarily from the Great Lakes region.”[132] The Committee accordingly recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 18:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada ensure that OLMCs receiving a high number of refugees obtain the necessary funding to meet their specific intake, integration and language training needs and encourage the provinces to create a refugee program like the one in Manitoba.

iii) Recognition of credentials

Now let’s talk about integration issues. It will not be news to you that the recognition of credentials is a crucially important aspect of economic integration.[133]

The slow progress being made on recognition of foreign diplomas and credentials is a persisting problem. The situation is particularly constraining for FMCs, whose pool of potential immigrants is smaller. The Strategic Plan has identified non-recognition of foreign credentials as one of the biggest barriers aggravating immigration problems in FMCs.[134] The situation is little different in the anglophone minority communities.

In its 2003 report on immigration to OLMCs, the Committee made two recommendations on this subject. The first, directed to the provinces, concerned equitable treatment of the credentials of anglophone and francophone immigrants.[135] The second, directed to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), was for that department to step up its efforts to develop programs to support the integration of newcomers, including through labour market experience and access to language courses.[136]

According to the FCFA, the impasse that has existed for several years in this area is caused by a lack of management:

Human Resources and Social Development Canada is currently working on this issue to ensure that new Canadians are well integrated, that they find work and remain in the country. Citizenship and Immigration Canada is also working on the recognition of foreign credentials.

However, these two organizations are not working together. Each department seems to be operating in its own silo. Therefore, we cannot say that the machinery of government is working in an efficient and streamlined manner. In the course of our representations, be it with the Secretariat for Official Languages, the OLSPB [Official Languages Support Programs Branch], Human Resources and Social Development Canada, or Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we kept on wondering how all of these organizations would coordinate their efforts. As it currently stands, interdepartmental cooperation is not really happening.[137]

The Committee supports the FCFA in making the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION 19:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada work with Industry Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the provinces and territories to develop a plan for the economic integration of francophone immigrants.[138]

In his appearance, Mr. Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, CIC, said that in 2009 his department had taken major steps on the issue of recognition of credentials:

A number of actions are currently being taken to improve the process of recognizing immigrants' credentials. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is working very closely with the Foreign Credentials Referral Office and with Health Canada at the federal level to coordinate efforts with the provinces and territories.

I should mention that, after a lot of work between the provinces and territories and the federal government, the premiers announced the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications in the fall of 2009. Following extensive work, the governments identified 10 occupations that should constitute a path to recognition determined by all governments and regulatory groups responsible in the provinces and territories by December.

There will consequently be another round until 2012 concerning another 10 occupations. We’ve determined key occupations based on the volume of immigrants already settled here who possess certain credentials or training, in order to determine what occupations persons interested in coming to Canada carry on. Of all occupations, we have identified 10 for the first round and another 10 for the next round.[139]

For its part, the FCFA has identified three key professions or fields for the Francophonie: speech therapy, teaching and health care.[140] It suggests that, to meet the pressing workforce needs in the FMCs, CIC and HRSDC have to promote the recognition of credentials in those professions. Therefore the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 20:

That in their list of priority professions, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada retain the three professions identified by the francophone communities (speech therapy, teaching and health care) so as to achieve a balance between the needs of the majority and the needs of the francophone minority.

6.   The Human Dimension

There appears to be a paradox in Canada: while efforts are made to recruit immigrants, once they are here immigrants have difficulty entering the labour market. Ms. Kelly Bararu, a student at Collège catholique Samuel-Genest in Ottawa, noted astutely in this regard: “But isn’t it true that, in accepting them as immigrants, Canada expects them to make an economic contribution? However, how can they contribute to the economy when they have no jobs?”[141]

The gaps in the economic integration of immigrants that the Committee identified can have serious consequences. While they may be educated and have versatile skills, a number of immigrants return to their country of origin where working conditions and life are better than in Canada.[142] Families can be split up due to the parents’ inability to find work. Miguel Cédric Tchuemboum Kouam, a CCSG student, recounted the difficulties facing his family:

He's (Miguel’s father) been a teacher for 25 years. He wonders how he's going to be able to prove it, so he can enter a program to become a teacher again here. So he'll be going to Cameroon soon, and he wonders whether he'll be coming back here because it's difficult. We arrived a year ago, and he hasn't worked the entire year. We've lived off resources from Cameroon. We had a better life there than here. He really wonders whether he will come back here because it's not really worth it to come back here and to do nothing, or to wind up with a job that doesn't correspond to his skills. He prefers to go back and live and work there in order to support us from there. Something should be done about recognizing our parents' credentials and work experience.[143]

 The inability to offer integration services such as access to employment can lead immigrants to leave Canada or split up their families. Such choices cause anxiety and place stress on the parents and children. This is a human drama that must not be overlooked.

For immigrants who stay in Canada, many have to accept work for which they are overqualified. Mr. Apollinaire Yengayenge spoke about his own experience:

The parents arrive at home and their dreams are broken because they can't find a job quickly. They stay at home and wash the dishes, do the cooking and do the cleaning. The luckiest ones find odd jobs working up to 70 hours a week. Consequently, they are unable to supervise their children or follow what goes on in Canada. Parents left to their own devices often go to community ghettos. They stay cloistered there poisoning each other's minds. They hear that, if they want to work, they should quickly accept a position as an attendant at a hospital, do this or that. Most people who come here of their own free will often arrive with very high-level diplomas, but they are unable to integrate because everything is barricaded. Barriers prevent us from gaining access to employment. Worse than that, we don't even have the information that would allow us to fight. Some parents say they're denied jobs because they aren't Canadians. [...] So there is the fact of arriving here and not finding these integration training structures. There's a kind of withdrawal, a lack or loss of self-confidence. We tend to forget everything we know. Our skills become obsolete because we feel they won't serve a purpose in Canada, that's not where the country is, since our friends who arrived a few years before we did still have little subsistence jobs.[144]

In some cases, poorly paid jobs affect the children’s quality of life as they have to set aside their schooling to help support the family: “This situation hurts the economy and the family. If the family is hurt, then so are the children, and those children then neglect school.”[145]

In light of this evidence, the Committee recommends:

RECOMMENDATION 21:

That Citizenship and Immigration Canada be made aware of the inability of many immigrants to integrate economically in their host community and of the problems this creates among their family members.

That memorandums of understanding between Canada and the provinces/territories and communities on the recognition of credentials be put in place. We enjoin the authorities to never lose sight of the human dimension of this issue.

Conclusion

The Official Languages Committee has found that immigration is an important development tool for OLMCs. It provides for the communities’ demographic resourcing while contributing invaluable human, sociocultural and economic capital. In recent years, certain tools have made it possible for the various levels of government and the OLMCs to coordinate their work. However, major shortcomings continue to hamper the OLMCs’ capacity to recruit, receive and integrate new arrivals. Consequently, the Official Languages Committee hopes that the federal government will recognize the necessity of developing a national policy on immigration to the OLMCs, as well as a strategic plan that will allow it to fulfill its obligations. The OLMCs have taken ownership of this issue and made immigration a collective project. It is now up to the federal government to support these initiatives by showing a firm will and taking targeted political action. We enjoin the provincial and territorial governments as well as the communities to do likewise.