Official Languages Committee on March 12th, 2015

[Robert Therrien]

I'll see if I can respond fairly quickly.

I don't think, in terms of the other languages.... The government is better equipped than I am in terms of statistics. The individual who spoke recently said that there are 170 languages in the Toronto area, if I'm not mistaken. To me, there are economic advantages to having more than one language.

That being said, we are first and foremost a bilingual country, and I believe in the importance of putting the emphasis on that. Once we have that right, and once we've promoted that component of our identity and our economic way of life to the fullest, I think there are opportunities to be had that we certainly have not exploited or developed to their fullest potential, far from it.

More and more—and I see it in Saskatchewan—I see people coming to Canada who don't know either official language. Maybe 10 to 15 years ago that was rare, but today it is certainly more dominant. We have people from all over the world coming to Canada who don't know English or French. I look at that as an opportunity to say, “Okay, we're in a bilingual country. Why not recruit francophone people who have an understanding of at least one of the official languages?” If we have the opportunity to help make progress and to help some of the founding members of this country continue to operate and work in a way that helps portray that reality, we can bring added value and we can go a small step further. That's where I'm coming from as a francophone.

I completely agree that having more languages provides opportunities for more things. I've always said that to friends, neighbours, colleagues, and so on. We shouldn't just limit ourselves to two languages. It would be better to add more, but I think we first need to get the first two right.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Professor LeVasseur.

[Gilles LeVasseur]

I am of the view that languages are the door to success and prosperity.

This term, sir, I teach a class called international business in English. We have 127 students in the class. I teach the same class in the French language. We had a discussion about language two weeks ago in the course. I asked the students, “How come you guys can only speak English? You're here at Ottawa U, and I teach in French every single class that you guys have in English in this faculty. Why are you guys not taking the class in French? You're entitled to write your exams and your papers in the language of your choice.”

It's a matter of first creating that notion that language is a positive thing and that people have to make that necessary effort to get there. When you are from a foreign society, it's already part of your society, your environment, but for a lot of people here, unless it's part of their curriculum, they're not going to make the effort to learn the other official language.

I can see it because I teach, for example, business law this term in English and French. I say, “Guys, do your paper in French even though you're in an English class. Try to understand, you want to work for the federal government, you want to work on national institutions, you want to travel, you want to represent business.” I never get more than one or two papers out of a hundred that will be in the other language.

The problem is not that I don't value...it's that individuals need to be brought to believe that language is an asset that complements them and that completes them. Because we're in a North American anglophone-majority society, people don't see the necessity. That's why they don't get that notion of learning the other language.

What we also notice is that those who go for a third language also improve in the two official languages. Why? Because if you're going to speak a third language, Spanish or German for example, or whatever other language depending on where you're looking at, you want to make sure that you can still be proud to say I speak French and English, because it complements you. An employer who can see you speak three or four languages will give you priority in the hiring because it demonstrates talent, capacity, initiative, and also something that they don't have. It's a plus value to have more languages because it's also an economic benefit. When you teach that to students they all say, “Yes, well done”, but they're not going to move.

[Le président, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Day, you may go ahead.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure my five minutes won't be enough time to ask everything I want to.

I'd like to point something out and shift the focus back to where it should be. We aren't here to discuss official languages. Our purpose isn't to check whether everyone in the country speaks English or French. That isn't the issue. What we are talking about is linguistic duality.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was amended in 2002, and the following provision was added:

The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are . . . to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;

Canada's official languages are English and French, not Italian or Chinese. We don't have to know both languages, but we do have to protect official language minority communities.

And that brings me to the much talked-about, Express Entry system. I'd like to hear what both of you have to say on the subject.

Earlier, we talked about temporary foreign workers. Someone said that of 10,000 applications, 100 have been made by francophones. An immigrant who comes to the country under this system has a passport or train ticket, so to speak, to speed up the immigration process. Eligible applicants have to meet requirements with respect to language—which language isn't specified—education, work experience in Canada and other factors that contribute to success in Canada.

French is the fifth most spoken language in the world. Africa and OIF member states have the biggest pool of French speakers. We know, however, that the recognition rate when it comes to African credentials isn't very high.

Is the government really making an effort to integrate francophones into communities and raise the number of immigrants? Will this program hurt linguistic duality?

[Gilles LeVasseur]

This is what's happening.

The official language minority community trying to reach immigrants, oftentimes, isn't aware they're out there because it doesn't know where to look. The temporary foreign worker program brought in a whole other population of workers who weren't able to function in French. That hurt us because our demographic weight didn't go up. We don't have a way to provide guidance and support to these people so that they can function in our society.

I'll give you a mundane example. Newcomers from Africa are very fond of co-operatives because the movement is part of their reality. Through those co-operatives comes the transition to business corporations and other entities.

The Government of Canada did away with the co-operative development initiative administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Support for the development of co-operatives no longer exists, and that support often served as a means to integrate newcomers, encouraging them to take ownership of their future and so forth. We don't have enough systems in place to guide and empower these people, and so, we lose them.

As far as temporary foreign workers are concerned, we don't know how to find them or who they are. Since they aren't necessarily able to speak both official languages, they are part of the immigration statistics, but we are lacking the demographic weight to support our communities. French speakers outside Quebec aren't winners in this equation, and that is our main struggle.

Take, for example, the bill that was introduced in Ontario before its legislative assembly wrapped up. The provincial government introduced a bill that recognized the importance of Franco-Ontarian communities in the province. The bill established a model under which associations could come together and, thanks to government support, use organizations to recruit immigrants, themselves.

Consider this. As a result, francophone asociations would have the ability to seek out newcomers, with the province's support, in order to maintain the community's demographic weight and then ensure that these people were properly integrated into society.

Let's look at Toronto, which is where most of Ontario's francophones will be in the next 20 years. The problem is that we're losing those French speakers. Toronto is such a massive city that these people are really scattered. And support structures are lacking. Employment is another consideration. People move wherever the economic need exists. The structure to help them function together is lacking. That is where we have failed.

[Robert Therrien]

I would like to add a comment about the Express Entry system. I am far from being an expert on that, because it was created quite recently. There is a learning curve.

I am a member of the Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité Canada, the network for economic development and employability. Everywhere in Canada, the members of the network have begun to look at the system.

In our opinion, the key element regarding Express Entry is the fact that we lost the Francophone Significant Benefit program about a year ago. We lost ground because this reduced the advantage we had in recruiting francophones.

We feel it is clear that employers must be at the heart of this new Express Entry system. We have to be in a position to support the employers, to raise their awareness and convince them of the value added of having francophones come to the communities. We have to help them choose francophones and invite them to come and work in Canada. The system as such does not favour francophones. They are at the same level as anyone else. Even when they provide information, they may omit indicating that French is their second or third language and that they do not speak English. Will they put that down? I don't know.

In that sense, we have some rather big challenges to meet. Perhaps there should be something directly linked to francophones in the Express Entry system.

We know that points are awarded for knowing a second official language. We could see how many people will mention it. If I remember correctly, for the second language—French in this case—about 20 points are awarded out of a possible 1,200 points. It is not significant and does not constitute an effective strategy to recruit francophones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Fine, thank you.

Mr. Daniel, you have the floor.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here.

It's an interesting question and an interesting issue, and I think you both already have the answer. The answer is that you must make it economically viable for immigrants in the francophone communities to stay there. We're finding this already. We've had numerous witnesses, for example, who have come here and told us about the young people who are leaving many of the francophone or minority communities for education or for jobs, but are not returning to their communities. Therein lies the problem.

One thing I would ask is this. Anticipating what this government is doing with respect to free trade with Europe, what are your communities doing, what are you doing to promote the economic aspects of this in such a way that you can attract people here who will do business with Europe?

This question is for both of you.

[Gilles LeVasseur]

If we look at the Ontario proportion, for example, Ontario has been developing a very strong, robust francophone school system. My two daughters go to a school called Sainte-Geneviève. It's the largest francophone primary school in Canada outside Quebec.

What you will notice is that at least a third of the parents do not speak French, but they send their kids there because they know that this is the path to the future, the path to more mobility, the path to openness to the European Union, the path to more interactions. They understand that.

The sad part is that we need to enhance the approach whereby immersion becomes not just for a certain knowledgeable, elite society but is also for the commoners, whereby it is open to many people. This is what we need to emphasize. It is why, for example, the francophone school boards in Ontario advertise in both official languages, to integrate the most people as possible into our school system. That's one way.

The other way—and this is where we need to show the economic viability.... The thing is that it takes time to get there, but, if I may speak beyond the immigration aspect, this is something I have always personally expressed: francophone Quebec corporations also have to play their part outside Quebec in promoting both official languages. I know some of you will probably hate me for what I'm saying, but there is also a duty to step up to the plate and showcase that we also have solidarity with the francophones outside Quebec.

You'll say, “Give an example”. Metro is a very profitable grocery chain; we have been asking for years why they can't put an accent on “Metro”. Banque Nationale—National Bank—where are your bilingual signs in Toronto? Desjardins....

We are together. We need that solidarity. We need to be together. They have to take the leadership with us, because if they showcase in their own institutions, when they go outside Quebec, that there is value to being bilingual, economically everybody is going to get on the bandwagon. But if they don't take the step, how can we minorities, when we don't have strong control of our own financial institutions, make the difference?

[Robert Therrien]

Let me add to that in terms of what we are doing. As a francophone network in Saskatchewan, we try to regroup because, first, we have a duty. We want to work with employers to recruit the immigrants here. There is integration—first they have to become settled and so on—but when they're at a job and starting to work, you have the whole issue about school, the whole issue about social life and everything that goes with it, including health and all that sort of thing.

It takes a whole network of people to offer those services. This is one thing we want to emphasize, that in working with employers we have a community that is ready and would like to support the integration of immigrants into the community. The employer doesn't have to worry about what goes on after those hours of work. Lifestyle at home is difficult after the hours of work—you have kids, you have spouses, and that sort of thing. They have to be integrated into society, and we as a community would like to be structured in such a way that we can offer all of those services to the immigrants coming in.

Again I speak of capacity, because the resources we have now are not conducive to being able to offer the whole spectrum of services to make sure that as a whole the immigrants are looked after and will integrate. The question of retention remains as to how well they integrate into society and your community. If they feel they don't belong, at some point they're going to want to get up and leave.

So beyond the employer, it's a question of what we do as a community. It's about the whole structure that we put in place to make sure that we can respond to the needs of the immigrants by making sure those other services are available.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, thank you.

Lastly, go ahead, Monsieur Gravelle.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses very much for being here with us today.

I would like to quote a paragraph from an article that was published in Le Voyageur, a francophone newspaper in my region of northern Ontario. The article says in substance that the last Statistics Canada census indicates that more than a million immigrants chose Canada as their new home during this five-year period, and that half of them opted for Ontario as the location to start their new life in North America. However, less than one percent of these newcomers settled north of the 46th parallel.

In this case, I am talking about northern Ontario, but I am sure the situation is about the same in all the provinces. Can you tell me how this could affect the other provinces, especially Saskatchewan and northern Ontario? Would you have any comments to make in this regard?

[Gilles LeVasseur]

Very often, economic prosperity is the big draw that leads immigrants to northern Ontario, whether it be Hearst or Timmins. I don't know if you consider North Bay a part of northern Ontario, but for Franco-Ontarians, it is not a part of the north, which we normally consider begins in Sudbury.

People have to be able to find jobs. Newcomers don't know what northern Ontario is. So they are going to go where there is an urban concentration and where their demographic group can be found, as this will be their first attachment and point of contact.

That is where we have to go and get the newcomers to settle in northern Ontario, i.e. people who can communicate in both official languages, because there is already an exodus of francophones from the north to the south. That is a problem we also have in eastern Ontario.

The problem is that there is no reception framework. When the selection is made, it is often according to criteria that do not always take duality and linguistic needs into account. So we get qualified people, but no percentages or quotas are specified. That is why I am asking that 10% of the people selected be able to communicate in both official languages, so as to insure that we can maintain demographic weight if there is mobility in the different regions.

Linguistic duality is essential for francophones and I will explain why. When a community sees its demographic weight declining, it becomes insecure. The insecurity leads to a behavioural inferiority. People withdraw and keep to themselves. That is the fundamental reaction and this has to be avoided. However, when you see that your population is growing and you see more members arriving, this gives you the confidence to keep going.

[Robert Therrien]

I don't really know the answer to that question. In Saskatchewan, the rural communities are very small. We have a total population of about 1.5 million people. Those are the last figures I have in mind. As for our rural communities, it is obvious that immigrants will go where the majority of the population resides. In the past, the immigration system allowed for this.

Today, with the new Express Entry system, things are going to change. In spite of everything, there is a concentration. There are associations of people from Burundi, the Congo, Ivory Coast and so on in our regions and communities. This is how people find each other in the communities.

I know an employee who works in the small community of Ponteix, in Saskatchewan. He was telling me that this morning a plumber who works in his region is looking for another qualified plumber because he does not want to have to continually check his work. Since he is having trouble finding someone, we are trying to see how we can help him.

In this small village of 500 people, a restaurant has just hired a Brazilian because it could not find anyone else to fill the position. Certain immigrants may be more adventurous and willing to settle in a small community.

How can we change a situation? By working with the community. The community has to be welcoming, and it is our responsibility to work with the employers and the community in this regard. It isn't just the responsibility of the employer who can offer a job. It is also the responsibility of the community to welcome and guide the individuals who are going to go to the smaller regions where there are no associations of Burundians, Ivorians or Congolese. To my mind, the important thing is to have a reception and settlement structure when newcomers arrive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Fine, thank you.

We are going to stop here since we have to discuss Ms. St-Denis' motion.

Mr. Therrien et Mr. LeVasseur, thank you for having come to testify before the committee. You can stay here if you wish, or you may leave the room. It is up to you.

Ms. St-Denis, you may present your motion.

But first, Mr. Nicholls has a point of order.

Go ahead.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see that Mr. Gourde is signalling you with his pen.

I hope the committee will not continue its work in camera. Ms. St-Denis' motion is very important since it concerns a report that contains a great deal of information. It was prepared with taxpayers' money and must be released for the general public. The opposition intends to support tabling this report. We are going to vote in favour of it and I hope the government will support us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls.

Since Ms. St-Denis has not yet tabled her motion, we cannot debate it.

Mr. Gourde, did you have a point of order?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Yes, I would like us to end the meeting in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's not a point of order. You moved a motion.

I actually had given the floor to Madame St-Denis to present her motion, so I'm going to allow her to do that. Once she has presented her motion and it's live in front of us, I will pass the floor to you and you can then move your motion.

Ms. St-Denis, can you table your motion?

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I proposed that we do a study on immigration, I did not know that a report had been prepared and completed in 2010. It was tabled in the House. However, since there were elections subsequently, it was completely forgotten.

My motion reads as follows:

That the report entitled Recruitment, Intake and Integration: What Does the Future Hold for Immigration to Official Language Minority Communities? be tabled and analyzed as part of the current study on immigration. The above report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages was adopted by the committee on November 16, 2010, and presented to the House on November 29, 2010.

However, we never obtained any response to the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

The motion is now before the committee.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Can we continue the meeting in camera, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All those in favour of going in camera?

(Motion agreed to)

We'll suspend for a minute to allow the clerk to put the committee in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]