Evidence of meeting #21 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was immigration.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
So this is about making the title of the study “immigration in official language minority communities”.
Do you agree with that?
9:30 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I am not really an expert on immigration rules and laws, but I think that Quebec has its own rules and laws pertaining to immigration. To my knowledge, it is actually Quebec, and not the federal government, that manages its immigration. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Samson's concern has more to do with francophone communities outside Quebec.
So I am wondering what Mr. Samson's objective was when he suggested this study and how it is relevant. It's just something I'm wondering about.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
In order to continue with other members, I have a second paragraph to read to you as part of those same comments: “The committee seems to want to invite witnesses without having even made a statement explaining [or] specifying the purpose of the study.” The witnesses are wondering what our goal is and what we are looking for.
Is there a way to specify, when we ask witnesses to appear before us, what we want to know when it comes to immigration? That is the second statement I wanted to share with you.
Ms. Boucher, go ahead.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I want to understand properly. In other committees, when we would send witnesses invitations to appear in the past, we would not provide explanations. Let's take for example the Réseau de soutien à l'immigration francophone de l'Est de l'Ontario. It has to do with immigration; we are not inviting them for a study on something else.
I'm looking at the list, at the end, and I would like to know why the witnesses we have suggested have not been retained, whether we are talking about my suggestions or Mr. Samson's. I would like to know why the witnesses we suggested have not been retained.
9:30 a.m.
Lucie Lecomte Committee Researcher
When the committee first looked at the list, you will remember that a major discussion took place. You prioritized witnesses and categorized them as follows: national, provincial and individual. The list is really just for the committee's needs. I made it off the top of my head yesterday, just to reorganize the work. Perhaps I used the term “not retained” incorrectly. In reality, those names were placed second. That is the explanation behind the list.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Okay. That's all I wanted to know.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I was just asking for clarifications because I did not understand.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Ms. Boucher's memory is good. I personally did not notice that some of the names I provided last time were missing. She is forcing me to pay extra attention to this. That was indeed the categorization we had agreed on.
I would like to comment on the issue of immigration.
Refugees and immigrants have arrived in the country. We created strategies to attract as many immigrants as possible, and that's great. Our country needs it, especially the province of Nova Scotia. I know that Quebec has its own rules. For over 20 years, Quebec has had the authority to deal with immigration on its territory. That's not what I am worried about.
We have the responsibility to ensure that francophone communities outside Quebec don't end up in more of a minority situation because immigrants cannot communicate or work in French.
When the representatives of those organizations and associations come before the committee, I think it essential for them to talk to us about the consequences of a shortage or an addition of francophone immigrants in their communities or organizations.
We are talking about inviting representatives of the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones. Those people will definitely clearly express the need to ensure that francophones, Acadians and others who arrive integrate into schools and communities. This is about the vitality and sustainability of communities. We have a responsibility in that regard. Given that those organizations are on the ground, they can give us an overview of the situation and tell us how we can use that information to avoid missing the boat if we do not act quickly.
Our minister has already considered strategies to facilitate things, but those witnesses could identify the dangers involved very clearly. They could also propose solutions to help us develop our action plan.
When we call those associations' representatives, we should ask them to talk to us about the importance of francophone immigration. That will certainly help them dig deeper and provide us with an overview of what could happen on the ground based on our way of handling the issue or our recommendations.
Those are my thoughts on the issue.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with my colleague Mr. Samson.
Mr. Choquette, you talked about the uniqueness of immigration in Quebec. The list of witnesses actually includes the Quebec ministère de l'Immigration, de la Diversité et de l'Inclusion. We will put questions to that department's representatives to understand the peculiarity of immigration in Quebec. We talked about that peculiarity when the witness list was being made. That department's representatives should come before the committee. I know that immigration has a tremendous impact on the francophone minority in Canada, but we have to understand the uniqueness of immigration in Quebec.
I just wanted to follow up on the comments of my colleague Mr. Choquette.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I share the opinions that have been voiced so far. If the witnesses want to know why they are invited to testify, we can tell them that we are studying immigrant integration.
I also think that a distinction should be made between what is happening in Quebec and what is happening in the rest of Canada. That's really important. Quebec's reality is different, as our province is francophone. A number of immigrants have already left Quebec because the language made it difficult for them to integrate. That is a reality.
A distinction really must be made. Minority communities elsewhere in Canada—be it in the Maritimes or in western Canada—are experiencing totally different things from what is happening in Quebec.
I am looking forward to moving on to the list of witnesses. The more witnesses we have, the better it will be. I have said this before, and I repeat that we have to find witnesses among ordinary people, immigrants who have just arrived in Canada, who settled in one province or in a specific region, but who then decided to move elsewhere. It would be nice if we could find them and hear what their experience has been in order to determine what needs have not been properly addressed. We can have experts from governments testify, but hearing what ordinary people have to say is really important. That is what we need to hear in order to make relevant recommendations.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I completely agree with Mr. Généreux. I will tell you about something that happened in my riding. Syrian immigrants have left our region, one for Alberta and the other one for Ontario, and for a good reason—a lack of structures. We were lacking housing and interpreters. The immigrants do not necessarily speak French or English. Often, their language is Arabic. It is pretty difficult to find someone who speaks Arabic in Saint-Irénée.
People who arrived here were telling me about all those things. I told myself that our committee was studying that very issue. The government makes decisions, as do all governments, but there are so many things to consider that, unwittingly, the essential considerations are sometimes lacking. For instance, how will we integrate the immigrants into schools and how will we house them?
There were no structures in place, in my riding or in the Quebec City region. I heard my colleagues say—and not only among the Conservatives—that Ontario had the same problem. Housing and interpreters are often lacking.
I also think it would be important to hear from ordinary people. The major principles are fine, but it would be nice for them to come tell us how they are integrating.
Those people come here out of necessity. We are prepared to integrate them, but are they also willing to do so?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Allow me to propose something.
If we want to complete the study on immigration and influence the roadmap, we will have to have finished hearing from witnesses by the end of October. In fact, if we want to spend November gathering our ideas, finalizing the report and making sure we are ready by November 30, we will have to have finished hearing testimony on the roadmap and the immigration file by the end of October.
That means we have eight meetings left to hear from witnesses. We could review the witness list prepared by the analysts and try to familiarize ourselves with it. Afterwards, we could decide how to proceed from now until the end of October. Do you want to proceed this way?
If so, we could take a break of two or three minutes and then continue our meeting with the witness list. Are you favourable to that?
Mr. Samson, the floor is yours.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
I would like to say something.
We have to be careful. I really like to know what is happening on the ground. That said, that may cover 80% of the study's objectives.
It's good to gather information from people who are going through immigration situations on the ground, but the issue at hand is bigger than that. The objective is to establish a government strategy to ensure francophone immigration to francophone minority communities. That is what I am trying to achieve—the government establishing a strategy to attract francophone immigrants to francophone minority regions in Canada. Otherwise, we are not close to reaching our goal.
I understand that, no matter what, we have the responsibility to ensure that everything goes well for immigrants. Understanding how we treat immigrants when they arrive is a very important issue. That being said, it may not be the most important issue of this study.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
It is Mr. Arseneault's turn, and then Mr. Lefebvre will have the floor.
