Official Languages Committee on Sept. 20th, 2016

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

We are all saying pretty much the same thing. I think that our main concern would be to determine what the national immigration strategy should be and how it would work at the federal level. Even though there are immigration laws specific to Quebec, New Brunswick or other provinces, the process starts with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. So what is the strategy?

I see the federal government among the witnesses invited to appear before the committee on this issue. But I don't want to just have a witness for a half an hour, as I have a thousand and one questions to ask.

First, is the national strategy regulated? Is the regulation informal or formal? Is linguistic duality being respected, and are the proportions of francophones and anglophones in Canada being maintained? Off the top of my head, these are the kinds of questions I would like to ask.

Second, legally speaking, how is the burden of selecting immigrants transferred to the provinces? Once an immigration application is filed and immigrants enter Canada, they are partially looked after by the provinces. I am very ignorant of the process, but it is important to understand the legal aspect of the issue.

The federal government is being named as a witness, but in my opinion, a number of representatives from various services and departments related to immigration should appear to represent the federal government. The financial aspect is a factor, but off the top of my head, my first question is the following: does our government have a national strategy to meet the quotas of francophone and anglophone immigrants based on the distribution of francophones and anglophones in Canada? As Mr. Généreux said, we know full well that Quebec is the province with the most francophones in the country. However, there are francophone strongholds across Canada experiencing the same stress and the same concerns, be it in Acadia, among the Franco-Manitobans, among the Franco-Ontarians or elsewhere. It's just as important for us in the rest of Canada.

So here is my first question: are the francophone and anglophone quotas being met in terms of the country's linguistic proportions when immigrants are accepted or when Canada is being promoted?

My second question would be, what are the immigrant selection criteria in Canada? Are the immigrants qualified individuals, people who are already trained? I'm not taking about Syrians or other refugees, as they fall into the humanitarian category. I'm talking about immigrant selection in general. How does the process work? I want to know all that. Perhaps the language of the immigrant arriving in the country influences decisions. English is, of course, often the language of business.

I am also concerned over the legal aspect.

That being said, what I would like to emphasize is the need to have the federal government appear as a witness before the committee, but not only for an hour. I think our discussion with just federal government representatives would take up an entire meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Before we continue the discussion, I would like to clarify something. The analyst is asking me whether we wish to publish two reports—one on immigration and another one on the roadmap. If you don't agree, say so, but I just answered that we will produce a comprehensive report encompassing immigration and the roadmap, rather than two reports.

Do you agree with that?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

The immigration portion of the comprehensive report will be significant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Exactly. This way, we will have one report to draft.

Mr. Lefebvre, go ahead.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague René Arseneault. I think we need to know a bit about what the rules of the game are right now, where we are at, what the rules are in terms of immigration in linguistic minority settings in Canada, what the strategy is, what the statistics are over the past 10 years, and what the challenges we still have to address are.

Immigration came up a lot just in the comments we have heard around the table. We have to ensure that we are in fact talking about immigration in linguistic minority settings. I think this is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Some people in my riding are from Africa. Of course, they are francophones who came to live in a minority region. They have experienced difficulties, as well as successes.

I agree that we want to call witnesses who will share with us their experience on the ground. At the same time, we have to make sure that, when we talk about the situation with immigration, it has to do with minority communities. That is what the work of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Okay, Mr. Lefebvre.

It's your turn, Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That is why I said earlier that it was important to treat Quebec differently, but equally.

A bit earlier, Mr. Samson said that, when immigrants arrive, they stay in the major cities. They do not really go to the regions. They don't really land in the regions where francophones are in the minority.

The will of the provinces also plays a role. That is why the provinces are also concerned. I agree with Mr. Arseneault. It is the same thing for Quebec. Immigrants all arrive in Montreal. If they spend a year there, I challenge you to get them out of the city, as they won't leave.

Immigrants are not being sent to the regions. They all arrive in one place and remain there, in their community. That has everything to do with the language, but also with the situations of the provinces and with how they try to get the newcomers interested in settling down more in the regions or in areas where francophones are in the minority.

The situation is very complex. It will be very interesting to hear from the witnesses when they appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

But Charlevoix is so beautiful!

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Yes, but if you don't speak French and only speak Arabic, you can't order a poutine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Ms. Lapointe, go ahead.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would like to make a little joke after what Mr. Généreux said. If they get into Montreal, they can no longer get out because of the construction.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

If they manage to get into Montreal, they never leave. That was my comment. I have often tried to get into Montreal and I swear that it's impossible to get out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I suggest that we take a break.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would like to finish my comment. That was just a joke. I have something more serious to say.

An important distinction must be made between immigrants and refugees. I suggest that we bring in federal officials on Thursday. I think they are pretty available. They could come on Thursday and answer our questions, as well as those my colleague Mr. Arseneault has brought up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We are going to suspend our proceedings for a few minutes.

When we return, let's remember what Ms. Lapointe just said, which is that we could hear some federal public servants next Thursday. We will complete the list after the break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We will resume our meeting.

We were defining our priorities according to the following guidelines. We have until the end of October to hear witnesses on the immigration aspect of the roadmap. Earlier, we concluded by saying that we should perhaps begin with federal government representatives.

Does anyone wish to discuss the witness list at this time? If I remember correctly, we examined this list a few times already. We may also add names to the list; that is why we are here.

We are going to take the next 45 minutes to prepare an agenda that should take us to the end of October, as we are reserving the month of November for the report.

Thursday we will hear the first witnesses during the first hour, and Air Canada during the second. Then we will start to fill out our schedule for the following weeks.

I yield the floor to Mr. Lefebvre.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I would like us to discuss the order, or suggestions of a general, national or federal nature.

As you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I suggest that we begin with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This will allow the committee to get a status report on the situation and obtain information.

The list also mentions the National Community Table on Francophone Immigration. It would be interesting to hear these people as well, because they represent a national organization.

The FCFA could also enlighten us on this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Don't go too fast.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I'm suggesting a list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We have to be able to keep up with you. We are trying to fill our schedule on a priority basis, one day after another. That does not mean that the committee cannot be flexible. We are just trying to give a heads up to those who are going to contact the witnesses.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I mentioned Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada at the federal level. Then I suggested the National Community Table on Francophone Immigration, which is the fourth organization on the list you gave us.

Do you see it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Those are the four organizations under “federal government”.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

No, on Thursday we only have the first group, from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

[The Clerk]

Thursday you will be hearing representatives from Refugees and Citizenship Canada, if they are available.