Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Sylviane Lanthier]

Yes.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

A few weeks ago, our friends from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada told us they too wanted to hit 4% or 5%, but they could only achieve 1.2%, 1.3%, or 1.4%. What is incredible is that they have a team dedicated to that. So I do not understand how that is possible.

How do you think we can make sure we achieve that 5% target? What would you put in place? What would be the best way to hit that target?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

All our recommendations are tools to achieve that target.

We also realize that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada's programs and methods are in a way being fragmented. The department must find a way to determine how it can concentrate its services and develop tools that produce real results.

There are ways of doing that, particularly through express entry and Mobilité francophone. We can put all kinds of things in place.

You can look at our recommendations; they are very specific. I think they will help you achieve the target. Otherwise, if we keep on this way, we will not hit the target. We are not on our way to achieving it.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

I really like that comment. I think it is an essential point in this discussion.

You mentioned allocated funding, and that interests me. You said that the money was allocated to anglophone organizations to provide French-language services and that francophones had to contact those organizations in order to take part in and benefit from them. Unless I am mistaken, the FCFA is not seeking funding, but it is asking that the funding allocation be targeted more effectively and that the funding be transmitted to organizations that will guarantee success.

Here is a specific example. A few months ago, some representatives of the provincial preschool resource centre in Nova Scotia met with me to say it was the only francophone organization in the country not receiving money for family resources. They also told me that, over the previous three years, they had obtained money through an anglophone organization that had allocated the funds to them. The anglophones therefore control the playground. The francophone community is not allowed to get established.

I very much enjoyed the information you cited. We must take charge of ourselves and give ourselves the power and authority we need to manage our files. That does not mean that we will receive a bag of money and that the community will decide how to manage it. However, under the structure in place, the federal government can choose the programs that will meet needs. In the example I cited, the money is going to an anglophone organization in Nova Scotia that allocates 20% to administration and submits the remaining 80%. This year, the francophone organization did not even get a cent.

Perhaps we should work on finding solutions to these problems. That is a very significant example.

I will close by discussing Destination Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Mrs. Lanthier, do you have a brief comment to make on that subject?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

The question of "by" and "for" is very important for us.

The Department of Immigration obviously handles immigration. That is its field; that is what it does, and we understand that. Our organization does not just deal with immigration. However, it is takes an interest in the question in order to contribute to the development of francophone communities. We take in people because they want to contribute to and live in our communities. This is a society-building project, which is really very different.

When we talk to the immigration department about a similar project for society, its officials tell us they are concerned about immigration issues. Consequently, we have to make them understand and work with us so that this tool, which is immigration, is used to develop communities and a project for society. This falls somewhat outside their usual role, and I understand that. However, if we are unable to break that impasse and make it so the department becomes a support in achieving that objective, then we will go round in circles and wind up with the figures we expect and our percentages will not increase.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

We are going to put that in bold letters.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before putting my questions to Mrs. Lanthier, I want to inform the committee that I have submitted the following notice of motion to the clerk:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the Honourable Judy Foote, as soon as possible so that she can present and explain the government’s official response to the Committee’s second report entitled, Study of the Translation Bureau, and that this meeting be televised.

If I have correctly understood, the motion will be debated next Thursday.

I would like to go back to Mrs. Lanthier on the subject of immigration.

I am a bit pessimistic about the situation of francophone immigration in our official language minority communities. It seems we are failing everywhere except in Alberta. The targets are being achieved in that province, but they are having trouble doing so in the other provinces. If I understand correctly, it is really hard, and I am pleased that you have presented some clear, precise and important recommendations on the subject.

I would like to go back to the "by" and the "for". You explained very clearly that there is not just immigration, but also integration, helping people enter the labour market and retaining them in our communities. Then we have to lead youth from early childhood to day care so that later on they can continue living in our communities.

You have submitted two main demands or recommendations. You had developed them the first time I met you in committee. They involved indexing next year's roadmap amounts and releasing the amounts that have not yet been invested in our communities. If I correctly understand it, those amounts have been invested, but not necessarily in our communities, in immigration, for example, in what is called the "by" and the "for". Would you add a comment on that subject?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

That is exactly it.

With respect to the roadmap, we knew that the social development initiative envelope had not been entirely distributed. Now that is done.

One of the problems with francophone immigration is the "by" and the "for". In other words, in some provinces, we see anglophone organizations that have money to provide French-language services. We feel that is inconsistent with the spirit of the roadmap. The spirit of the roadmap is to help develop the francophone communities and to support implementation of the Official Languages Act in the francophone communities. It is not at all the same thing when you give money to anglophone organizations to provide French-language services. In that sense, our organization is repeating that it is important for this investment to be used to develop our francophone communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mrs. Lanthier.

Mr. Vandal, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see three immigration components: recruitment, intake, and integration.

I know that Canada is a very big country. Which of those three components currently covers the communities you represent? In what component are your communities strongest and weakest? Is it recruitment, intake, or integration?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

I have a map with me that I could leave with you. It shows the situation province by province, that is to say the places where services are provided and those where they are lacking. I think it varies from province to province. We see there is no continuum of service in any province. Some provinces are better off than others. For example, Manitoba compares well with other provinces, particularly with regard to refugees. Manitoba is the only province accredited to take in refugees. That varies in the other provinces.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Does it depend on relations with the provincial government?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

It may depend on relations with the provincial government. It also depends on the way the IRCC behaves with the organizations in that province. There are variations in that behaviour.

We say there should be a continuum of service in each of the provinces because, if one step is missing, then nothing works. All the steps are important.

If the committee wants to look at this province by province and see where the deficiencies are, that is possible. We can provide you with that information.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

It would be good if you could send it to us.

Can you tell us a little about experiences with Syrian refugees across Canada?

[Sylviane Lanthier]

As I told you, only one province really has an organization accredited to work with Syrian refugees, and that is Manitoba, which I think has taken in more than 300 francophone refugees. They are directed to francophone communities, that is schools and so on. When the federal government launched this initiative, communities across the country pulled up their socks and really wanted to help welcome the refugees. However, the communities in each of the provinces and territories are not necessarily equipped to do so. That limits what they can do.

We also realize we have refugee-welcoming traditions that are older than the Syrian refugee situation. We also take in refugees from other countries. It would be good for us to be better equipped in each of the provinces and territories so that we could successfully integrate refugees when they arrive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Lanthier.

Thank you, Mr. Vandal.

That brings this part of our meeting with the FCFA to an end. On behalf of committee members, I would like to thank Mrs. Lanthier for this excellent presentation.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Lanthier, for the insight you have brought to our committee.

[Sylviane Lanthier]

It was my pleasure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We will suspend now for a few minutes before hearing from the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We are resuming our study of the roadmap and immigration in the francophone minority communities.

In the second hour, we are pleased to have Marie-Josée Groulx, Francophone Initiatives Team Leader at the New Brunswick Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour.

Welcome to our committee, Mrs. Groulx.

First, we will give you five to 10 minutes to talk about the roadmap and the plan we are considering. Then there will be a period of questions and comments. Second, we would like to hear what you have to say about francophone immigration, and we will proceed in the same way.

You may begin on the first subject, the roadmap and action plan.

[Marie-Josée Groulx, Francophone Initiatives Team Leader, New Brunswick Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone.

First, I should note that I am here as an official from the Department of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour and that I am, of course, not speaking on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick. Since I am an official, please bear in mind that I am operating within an established framework, as Mrs. Lanthier mentioned earlier. It is difficult for me to think outside that framework, but I will do my best.

First of all, I will speak about the roadmap.

Thank you for inviting me to speak today about the impact the roadmap has had on official languages in the minority communities, more particularly on New Brunswick and francophone immigration.

New Brunswick, like several other Canadian provinces, is facing a sizable demographic challenge. With an aging population, youth migration greater than that observed in other provinces, francophone migration to other provinces, and a high unemployment rate, together with labour shortages in certain rural regions and employment sectors, our province must acquire tools with which it can try to address the situation and increase its population, while striving to maintain the linguistic balance that is a very special part of New Brunswick.

As you know, New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada. One-third of its population have French as their first language, while the remaining two-thirds have English. When you think of it, New Brunswick is in fact a microcosm of Canada.

New Brunswick passed the New Brunswick Official Languages Act in 1969 to recognize the equal status of its two linguistic communities. That act was repealed in 2002 and replaced with the Official Languages Act. Although it presents special challenges, that status is a social and cultural asset and a resource for our province to an even greater degree. Successive governments over the years have remained engaged in promoting the vitality of the two official language communities in New Brunswick.

The province also wants to continue building the privileged relationship it enjoys with Canada in the area of official languages so that it can continue improving its services to the public in both official languages and establish structural initiatives that can help achieve true equality between its two linguistic communities.

We hope the federal government will continue supporting the provinces through intergovernmental service delivery agreements, while acknowledging New Brunswick's specific status as the only officially bilingual province. New Brunswick's priority service sectors are literacy, early childhood, youth, services to seniors, health, and well-being.

The next federal official languages strategy should continue to focus on education, support for francophone immigration, health, justice, economic development, and development of the language sector. Immigration to official language minority communities was included in the last two roadmaps and is still a priority issue for the vitality of those communities.

Since my experience is mainly in the immigration field, in my presentation this morning, I will outline the impact the last two roadmaps have had on francophone immigration in New Brunswick.

The Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 provided that support for francophone immigration was a priority. New Brunswick greatly benefited from that first roadmap in the area of francophone immigration as a result of a record $10 million federal government investment over five years, $2 million a year.

With that investment, New Brunswick made serious advances in francophone immigration, in the areas of promotion, recruitment, and settlement, as well as the retention of French-speaking immigrants. As a result of that financial support, New Brunswick has managed to establish itself in the francophone immigration sector, to make potential francophone immigrants realize that there are indeed francophone communities outside Quebec, and to promote the benefits of an officially bilingual province.

This has enabled us to create settlement centres for newcomers in francophone rural regions and to provide French-language services in previously established centres. We have also supported certain activities of New Brunswick's francophone immigration network and others designed to promote the benefits of francophone immigration to New Brunswick. Last but not least, it has helped us explore less traditional source markets.

The Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018 has established the following two priority sectors in immigration: language training for economic immigrants and immigration to official language minority communities, including support for francophone immigration to New Brunswick.

Although the second roadmap also designates francophone immigration as a priority, New Brunswick was granted $4 million for its French-language intake and settlement services, which represents a 60% cut from the amount granted under the previous roadmap and a reduction of activities funded by the federal government to promote francophone immigration to New Brunswick.

New Brunswick has tried to offset its revenue shortfall but, given the difficult financial situation, has been unable to restore funding for immigration to the level of the first roadmap.

According to the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018, 170 new service points have been created for francophone immigrants in Canadian cities since 2008. Thanks in large part to funding under the first roadmap, New Brunswick has 13 service points for newcomers to the province as a whole, nine of which provide bilingual or French-language services to those newcomers.

We are definitely proud to provide these services across the province, but, as a result of federal funding cuts under the roadmap 2013-2018, three of the nine centres providing French-language services no longer receive federal funding and are funded entirely by the province. It should be noted that those three centres are located in rural areas.

I am speaking to you today on behalf of of a single province. I also recognize that New Brunswick represents only a small percentage of the population of the Canadian francophonie, but its status as an officially bilingual province makes it a unique province whose unique challenges and needs will have to be taken into account in developing the next roadmap.

I will focus more on immigration in the francophone minority communities in my second presentation. As I represent New Brunswick, please feel free to ask me questions in the language of your choice, English or French.

It's your choice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much for your presentation, Mrs. Groulx.

We will immediately go to the period of questions, starting with Mrs. Boucher, who is eager to ask you questions.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it is Mr. Généreux who should speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

All right.

Mr. Généreux, we are listening.