Official Languages Committee on April 4th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 14 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person or using the Zoom application.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities, to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy.

I thank members in advance for their cooperation.

A reminder to everyone, when speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When those participating virtually are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me immediately. We may need to suspend for a few minutes as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(f) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is resuming its study on francophone immigration to Canada and Quebec.

I would now like to welcome the witnesses.

For a second time, we have Anne Meggs, former Director of Planning and Accountability, Ministère de l’Immigration de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Gouvernement du Québec.

We also have Bernard Tremblay, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Fédération des cégeps, who is appearing for the first time.

Witnesses, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Then we will go to a period of questions from all members of the committee according to their political parties.

That being said, the floor is yours, Ms. Meggs. You have five minutes.

[Anne Meggs, Former Director of Planning and Accountability, Ministère de l’Immigration de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Gouvernement du Québec, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me to speak to you on the critical issue of francophone immigration.

I say this issue is "critical" because the number of people who use a language in their everyday lives determines its vitality and survival. In the case of French, that number is declining, in both Quebec and the rest of Canada. Let's be clear. If the survival of French is not assured in Quebec, then its continued existence outside Quebec is an illusion.

What factors influence the adoption of French in the everyday lives of allophone immigrants?

A study commissioned by the Office québécois de la langue française and published in 2013 analyzed the entire linguistic pathway of an allophone immigrant, from birth and country of origin to sometime after arrival in Canada, and even into the second generation.

The findings were very clear. Among adult allophones, the use of French in the home is associated with much more frequent use of French in public than if it is not spoken at home. This process is called "language transfer".

The younger children are on arrival, the greater the language transfer. Furthermore, 62% of survey respondents had transferred to French before arriving in Canada, while 38% did so afterward.

Transfers that occur after arrival happen quickly, half of them in the first five years.

Country of origin is another important factor: 76% of allophones from cultures that have some affinity with French use that language in their everyday lives, whereas barely 25% of those from English-friendly cultures do so.

Lastly, attendance at French-language schools is associated with everyday use of that language. This observation applies to primary, secondary and post-secondary education.

However, as three quarters of permanent immigrants to Quebec and nearly all temporary immigrants are of adult age, the vast majority of immigrants have thus been educated in French before arrival.

These findings argue in favour of measures to take in, where possible, immigrants who have already chosen French before they arrive, including children and persons from cultures that have an affinity with French, who have completed their studies in French and who already speak French at home. For people who do not yet speak French at home, it is vital that those of school age study in French and that adults be immersed in the French language and culture as soon as possible. That's difficult enough in Quebec and virtually unimaginable outside it.

At least one third of permanent immigrants fall into the family and humanitarian classes. There is no language requirement in those classes. Consequently, we must rely on economic immigrants. However, the vast majority of those admitted in that class are granted a temporary stay of a few years in Canada to study or work. Required language knowledge is determined by the language of the program of study or by the employer.

The preferred pathway is to earn a diploma or degree in Canada and then to work for as long as it takes to become eligible for permanent residence. The Canadian government facilitates this pathway by providing open work permits for graduates and their spouses.

Canada seems to have understood that temporary immigration has become the gateway, and it has introduced a type of open work permit for employers outside Quebec who recruit francophones from outside Canada. Why are Quebec employers deprived of that same privilege?

Furthermore, last year, Canada granted permanent residence outside Quebec to at least 5,000 foreign francophone students under a public-interest policy that appears to be tailor-made to draw young immigrants who have graduated in Quebec away from that province.

The high rate of refusal of study permits for immigrants entering francophone educational institutions in and outside Quebec is entirely counterintuitive. We have demonstrated how important age and academic trajectory in French are for the survival of the language. This refusal rate is also particularly unacceptable in the Quebec context. The Canada-Quebec Accord provides that Quebec may grant its consent to admitted foreign students. Those students are then admitted to programs accredited and designated by Quebec's Ministère de l'Éducation. The federal government has no right then to deny them a study permit.

If the Canadian government is serious about protecting the French language across Canada, it is essential that it encourage and facilitate the entry, across the country, of foreign immigrants who already use French, particularly in a temporary migration context.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Meggs. You used exactly five minutes.

Mr. Tremblay, you have five minutes.

[Bernard Tremblay, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fédération des cégeps]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for inviting me.

I am Bernard Tremblay, president and chief executive officer of the Fédération des cégeps. I represent the 48 CEGEPs in Quebec, 43 of which are francophone institutions. The total number of CEGEP students is approximately 195,000. More than 7,000 international students are enrolled in CEGEPs, nearly 40% of whom come from France and 30% from francophone Africa. Admitting these francophone students helps offset the effects of demographic decline and maintain study programs that otherwise would have to be shut down for insufficient enrolment.

International students thus contribute to the richness of our social fabric. By their presence alone, they foster an open attitude toward the world, to other cultures and to a diverse range of realities for all the members of their new community. Those who remain in Quebec after completing their studies enter the labour market and form a new cohort that helps offset the glaring labour shortage in Quebec and elsewhere.

By enabling these francophone students to carve out a place in Quebec, we promote a healthy pattern of French-language settlement in our province. It is therefore understandable why the CEGEPs, which have always been significant drivers of social and economic progress, have made international recruitment a priority. However, immigration procedures have become a major obstacle to attracting and retaining those who choose to study at our institutions.

I would remind you that, last February, the Fédération des cégeps informed the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration of the existing barriers to recruiting foreign francophone students in our network. The data that we shared at that time are appended to my written submission.

More specifically, the CEGEPs have observed that the situation of students from francophone Africa is particularly difficult. The study permit refusal rate for these applicants is very high and has been rising for several years. Between 2015 and 2020, refusal rates for the top 13 francophone African countries reached 80%. No other region in the world has comparable rates. They are so exceptional one can only conclude that applicants are being treated unfavourably based on their country of origin and the educational level to which they aspire. Refusal rates for those countries are distinctly higher when candidates are admitted to a CEGEP but decline for university graduate level studies.

The problem we are outlining for you today afflicts CEGEPs and the communities they serve. It is related to the federal government's jurisdiction over immigration and affects all francophone communities across Canada. Several questions arise. Is this situation the result of a systemic view of the immigration process involving francophone African countries or of ignorance of the francophone education system? Could it be the result of biased handling of study permits and operational issues in the immigration system? Whatever the case may be, this is a situation that cannot continue. As we have seen, it is having an impact on the regions and the programs of study offered at the CEGEPs and on the labour market, our social life, the vitality of French and especially the lives of the students admitted to our institutions. It also affects Canada's reputation as an educational destination and the entire Canadian francophone community.

The barriers to migration impede both the recruitment and retention of CEGEP graduates. Most graduates who wish to settle in Quebec apply to the Quebec experience program for workers and Quebec graduates, a program that is designed to retain skilled labour integrated in our society.

As soon as they are selected by Quebec, these graduates apply for permanent residence, but it takes more than two years for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, to process their applications. This is an incomprehensible situation, especially when you know that it takes only six months to process the applications of skilled workers selected by the federal government in provinces that have access to express entry. These long processing times for skilled workers from Quebec considerably undermine the integration and retention of these individuals and, once again, have a major impact on the reputations of Quebec and Canada.

Consequently, I have three demands for the committee.

First, I believe that study permit applications must be processed in a fair, just and transparent manner for all individuals, regardless of their country, language or the level of training they seek in coming to Canada.

Second, I believe the committee must ensure that IRCC's initiatives to promote francophone immigration do not encourage a spirit of competition among francophone communities in Quebec, Manitoba or the Atlantic provinces. It would be counterproductive to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Lastly, every program implemented to attract francophones to Canada must be administered fairly and in such a way as to increase the total number of francophones across the country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Tremblay

You exceeded your allotted time by a few seconds, but that's not a problem.

We will begin the first round of questions. Each of the parties will have the floor for six minutes.

We will begin with Bernard Généreux.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd actually like to know how you intend to allot time today, considering that we've had votes in the House of Commons. Are we taking a full hour for this first part and shortening the second? Are we allotting time equally?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

First, I will consult Madam Clerk to determine whether the technical team and our colleagues are available to stay on longer.

What you think, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Ariane Gagné-Frégeau]

We can continue the meeting for a total of two hours, until 10 minutes after the scheduled time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

So we can sit for two hours.

Mr. Godin, that answers your question. Everyone is available to stay for two one-hour sessions for a total of two hours.

Without further ado, we will go to the period of questions, during which each party will have six minutes. We will begin with Bernard Généreux.

Mr. Généreux, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks as well to the witnesses.

Mr. Tremblay, I'd say that the CEGEPs in the regions are a dominant force in Quebec, since many of our 48 CEGEPs are located in the regions. You briefly referred to that in your testimony.

Whether in Gaspésie, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup with the Cégep de La Pocatière and Cégep de Rivière-du-Loup and its extension in Montmagny, these CEGEPs support and enhance the vitality of our regional communities.

Do your demands, including the three recommendations that you made to the committee concerning fairness and two other elements, also apply to regional CEGEPs?

Is there a difference in your approach between CEGEPs in rural areas and those in urban areas?

[Bernard Tremblay]

We know that, here in Quebec, we make a special effort, as you mentioned, to support efforts to attract international students to our regions.

I would say that the problem we mentioned is identical across the entire college system. Although we have more international students in our regions, I would remind you that having an adequate number of students to support the vitality of certain cohorts in certain programs is also an issue for some urban CEGEPs.

In the present circumstances, having fair processing measures for all students applying for pathways to Quebec, whether it be for regional or urban CEGEPs, is a matter of justice.

Once again, the idea is also to ensure the reputation of Quebec's CEGEPs and those of all Canadian post-secondary educational institutions. If, for example, the recruitment done in francophone Africa is perceived as a failure, that will reflect on the country as a whole.

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

Mr. Tremblay, you mentioned fairness for all the countries where we go to recruit students. You talked about unfavourable treatment for certain countries, particularly those in Africa. Would you go so far as to say that, to a certain degree, it amounts to discrimination?

[Bernard Tremblay]

I don't want to impugn anyone's motives, but the results speak for themselves. We see a clear difference between the way files from certain African countries and those from the rest of the world are handled. Consequently, we think that IRCC should analyze the situation, and measures should definitely be taken to correct that difference.

I would emphasize that this difference is also related to certain countries and the college level sought. It won't come as a surprise to you that the education system in Quebec is different as a result of its college component. So you can imagine why that characteristic of Quebec is poorly understood by certain immigration officers and why it can also result in biases in the processing of applications.

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

Ms. Meggs, Mr. Tremblay referred to Canada's reputation. Given your vast experience and impressive pedigree, how do you view Canada's reputation in the world when it comes to choosing a host country in which to study or work?

[Anne Meggs]

Canada is one of the top three countries attracting the most foreign students. Many come from India and China, which is normal.

As regards study permit applications from Africa, I've previously heard IRCC respond that the discrepancy isn't that great between anglophones and francophones. I don't think that answers the question about discrimination.

Furthermore, many refusals are explained away by saying that applicants didn't demonstrate that they would leave the country after completing their studies. That's absurd given that the federal government's clear policy for many years now has been to try to retain foreign students. It makes no sense.

Based on what I've read about rates of immigration to English and French Canada, African immigration is definitely mostly francophone, but Nigerians have also had problems. That seems to be related to the introduction of the new electronic processing system.

I still think the federal government has some work to do to explain the situation.

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

Do you see any specific discrimination here against African countries?

[Anne Meggs]

As Mr. Tremblay said, the result is discrimination.

Is it intentional? I've worked in the federal government, and I don't believe public servants necessarily have prejudices. Knowing government operations, I suspect the problem is more on the process side.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Meggs. Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

We now go to Francis Drouin, who will ask the next questions.

Go ahead for six minutes, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses who are before us today.

My questions are for both witnesses.

Mr. Tremblay, I'm looking at the appendix you submitted to the committee. The rate of refusal of applications from francophone countries is obviously quite high.

Have you spoken with the departments to determine why the refusal rate is so high? Have you been given any explanation in general or related to the CEGEPs you represent?

Is the problem more related to finances, security or something else?

[Bernard Tremblay]

Yes, we've had some discussions, and the answers sometimes surprise us. Ms. Meggs just cited some examples of reasons for refusal, such as failing to show a willingness to leave the country at the end of one's studies, whereas we're trying to retain these students.

In some cases, Quebec government scholarship holders are told they haven't shown that they're financially capable of studying in Canada. The responses we get are a bit surprising.

Ms. Meggs said that coincided with the introduction of the Chinook system, but we've experienced those kinds of problems before. Moreover, the system definitely hasn't facilitated or improved matters.

It's hard to find valid reasons for refusal. We think it should also be noted that there are differences depending on processing centres.

The answers we get are quite hard to understand and aren't very clear. They suggest that there's been no in-depth system analysis. However, what we want is that they take the trouble to look at all the steps.

As Ms. Meggs said, even if people have all the good will in the world, the statistics speak for themselves and reveal an unacceptable result.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Have you discussed that with your members as well?

Is it a matter of access to available services? For example, if they need to undergo biometric tests or security tests, they have to submit that documentation.

Is there a problem of access for people from certain countries who want to come and study in Canada or Quebec?

[Bernard Tremblay]

Yes, access to data from the centres processing biometric information was a problem during the pandemic, and even before then. We know there are places where data's hard to access. So, yes, there's a problem for us in that area in certain respects.

Once again, some applicants have received refusals. It should be borne in mind that these applications were accepted by CEGEPs and thus underwent an analysis. I understand that we aren't immigration officers, but there has nevertheless been an analysis of students' records before they're admitted to study here. So it's a surprise to see refusals and especially a certain opaqueness when the process is undertaken. It's often impossible to determine when we'll get an answer. So I have to emphasize here that there's something quite opaque in the system that representatives of our organization have reported many times to various departments.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I imagine that the CEGEPs analyze applicants' level of education and ability to pay tuition fees.

Do the CEGEPs conduct the other analysis to determine whether students can support themselves no matter where they go or if they have enough to live on here? Do the CEGEPs go that far in their analysis?

[Bernard Tremblay]

The CEGEPs actually conduct an analysis of the applications they receive to determine which applicants are most likely to integrate successfully in a pathway in Quebec. Once again, we aren't claiming we conduct the same analysis as an immigration officer. That's not our role.

However, we consider the applications that have been received and try to determine which applicants are most likely to follow a pathway that will be successfully completed. We necessarily know a little about the system and we make sure we have the best applicants among those we retain.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have one minute left. If I could make one recommendation to the minister knowing that he would listen to me, which one would I make?

How do you think we can make changes to this system? What can we improve?