Official Languages Committee on Sept. 25th, 2023

[Valérie Morand]

Excuse me, but I didn't quite catch your question because of the poor sound quality.

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

Please allow me to speak.

One of the complaints from local organizations is that they don't know who's entering the country. Would it be necessary to ask potential French-speaking immigrants if they agree, by checking a box, to have their information shared with a third party, whilst respecting their privacy?

[Valérie Morand]

Yes, certainly. The practice recently implemented in Ontario could become a best practice, since it allowed us to collect, for the first time, data on students' country of origin and year of arrival in the country. As a result, we found that 44% of students in Ontario's French-language schools come from immigrant backgrounds. Of course, we already knew this, since we could see that there were many immigrant students in our schools. So, yes, it's possible to get that data. Ontario has done it, but I'm not aware of similar practices elsewhere in the country.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'd like to continue on the issue of the integration of francophones who arrive and settle in minority francophone communities.

In the past, witnesses told us that even though they were francophones who had always lived in French, who had gone to school in French and who had worked in French, they had to pass a test to obtain permanent resident status. We received a lot of feedback regarding this test, which is very complicated, not only for French-speaking immigrants, but also for Canadians.

Do you think this test should be updated to reflect the French we use in Canada? It seems to me that it limits francophones in their efforts to come and settle in the country. People might even be encouraged to take the English test, if it's easier than the French one.

[Mariève Forest]

I want to make sure I understand: are you talking about the language proficiency test that is required for permanent residency?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes.

[Mariève Forest]

In fact, people are given extra points when they demonstrate their language skills in certain immigration programs. Often, extra points are given for French. Obviously, there are costs associated with these exams. Someone who has done all their schooling in French but doesn't check the box on their application indicating that they are a francophone will be obliged to take the test.

So I think we should adopt measures to reduce the number of people who are forced to take this exam. For example, if I've done all my schooling in French, that testifies to my abilities in French and I could be exempted from this exam.

Also, while I've heard comments about the nature of this exam, I haven't studied it specifically. I can't take a position on whether the exam should be changed.

[Valérie Morand]

The exam should certainly be developed in Canada.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

So you're suggesting that we should make changes to this exam, in order to retain francophones. What I've heard from immigrants in my community who have had to take this exam is that it was better for them to take the English exam, because it's much easier. A situation like this means that francophones who find themselves in official language minority communities, like London, will want to speak English and integrate in English.

I'll continue on the issue of integration. What can we do to continue to support francophones who settle in communities like mine, London, and want to live in French?

I have a beautiful story to tell you about my mother..—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Kayabaga, I'd love to hear your story, but I have to interrupt you; I am sorry.

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

You're tough, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I know I'm tough, but the role you've given me is that of the bad boy.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Beaulieu had a motion to present. We decided for today to do a single two-hour block instead of holding two one-hour blocks, because there would have been a block with only one witness.

Our housekeeping motions specify that, starting with the second round of questions, the Liberals and Conservatives have five minutes to ask their questions, compared with two and a half minutes for the Bloc and NDP. Now, Mr. Beaulieu was asking for unanimous consent from the committee that the Bloc and NDP also have five minutes to ask their questions.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, I asked you the question at the beginning of the meeting. I asked you if we were going to be penalized if we do the three rounds of questions in this two-hour block—in the end, we have four. Otherwise, normally, this would be a meeting where we have a second one-hour block, during which we would have reverted to a first round of five-minute questions. I asked for this at the beginning and you told me we'd go back to the first round.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

What I meant was that the order of speakers would not change.

You have to be Cartesian: at the very beginning of the legislature, we passed routine motions outlining exactly what we've done today. These are the notes. What's happening today is the norm. In fact, it is the chair's prerogative to divide the two-hour meeting into two one-hour blocks. According to the routine motions we passed, each political party has six minutes for the first four questions. After that, the Liberals and Conservatives have five minutes to ask their questions, and the NDP and Bloc have two and a half minutes. This ensures that the proportion in the House of Commons is respected.

Since the witnesses are here, I would ask you to save time if there is unanimous consent to give five minutes, instead of two and a half, to the Bloc and NDP members. If not, I'll respect our routine motions. Is there unanimous consent?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Why don't we continue by sticking to our motions? We could talk about all that afterwards, since the witnesses are here.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

As we have no time to lose, we should respect the motions we have already adopted.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The committee must be transparent. Is there unanimous consent to allow Bloc and NDP members to ask five-minute questions today instead of two and a half minutes?

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

Mr. Chair, personally, I give my consent, because if the meeting had been divided into two one-hour blocks, they would have had more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That is a false perception, Mr. Godin. According to the routine motion we adopted, we don't divide meetings into two one-hour blocks. It's at the discretion of the chair, and I do it when there are enough witnesses. Do you understand?

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

There were four witnesses this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

There are three, two of whom are—

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

There were four, but there was someone who didn't show up, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's correct.

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

Personally, I give my consent. That said, I'd like us to come back to this matter later.