National Initiatives

Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities

Annex:
Report of Discussion

Citizenship and Immigration Canada – Francophone Minority Communities Steering Committee

Ottawa
June 20 and 21, 2005

A large part of the two days was devoted to revision of the draft strategic plan for immigration to Francophone minority communities (FMCs). One goal of the meeting was to test this document and give more thought to certain aspects.

On Monday afternoon, moderator Ronald Bisson, who also prepared this report, presented the draft plan, dated June 16, 2005. The draft had been based on earlier analyses, meetings of the support committee, and the strategic planning discussion held on March 29 and 30, 2005 in Halifax. He then invited those present to break up into subgroups in order to identify issues requiring clarification, feedback points and suggestions for discussion.

Tuesday was devoted to examination of the plan. The entire discussion was held in plenary.

Two points, in particular, required careful consideration:

• National coordination mechanism
• Funding approaches

The day’s goal was to achieve consensus on each section of the plan:

• Context
• Challenges
• The current situation
• Strategic choices
• Coordination mechanisms
• Funding

Following this meeting, the support committee, made up of government and community representatives, will be working with the firm to develop the final draft of the plan, which is to be completed by late summer 2005.

Background

The moderator asked those attending if they had any reservations about the approach, or anything to add to the Context section.

Discussion brought out the following points:

• When noting the historical non-involvement of FMCs, it might be well to add that they were never invited to participate; this largely explains, also, why such communities have yet to develop their capacity for Francophone immigration.

• It would be helpful to refer to Stacy Churchill’s study of pluralism and the absorption capacity of FMCs before mentioning the Dialogue des cultures project.

• At the end of the section, in discussing efforts made so far, the progress accomplished since 2003 should be emphasized; in particular, we should add that there are large-scale long-term projects in place that are going to become permanent.

• It is also important to mention retention in discussing the promotion of immigration.

• We could include a word of explanation as to why FMCs are not wholly receptive to diversity: lack of recognition, legitimacy.

Challenges

• In discussing pools of potential immigrants, we should add the Caribbean.

• The terminology should be untangled and clarified: attraction, enracinement [establishment – literally, putting down roots], integration, établissement [settlement] and insertion [absorption]. However, we also have to take into consideration the usual terminology found in earlier literature.

• In particular, we should reconsider the suitability of the word insertion (economic, social, cultural) and use intégration instead.

• The formation of roots [l’enracinement] should be discussed in the specific FMC context, where the dynamics are completely different.

• There should be constant reference to economic, social and cultural integration.

• We should be careful in speaking of sociocultural integration: it does not mean encouraging sociocultural substitution, in which the original culture is lost.

• All the challenges relate to the very nature of immigration, but we should also mention the community aspect: commitment by the community and its capacity to integrate newcomers.

• Among the major challenges, we list economic and social integration [insertion], and sometimes only economic integration. It would be preferable to stress the cultural and social dimensions as well; in many cases, these precede or accompany the economic dimension, since learning the culture, values and ways of the community is a prerequisite for economic integration. For example, a sound grasp of the principle of equity between men and women in the job market is essential learning.

• We note the extra difficulty in cultural integration faced by Francophone immigrants, by comparison with those from British Commonwealth countries; the latter generally bring cultural baggage that relates to the Canadian context: Anglo-Saxon culture, parliamentary institutions.

• We note that the tendency to emphasize the economic dimension reflects, first, the availability of data, and second, the attitude of most immigrants and the priorities that emerge in questionnaires, interviews and focus groups.

• We should mention that the school is a key to settlement and integration. In the early years, integration at school poses no special problems, but at the secondary level, there are significant difficulties. Settlement workers are essential in primary schools, but they are also needed at the secondary and college levels.

The group agrees on the importance of avoiding a piecemeal approach to the major challenges. These aspects will be incorporated into the remarks on intake in the section on community capacity.

• Much factual data is available to gauge the level of economic integration. An appendix will be put together, providing examples of the type of income and occupation in relation to education, academic qualifications and knowledge.

• With respect to numbers, these are treated appropriately in the text, but we should add the total number of (bilingual) speakers of French, and not just the Francophones (which is consistent with the fact that bilingual immigrants have a role to play in maintaining Canada’s linguistic duality). Thus, the main strategy continues to be based on the 4.4% of Francophone immigrants, but the groups agree that all bilingual immigrants should so remain, and contribute to the maintenance of linguistic duality.

• There is also a desire for better understanding of the dynamics: who were the 3.1% (2002) and the 4.9% (2004) of immigrants outside Quebec who claimed to be French-speaking or bilingual? We now know that of those who claim to be bilingual, 80% understand English better and will be drawn immediately toward the majority.

• In our discussion of success indicators, we have to talk about people of French mother tongue, and not just about immigrants whose dominant language is French.

• Although their numbers are few, we also have to consider those who speak neither English nor French (Allophones) but who will be integrated into a Francophone community.

• The sources of potential immigrants are: the French-speaking countries of Europe, the Maghreb or French North Africa, the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries, some Eastern European countries, and the Caribbean. In the French-speaking countries of sub-Saharan Africa, potential immigrants are not being reached by Immigration staff, yet Africa is home to 70% of potential Francophiles and remains a significant potential source.

• A more reliable way must be found to assess the dominant language of immigrants and track its long-term development. The data currently collected by Citizenship and Immigration Canada are influenced by people’s perceptions as to whether or not they should know the official languages in order to be admitted, even though it is not a selection criterion. Thus, the data are indicative only, and it is possible that the 3.1% is really as low as 1% or 1.5%, since the dominant language has been determined from the tests of applicants who get points for knowledge of the official languages (skilled workers). It will be important to state it clearly and say that the proportion for all newcomers is an approximation.

As to setting targets, several questions arise; in particular: is it realistic to go from the current 2,000 or 2,500 people a year or so, to 8,000 Francophone immigrants a year? How long will it take?

• The target is considered realistic, and it is agreed that it is not possible to achieve such numbers in five years.

• It should be added that the increase will be gradual, to avoid unrealistic expectations. Some figures must be included, however, or the plan becomes too unspecific. Even though it may take 20 years, we need to set 5- or 10-year targets that are measurable.

• A word about targets will be included in the strategic plan, with quantitative and chronological benchmarks. The strategic plan should include intermediate dates and targets. Work plans can include more specific targets, to be reviewed periodically.

• An appendix will be drafted and will outline three scenarios – pessimistic, realistic and optimistic – to give an idea of the possible progression.

• A resource person – a demographer at Statistics Canada, for example - could be consulted to develop more complex scenarios incorporating factors such as the population dynamics generated by immigrants after they come to Canada.

• Whatever the post-immigration demographics, the goal is a percentage of the flow of immigrants that will maintain the relative numbers.

• Care must be taken in describing the concept of regionalization. We have to explain the concept, without specifying that Toronto and Vancouver will lose out, which is not necessarily so. We could revise the wording to refer to proactive methods of increasing the absorption capacity of smaller urban communities. We will not refer to rural repopulation; in any case, we have to reckon with people’s decisions to settle in urban environments.

Strategic choices

• It will be important to get this message across to communities: immigration alone will not enable FMCs to reverse such phenomena as language transfer or the rural exodus.

• We will have to present current demographic trends in graphic form, with supporting data. We have to be able to show that reversing the decline will take an investment of millions, not thousands, of dollars.

Catch up

• We have to explain the underlying causes of the problem, without blaming the communities, and we must provide examples of success.

• If the goal is to increase Francophone immigration, there are already some concrete results; we must therefore aim to improve the integration of current immigrants while at the same time striving to recruit more.

• We must also get communities to take responsibility for the successful integration of immigrants. For example, it should not be acceptable for a French school where half the students are immigrants to have not one teacher who is.

• Action has to focus on the host communities; it must be made clear that it is in their interest to put structures in place, and we must clearly define what a host community has to do to foster integration.

• We must not be overly critical of these communities: 80% of Francophone immigrants are refugees, and the communities have not been involved in developing structures to assist them. Even a city like Québec has problems in integrating immigrants, because of its historically monolithic character.

• In view of these factors, we have to develop an indicator geared to the circumstances surrounding the arrival of the newcomers.

• We need economically based projects to promote the effective integration of people who are already here.

Some examples of helpful initiatives:

• We should provide more social services for refugees in Toronto; economic integration is still a long way off.

• Adults are the main concern, but we also have to talk about the young people and about intergenerational conflict in immigrant families, which often causes additional difficulties in the integration of the parents.

• There have been many programs in recent years to support immigrants, especially the young, but there has been no funding for projects to address workforce adjustment designed for such people as immigrants with specialized qualifications.

• When we talk about abandoning the project-based approach, we are aiming at broadly based initiatives and economies of scale; by pilot projects, we mean initiatives that are maintained over a 3- or 4-year period.

• We know, too, that in FMCs, the success of immigrants depends not only on the host community, but also on previous activities in Canada (education and training) before coming here as an immigrant; integration difficulties are not restricted to refugees with no qualifications.

• Refugees are too often assumed to have no skills; many of them do in fact have post-secondary qualifications.

• We have to remember that refugee selection is in fact based on the selection of their children; we focus on the next generation, rather than on the adults. However, we have to recognize that if the parents are on welfare, the children will also have a hard time making their way in Canadian society. In such cases, we are failing to do for the children what we sought to do when we selected them.

• We have to remember that the regions do not draw refugees; internal migration comes after their arrival (for example, arrival in outlying centres, followed by migration to Toronto, Vancouver or Montréal).

• Historically, refugees were selected on the basis of their potential as settlers, but refugees now present a tougher problem: some have spent years in camps and will have to make an enormous effort in order to integrate.

• We must provide examples of initiatives designed for women and parents. With regard to school boards, for example, we have to try to get parents involved and persuade them to take part in school activities.

Recruitment

• The group endorses the fact that the strategic plan calls for recruitment within the annual targets set by Parliament.

• There is also consensus on the choice of immigrant categories: economic immigrants, foreign students, refugees.

• Family reunification should be added for all these groups, not just refugees. “Family” includes dependants: children, spouses, parents and grandparents; brothers and sisters are not included in immigration programs, except in some provinces where the presence of brothers and sisters is seen as aid – but not a key – to integration. Private members’ bills have been tabled in Parliament in recent years, but so far without success.

• We have to keep in mind that recruitment is both a federal and a provincial activity. Communities take part in these efforts at the federal level; we would like to see the provinces following suit and taking responsibility. This is a challenge for communities.

• There are clauses along these lines in the agreements with the provinces. The Steering Committee would like to see them updated and expanded, as in the case of Manitoba and New Brunswick. These clauses should refer to Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and should be broadly and generously interpreted. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages would also like to look into this matter.

Economic immigrants

• Immigration officers should be assigned to the recruitment of French-speaking economic immigrants.

• Key players in the economy have to be mobilized to act as sponsors of economic integration.

• Here again, we want to focus the recruitment effort on people of French mother tongue, as much as on those for whom French is the dominant official language.

Students

• The idea of setting up scholarships lacks appeal for some people, because of the numerous implications. Increasing recruitment capacity does not rule out scholarships, but these should not be an immediate feature of the plan.

• Care is required in selecting students we want to keep here, because there are agreements between governments for periods of study in Canada and subsequent return home.

• Arrangements must be considered to provide off-campus jobs for foreign students.

• Quebec is highly competitive in this area; FMCs must be able to offer more advantages, or at very least the equivalent: for example, tuition equivalent to what those in Quebec pay. In most provinces, it would not be possible to provide this advantage, unless communities negotiate places with the provincial ministries.

• There are some interesting models for the transition to university: for example, Fort Garry School, which facilitates access to the University of Manitoba.

• French universities offer 2- to 6-month practicums [stages]; this would be an inexpensive approach for Canada.

• Possibilities should be explored with the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne (AUFC).

Refugees

• About 60% of the annual target of 1,600 is being met. Care must be taken in specifying an output for this class, because the inflow of refugees can be sporadic and unpredictable. It might be helpful to limit the impact of this target by offsetting it with the figure for economic immigrants.

• There are two kinds of refugee: those who are recruited overseas by the federal government, and those who present themselves at the border.

• Sponsorship is not discussed. This aspect can be targeted at the operational level, depending on whether refugees are community- or government-sponsored. The issue here, however, is the need to protect the person, rather than his or her language.

• Note that refugees constitute mid- or long-term, if not immediate economic capital, just as they constitute human, linguistic and cultural capital. The text should reflect this.

• Among the activities that should be mentioned, in addition to the immediate arrangements for refugee intake, is the need to provide psychological support or trauma care for those who show the after-effects of the conditions experienced in their countries of origin.

The integration of immigrants

Regionalization

• It is thought that we should talk about “targeted choices,” rather than “regionalization.”

• The group feels it is time to take stock on the issue of regionalization .

• When discussing conditions including local partners, we should be careful not to present these as essential, but rather as “ideal” or “winning” conditions. If participation by the municipality is essential, this will penalize some communities.

• The communities that feel ready to participate want to feel that they are supported and equipped for the purpose. The problem is to define what “equipped” means, apart from the funding. What will these resources be used for? The strategic plan could refer to building or reinforcing the communities’ capabilities.

• When we speak of a “limited number” of Francophone communities, we have to define what we mean. Do we want to reverse well-established trends, or work with them? Apart from the regionalization strategy, it is not really possible to reverse the trend. If a dozen communities have signed on, do we want a debate between the vision of community growth and the reality of immigration (“where numbers warrant”)?

• After all, we want to offer support to communities that are willing where winning conditions exist.

• We want to adopt a step-by-step strategy, identifying the locations where people have developed a model that works, and reinforcing the model for replication elsewhere.

• If priorities are to be set, one crucial factor to be mentioned is the presence of immigrants who are already there: this is a potential draw for others.

• Integration has two components: you have to work both with the host community and with the immigrant community. The need for this parallel effort must be made clear throughout the document.

• We must be careful not to leave out those places where immigrants who have already settled can be involved in assisting others: Sudbury, for example.

• In listing winning conditions, we should include links to post-secondary institutions.

• We have to review the wording and use terms like “strategic” and “target,” rather than “limit” or “limited” [restreint]. At the same time, we have to show the authorities that the strategy will not lead to scattered efforts directed at too many communities.

• It is better to establish criteria than to state an absolute number of communities, so as not to limit future possibilities. We could say something like: “The strategic plan proposes support for emerging Francophone communities or ones that offer winning conditions for the reception and successful integration of immigrants. It is expected that the number of communities equipped to do so will be modest initially, but can grow in the future.”

• We have to be careful about how tables are interpreted, and keep things in proportion; for example, Sudbury shows fewer immigrants than Kitchener, but they have a stronger relative impact.

• We have to clarify the real projection of the plan over time: 5 years does not have the same implications as 20 years; this could be done in the scenarios.

Employment

• First, we have to drop the reserved title (recognition of credentials and upgrading courses), and talk about jobs.

• A good knowledge of English is an undeniable asset, but basic services are required for integration.

• For provincial nominees, the issue is not the same: many such immigrants already have a job to go to.

• There should be agreements between Francophone communities and the provinces; provincial programs are not designed to take in more Francophones, but consideration could be given, for example, to a quota for Francophones, with the community undertaking to offer assistance to nominees.

• There are preferential fields that should be mentioned in the plan, such as health care, where there is a labour shortage and where training programs are already in place; the University of Ottawa has already expressed interest. Education is another sector that should be emphasized.

• With regard to recognition of existing credentials, it is certain that Francophone communities alone cannot break the logjam, but initiatives are under way federally and Francophone communities should support such moves and offer positive reinforcement.

• There is a need to acknowledge requirements in areas other than health care and education. A study of workforce adjustment in Toronto uncovered needs in some 30 occupations. A way must be found to target the effort, however, and where credential recognition and workforce adjustment are concerned, a number of other sectors are going to be dependent on developments in this area in society in general. It must be remembered that at the moment, no program of recognition of qualifications exists even for Canadians; we should avoid establishing a special program for immigrants, when the issue concerns all those who have acquired qualifications abroad.

• This leaves us with health care and education as targeted priorities. Francophone communities have made it quite clear that they see health care as a priority, and Health Canada is responding quite well. With respect to education, however, have we clearly told the provincial authorities responsible for education that we want to target this area?

• When we say that communities should put “considerable effort into credential recognition,” we should add the federal and provincial governments, which will also have to make an effort.

The teaching of English

• ESL service providers are many and varied: school boards, the private sector, non-profit agencies.

• The LINC/CLIC program is for all immigrants, not just Francophones. When people ask where services are available, no distinction is made between Francophones and Allophones, and they are directed to existing resources, the great majority of which are Anglophone.

• An inventory should be made of providers of services to Francophones.

• The assessment of the LINC/CLIC program is not complete. For the time being, we have anecdotal data that cast doubt on the real effectiveness of the program.

• There is a need for specialized language courses in the area of immigrant education.

Do we want a strategy with respect to public policy?

• The group agrees that it is important to be active in this area: it is a social responsibility.
• Federal-provincial conferences on immigration are more frequent than they were.
• The political framework for immigration includes references to the official languages (the Multiculturalism Act and policy, the Speech from the Throne). It would be appropriate for the federal government to reaffirm it in an immigration policy.

Coordination mechanisms

At the national level

• Everyone agrees in principle to striking an executive committee of the Steering Committee.

• The Executive Committee would include representation from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

• There is a desire to include the provincial ministries of immigration (the Council of Immigration Ministers of the provinces) as well as those responsible for Francophone Affairs).

• There should be support from the community level, whose representatives serve on a voluntary basis.

• The point is made that there should be an informal forum for immigration representatives at the provincial level, as there is for Francophone Affairs officials. We want to find a way to include them, since otherwise the Steering Committee might say or do things that prove to be impracticable from the provinces’ viewpoint. The forum could be limited to provincial and territorial governments.

• There is an Ontario subcommittee at Citizenship and Immigration Canada that includes other provincial ministries.

• Care must be taken not to add too many groups: this would weaken the mix. A single working group should be set up after the five years of planning, for the long term.

• That said, it is not for the Steering Committee to say how the provinces and territories are going to participate; rather, the Committee should say what it wants from the representatives of the provinces and territories. At the very least, it should specify what level of representation is required (assistant deputy ministers, for example). The provinces and territories will choose the best way to proceed.

• Also, representation of the regions of Citizenship and Immigration Canada is necessary, but so is representation of the branches with functional responsibilities: Selection, Integration, Refugees, the International Region and so on.

• On the question of accountability, the municipalities can be made accountable for the federal funding they receive.

• The make-up of the Executive Committee should also reflect the Steering Committee’s priorities. It is suggested that since economic integration is crucial, thought should be given to representation from the economic or business sector. The group concludes that the ad hoc working groups are there to consider more specific questions.

• The group believes that there should be 5 community representatives out of the total of 20 members of the Executive Committee.

• It would be wise to designate co-champions for each objective of the strategic framework.

• The document should address the following themes: provincial representation, structure and representation, coordination and activation, terms or reference and terms of office.

At the local and provincial levels

• The subtitle should be “Support mechanisms at the local and provincial levels.”

• The group stresses the importance of recognizing structures that were put in place three years ago.

Financial aspects

• The group wonders who has funds to reallocate. Consideration is being given to redirecting some of the funding for settlement to all the objectives of the strategy.

• Question: Where will the money be found for a unifying project that does not meet the criteria of the various existing sources of funding? We have to work within the constraints imposed by Treasury Board.

• In many cases, the various components of a program can be adjusted; requests for proposal can also target different objectives at different times. Treasury Board will have to be consulted to explore what can be done in other ways or using other sources.

• There could be reallocations with the Action Plan for Official Languages, following the progress report. The $9 million allocated to immigration is start-up funding, for pilot projects; it is possible to obtain a bigger financial commitment for immigration.

• The national table brings the right people together, but provincially people are not in tune with the decisions made by their ministry of immigration, and things are even worse at the local level.

• There will be a need for regional initiatives to determine who the funding agencies are, set the priorities, and coordinate activities. The main partners at the federal level are well known, but when the province takes charge of an issue, you have to do things differently and know how things are done.

• The Privy Council Office will soon release its mid-term report on implementation of the Action Plan. Immigration is only one of many issues, but clearly there are inadequacies.

• The plan must make it possible to make connections and identify levers. It must state what the appeal is of new funding – it must show which challenges are urgent and what gaps still exist between objectives and reality: job market entry barriers, for example.

• The players are legion, but the success of the plan will depend on success in obtaining a central envelope. Otherwise, we will once again be in a situation in which we have to knock on every door, and nothing will come of this; piecemeal funding does not work.

• We must change our terminology and stop citing IPOLC as a model; it is a program afflicted by much confusion, and referring to it does not help.

• A mechanism is needed for transferring funds from department to department, through Treasury Board.

• The group fund approach is to be avoided: projects do not go forward, because they never meet everyone’s criteria at the same time.

• There is more talk of new projects and initiatives, but it has to be remembered that there is also some catching-up to do; we have to bail out those who need immediate help.

• We have to determine what we want: catch-up or start-up funding.

• The provinces have made their priorities known; Ontario has put immigration on the front burner.

• At the federal level, everyone has guidelines, but we have a strategic framework, and it has to be funded. Better federal coordination is needed.

• It is time to “get real” – we need figures to justify new funding and new programs. We also have to be able to demonstrate the gaps.

• Targeting is required. We have to look at what exists, what can be reallocated, and what the trends are. We will also have to provide coaching for groups making funding submissions once a new funding formula has been worked out. We also have to look at the provincial level, and at the local level, where the United Way already exists.

• There will also be a funding requirement for community consultation and coordination.

• We must call for a formal initiative: when an initiative does not have an administrative existence (a policy, a program), it eventually dies. We need an accountability framework, so we have to give this mechanism an administrative embodiment.

• There is a whole industry devoted to project preparation; we have to refine our approach from an administrative point of view.

• We have to specify what programs, or types of program, are to be funded; we do not have to wonder on what bases the applications will be assessed.

• In short, we need targeted envelopes, and they must be accessible.

• In terms of access, there are effective delivery models that can serve as a basis: Young Canada Works, for example.

• We need an envelope identified with the strategic plan. Ultimately, we may have to approach other more specialized funding sources, but at the outset we need targeted funding for the plan itself and its major priorities.

• So far, there is no overall reference amount – what are the real needs? We have to be able to say what is being done, the results obtained, the shortfalls, and what justifies new money.

• The strategic plan addresses a variety of subjects, which involve various branches of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

• Continuation of the initiative must be designed as a program, rather than the funding of an agency; for example, the funding approved for Santé en français and RDÉE Canada is, first and foremost, program funding that reflects government objectives.

• There is no certainty that a formal structure would bring in any more money. It is better to maintain the existing mechanism but identify a firm basis for the initiative. Horizontality makes things difficult.

• To obtain funding, a sequence must be followed:

• Additional analyses: a reasonable estimate for the plan
• An inventory of existing sources of funding
• Funding shortfalls (gaps)
• New funds needed, and sources
• A mechanism for equitable access

• This entire process will take a great deal of time. We should not expect a single dedicated envelope. Rather, we should envisage a series of programs that will require coordination.

• An administrative structure will be needed to support an action plan; it is good to have commitments from all concerned, but human, material and financial resources will be needed to coordinate everything.

• From the Department’s point of view, data – scenarios, figures and such – are needed in order to go any farther.

Conclusion

• Timetable

• The final version of the plan is to be ready by the end of August.
• A new version of the plan (Draft No. 4) will be ready on July 15.
• The support committee will be meeting at the end of July.
• The final version will be ready for validation on or about August 20.

• It would be appropriate to combine the strategic plan process with the ministerial consultations in October, and the publication of the mid-term assessment.

<< Minutes >>