National Initiatives

Immigration to Francophone Minority Communities

MEETING OF THE
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA –
FRANCOPHONE MINORITY COMMUNITIES
STEERING COMMITTEE

March 23, 2003
Sheraton Hotel
Edmonton, Alberta

In attendance:

Co-chairs:

For CIC: Rosaline Frith, Director General, Integration
For the Francophone minority communities: Marc C. Arnal

CIC representatives:

Rob Vineberg, Director General, Prairies and Northern Territories Region
Pierre Gaulin, Director, Ontario Settlement
Thérèse Vermette, delegate, British Columbia/Yukon Region
Jean-François Hubert-Rouleau, Senior Analyst, Policy, Selection Branch
Beverley Davis, Policy Analyst, Strategic, Planning & Research Branch
Lyne Deschenes, Policy Analyst, Strategic, Planning & Research Branch
Olivier Jacques, Policy Analyst, International Region

Community representatives:

Renée Champagne, Ontario
Michel Chartier, Manitoba
Lise Ouellette, New Brunswick
Michelle Rakotonaivo, British Columbia
Léonie Tchatat, Ontario
Maxim Jean Louis, Ontario
Luketa M’Pindou, Alberta
Zaïn Esseghaïer, Prince Edward Island

Federal government, provincial government and community representatives:

Pierre Goulet, Canadian Heritage
Nicky Norris, Canadian Heritage
Louise Sauvé-Dubois, Canadian Heritage
Edmond LaBossière, Group of officials responsible for Francophone affairs
Carsten Quell, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
Jacqueline Frank, Representative, Government of Ontario
Gérald Clément, Representative, Government of Manitoba
Bill Burgers, Representative, Government of British Columbia
Johanne Dumont, Representative, Government of New Brunswick
Nisa Mairi Tummon, Canadian Heritage

Secretariat/Organization

Diane Côté, for the communities, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada
Roukya Abdi Aden, for the communities, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada
Micheline Doiron, Senior Advisor, Policy and Program Development, Settlement Division, Integration Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Minutes

Diane Côté, representative of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada ( FCFA du Canada) and moderator of the session, welcomed all the members of the Steering Committee and invited the two co chairs to say a few words of welcome.

Ms. Rosaline Frith, co-chair for the government side, spoke first, welcoming all the participants. She pointed out that this fourth meeting of the Steering Committee was a critical one which would give the committee members an opportunity to take a good hard look at the future. She described the three main objectives of the meeting:

• finetune and finalize the action plan;
• prioritize needs for 2003-2004 and identify pilot projects in the regions;
• identify the partnerships that need to be developed to move the immigration file forward

Marc Arnal, co-chair for the communities, then took the floor and welcomed everyone. He encouraged the participants around the table to be guided in their work by the meeting operating principles set out in the minutes of the January 24 meeting. He said that he was pleased with the funding set aside for immigration in Minister Dion’s Action Plan, but felt that other departments should be approached for contributions in order to increase the amounts available.

Diane Côté announced that Rosaline Frith, co-chair for the government side, would be leaving the meeting early to give a workshop at the Metropolis conference and suggested that the agenda be re-organized accordingly. She suggested starting with regional priorities and postponing the regional reports until 10:45.

Diane Côté moved that the agenda be adopted with the proposed amendments.

Agenda adopted unanimously.

Diane Côté then moved that the minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2003, be adopted.

The committee members suggested a number of amendments to the minutes, namely:

• That it be mentioned, in the section on the Ontario Region’s report, that the region’s representatives submitted a report to the committee members with the project concepts developed by the cities of Toronto, Sudbury, and London/Windsor.
• That objective five specify that the two cities in question are Toronto and Vancouver.
• That it be said that immigration is part of British Columbia’s community development plan and not a priority, as specified in the minutes.
• That it be mentioned, on page six of the English version of the minutes, that Ontario’s sub committee is made up of provincial ministries and not ministers and that, on the same page, candidats des provinces be translated as provincial nominees.
• That the two representatives of New Brunswick be included in the list of participants at the meeting of January 24, 2003.

Minutes were adopted with the corrections submitted in advance.

Renée Champagne asked that the community members also be included in the list for the mailout of the English version of the Steering Committee minutes.

Pierre Goulet, Canadian Heritage representative, asked whether the representatives of the other departments would retain their status as observers. Rosaline Frith explained that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would, in the very near future, be asking the other partners to become full members of the Steering Committee.

Marc Arnal mentioned that he had asked that a national representative of the Office of the Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) be assigned to the committee.

Pilot projects and funding priorities

Rosaline Frith told the members of the Steering Committee that meetings of the National Committee would be continuing in the coming year and that a contribution agreement with the FCFA would be signed in the very near future. With respect to the projects in the regions, she explained that the pilot projects would be implemented in only four cities because of the limited resources allocated for this fiscal year. She suggested that pilot projects could be developed in the cities of Moncton, Ottawa, Winnipeg-Saint-Boniface and Edmonton.

The Ontario government and community representatives felt that it would be fairer to let the Ontario sub-committee decide which projects to implement in that province.

Edmond Labossière, Francophone Affairs representative, suggested that all energies should be going into cities that already have a real capacity to accept and integrate Francophone immigrants and a real partnership involving government, provincial, municipal and community players.

Rosaline Frith said that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had not made any choices. She said that the cities mentioned were simply possible cities and that she was counting on the committee to bring forward the information needed to make an informed decision. But she reminded the participants that the available funding was not sufficient to cover all community needs and that interdepartmental partnerships would have to be established.

Given that the co-chair had to leave, Diane Côté suggested that the discussion regarding action priorities be set aside and asked the committee members to report on the activities undertaken in their respective regions.

Regional reports

Prairie Region

Manitoba

The Manitoba representatives told the committee members about the creation of a sub steering committee, explaining that the involvement of certain members of the National Committee, including Edmond Labossière, Rob Vineberg, Gérald Clément and Michel Chartier, would help to build a bridge between the strategies developed by the sub-committee and the work of the national Steering Committee. They also pointed out that the province is in the midst of concluding a new framework agreement on immigration with Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Alberta

Luketa M’Pindou, community representative for Alberta, told the committee members about the establishment of a sub steering committee. He also mentioned that a new project had been initiated in Edmonton to set up a reception centre for Francophone immigrants.

Atlantic Region

New Brunswick

Lise Ouellette, community representative for New Brunswick, announced that the consultation phase in New Brunswick, completed in June 2002, had pointed to a number of possible courses of action. She also mentioned that two pilot projects had been developed recently. The first aims to grant off-campus work permits to foreign students so that they can acquire work experience in their field of expertise. The second project concerns setting up a discussion forum with the three key partners, namely the province of New Brunswick, the federal government and the community.

Joanne Dumont, New Brunswick government representative, announced that new people had been assigned to recruit French-speakers under the provincial nominee program. In addition, she said that the objective set by the province in terms of French-speaking provincial nominees would be 20%.

Nova Scotia

Lise Ouellette felt that the way forward would become clearer with the completion of phase two of the FCFA-initiated study on reception capacity. The study will be released in the fall of 2003.

Prince Edward Island

Zaïn Esseghaïer, community representative for Prince Edward Island, was of the view that the immigration file was not a priority in the region for the time being, but that efforts would nevertheless have to continue.

Pacific Region

Thérèse Vermette, representative of the British Columbia/Yukon Region, announced the renewal of the provincial nominee agreement between Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the province of British Columbia. She also mentioned that Citizenship and Immigration Canada was participating in an interdepartmental committee and working closely with other departments, such as Canadian Heritage.

Michelle Rakotanaivo, community representative for British Columbia, indicated that the consultations to be carried out would identify the various integration problems that Francophone newcomers face. She also said that a bilingual citizenship ceremony was to be held soon in a Francophone school, adding that this initiative would make it possible to work more on social integration and would serve as a public awareness tool.

Bill Burgers, British Columbia representative, mentioned the province’s contribution to the project aimed at assessing the reception capacity of Vancouver Francophone communities. He also pointed out that the guide for Francophones newcomers to British Columbia was being translated and that the British Columbia government’s website was now providing information in French.

Ontario Region

Pierre Gaulin, Ontario Regional Director, said that partnerships were still key in Ontario. He said that other departments had been invited to join the Ontario sub steering committee.

Léonie Tchatat, community representative for Ontario, added that an officer would be hired soon to help groups develop their projects in the regions. She reminded the committee members that the sub steering committee was encouraging the city of Ottawa to participate in the process. Ottawa is the only city that did not submit project concepts.

Other reports

Group of officials responsible for Francophone affairs

Edmond Labossière said that the conference of Ministers responsible for Francophone Affairs, which was held in St. John’s on October 4, for the first time made room for discussion of the immigration file. In his view, the presentation made by Marc Arnal, Steering Committee co chair, and Tony Marshall, Director General of the Atlantic Region, was primarily an exercise in sensitizing the Ministers to the issue. He pointed out that the group was very open to the idea of developing and implementing government policies/strategies to promote the integration of immigrants into Francophone communities and contributing to the development of adequate reception and integration capacity in those communities. He added that the conference had written a letter to Immigration Minister Denis Coderre.

Canadian Heritage

Pierre Goulet, representative of the Department of Canadian Heritage, explained that the IPOLC was an interdepartmental partnership focussing on official languages. He said that, so far, his department had signed 15 memorandums of understanding with various federal departments and agencies. He also pointed out that Canadian Heritage had set up a consultation committee in partnership with the Francophone and Acadian communities in Canada and that, at its first meeting on November 22, the committee had identified four priorities, one of which related to ethnocultural communities and their integration into Francophone communities.

Canadian Heritage/Multiculturalism

Louise Sauvé Dubois, representative of Canadian Heritage/Multiculturalism, told the committee members that a discussion paper on the issue of access to professions and trades had been prepared in Ontario. She pointed out that her department would be pursuing discussions with the other government partners on this topic.

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Carsten Quell, representative of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, said that he was very satisfied with the organization of the first panel discussion on Francophone immigration at the 6th Metropolis conference. He hoped that a group of researchers would come out of the initiative.

Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA du Canada)

Michel Chartier, community representative for Manitoba, and member of the FCFA management office, mentioned that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA du Canada) had taken a number of initiatives that could feed into the Steering Committee’s work:

1. The project Vivre la différence, which has the goal of redefining Francophone space in light of the evolution of Francophone communities in the last decade and their relationship with the other components of the Canadian Francophonie.
2. The FCFA’s mini-mission to France and Belgium, during which FCFA delegates had an opportunity to discuss the committee’s work with key figures.
3. The study committee in partnership with the Department of External Affairs and International Trade under the “Public Diplomacy” program. The committee’s goal is to reflect on the best ways to promote Francophone and Acadian communities abroad.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

Micheline Doiron announced that Citizenship and Immigration Canada, specifically the Integration Branch, was providing departmental employees and service providers with official languages tools. For example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada was producing a poster to help unilingual service providers refer Francophone clients to a bilingual service provider. She also mentioned that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had funded a review of research on Francophone immigration.

Discussions about draft action plan

Diane Côté asked the two co-chairs, Marc Arnal and Rosaline Frith, to comment generally on the action plan.

Marc Arnal, co-chair for the community side, said that he felt that the action plan’s target clientele should go beyond Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s idea of the immigrant population and felt that the action plan should be conceptually as complete as possible.

Rosaline Frith, co-chair for the government side, felt that the proposed action plan was ambitious, stressing that Citizenship and Immigration Canada would not be in a position to endorse an action plan that covered areas which did not fall within the department’s mandate. She also mentioned the importance of identifying the partners responsible for the different files.

Following comments from the two co-chairs, the committee members commented on the various sections of the action plan. The following comments and recommendations were made in regard to each section of the action plan.

Preamble

• Bilingual immigrants should be considered in the preamble in view of the reality of Francophone minority communities.
• The importance of positioning oneself in relation to Quebec in order to make it clear that the actions of the Francophone and Acadian communities will be complementing Quebec’s own recruitment initiatives.

Background

• The ministers’ conference on Francophone affairs and the meeting of immigration ministers in October should be mentioned.

Objectives

• The importance of regional action plans should be given greater attention.
• Objective 5 should mention the three urban centres of Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto, so as not to leave out Quebec.

Methodology

• The concept of continuous evaluation should be introduced to ensure that the objectives are achieved.
• It should be indicated that partnerships need to be built for the plan to be successful.

Part Two – Action Plan

Objective 1: Increase the number of Francophone immigrants, to give more demographic weight to Francophone minority communities

The committee members discussed the question of the proposed percentage by which Francophone immigration should increase over the next five years. Opinion was very divided on the 4.5% proposed in the plan.

To break the impasse, it was proposed that the two co-chairs meet together and try to agree on a percentage that will be to everyone’s satisfaction.

Objective 2: Improve the capacity of Francophone minority communities to receive Francophone newcomers, strengthening their reception and settlement structures

With respect to the “establishment in each province and territory of a reception and settlement structure adapted to the Francophone community’s social and demographic reality”, Citizenship and Immigration Canada considered that the Francophone reception structure contemplated by this result must not only be adapted to the social and demographic reality of Francophone communities but also be adapted to the level of Francophone immigration. As well, Citizenship and Immigration Canada felt that the lack of bilingualism in an institution was the reason why there was no active offer of service.

Lise Ouellette, community representative for New Brunswick, felt that some caution was needed with regard to the argument that the number of Francophone immigrants should justify the existence of Francophone services. With regard to the bilingualization of service providers, experience showed that this approach had not been the most effective in terms of active offer of service in French.

Objective 3: Ensure the economic integration of Francophone immigration into Canadian society and into Francophone minority communities in particular.

The issue of recognition of qualifications and experience largely dominated the discussions on this objective. Rosaline Frith said that responsibility for removing the barriers themselves fell to Human Resources Development Canada. However, she pointed out that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had to exercise some leadership by raising awareness of the issue in the other departments.

Louise Sauvé Dubois, representative of Canadian Heritage/Multiculturalism, felt that it was necessary to better define the issue of recognition of qualifications and experience in order to successfully solicit partnerships with other departments.

Since the fourth meeting of the Steering Committee was drawing to a close without all goals of the meeting having been achieved, it was proposed that:

• a sub-working committee be set up to finalize the action plan;
• each region establish the principles to be communicated to Citizenship and Immigration Canada in order to enable the department to prioritize the pilot projects nationally.

Closing remarks - co-chairs

Rosaline Frith asked the committee members to share their views on the best approach to tabling the action plan and thanked all the participants.

Marc Arnal said that the proposed strategic objectives had not been called into question and a number of things had been clarified. He suggested that the two co-chairs set a date for a follow-up meeting. He also mentioned the importance of again meeting with Immigration Minister Denis Coderre. Finally, he thanked all the committee members for their participation and their work.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.