;

LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, April 22, 2002

1535

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.))

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.))

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

1540

1545

1550

1555

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

1600

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

1605

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1610

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1615

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Hon. Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Hon. Gauthier

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Hon. Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1620

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Dyane Adam

1625

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

1630

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Dyane Adam

1635

Mr. Gérard Finn (Director General, Policy and Communications, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, CP)

1640

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

1645

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Hon. Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.)

Ms. Dyane Adam

1650

The Hon. Beaudoin

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

1655

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1700

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Scott Reid

Madame Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Madame Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Mr. Gérard Finn

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Scott Reid

Ms. Dyane Adam

1705

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Finn

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1710

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1715

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger

1720

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Viola Léger

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Viola Léger

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1725

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 033

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, April 22, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)): Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Before we hear our first witness, I would very briefly like to bring your attention to a sheet that was distributed for the next meetings in April and May.

We usually try to invite the Minister at the end of the hearings on a particular subject. So, if possible, we will try to postpone the Minister of Immigration's appearance, which was scheduled for the twenty-ninth.

I also point out that Ms. Maheu and I have received confirmation of two other appearances, one by Air Canada—the date remains to be determined—to make a presentation on their action plan and to answer our questions. We hope that that can take place before the end of May. The second scheduled appearance is that of Minister Dion. The date has not yet been set, but we hope it will also be before the end of May. That would be the schedule, and we would then have to get organized for the fall. The steering committee will definitely have to meet to establish the ongoing schedule.

I would simply like to make people aware of the next meetings.

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have two comments. The documents from the research office which we received today reached my office at 2:00 this afternoon. I made the comment last week that it should be possible to have them delivered to us on Friday when the meeting is on Monday, or 48 hours in advance. Are we going to make an effort to try...

I'm prepared; I can spend the afternoon with the Commissioner of Official Languages, but I wonder whether the study we do in committee is a serious effort if we can't obtain the documents in time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, your comment last week was well received, and last week we received the documents for tomorrow's meeting.

We really had to decide at the last minute to hold today's meeting. We apologize. It is our fault because we still hoped that the Minister of Justice could come and that did not happen. Since it was mainly an introductory session on the immigration question, we hoped that the notes could be prepared more quickly, but it was impossible to get them before today. We apologize. The translation also had to be seen to. We also precipitated matters somewhat so as not to lose one of our sittings. That's why it was impossible to have all our notes in both official languages before today.

It shouldn't happen again. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. Welcome, Ms. Adam. Do you have another question?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a second question. The agenda being circulated here, the sheet with the dates and witnesses, mentions the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship. I believe it's the contrary: it's the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. That may be just a detail for the clerk, but it's important.

Are we asking him to come here for Part VII on the twenty-ninth, next week?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): No.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As I mentioned at the very start, senator, we hoped that the Minister would come to meet the committee concerning immigration at the end of the hearings on Part VII. We are going to try to invite him at a later date, but it's not yet certain that we will be able to do so.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: So what's the point in circulating sheets if they're not accurate?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They keep the members of committees informed. I believe it's a matter of transparency and good will.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. I would like to welcome Ms. Adam, our Commissioner of Official Languages. As we have a quorum, I call the meeting to order.

Ms. Adam, would you like to begin your presentation?

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Dear parliamentarians, I thank you first of all for inviting me to address you on the study entitled Immigration and the Vitality of Canada's Official Language Communities: Policy, Demography and Identity, which I launched in February.

This study was prepared for the Office of the Commissioner by Dr. Jack Jedwab, Executive Director of the Association for Canadian Studies. I believe it is a ground-breaking study. It is the first of its kind to take an in-depth look at the issue of immigration and its impact on our social and linguistic fabric as a country and, more specifically, the impact on the official language minority communities in Canada.

The study is part of a process undertaken by my office more than two years ago. In fact you will recall that in my first annual report I identified immigration as an issue of vital importance for Canada's linguistic duality. As well, I intervened before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in March 2001 to propose amendments to the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As parliamentarians, you played a key role in ensuring that the new act now includes appropriate provisions and objectives relating to official languages and minority official language communities. I congratulate you for your leadership in this matter since the new act now reflects objectives that are clearly related to Canada's linguistic duality.

Now returning to the study on immigration. The study first presents a statistical portrait of immigration trends. The analysis of this data allowed us to develop a series of recommendations for the government. These are grouped under three main themes: policy and principles, recruitment and promotion, and settlement and integration. The study aims to assist the government in improving on some of the steps that it is already taking in this regard and to guide it in its future actions in this area.

¹ (1540)

[English]

I believe that we must consider concrete ways to enable both linguistic groups to share equitably in the benefits of immigration. This is currently not the case. Immigration cannot be based solely on economic considerations. We must also consider our linguistic and social fabric as a nation. Despite the fact that this issue was identified as early as the 1960s by the B and B Commission, very little has been done. I hope in fact that this study will be the first step in helping our governments to address this matter in many dimensions.

First, let me set the stage by quickly situating the issue in demographic terms. Historically, the English-speaking population has benefited from the arrival of immigrants, while the francophone populations relied on natural increase for population growth. All this changed with the decline in the francophone birth rate in the 1960s. Today there is a significant gap between the number of English-speaking and French-speaking immigrants who come to Canada, where just 5% of new arrivals are French-only speakers as compared to 48% English-only speakers, 4% who can speak both official languages, and finally, 43% who speak neither.

There have been almost nine times as many immigrants to Canada with English as their mother tongue as those with French as their mother tongue. And more importantly, once they have settled in Canada, eight out of ten immigrants adopt the English language.

[Translation]

Most of the small number of Francophone immigrants who come to Canada settle in Quebec. The Quebec government is very much aware of the key role that immigration plays in supporting the vitality of the French language. Quebec has undertaken considerable efforts to recruit and integrate immigrants who know French. In this regard, Quebec is a good example to follow since they have made impressive gains in this area.

[English]

But where does this leave the francophone minority communities in the other provinces? And I will speak later to the anglophone minority also in Quebec.

Francophone immigrants who settle outside Quebec represent just over 1% of all immigrants in the rest of Canada. The francophone population in the rest of Canada is, however, close to one million strong, representing 4.5% of the population outside Quebec. So we should expect a higher proportion of French-speaking immigrants who would settle in the other provinces. But in reality, within the Canadian population as a whole, those born outside the country represent almost 20% of the population, while among francophones outside Quebec, the proportion does not even reach 5%.

These statistics speak eloquently, and two things are clear. First of all, francophone communities are not receiving a high enough proportion of French-speaking immigrants to sustain the demographic weight of their communities. Secondly, the federal government has not undertaken special proactive measures to recruit French-speaking immigrants into francophone minority communities. And on top of this, once these immigrants have decided to settle in minority communities, considerable efforts are required to help them to participate in and contribute to the life of francophone communities.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

Before discussing the measures that must be taken, I would like to point out that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has shown sensitivity to this issue. In fact, as you know, one of the objectives of the new Immigration Act is to support the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada. As well, Minister Coderre has just announced the creation of the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Francophone Minority Communities Steering Committee. These actions are important, but much work remains to be done, obviously, to achieve concrete results, that is to say larger numbers of immigrants joining our minority communities.

In fact, the federal government must enunciate an integrated approach and put in place objectives, regulations and immigration policies with respect to linguistic duality in order to support its obligations under the Official Languages Act and contribute more effectively to the equitable demographic renewal of official language communities.

[English]

Citizenship and Immigration must do more in cooperation with francophones from official language minority communities to promote and proactively recruit in source countries for francophone immigration. Federal-provincial agreements in the area of immigration, as shown in the case of the Canada-Quebec Accord, can have a profound impact on the selection and recruitment of immigrants. It is therefore vital that the provincial authorities be sensitive to those official language minority communities that wish to attract immigrants in support of their community vitality.

Citizenship and Immigration should work closely with those provincial governments that recently signed immigration agreements to ensure that the needs of the official languages communities are satisfied in this domain. However, simply encouraging French-speaking immigrants to settle outside Quebec is not enough. Currently, half of all French-speaking immigrants who settle west of Quebec switch to using English at home. Measures must be put in place to assist them in maintaining the French language and in integrating into the minority official language community. This includes informing them about institutions that are available to assist them in French and designing services to help them adapt to life in Canada.

[Translation]

In order to assist the minority official language communities in welcoming immigrants, they must receive support from the federal government at all levels of the process, but especially in the areas of settlement and integration. The capacity to receive immigrants is greatly affected by the resources, institutions and structures in place to respond to their needs. I recommend that Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Heritage Canada and HRDC, Human Resources Development Canada, should support the creation of hubs or centres in the various official language communities along the model of the Carrefours d'intégration in Quebec. These centres should be used to draw immigrants to the official language minority communities and to facilitate their integration. Integration is a two-way process that ultimately implies a change in the identity of the host community as well as of the new arrivals. This study urges minority official language communities to be prepared to adapt to accommodate the diverse needs of their new arrivals.

¹ (1550)

[English]

This study also looks at the impact of immigration on the anglophone community in Quebec. This community faces challenges as well, although they are different from those of their francophone counterparts. First of all, there is no doubt that the loss of English-speaking Quebeckers to other provinces has meant the arrival of new immigrants has played a critical role in supporting the vitality of the community. Quebec's current share of English-speaking immigrants exceeds the share of the anglophone population in Quebec. However, given the fact that one-quarter of English-speaking immigrants leave the province to settle elsewhere in Canada, the main challenge in Quebec is to encourage these new arrivals to remain in the province, including outside the Montreal area.

Anglophone organizations in Quebec must be provided with the ability to counteract this phenomenon by instilling in immigrants a sense of community. English-speaking immigrants to Quebec must also be provided with improved access to French-language training.

I would like to conclude by saying a few words about the new immigration regulations that will take effect later this year.

I submitted my comments on the proposed regulations to both the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and to Minister Coderre. As well, my office carefully analysed the committee's recent report on the regulations, entitled Building a Nation. In my view, there are still some areas that need to be revisited in order for the new regulations to adequately support official language communities in their efforts to attract an equitable share of immigrants.

I believe we must adjust the proposed points system to adequately recognize the language proficiency of immigrants who are bilingual. I recommend that the maximum number of points awarded for language be raised from a total of 20 to 24. This would mean immigrants could receive a maximum of 16 points for high proficiency in the first official language and a maximum of eight points for knowledge of the second official language, even if they were to have only a moderate proficiency in the second official language. This would, we believe, better reflect the importance attached to the knowledge of both official languages in Canada.

[Translation]

The Committee's report also proposes that adaptability points be awarded for immigrants moving to a low immigration area. However, the definition of low immigration area threatens to disadvantage official language communities who suffer from low immigration numbers but whose surrounding majority community is not defined as a low immigration area itself. I therefore propose that the regulation include the option of designating official language communities as a low immigration context. This would allow immigrants whose first official language is that of the minority official language community to receive adaptability points even when the geographic area is not defined as low immigration.

I submitted these proposals in a recent letter to Minister Coderre. We are still awaiting his answer, but I sent the letter very recently.

In concluding, I would like to say that with respect to this issue you, as parliamentarians, have shown that it is possible to make a difference when there is a synergy of thought and action. I felt a great deal of openness and understanding from both parliamentarians and the Department each time that I intervened. You have conducted your work seriously and you ensured that measures were taken to include consideration for linguistic duality in the new act. We have already seen some of the positive results of your work.

However, the issue is not closed. My office will continue to work closely with the Department. As well, we are currently working on a second study on this question in which we will examine all of the concrete measures required to support Francophone immigrants in each step of the settlement and integration process.

I thank you for listening, and, of course, I will be pleased to answer your questions or hear your comments.

Thank you.

¹ (1555)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau, would you like to ask the Commissioner questions?

Mr. Reid.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thanks very much. I do have a few questions for the commissioner. Am I correct in assuming, Madam Chair, that we have seven minutes?

Editorially, I think I probably disagree with you, Ms. Adam, on whether the government has a role in trying to determine where individuals ought to go in the country when they come to Canada. It seems to me they ought to go where they make the best fit, and that's an individual determination they can make better than anyone else.

Leaving that difference of opinion aside, looking at the suggestion that we try to encourage anglophones to immigrate to Quebec and francophones to immigrate to other provinces in order to sustain the well-being of those communities, it's my impression that ultimately this is a policy that can't succeed. I'll tell you why I think that. I might well be wrong, and if you want to correct me, please do.

It seems to me that, first of all, people who migrate across the world to come to Canada are looking for something for themselves and their families—a better future, a safer society, better economic prospects—and if they don't find them wherever they wind up when they arrive in Canada, then it's a small matter to move within Canada, as compared to the long journey they had to make.

But historical patterns as well indicate that people tend to migrate to an area where they find people of their own community already existing, what my grandfather would have called a “landsman” when he came to Canada, someone who came not merely from your language group, but from your own community. These were people with whom you had familial links, clan links, links that would cause them to put greater trust in you so you might, for example, be able to get financial credit from the community, and you might be able to get social support.

It's very difficult to create that where it does not exist, and I don't think governments can create it. Immigrant patterns to Canada, the United States, Australia, and other immigrant-receiving countries show that is almost invariably the case. I can't see how one can overcome that problem.

Then there's the problem that immigrants are normally of two types, and this is a pattern that has existed at least since the 1700s, when records were first kept. There are two types of immigrants: there are young families with small children, and there are unmarried males, usually under the age of 35. Of course, the unmarried males arrive and get married.

We know from statistics gathered by Statistics Canada in every census that when a francophone marries an anglophone outside of Quebec—I'm thinking in particular outside of the bilingual belt that exists between about Sudbury and the northern part of New Brunswick—once they go outside of that area the language of the household in over 90% of the cases winds up being English.

So if unmarried male or female francophones were to move to areas other than that little region of Quebec and the adjoining territories, I think the most likely result would be they would wind up marrying into the majority language community, producing children who almost invariably would speak English, and they would in fact simply add to a demographic situation that already exists, which is that after English and German, the third-largest ancestry of English Canadians outside of Quebec is French.

I don't think you can overcome the demographic concerns you're trying to address through the means you're trying to address them. So I raise all those questions and leave it to you to set me straight if I'm wrong.

º (1600)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu): Madame Adam.

Ms. Dyane Adam: You had a number of questions. Maybe we'll go one by one. There was a trail of questions in your intervention, so I want to make sure I answer. Why don't you briefly give me a question that you'd rather I focus on, because there are quite a few.

Mr. Scott Reid: Did you want me to reprise my question?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, just pick one—

Mr. Scott Reid: Just pick one of them?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes, exactly. I can pick one, yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: In summary, there seems to be a demographic trend of assimilation that is very hard to stop, and my impression is that the measures you are suggesting here would not actually be successful in accomplishing that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I see.

Mr. Scott Reid: I should mention that I think part of the problem here, which I didn't mention in the earlier question and which I do think is relevant, is that while there's a very large number of English-speaking people across the world from whom we can draw in our immigration pool under the points system, even if we rejig the point system, there is a much smaller number of francophones—or even people who speak French as a second language—from whom we can draw. This is a fundamental problem, which essentially I don't think can be overcome by any government policy.

This raises another problem, which is that if you have a limited pool and many of them go outside Quebec—which is presumably your goal—that means there would be fewer available to go into Quebec, where they would be more likely, in the second and third generation, to continue having French-speaking offspring.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Mr. Reid, you gave me more questions, so I'll just respond the best I can.

First, you did identify from the start that we may not agree on whether the government or state can influence or have an impact on immigration, on where people choose to go and elect to stay as immigrants. Well, studies show that in that sense you may in fact be right, and that one of the main factors is definitely opportunity for employment. But if we look at the pattern of immigration and settlement of immigrants in Canada over the past years, what we have found is that the pattern is largely urban. The most recent census clearly shows that if we continue with the present policy of immigration, we will have in Canada, in let's say ten years down the road, two big cities, three big cities, and a vast amount of land with no one.

Is that a problem? Is that a concern of parliamentarians? Should it be a concern? I've listened to debate on this issue for the past month, and I believe it is a great concern in Canada right now that we should have such centralization in a few cities.

What I am saying is that now we have to put our thinking caps on and ask, is this the nation we want to have in terms of regional patterns of immigration? I'm saying to you as the Commissioner of Official Languages that we also have a responsibility with respect to our linguistic duality. Some thinking caps have to be put on for this specific issue. Not only do we have to integrate it into our legislation and our policy, we have to use innovation and creativity to make it happen, to make our minority communities successful in recruiting and integrating.

I think we will see in the next year or so a lot of thinking and reflection on this issue in order to ensure that we maintain and sustain the Canada we have with the different provinces. I'm saying that immigration is not just about the economy; it's about building the social and linguistic fabric of this country. We need to think about it, and I guess parliamentarians do have a responsibility there. It's not easy, but we need to do it.

I know there are other questions, but I picked this one.

º (1605)

The Joint Chair (Ms. Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Madam Commissioner. I don't agree with Mr. Reid, and you will understand why, but that's another debate. We are, to a large degree, a country of immigrants, as you said earlier. Some have deeper roots in this country, and others are more recent arrivals.

We welcomed 250,386 immigrants in 2001, and I include refugees in that figure. Forty-eight percent of those persons spoke only English. You mentioned 4% earlier, but I was told this morning that, last year, 5% of those persons... In addition, 1% of Francophones immigrating into Canada settle elsewhere than in Quebec. So, out of 250,386 immigrants, 114,750 speak only English, 11,315 speak only French, and 13,027 speak both official languages.

There were 111,225 immigrants last year who were what are called Allophones, people who speak another language or who are from a different background, that is to say a background where a language other than English or French is used. Some 9,500 Francophone immigrants last year went to Quebec; 1,809 went outside Quebec. Those are figures that I obtained from Statistics Canada this morning. I'm not saying that your report is not interesting. I read it. But I wanted to update it to give myself a context.

Of the number of immigrants speaking both languages, 8,080 went to Quebec and 4,900 went outside Quebec. That means that 6,756 immigrants speaking French who settled outside Quebec represent approximately 0.2%. That's very little.

If I remember correctly, you proposed amendments to Bill C-11 some time ago. I followed the debate and was pleased to see that you were involved. You made recommendations but you suggested amendments of particular interest to the official languages committee. I'll read one:

Ensure the demographic renewal of our official language communities in Canada through an immigrant selection and settlement process and through their integration into Canadian society.

That was, as it were, the objective you set.

In subsection 3(3), you proposed:

recognize and demonstrate the statutory commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French minorities in Canada and assist their development.

You almost used the wording of section 41.

When the country's foreign policy was reviewed a few years ago, in 1994, I co-chaired the parliamentary committee with Senator Allan MacEachen. I was a member at that time. We recommended, following a study that had taken nearly a year, that the Canadian embassies undertake promotional activities, that is to say that they do a little promotion to inform potential immigrants about Canada's duality and the presence of official language minority communities here in each region and province of Canada.

I don't know what action was taken on that recommendation by the committee. I tried to determine that, but it was difficult. Perhaps you know. Could you obtain from authorities an update on the work done by Canadian embassies to promote Canada's linguistic duality? Also, to what extent do they make known the notable presence of official language minority communities in each province and territory of Canada, as well as our country's great need to take in immigrants who speak both official languages or—I'm going to use a neologism—who are “francophonizable”. Well, you understand what I mean.

º (1610)

If we can't attract immigrants, in view of the fact that birth rates are declining everywhere, even in Quebec... You used the term a moment ago which I noted. You spoke of “demographic renewal”. I like the term. I think it fits because that's the problem. We French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec are being assimilated at rates of 37%. It's a little less at the national level; I think it's 27% assimilation of Francophones in Canada as a whole.

The day we no longer have any Francophones, the day we stop advancing linguistic duality, we might as well abandon Canada: it will separate on its own. Anglophones will have their part of the country and the rest, what remains of Quebec, will speak French. That's not what I want. I want a country where both official languages are respected, and I believe that a serious-minded government must base immigration on these two avowed policies of the government and of Canadians: linguistic duality first and taking in these immigrants.

You also recommended in your report that the parliamentary committees be “charged” with examining regulations before they are put in place or implemented, consulting the official language communities to ensure that integration takes place in those communities and to ensure that they have intake systems so that they are capable of taking generous action toward new immigrants.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration—

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me, Senator. You've been speaking for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have five minutes and I'm using my five minutes.

º (1615)

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): You have spoken for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Reid did the same thing. He made a speech, and I'm going to make one too.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, Senator. Do you want Madam Adam to respond? It's been seven and a half minutes.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not right now, when I finish. Did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration accept your amendment concerning consultation of the official language communities before implementing regulations? But don't answer right away; answer in a moment.

I'm going to remind you that, in subsection 94(1) of the new Bill C-11, you also obtained a section from the committee that states that, by November of each year, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will have to table a report on the linguistic profile of immigrants in both houses.

That's important for us. We don't have it right now. I asked this morning if that was coming. I was told to wait until November. I agreed; I'm a patient man. I thought that we might have one because it had been some time.

I come back to section 41 of the Official Languages Act, to the reference to equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada. Can it be said that the present Immigration Act ensures that immigrant candidates will be subject to selection criteria and a process consistent with subsection 16(3) of the Charter, that is to say equality? Can that be confirmed today? Are we confident that Canada's representatives outside the country are doing a good job, doing their work in telling immigrants that our country is a country where there are two official languages?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Excuse me.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Commissioner, do you have access to the annual reports of the 29 departments identified as having to report every year?

In these action plans, are these people aware of the problems involved in integrating minorities, immigrants? What measures could be put in place to promote the development of minority official language communities so that they can take in these immigrants?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, Senator. It has been well over ten minutes.

Madam Adam, would you please try to respond as briefly as possible?

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We work like crazy and, when we get here, we're only allotted five minutes. It makes no sense.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, but it has been over ten minutes. How long will your point take, Senator?

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: More than Mr. Reid.

Go ahead, go on to the next one.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Reid had eight minutes--maybe.

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'll try to be brief. You raise a lot of interesting questions.

I think there's a difference between the legislative and regulatory framework which is being developed and the reality in the field. In my view, the objectives of this act will be achieved to the extent that the various players are mobilized.

Parliamentarians must recognize that they have an important role to play in this issue. First, they intervene on draft legislation of course, but also on draft regulations. Then they will have to ensure that the objectives stated in the bill are achieved. It refers to a linguistic profile report. I imagine this committee will be very interested to examine the first report to see at least one measure, one indicator of change so that you can ask the Department the right questions.

There must be a genuine mobilization within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. As I mentioned, they have established a committee of representatives from the Department and the communities which will have to start considering this question.

The official language minority communities are also beginning to mobilize on this question, and they must do so quite quickly. The minority communities, Francophone communities in this case, have a low birth rate. There is a fairly significant linguistic transfer in certain regions of the country, that is to say assimilation to the minority language. In addition, those communities do not benefit from immigration to the same degree as the majority. So they're headed toward declining growth, which can be explained by various factors.

So a concerted effort by all players and urgent mobilization in this area are necessary.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Sauvageau.

º (1620)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Ms. Adam, I was at the press conference when you launched the report with Mr. Jedwad, if I am not mistaken, and I was able to read the report. I won't tell you that I read it from cover to cover, but I looked at it and the presentation. I think it's an excellent job for guiding future thinking on immigration matters.

I also thank you for these concrete examples that you have given. It's easy, the government often does it to say that it's taking note... There are two concrete examples, the increase in points and points for the regions. I feel this augurs very well in this type of presentation and we should see it more often.

However, I'm less optimistic about one another thing. You said in your presentation that this problem was raised in 1960, and Mr. Coderre today announced the creation of a committee. That makes me think of an editorial by Jean Dion, a journalist I enjoy very much, who said that God created the earth in six days, then he created a committee, and man and woman appeared a few million years later. This makes me think a little of that, and it troubles me.

As usual, my question will concern a subject other than the one before us today, but then I'll come back to the subject. Mr. Dion, who is the official languages coordinator, is potentially about to table an important report. I would like to know whether he met with you or whether he met someone from your office to develop his overall action plan for the Francophone communities.

I now turn to the subject of our meeting. At the press conference where the report was launched in February, a journalist asked you whether, given the assimilation rates in the Western Provinces, in particular, encouraging Francophones to immigrate to British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta was not tantamount to throwing them into the lion's mouth. I'm not opposed to that at all, but I'm talking about the immediate situation. I would like to hear you on that. Before encouraging this 1% increase, shouldn't we put the necessary tools in place to avoid sending these people to be assimilated elsewhere?

Those are my first comments. I would like to hear your answers, and then I'll come back if there's something else. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Ms. Adam.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I hear two questions. First, was the Office of the Commissioner consulted for the purpose of developing the comprehensive plan that Mr. Dion and his team are preparing? Yes. I met Mr. Dion personally to express our expectations of the plan, and immigration is one of the government's action areas.

As to the assimilation rate of minority Francophones and the question of whether the immigration of Francophones or “Francophonizable” persons, to use Senator Gauthier's expression, should be encouraged to settle somewhere, more favourable conditions must be created. But are we going to wait until conditions are favourable in order to encourage immigration or shouldn't we instead work at it at the same time? In real life, things never happen in a well-ordered sequence. We already have Francophone immigrants, but their numbers may be small.

The second study which will be published, which I mentioned in my presentation and which concerns practical aspects, is based much more on the experience of individuals who have immigrated to minority communities and of the communities that have welcomed those immigrants. The study outlines the specific challenges of that situation.

I believe more in a sensitization approach, but also in government action. Governments know, because this is also discussed in the provinces, that there are steps to follow, in particular recruitment, and they have established these measures for the majority. The majority exists. The idea then is to see whether we have created these kinds of measures for the minority. In most cases, we have not. There are exceptions, in particular in Manitoba, where there has really been more significant development and a dialogue between the province and the minority community. There have been concerted efforts and there have been concrete results.

The immigrants who arrive in minority situations face the same challenges as the host minority. As you know, members of the minorities have been here for hundreds of years. There is something specific to minorities and to any person who is in a given situation: that person acquires reflexes and behaviours which enable him or her to adapt and to endure. Governments and institutions can help these communities. Why are you examining Part VII of our act? It's precisely for that. It's to clarify how we can better support these communities, which have endured even in the absence of structures. We need only think of education in their language, which did not even exist scarcely 20 years ago.

I believe that, if a concerted effort were made, we could perhaps reverse the trend.

º (1625)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Sauvageau, briefly, please.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You talk about a concerted effort, but the government disputes the question whether section 41 of the Official Languages Act is binding. The government makes veiled threats to the communities demanding their rights before a court. Four years later, the government creates a committee. Are you optimistic about these actions? What you mean is that we can change the trend if there is a federal and provincial government will to do so.

Do you think there will be a government will? Today, that will has been absent from virtually all our discussions on the Official Languages Act in this committee. Why would the government act differently in this instance?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I can answer you generally, or I can do so very specifically. Scarcely two years ago, I flogged this government to remind it of its obligations, but also to remind it of the urgent need to act in this area. There was a response, and we are awaiting more concrete action. You spoke of the action framework and of genuine mobilization. I'm optimistic in the sense that action has been taken. Now we have to see whether it will actually produce results. We're at that stage.

As for immigration, it's an area that I chose and which I consider a priority, as I announced at the start of my mandate. I intervened with other stakeholders to ensure the new Immigration Act included the objective of linguistic duality and, in particular, the minority question. Today we have, in a bill, changes that reflect that objective, which wasn't previously the case.

It's the same thing for the regulations. They aren't complete, but, once again, you have the opportunity to intervene to ensure that the points system to which you referred actually reflects the objectives of the Act. Efforts have to be made in promotion and so on. Senator Gauthier spoke about that, and Mr. Coderre acted immediately. It's true that it's a committee, but the official language communities were, for the first time, invited to consider the question with the Department. That's nevertheless something positive. What's going to come out of it? I don't know.

º (1630)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you very much, Ms. Adam.

Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello. If you're willing, we'll talk about the immigration agreements between the provinces and the federal government.

Can you tell me, Ms. Adam, whether there are organizations such as the Carrefours d'intégration au Québec, the COFIs in other provinces? Have other provinces established similar integration centres?

Since I can guess what you are going to answer, I will ask you right away whether you think it would be possible to reopen agreements that are already in place and to ask the provincial governments to put mechanisms in place to provide better reception in their provinces for people from an official language minority in view of the considerable importance you attach to integration.

Ms. Dyane Adam: At this time, there are agreements between Canada and certain provinces. A number of provinces that signed agreements recognize in the agreement that they must take into account the needs of official language minorities. I'm thinking of British Columbia, among others. Alberta has not signed an agreement. Saskatchewan also recognizes the necessity of taking those needs into account. As for Ontario, the province that benefits most from immigration, it has not signed an agreement. It's a bit uncertain, but we nevertheless see a stronger dynamic emerging between the federal government and the various provinces with regard to immigration. I believe the latest census clearly shows that certain provinces—it's not just a question official languages—take in few or very few immigrants and are starting to be quite concerned about the impact that will have over the long term, but perhaps not over as long a term as that.

So this is very much the appropriate time for the federal government to play its leadership role and to make its partners, those governments, understand the necessity of reconciling not only general demographic interests, but also the interests of their minorities, that is to say linguistic duality, and also economic interests. That's how I answer that question. This leadership must be exercised with the provinces.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: You mentioned special measures which you recommended be included in the immigration bill or regulations. I imagine that one of those recommendations concerns the points system. Are there any other recommendations you would like to talk to us about? I would also like to know whether some of those measures are priorities for you.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Finn, but first I'll answer no with regard to the first draft regulations, which specifically concern selection.

There will be other regulations on other aspects. At least that's what I think. So we have focused our efforts on this points system which is very important. When you view things from the perspective of linguistic duality, you see that the points system which was developed by the Department gave no credit to an individual who knew the second language, whereas it was well known that we wanted to encourage all Canadians to be bilingual. It's not required, but we encourage it.

Second, too much importance, in our view, was attached to perfect mastery of both official languages, whereas we know perfectly well that very few of us master the two languages to the same degree. Why ask more of our immigrants than we do of ourselves?

Gérard, would you like to add something?

º (1635)

Mr. Gérard Finn (Director General, Policy and Communications, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): In the proposal, there was also some question of environmental analysis of the communities. In that environmental analysis, the social aspect, the demographic aspect was absolutely not addressed.

If you read the text that was published with the draft regulations, you will see that there was not even any mention of the minority official language communities and so on.

So, we found that the proposed bill only had an economic connotation. That's why we asked them to examine the impact of these measures on the minority communities. In the same vein, we asked them to see about increasing the number of points awarded for knowledge of the second official language. In its report, the parliamentary committee also suggested increasing the number of points given for knowledge of the second official language, increasing the number from four to eight. This augurs well, and we'll see what the Department concludes on the subject.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I would like to know the Department's point of view and yours regarding promotion in other countries. I believe that's very important.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I didn't answer your question. That's one of the questions that concerns us a great deal, in view of the complaints we have received regarding immigration and other data. It's not a sufficiently complete study, but, in some offices, there are promotion problems when recruiting immigrants. I would even say that certain immigrants are discouraged from settling outside Quebec. I'm talking about Francophone immigrants. We have received complaints on this.

I believe that the Department is now aware of the fact that there's a lot of work to be done. Of course, the regulations are very important since it's the documents and directives that can ultimately enable our promoters, who are virtually everywhere around the world, to actually reflect the objectives of the act which you have passed and the regulations. This work is under way.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, CP): I would like to come back to a point which I thought had been resolved, but which was raised by Mr. Reid a few minutes ago.

The Official Languages Act is a statute which puts the two official languages on an equal footing. That has absolutely nothing to do with the minority presence in certain provinces and the majority presence in others.

It is English and French which are equal, not the numbers. The correction that has been made in Canada's statutes by the two political parties, Liberal and Conservative, has been to put the two languages on the same footing.

[English]

The two official languages are equal. It's not a question of number at all. It is so true that our country is not only bilingual, but bi-juridical. We have in Quebec a civil code and in the other provinces the common law, and those two systems have been adopted by at least 50 states for the civil code and 50 states for the common law. So this is exactly the spirit of the Official Languages Act.

To me, we have to remember that if this country is multicultural, it is also bilingual and bi-juridical. It is the very structure of Canada, irrespective of the number of the minority population in one province or nine provinces. This is exactly that. What I would suggest is that we come back perhaps in our speeches and in our memoranda to this question of the equality of both official languages, irrespective of the number in one province. In Quebec, of course, there is a French majority and in the other provinces there is a French minority, but this does not change the status of the two official languages—they are equal.

I don't know if you have some comments, Madame.

º (1640)

[Translation]

If you have any comments on that point, Ms. Adam—

Ms. Dyane Adam: I entirely agree with you. I think that's the basis.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It's structural. It's not an ordinary statute. It's really what is called in law an organic statute, which respects the status of two systems of law and two languages.

Ms. Dyane Adam: If you would permit me a brief thought, I will say that, last week, we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the Charter in various forums across the country, and, in the past few weeks, we have see or heard presentations on the benefits of the Charter or debates about the Charter. One of the observations is that Canadians support this foundation, this constitutional framework which is our country and the definition it contains.

I find that, in that enactment, there is exactly what you say, that is to say the equality of English and French in society. That's one of the structural principles of the country, not to mention other references to the two official languages. So, if Canadians support the Charter to this extent... That's what led me to say last week that, perhaps when some constantly question linguistic duality in certain areas, governments are lagging behind citizens, since Canadian citizens strongly endorse the Charter.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: May I have half a minute, at least?

º (1645)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes, you still have time.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: During the debate on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in which I took an extensive part, the same reasoning was applied to the Civil Code in Quebec and the common law in the other provinces. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies equally to the two legal systems. To date, this has caused no problems. I believe the Civil Code is very well made. It is new, as you know, since 1994, and our common law principles are very well developed as well. So what works for the two official languages also works for the two Canadian legal systems. This is a source of wealth for Canada.

I believe the arguments against that are probably pointless. Why attack such a great source of wealth?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Léger.

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to agree—I couldn't wait to say it, for once—with Senator Beaudoin. First, it's written a mari usque ad mare. That's Canada. It seems we should now say another ad mare for the north.

When you talk about official languages, I believe that applies especially to the minority language communities. So that supposes that all the majority communities are perfectly bilingual. That's no problem. That's why we have to work where there's a problem, that is with the minorities. The members of the majority are perfectly bilingual. I just wanted to add that. I know perfectly well what's going on, but I agree with Senator Beaudoin that our discussions are often put away in so much dust against... Mercy!

Second, I believe we speak the language of the air we breathe. If everything in the surrounding atmosphere we were talking about earlier is completely in English, such as the radio, and if it's not equal... As you said, if television isn't equal, if in the school yard where children play we don't have the chance to get the cooperation we need, we're going to speak the language. I believe every immigrant comes here first, as Mr. Reid said, for the freedom, to be an advanced human being, to have bread and butter. As for language, they are very proud to learn 10. Who doesn't want to learn 10 languages? Everyone wants to learn 10. You need bread and butter, and if there's a lot of immigration to the provinces, it's because there's better advancement elsewhere. You don't go elsewhere to learn a language. You go elsewhere to get ahead.

I would like our discussions to be on an equal footing, as you say. In any case, that's all I wanted to say and I wanted to conclude with a brief story about my little nephew who is in the United States. When his aunts went to visit, he really wanted to learn French because it looked like fun: we were laughing all the time. So he wanted to learn French. That's what it means to learn a language. I apologize for the story, but that's all I wanted to say.

My only question is this: can you make all those making this concerted effort in all fields, social and cultural, understand that this is crucial? I mean that this is necessary in all the other areas, including heritage. The immigrants want all that. They aren't fussy: they want bread and butter and to get ahead.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm going to comment perhaps on Senator Beaudoin's remarks and, of course, on those of Senator Léger.

Senator Beaudoin finished his comments a moment ago by saying that these may be pointless arguments, but we're still talking about numbers when we talk about the French or English or bilingual fact in the country.

Senator Léger, you say that, when we talk about official languages, we always talk about the minority, that the bilingualism question arises less for the majority.

So are these pointless arguments? The psychologist that I am would say that, while we're doing that, we're not doing anything else. And that's what's annoying because, if we admitted that linguistic duality and the equality of English and French were real, the discussions would focus on how to achieve true equality, and I believe that everyone, like you, Senator Léger, and many others, would be satisfied.

While we discuss the merits of our Charter, we're not concerned about its implementation. I completely share your point of view, although, perhaps like you, I have given up after trying to convince people who don't believe. But it is nevertheless an enactment that was signed by Parliament and all the legislative assemblies, except that of Quebec, of course. Citizens now, after the Charter's 20 years of existence, are behind that enactment, and we say so quite strongly.

So I can't say that these are arguments that have some use because they prevent us in fact from going further in the implementation. In that sense, they are...

º (1650)

An hon. member: You have to repeat them constantly.

Ms. Dyane Adam: So the psychologist would say that there is some resistance to change.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Bélanger.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Madam Joint Chair.

Unfortunately, even the governments that signed the Charter in 1982 took up to 15 years, in some cases, to comply with their commitments regarding education, and, even there, it was only because the Government of Canada puts up half the amount of money required. So it's true that it's annoying to engage in the debate, but if we didn't do it, we wouldn't even have gotten as far as we have. That's a brief comment I take the liberty of making.

Commissioner, do you know whether projections have been made as to where we will be in 2020 or 2025, let's say, if nothing happens, that is to say if immigration to Canada remains at the same level, that is to say 1% of the population per year, and in the kinds of proportions we know? Do you know whether anyone has made a projection to tell us where Canada's demolinguistic distribution will be if we don't act between now and, let's say, 2025?

Ms. Dyane Adam: We haven't done any and we aren't aware of those kinds of projections. It would be the worst-case scenario, but I imagine it would probably be easy to do, even while recognizing that projections are sometimes deceiving.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It hasn't been done.

Do you know whether anyone at one time has made a comparison of the urbanization phenomenon among the Francophone population with that among the country's Anglophone population, including immigrants?

Ms. Dyane Adam: In light of the data we have, the minority Francophone community—that's not the case for the Anglophone community in Quebec—tend mainly to be in the regions. But even in that case, they are urbanizing; there is increasing migration. For example, Francophones who were very much in the majority in the regions of northern Ontario, are increasingly migrating to urban areas. This is a phenomenon we're observing even in Quebec, where we see increasing general migration, for example, by people from Gaspé. So there are places in the country which are literally depopulating. It's a problem.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Madam Joint Chair, do you think it would be useful to ask our researchers to do a study for us on this question in relation to the regulations under the act which we have discussed in committee, the committee report, so that we can take note and see whether we in turn can support or suggest something else.

I would like to be able to see what has been done in the Citizenship and Immigration Committee on this question since the act was passed. If our researcher could do that, I believe that would be useful for committee members.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Yes. Marion, will you start with that?

º (1655)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have two other points to raise. We're talking about the integration of new arrivals into the official language minority communities. I get the impression that this may go against the will of the provincial governments. Ultimately, what we're seeing, even in Quebec, is that they don't tend to go after minority language immigrants in their province; it's quite the contrary.

The question in my mind is this. Shouldn't the Government of Canada keep a field for itself, as it does for education, for example, and as is done in other sectors where help is provided through money, programs and so on? On this question of establishing community integration mechanisms, doesn't the Government of Canada have a special responsibility?

Ms. Dyane Adam: First, I believe that is still a shared responsibility. The federal government will nevertheless remain an important partner in this matter. That's what I understand. But as for the minority communities, I would like to tell you about the case of Manitoba. I touched on it a moment ago.

The Manitoba government has worked very closely with its minority community to promote recruitment and advancement outside the country. Moreover, representatives of that community have accompanied the government's representatives in their recruitment efforts outside Canada. They have assisted them in designing promotional material. I'm mainly referring here to North Africa, in particular Morocco, and there have been tangible results. More than 40 Francophone Moroccan families have been recruited, and as the community has taken part in recruitment efforts, people have even met their immigrants and waited for them. So the government and the community have both become accountable. I believe we should study examples such as that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The reason I ask you the question is that I'm coming back to the report you published. On page 37, it is stated that the Francophone immigrant families arriving in Saskatchewan who wanted to enroll their children in French-language schools “...needed permission from the school council of the French school in question, the approval of the local Francophone school board and the agreement of the majority English school in the district.”

Does it happen that Francophone immigrants are denied the opportunity to study in French because of that?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe this is really the first study on the question. There can be no doubt that there are barriers preventing even interested immigrants from participating fully in French life in a majority Anglophone province. There are barriers here and there. In each community, and of course I'm talking about large communities, both the majority and the minority must take part in identifying those road blocks and eliminate them, but positive measures must also be adopted to promote...

I have another more positive example. You talk to me about a barrier, but there's an example in Alberta where two education systems were created while preserving a denominational system because many of the immigrants there are not Catholic. So welcoming systems have to be created.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have one final question. In the act, as it has been amended and proclaimed, an objective has been added designed to promote the development of the official language minority communities in Canada.

Second, the President of the Treasury Board came last week to present us Canada's new policy on devolution or service delivery. Because of those two things, that is to say the act and the Treasury Board's new policy, is the Government of Canada obliged, in your view, to review the immigration agreements signed with the provinces?

» (1700)

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe the new act will necessarily have to lead the federal government to reexamine them since a number of those agreements were signed under the old act, I believe. So I imagine there will be a review process and that the regulations will be new. So this is a golden opportunity to revise them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Reid.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you very much.

Dr. Adam, I just wanted to turn to your written presentation today. On pages 7 and 8 you talk about some recommendations with regard to proposed regulations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in particular with regard to the point system for new immigrants to Canada. Am I right that this is not included in the report, Immigration and the Vitality of Canada's Official Language Communities?

[Translation]

Madame Dyane Adam: No.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: That's good, because I just wasn't finding what I was looking for there.

I wanted to ask you about the.... You talk about changing.... Well, I'll just read what you say:

“I believe that we must adjust the proposed point system to adequately recognize the language proficiency of immigrants who are bilingual. I recommend that the maximum number of points awarded for language be from a total of 20 to 24.”

Then you go on and give some details.

What is the actual recommendation of the committee currently? What's the number of points they give, and out of what total?

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's currently 20, but they're proposing 24 points for language.

Mr. Scott Reid: So they're proposing 20 and you're proposing 24. Is that right?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No. It's currently 20, and that's the point system developed by the department. But the committee is proposing to increase it to 24 points, as are we.

Mr. Scott Reid: Oh, so you're concurring with them.

[Translation]

Madame Dyane Adam: That's correct.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: That's the point. You're not actually recommending a change to what they've recommended, then. Okay, I've got it.

Mr. Gérard Finn: It's a change from what was published in the Gazette as the proposed regulation. The department proposed 20, as the commissioner said, and the parliamentary committee is proposing 24.

Mr. Scott Reid: Right. And then the breakdown you give, in terms of knowledge for the first official language, is 16 points for high proficiency in the first official language and then a maximum of 8 points for knowledge of the second official language. What do you mean by first and second official languages?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm sorry, what?

Mr. Scott Reid: Well, you say “This would mean that an immigrant could receive a maximum of 16 points for high proficiency in the first official language and a maximum of 8 points for knowledge of the second official language...”. I'm just wondering what you mean by “the first official language” and “the second official language”.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Each immigrant or person choosing to come here has to identify their first official language, whether it's English or French, and then they will be assessed on the proficiency of their second official language.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, so “first” and “second” just refers to their own personal capacity.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. It may even be that Chinese is their mother tongue, but their first official language may be English and they may have knowledge in French also. They would be assessed on that level of proficiency for French as the second official language.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay.

Then you say that this would be the case to get a certain number of points, even if you have “only a moderate proficiency in the second official language”. What did you have in mind when you talked about a moderate proficiency, if we were to look at it by way of example, as compared to the way in which the civil service rates language ability?

Ms. Dyane Adam: What is important is we have to look at the initial proposal made by the department. They basically propose that for the first official language you identify, if you've got an excellent proficiency, you'd get a maximum of 16 points; after that you would have extra points for your second official language, but you have to be as proficient.

What we say is, as with any competency, but especially languages, it's like a sliding scale. If it's your second official language, let's say you have some proficiency, but not excellence: you'd get zero points. Any Canadian right now may not have an excellent proficiency in both official languages, but we still recognize their proficiency. We feel we should not be tougher with our immigrants than we are with ourselves.

» (1705)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'm sorry, Mr. Reid, your time is up. We'll come back for a third round.

Senator Gauthier.

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to come back to the question of the integration of immigrants into official language minority communities. I'm clear. I'm not sure that there are currently programs in place to welcome these people in the communities. I know that the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada has proposed three pilot projects. If my memory serves me, it was in Manitoba and Ontario. The third province escapes me. I think it was New Brunswick. Could you talk a bit about this? Do you know whether it is working or not? Has action been taken? Have these programs been put in place?

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's been very, very recent. Mr. Coderre announced that at the time the committee we spoke about earlier was created. That goes back scarcely a few weeks. So we're talking about pilot projects which, in practice, have just been introduced.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I remember an interview that Mr. Georges Arès, the Federation's president, gave last year. You say it's recent. That may be the case. If it's recent, I won't talk about it.

I want to come back to your expression “demographic renewal”. I might call it something else, but it's a good expression. To your knowledge, were the minority Francophone communities consulted, as promised in the act, concerning the regulations that are being established?

Ms. Dyane Adam: My colleague will answer that question.

Mr. Gérard Finn: I know that the representatives of the communities appeared before the parliamentary committee to present their suggestions, their recommendations. Discussions took place with the communities in that context. As to whether the Department went to meet the communities and so on, I don't know if that was done.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I ask you a very simple little question? Based on my personal experience with Foreign Affairs, I have realized that the embassies do not do much to promote Canadian duality. It's no secret: they don't talk about it. What they say is always in English.

[English]

“If you want to come to Canada, we will take the proper measures to make sure you're well received always.”

[Translation]

But in English, of course. Consequently, most immigrants settle in Anglophone regions, in Toronto or Vancouver, for example. I can give you the exact figures, but I believe you already have them. Last year, Ontario took in 148,534 immigrants, British Columbia 38,000, Quebec 37,000 and so on.

As part of your activities, do you intend to meet people from the Canadian embassies to talk to them about linguistic duality? It might be useful during those visits to take note of what is going on in the embassies and to make recommendations in that respect. After all, as Commissioner of Official Languages and ombudsman, you are probably in the best position to talk about it.

For my part, I would like to know whether you intend to take action and travel to the various Canadian embassies in those countries where there are people who are, as I said earlier, “francophonizable”. Don't go to India. Instead go to South America, Africa, Asia and Europe, if you wish. But is it possible for you to go and judge what the lawyers call the state of things, to determine where we stand and, if necessary, as an incentive to action, apply a hat pin prick to the right place. The persons concerned should also be told that it is time to start properly promoting Canada.

» (1710)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Your question is timely, senator. First, I would like to change tracks and talk briefly about a study on the Internet which we published last March. The study showed that the promotion of Canada's bilingual face on the Web sites of our Canadian embassies was very satisfactory, and, even more, we established that between 50% and 60% of Canadian embassy Web sites outside Canada respected the language of the country where they were located. I'm referring here to languages other than English and French. In short, we encourage linguistic and cultural diversity.

The next step was to determine to what extent foreign embassies here in Canada respect our linguistic duality; in other words, do they address all Canadian citizens in English and French? In this specific case, we observed that French is spoken to Canadian citizens in very few embassies. There are even consulates in Montreal that use only English.

This led me to recommend that our Minister of Foreign Affairs take the necessary measures to promote linguistic duality to countries that have embassies in Canada and to the international organizations of which we are a member country. We have gone ahead on this issue and, at the end of this month, on April 29, more precisely, we are going to publish a study specifically on the presence of the two official languages within the international organizations. In this area, we have observed that, in the some 28 international organizations studied, and I'm referring here to organizations for which French is the official language or language of work, French is used very little. These are significant findings.

I would also like to say that I met Minister Graham on this subject to inform him of the situation and to discuss a potential study with him which might in fact be entitled The State of Things and which could focus on the achievement of one of the objectives of our foreign policy, with which you are more familiar than I, senator. One of the pillars of that policy is the promotion of Canadian values outside Canada, internationally. In my view, the value that should be promoted would be linguistic duality. It should also be determined how our government, the Department and foreign embassies carry out this aspect of their mandate. In short, this is one of the studies that will start with the next year; it's part of our homework, if you will.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: With regard to the remarks you've just made, I wanted to tell you that I was part of the last APF delegation on education, communication and culture, and that was one of the subjects we decided to consider. So I can't wait to receive the study on the use of French in the international organizations, and I believe you should share it with the leaders of the APF. This issue was a source of concern for, I would say, more than 40 members of the APF.

I learned something very surprising last week. I know that you don't always do the traditional thing, that you're quite original.

In British Columbia, there is an office of the Alliance Française. I learned that 80% of the students of the Alliance Française in that province were of Chinese extraction, that Canadian Francophones or Canadians of other origins who could benefit from the Alliance Française's services simply went to English schools. So 80% of the clientele attending that school was Asian, indeed Chinese.

Do you think that, in your tools, in the second study that will be presented on concrete steps, you could consider non-traditional measures such as alliances—that's a redundancy—with the Alliance Française, and not the Canadian Alliance, to encourage... Yes, immigrants are an extremely important issue. For example, the COFIs and all that, yes, it's important, but when a family arrives here, if we can help young people integrate in French, we will help them grow up in French as well.

Can or should these alliances with non-Canadian institutions be considered in your next study?

» (1715)

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe there are all possible types of combinations to create conditions conducive to the intake, integration or settlement of immigrants. I don't know how far we're going on this, but the study nevertheless shows that immigrants also have many needs. They also want to get together with people who share the same origins, for example, the same culture. In short, they belong to many groups. The clearest example I have personally experienced was in Toronto, where there are a lot of French immigrants; the Alliance Française, the French Consul, play a key role in promoting the French language and culture not only of immigrants, but of the community as well. We regularly got together, the various players in world politics, education, the community, television, the media, around the French Consul in Toronto. He had this assembling role. So I imagine it's in that sense... The Alliance Française gave courses, of course. He brought together not only Francophones, but Francophiles as well, so there were links with the majority. It's somewhat in that sense that... It exists. It's perhaps less formal, but it already exists in certain regions of the country.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: What I meant is to make it more concrete in a report such as this and to say that the government can and must take concrete action with regard to the immigration policy. But there are also authorities in place, authorities with which we must work. You spoke of cooperation. These are authorities with which we must cooperate as well so as not to duplicate efforts. For example, if the Alliance Française handles one aspect for French citizens arriving in Toronto, we don't necessarily need to duplicate it, but rather to complement it. That's what I mean.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe you're entirely right. I just want to close with this. If you look at the world of diplomacy, those people are already networked among themselves, and, you could take Francophone diplomacy. In a city such as Toronto, it is very present. The idea would be to use those networks to achieve awareness and promotion, but also to foster inclusion and integration in a pluralistic Francophonie, which is also important.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Ms. Adam.

Senator Léger.

Senator Viola Léger: Perhaps it's not exactly here that I should ask my question, which concerns demographics. We're not counting, but we know that, in future, immigrants will... As regards official languages, will demographics among Aboriginal people be considered as well? Is there a concern for official languages elsewhere, in another area?

» (1720)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Do you mean with respect to the First Nations?

Senator Viola Léger: Yes. They're already Canadians. Is there a sector that is concerned with bilingualism among the Aboriginal people?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm going to speak on behalf of my parish, the Office of the Commissioner.

Through our history, we have not intervened very often with Aboriginal communities. We have very few ties with them, except of course with the territories. When we have intervened, it was often to concern ourselves mainly with the Francophone minority and questions regarding the Aboriginal majority, which mainly adopts English. We have had very few interventions with them.

I recently intervened in the context of the revision of the provisions regarding official languages in the Northwest Territories Act. As you know, they have many Aboriginal languages which are also recognized as having official language status like English and French. Their problem at this time is that those languages are disappearing. They have approximately nine, and a number of those are in danger of disappearing.

Canada in general--and I mean in general--does not appear to have reflected on or had a public debate on the issue of Aboriginal languages. Are Aboriginal people given the opportunity to learn the two official languages, that is English and French? But they also have other official languages. I believe the problem with regard to our Aboriginal communities is still more complex and really very difficult. As this somewhat exceeds my jurisdiction, I don't tend to...

Senator Viola Léger: I believe the situations of Aboriginal people and immigrants are similar with regard to mother tongue. We absolutely do not want to take immigrants' mother tongues away. Aboriginal people are Canadians. They know that bilingualism defines the country. That's what creates resemblance.

You also talked about urbanization. Aboriginal people are definitely settling in cities. Perhaps the government and the Commissioner should now pay a little attention to this and add it to the rest.

Ms. Dyane Adam: We were talking about important issues for the future of the country. I think the question of the future of Aboriginal communities, the preservation of their mother tongue, is very important. Of course, it's outside my jurisdiction since I don't have responsibility for it, but I'll take note of that suggestion or recommendation. I believe there is really something to be done to encourage at least some kind of action elsewhere in the government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Bélanger.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): This will be very brief. First, I wanted to indicate that the creation of the advisory committee augurs well because, in the other two cases, that is to say at Human Resources Development Canada and Health Canada, the creation of these department-community committees has produced results. I believe that this could be true as well for immigration, provided the committee is sufficiently broad and representative. I'm talking about two committees because I imagine there will be one in Quebec as well. That's what was done in the other departments.

With regard to the integration of new arrivals, Commissioner, I remember that—and this is too vague in my mind—in the past four or five years, there has been a transfer of responsibility or programs for which the Government of Canada was previously responsible to the provinces, for welcoming immigrants, language training and so on. Have you had the opportunity to consider that? Do we have some kind of inventory of what exists and an evaluation of what is being done?

» (1725)

Ms. Dyane Adam: The second study focuses precisely on this question. However, I don't claim that this study will provide a full inventory of the range of services that have been developed in the various provinces in recent years. We took a sample to illustrate what is being offered and also to assess the challenges somewhat, but also the benefits of certain models. For the most part, those models have been developed for the majority.

In certain provinces, as you know, where there are organizations responsible for integration and settlement, we're going to pay for language training, for example, to learn English, but, if an immigrant wants to learn French, they don't pay. So, you see that there are incongruities in this country which wants to have two official languages, which announces that fact publicly but where immigrants are not given the means to become bilingual.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you, Commissioner. Our time is up. I'm going to ask you whether you would like to stay a little longer.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you.

Here's a question to supplement that of the Joint Chair Mr. Bélanger. It concerns the language training of immigrants, new Canadians. I can't speak for the other provinces, but, in Ontario, at first, there was training in French and English. Well, I may be mistaken, but I believe that, gradually, you're right, the majority established the program on the basis of the Anglophone majority. Now no French-language training is being given in Ontario, as far as I know. Am I mistaken?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. In some cases, there is training, Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: What do you mean by “some cases”?

Ms. Dyane Adam: There are some regions, such as Toronto, where there may be some. Some community colleges, for example, offer courses or training for immigrants or refugees.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the federal government pay the cost of that language training?

Ms. Dyane Adam: With respect to direct funding, I admit that I would not be able to answer your question, but it is nevertheless in the context of the agreements between the provinces and the federal government. The federal government nevertheless pays contributions. It does so in Quebec.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: [Editor's note: Inaudible] ...talk to us about that later.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): With your permission, I could perhaps provide a partial answer; it's strictly partial. I know that, here in Ottawa, the group La Magie des lettres does this type of training in French for the new arrivals community and that it's funded by the Government of Canada. It's not sufficient, but there is that element here, in Ottawa, that I'm aware of.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Commissioner, I want to thank you enormously on behalf of the committee members for your flexibility. We contacted the Commissioner Wednesday morning. She submitted a report and was ready to come see us today. Thank you very much. It was a special piece of testimony.

The meeting is adjourned.