• About Us
  • The Commissioner of Official Languages
  • Mandate
  • Mission
  • Roles
  • History of the Office of the Commissioner
• Your Language Rights
  • Official Languages Act
  • Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Official Languages Regulations
  • Filing a Complaint
  • Court Remedy
  • Legal Interventions
• Official Languages and You
  • General Information
    • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Linguistic Duality and Cultural Diversity
    • Immigration and linguistic duality
    • Studies
  • Teachers
  • Parliamentarians
  • Institutions
• Newsroom
  • Search
  • News Releases
  • Daily Highlights
  • Backgrounders
  • Speeches
  • Media Resources
  • Contacts
• Publications
  • Search
  • Reports
  • Studies
  • Report Cards
  • Language Laws and Rights
  • Audits
  • Newsletter
  • History of Official Languages
  • Youth
  • Videos
  • Posters
  • Other publications
  • Order Form
• Statistics
• Careers
• Archives
• Links
  • Travel and Hospitality Expenses
• Completed Access to Information Requests
• Proactive Disclosure
  • Contracts Awarded
  • Grants and Contributions
  • Position Reclassifications
  • Advertising and Public Notices Expenditures

III. Francophones in Canada

Page 5 of 9

A. Immigrants and the Demography of Official Language Communities

In an effort to predict the impact of government action on official language communities one may identify the areas in which immigration and language policies converge and the degree to which they intersect. Demographic conditions undoubtedly constitute one of the most important dimensions in any assessment of the situation of official language communities. Another is the quality of life or institutional well-being of the community—what sociologist Raymond Breton has called the institutional completeness of the group. While some analysts stress the actual number of a given linguistic group, others are more preoccupied with a particular community’s share of the municipal/metropolitan, provincial and national populations.

Size and weight of communities are deemed especially relevant in the formulation of certain government policies and very often in determining the level and type of services to be delivered to official language communities. For that reason community leaders are keenly interested in knowing their total membership.

The number of persons that belong to an official language community may vary according to the criteria for membership analysts employ. To establish the demographic impact of immigration on official language communities the following linguistic categories were used.

• Knowledge of official languages was used to determine the contribution of immigration to the overall position of the French language.
• First official language spoken was used to establish the size of the community; if respondents declared that both official languages were their first, we distributed them equally between the Anglophone and Francophone populations.
• Mother tongue was used to examine the settlement patterns of Francophone immigrants and their impact on the composition of the community.

1. Knowledge of Official Languages among Immigrants

While CIC measures the immigrant’s language knowledge upon arrival, Statistics Canada looks at the state of such knowledge at the time of the census. Therefore Statistics Canada provides information on the degree to which an immigrant acquired knowledge of an official language between the time of arrival and the time of census.

Table 1

Knowledge of official languages among immigrants upon arrival in Canada, 1991-1995 and 1996-2000

	1991-1995	1996-2000
Total immigration	1,175,821	1,033,346
French	58,587 (5.3%)	46,490 (4.6%)
English and French	42,531 (3.8%)	36,702 (3.6%)
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Facts and Figures, 1991-2000.

In Table 1 we can track the degree to which immigrants declared knowledge of the French language upon arrival. The reduction in the number of such immigrants in the period 1996-2000 is consistent with the decrease in the annual immigration levels in the late 1990s; however, there was also a decline in the proportion of entrants who knew French and notably those who spoke only that language.

Table 2

Total immigration to Canada by knowledge of official languages upon arrival, to 1996

	Canada	French	English and French	English	Neither
Total Immigrants	4,971,070	183,380 (3.6%)	571,785 (11.4%)	3,864,015 (78.8%)	351,890 (6.2%)
Before 1961	1,054,935	19,865 (1.8%)	105,075 (10.0%)	899,320 (85.6%)	30,660 (2.5%)
1961-1970	788,580	23,140 (2.9%)	107,140 (13.5%)	617,225 (79.1%)	41,075 (4.5%)
1971-1980	996,160	35,075 (3.5%)	132,505 (13.3%)	772,505 (78.0%)	56,075 (5.1%)
1981-1990	1,092,405	49,755 (4.6%)	135,345 (12.4%)	815,615 (74.8%)	91,685 (8.2%)
1991-1996	1,038,995	55,540 (5.4%)	91,715 (8.9%)	759,345 (73.7%)	132,390 (12.0%)
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

Table 2 permits us to follow the changes in the numbers of immigrants who arrived in the country between 1961 and 1996 and today possess knowledge of English and/or French. The difference from the data in Table 1 is mainly attributable to the acquisition of the English language by those immigrants who declared knowledge of French only upon arrival, the acquisition of French by Quebec’s English-speaking immigrants, and allophones, largely in Quebec, who learned French after their arrival. The figures issued by Statistics Canada indicate that the percentage of immigrants who knew only French increased between 1961 and 1991 by nearly 50% in each decade. The percentage of immigrants who knew French only steadily climbed between 1961 and 1996 (from 2.9% to 5.4%), largely due to Quebec’s efforts to recruit such immigrants. When those who declared knowledge of both official languages are included, the percentage of immigrants who know French climbs to between 16% and 17% over the years 1961-1991. Indeed, despite the additional points allotted in 1986 for knowledge of official languages, there has been little change in the proportion of immigrants who upon arrival in Canada claim a knowledge of French.

The proportion of immigrants who know both official languages remains below the overall proportion of Canadians able to speak English and French, which in 1996 stood at about 17%. While we need to allow for the acquisition of official languages among immigrants in the 1991-1996 cohort, it is legitimate to ask whether more can be done to support training for immigrants in a second official language.

In gathering data on immigration, CIC focuses on knowledge of official languages upon arrival and looks at how this may affect the process of adaptation. As seen from Table 3, in recent years the distribution of immigrants by knowledge of official languages has been fairly consistent, with Quebec receiving some 70% of all immigrants who know the French language. When further divided, this represents 84% of all those who know French only and 57% of all new arrivals who declared knowledge of English and French.

Table 3

Immigrants’ knowledge of official languages upon arrival in selected provinces, 1996-1999

Year	Knowledge of	Canada	N.B.	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Alberta	B.C.
1996	English	117,017	401	6,779	70,769	2,240	7,553	25,971
	French	9,799	51	8,182	1,191	42	89	183
	Both	6,607	33	3,419	2,283	61	202	502
1997	English	111,324	362	5,958	68,712	2,150	7,021	24,215
	French	8,302	35	6,935	1,032	31	72	138
	Both	6,111	30	3,010	2,160	43	220	556
1998	English	83,628	336	4,694	51,559	1,483	5,717	17,725
	French	8,497	47	7,145	991	38	113	123
	Both	7,644	42	3,542	2,038	53	199	481
1999	English	92,545	331	5,548	58,422	1,775	6,414	17,939
	French	9,530	49	8,069	1,102	41	80	138
	Both	7,644	45	4,424	2,305	56	245	471
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1996-99.

One might think the initial distribution by language knowledge of immigrants who settle in the rest of Canada would contribute to increasing the level of bilingualism among the population. But it is important to look at the share of such immigration and how the language knowledge of immigrants evolves over time.

We can see from Table 3 that between 1996 and 1999 the real numbers of immigrants who spoke French only upon arrival and those who spoke English and French have stayed relatively consistent. This is undoubtedly a function of the annual immigration levels. Indeed in the year 2000, as the annual number of immigrants increased by nearly 20% (from approximately 190,000 to just over 227,000), the numbers of immigrants who declared knowledge of the French language rose by nearly the same percentage (17,185 to 20,247). The bulk of the increase came from entrants who claimed knowledge of both English and French (30%) as opposed to those who spoke the French language only (8%).

It is no surprise that Quebec has by far the greatest share of immigrants who know French only. Of unilingual French immigrants, 96% reside in Quebec. Of those immigrants who declare knowledge of both English and French, some 54% reside in Quebec, and in the period 1991-96 the proportion of such persons rose to 57%. On a considerably smaller scale there have been increases in the number of immigrants who know only French in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. It is apparent that very few immigrants who know French only reside outside the province of Quebec, even if immigrants had higher rates of unilingualism when they first settled in a given region. Of the approximately 755,000 immigrants who declare knowledge of French, some three-quarters speak both official languages. In Quebec, about 63% of immigrants who know French also claim they are able to speak English. In the rest of Canada, 98% of immigrants able to speak French also speak English. In short, very few immigrants who arrived in the rest of Canada continue to speak only French, and this also applies to those immigrants who came as recently as 1991-1996.

Table 4

Knowledge of French only among immigrants upon arrival in selected provinces, to 1996

	Canada	N.B.	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Alberta	B.C.
Before 1961	19,865	45	19,255	385	35	35	90
1961-1970	23,140	35	22,560	440	15	20	60
1971-1980	35,075	95	33,825	870	45	80	135
1981-1990	49,755	70	47,845	1485	30	75	250
1991-1996	55,540	90	52,740	2335	15	130	215
Total	183,375	335	176,225	5515	140	340	750
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

Table 5

Knowledge of English and French among immigrants upon arrival in selected provinces, to 1996

	Canada	N.B.	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Alberta	B.C.
Before 1961	105,075	890	54,270	32,620	1,215	3,440	10,570
1961-1970	107,140	975	57,840	31,400	1,280	3,980	9,500
1971-1980	132,505	2,460	71,050	37,335	1,490	6,305	11,445
1981-1990	135,345	1,200	73,240	41,915	1,360	4,905	10,785
1991-1996	91,715	300	51,845	27,585	695	2,680	7,465
Total	571,785	5,825	308,245	170,855	6,040	21,310	49,765
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

A near majority of immigrants to Quebec are able to speak both English and French. The longer the period of settlement the more likely they are to acquire both languages, particularly if they have advanced knowledge of one. Some 53% of immigrants who arrived in Quebec between 1971 and 1990 declare an ability to speak both languages, a rate that is higher than the overall rate of bilingualism in the province. The proportion of immigrants that know French only has increased in the past 10 years, reflecting the change in the sources of Quebec immigration and the greater importance attributed to the acquisition of French by the new arrivals. While the percentage of immigrants who arrived in Quebec between 1991 and 1996 declaring knowledge of both English and French (34.5%) is nearly equal to the percentage of persons who speak the two languages in the entire province (37%), in the rest of Canada there is a significant gap between the immigrant population’s knowledge of both official languages (4.5%) and that of the population as a whole (10%).

2. First Official Language Spoken/Initial Contact

To better understand the linguistic condition of the immigrant population it is essential to consider the knowledge of official languages in conjunction with other aspects of linguistic identification. The data on the immigrant’s knowledge of official languages do not tell us about the process of linguistic adaptation upon arrival. Such information is best gauged from the results of the census question on first official language spoken.

From Table 6 we can observe that over the decades there has been a slight increase in the share and real number of immigrants for whom the first official language spoken was French.

Table 6

Total number (in thousands) of immigrants in Canada by first official language spoken upon arrival, to 1996

	Canada	English	French	English and French
Before 1961	1,054.9	963.0 (91.3%)	42.1 (4.0%)	19.4 (2.0%)
1961-1970	788.5	675.7 (85.7%)	52.2 (6.6%)	20.0 (2.5%)
1971-1980	996.1	836.1 (84.0%)	75.3 (7.5%)	29.3 (3.0%)
1981-1990	1,093.4	865.2 (87.6%)	86.8 (7.9%)	50.0 (4.5%)
1991-1996	1,038.9	786.2 (78.6%)	80.7 (7.8%)	41.9 (4.0%)
Total	4,971.0	4,126.3 (83.0%)	337.4 (6.8%)	160.8 (3.2%)
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

It is worth noting the difference between the number of new immigrants who know French and those who actually spoke it first upon their arrival. In the period 1991-1996, some 55,000 immigrants claimed that they knew the French language only, yet it was the first official language of more than 80,000 new arrivals. The difference of approximately 25,000 persons is a function of the extent to which those persons who declared knowledge of both English and French first spoke French when they came to Canada. This may be related to how many of those who claimed knowledge of both official languages are either Anglophone or Francophone. Another possible explanation for this phenomenon may be under-reporting by recently arrived immigrants.

Quebec takes in some 80% of such immigrants, followed by Ontario, which on average has attracted about 16% of new arrivals who first spoke French. There are distinctions to be made between those who spoke French only upon arrival and those who spoke both English and French as their first official languages. In effect, from 1991 to 1996 some 90% of those who spoke only French as first official language arrived in Quebec, an increase from the 1960s when the figure was 85% (among those who arrived before 1961 it was approximately 80%). Conversely, Quebec had a declining share of those immigrants who declared both English and French as their first official language spoken.

With the exception of the 1981-1990 period, for every three immigrants in Quebec who spoke French only, one spoke both English and French. In the rest of Canada the situation is very different. For every immigrant who spoke French only upon arrival, more than two declared that they spoke both English and French. This constitutes a significant shift over time, since before 1971 more immigrants in all the provinces spoke French only upon their arrival than spoke both English and French. Again, this may have less to do with the composition of the immigrant population than with the linguistic environment that they encounter.

3. Mother Tongue

From the previous section it is apparent that the classification of immigrants who report their first official language spoken as both English and French is crucial to the determination of the population of official language communities in a given territory. Analysts have tended to allot half of those who make such declarations to the English-speaking community and the other half to the Francophone community. Before the question on the first official language spoken was introduced in the 1991 census, mother tongue and, to a lesser degree, language spoken at home were the barometers used to assess the number of Francophones in a given area. While first official language spoken is designed to look at the potential number of persons who might use minority language services, and thus includes those persons of neither English nor French mother tongue who use one or both of the two official languages, the category of mother tongue does not include those allophones who used an official language upon arrival. On the basis of the first official language spoken, some 44,000 Francophone immigrants settled in Canada outside Quebec, while on the basis of mother tongue the figure is about 39,000. The big difference, however, is between the number of immigrants whose mother tongue was both English and French and those who declared their first official language spoken to be both English and French. Based on the way Statistics Canada allocates those who make such dual declarations, there would be another 27,000 immigrants residing in Canada outside Quebec whose first official language spoken was French. If mother tongue were the criterion, then slightly over 2,000 Francophone immigrants would be added to this population.

As indicated in Table 7, over 20% of Canada’s French-mother-tongue immigrants reside outside Quebec, and the figure is closer to one-quarter when those of English and French mother tongue are included. This said, the situation has evolved considerably over the past few decades as Quebec has experienced steady increases in the share of immigrants whose mother tongue is French. From approximately 76% in the period 1961-1970, the percentage of such immigrants who settled in Quebec rose to approximately 85% between 1991 and 1996. There have also been fluctuations in the proportion of immigrants with French as a mother tongue who have settled in Ontario. In the 1961-1970 period, some 15% of immigrants settling there had French as a mother tongue. This figure declined in the next decade to about 11%. Although the numbers were small, there was a slight increase during that period in mother-tongue-French immigration to the provinces of New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia. In that decade about one of ten mother-tongue-French immigrants settled in places other than Quebec and Ontario. Since 1980, however, Quebec and Ontario have received over 95% of such immigration.

Table 7

Immigration by mother tongue (French) for Canada and selected provinces, to 1996

Country/province	Language	Total	Before 1961	1961-70	1971-80	1981-90	1991-96
Canada	French	173,315	25,045	31,600	42,275	38,765	35,630
	English and French	9,060	1,320	1,170	2,215	2,415	1,940
Quebec	French	134,635	16,930	23,810	33,175	31,030	29,705
	English and French	4,935	670	650	1,310	1,285	1,025
Ontario	French	23,190	4,565	4,720	4,795	4,995	4,115
	English and French	2,860	405	355	565	830	710
New Brunswick	French	2,425	325	345	1,160	445	150
	English and French	90	15	-	35	25	15
Manitoba	French	1,285	360	255	315	250	100
	English and French	80	35	20	10	15	-
Alberta	French	2,995	720	620	800	560	260
	English and French	335	80	-	130	55	75
British Columbia	French	6,915	1,620	1,500	1,630	1,070	1,105
	English and French	630	90	120	150	155	110
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

4. Settlement Patterns outside Quebec

According to Maurice Beaudin, Francophones in Canada occupy two different worlds (Beaudin, 1998). The first is relatively well-established and rooted in the traditional regions of Francophone settlement. The second, considerably more mobile, lives and works in the larger urban centres where English is very much the dominant language. The pattern of settlement of Francophone immigrants closely resembles that of the vast majority of persons who come to Canada. Apart from Quebec, Ontario takes in the largest number of Francophones (13.4%). The new arrivals tend to settle in Toronto and Ottawa. Although a very small percentage of people living in B.C. are Francophones (1.5%), a relatively large proportion of Francophone immigrants settle in that province (4%). In New Brunswick, by contrast, there is a considerable gap between that province’s share of Canada’s Francophone population (3.5%) and the percentage of Francophone immigrants it receives (1.4%).

In short, today’s immigrants do not necessarily choose to settle in the areas where Canada’s Francophone population outside Quebec is concentrated. The vast majority of immigrants settle in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec, and particularly in the cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

Canada’s Francophones have for some time been affected by the gradual movement from the less urban centres to the larger metropolises. Like most immigrants, Francophone entrants are mainly concentrated in the country’s large urban centres.

For some observers, unless action is taken this movement toward largely English-speaking centres will inevitably accelerate the process of language loss among French speakers.

According to Beaudin (1998) the future vitality of the French language will depend upon such considerations as:

• the economic revitalization of the less urban, more traditional regions of Francophone settlement;
• a stronger network between these areas and the minority Francophones in larger urban centres;
• the presence of Francophones in the big cities. Immigrants represent a strategic link in the evolution of the Francophone economic space.

If Beaudin is correct, Francophone immigrants may play a non-negligible role in the vitality of the French language.

5. Rootedness

The effects of the international and interprovincial migration of Francophones have created a mixture in the degree of “rootedness” of French speakers in the biggest cities. The notion of a host or receiving community is increasingly difficult to define in pluralistic societies with a large number of immigrants. It is presumed that the “host” has a certain degree of rootedness in the receiving community. In the larger urban centres, more recent arrivals often constitute a greater share of the population than “hosts”. This can affect the dynamics of a community. As we can observe from Table 8 the province of British Columbia has the highest percentage of persons of French mother tongue who were not born in the country. Indeed in that province there are more immigrants of French mother tongue than Francophones who were born there.

Table 8

Place of birth of mother-tongue Francophones in provinces of Canada, 1996

Province	Total	Born in province	Born elsewhere in Canada	Born outside Canada
Newfoundland	2,300	930 (40.0%)	1,290 (59.8%)	210 (2.1%)
New Brunswick	242,385	216,120 (90.1%)	21,050 (8.7%)	2,475 (1.0%)
Nova Scotia	36,370	24,830 (70.6%)	9,350 (26.6%)	950 (2.5%)
P.E.I.	5,725	3,865 (69.4%)	1,605 (28.8%)	90 (1.6%)
Quebec	5,728,290	5,442,160 (95.0%)	144,280 (2.5%)	134,655 (2.3%)
Ontario	502,725	316,465 (65.3%)	143,710 (29.6%)	23,850 (4.9%)
Manitoba	49,625	38,965 (81.5%)	7,690 (16.0%)	1,285 (2.7%)
Saskatchewan	19,790	14,810 (76.8%)	3,870 (20.0%)	550 (2.9%)
Alberta	55,675	21,670 (40.8%)	28,275 (53.2%)	2,955 (5.5%)
B.C.	57,345	5,170 (9.5%)	41,655 (77.0%)	6,915 (13.0%)
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

 

Table 9

Place of birth of mother-tongue Francophones in major Canadian cities, 1996

City	Total	Born in province	Born elswhere in Canada	Born outside Canada
Quebec City	476,590	462,695 (97.0%)	6,775 (1.4%)	6,530 (1.4%)
Sherbrooke	117,320	113,580 (97.0%)	1,585 (1.4%)	1,955 (1.6%)
Montreal	933,235	830,950 (89.0%)	25,935 (3.0%)	71,315 (8.0%)
Ottawa-Carleton	111,530	69,675 (62.0%)	36,315 (33.0%)	5,315 (5.0%)
Toronto-Region	47,290	14,045 (29.0%)	22,695 (48.0%)	10,855 (23.0%)
Winnipeg	26,750	20,910 (78.0%)	4,905 (18.0%)	925 (4.0%)
Edmonton	12,990	5,940 (46.0%)	6,155 (47.0%)	855 (7.0%)
Calgary	11,600	1,580 (14.0%)	8,810 (76.0%)	1,210 (10.0%)
Hamilton	6,425	2,685 (42.0%)	3,075 (48.0%)	615 (10.0%)
Vancouver	24,070	2,505 (10.0%)	16,865 (70.0%)	4,460 (19.0%)
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada 1996.

 

Interprovincial migration has an impact on the rootedness of Francophone communities that requires further study. As we can observe, the movement of the Francophone population has meant that, in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Alberta, most Francophones were born outside the province.

In Toronto and Vancouver, Francophone immigrants account for nearly one-quarter of all Francophones, and in Calgary they represent over 10% of the Francophone population.

Thus the estimated number of Francophones in a given area can vary considerably, depending on which criterion is employed: mother tongue or first official language spoken. If the latter, the presence of French-speaking immigrants is the more significant factor. Where immigrants are few, there will be more mother-tongue Francophones than first-official-language ones. Where there are more immigrants, there will be more FOLS Francophones than French speakers in the mother-tongue category. Immigration sometimes means the rapid growth of French-speaking minorities, thus favourably modifying the Francophone share of the community population.

 

B. Francophone Immigration: Attraction and Recruitment

1. Source Countries

The evolving linguistic profile of immigration in recent years is a function of the source countries of new entrants, which have been changing. An immigration policy with some demolinguistic orientation will to some extent target recruitment in particular countries. In its most recent immigration plan, CIC (February 2001) refers to a number of international trends that affect its selection programs. Among them are:

• an increase in non-immigrant movement;
• global labour shortages in certain key economic sectors;
• competition in the global market;
• a shift in source countries; and
• growing numbers of people on the move.

Efforts to recruit Francophone immigrants confront similar challenges. French immigrants are considered a relatively minor immigrant group. The three principal sources for such immigration are Western Europe, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The majority of persons with French as a mother tongue are found in Western Europe. Whereas the economic context in Africa offers more of an incentive to move, French is a second language in many countries in that part of the world. Indeed not all immigrants from the countries that are part of la Francophonie learn French as a primary language.

As we can see from Table 10, Europe has been the principal source of French-speaking immigration to Canada. We included both immigrants whose first official language spoken was French and those who spoke English and French (Statistics Canada has generally allocated half to each group to get the estimated total for each linguistic community).

Table 10

Number of immigrants by country/continent of origin in Canada, Quebec, Ontario, and the other provinces combined, 1996

Country/continent	Canada		Quebec		Ontario		Other provinces
	French	English/ French	French	English/ French	French	English/ French	French	English/ French
Total	337,400	160,815	293,855	105,430	28,210	40,660	15,335	14,725
United States	14,430	990	10,400	625	1,290	225	2,740	140
Central and South America	28,730	14,215	27,680	9,900	705	2,930	345	1,385
Caribbean and Bermuda	47,785	3,155	44,470	2,690	2,960	415	355	50
Europe	140,425	70,020	119,020	45,735	12,415	17,835	8,990	6,450
Africa	52,820	14,415	43,670	8,490	7,190	5,145	1,960	780
Asia	51,910	57,840	46,975	37,850	3,545	14,100	1,390	5,890
West Central Asia and Middle East	25,315	27,055	22,350	18,570	2,290	6,900	675	1,585
Southeast Asia	19,860	15,025	18,520	11,070	810	2,550	530	1,405
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

 

In Quebec, some 40% of all French-speaking immigrants have come from Europe. During the 1990s, however, the majority of French-speaking immigrants arriving in Quebec were not from Europe, and nearly three-quarters of these new arrivals were members of visible minority groups. Between the periods 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 the share of immigrants from Europe and Africa (in particular North Africa) increased, and immigration from the Americas and Asia declined.

During the period 1990-1994 the principal source countries were Lebanon, Hong Kong and Haiti, whereas from 1995-1999 they were France, China and Algeria. The origins of Francophone immigrants who settled in other parts of Canada followed a similar evolution.

Compared with Quebec, Ontario has lower shares of French-speaking immigrants from Central and South America and the Caribbean and Bermuda. In the province of Ontario, some 25% of all Francophone immigrants are from Africa, whereas immigrants from Africa constitute 15% of Quebec’s Francophone immigration. Outside Quebec and Ontario, the United States was the second largest source of Francophone immigrants, the overwhelming majority (1,820) of whom settled in New Brunswick.

Since it has obtained a greater role in recruitment of immigrants, the Quebec government has been more active overseas in areas where more candidates have a knowledge of French. In 1989, an agreement was ratified with authorities in France (l’Office des migrations internationales, OMI) to support the migration of Francophones. Renewed in 1992, 1995 and 1999, this agreement called for Quebec delegates to organize information sessions in France for prospective candidates for immigration (MRCI, Rapport annuel, 2000).

Elsewhere, in 1998 Quebec Immigration Services held numerous information sessions for potential candidates in Brussels; they conducted promotional activities in Lebanon, took out ads to reach French speakers in Bulgaria and Romania, and developed partnerships with the Alliances françaises to recruit skilled workers in Mexico.

Recently the MRCI announced a reorganization of its immigration services overseas by moving its Damascus operations to Beirut and opening an office in Rabat, Morocco, which is described as being at the heart of an important source of Francophone immigration.

The government of Canada does engage in the active recruitment of economic immigrants and has a number of business immigrant coordination centres located in Beijing, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Berlin, Seoul, Singapore, Damascus and Buffalo. This contrasts somewhat with Quebec’s selection network abroad. Its immigration services offices are located in Mexico City, New York, Paris, Brussels, Vienna, Damascus and Hong Kong. The federal government does not make any direct effort to recruit French-speaking immigrants overseas (though we saw earlier that, in the case of Manitoba, CIC does seem willing to help local communities do such recruitment).

2. Canada and the United States

Quebec makes great efforts to recruit Francophone immigrants and provides a French-speaking environment that is unparalleled anywhere else on the continent. It is therefore not surprising that it attracts the largest percentage of such immigration to Canada. More than four out of five Francophone immigrants settle in Quebec. Nevertheless, French-speaking immigrants have also shown an interest in settling in some of the larger urban centres in the rest of the country and elsewhere on the continent. We can compare the respective numbers of Francophone immigrants who have chosen to settle in Quebec and the rest of Canada; however, it is difficult to identify a framework to evaluate Canada’s success in attracting such immigrants.

Despite the differences in the size of Canada and the United States, their policy orientations and their respective capacity to receive new immigrants, we have chosen to compare the extent to which the United States draws immigrants from certain French-speaking countries. Although the United States cannot offer the services in the French language that Canada does, the strength of its economy is a powerful source of attraction for immigrants from many parts of the world. Between 1990 and 1998, some 220,000 immigrants (approximately 160,000 of them from Haiti) were admitted to the United States from French-speaking countries or ones where French is widely used.

As we can see from Table 11, over the period 1991-96 the United States was able to attract a significant number of immigrants from French-speaking countries (182,029), compared with the number arriving in Canada (33,980). Our neighbour to the south was able to attract immigrants from France despite the fact that Canada offers better socio-cultural conditions for French speakers. Despite assimilation rates that are considerably higher than those in Canada, between 1980 and 1990 the French-speaking population of the United States actually increased, largely due to the influx of persons born in Haiti.

Table 11

Immigration from North Africa, France and Haiti to the United States and Canada (Quebec and the rest of Canada), 1991-1996

Country	United States	Canada	Quebec	Rest of Canada
North Africa	11,785	10,505	9,080	1,425
France	29,063	11,890	9,890	2,000
Haiti	141,181	11,585	10,435	1,150
Sources: Immigration and Naturalization Services of the United States, 1998 and Statistics Canada, Census of Canada, 1996.

 

Despite rates of language loss that average 90%, French-speaking immigration to the United States has contributed to an increase in the number of persons who speak French in their homes. (Some of the increase seen in Table 12 is a function of the migration of French Canadians south of the border.) Recruitment of immigrants through overseas offices and the dissemination of information to potential entrants are essential to attract French-speaking immigration. CIC acknowledges that it makes no direct efforts to recruit French-speaking immigrants abroad. It focuses more on the distribution of information as a means of attracting such immigration.

Table 12

Language spoken at home for the foreign-born population of the United States five years old and over, 1980 and 1990

Language	1990	1980
French (including Creoles)	543,192	376,060
French (excluding Creoles)	387,915	359,870
French Creole (Haitian)	140,433	14,519
Source: United States Bureau of the Census, Census of 1980 and 1990.

3. Categories of Immigrants

The government’s immigration plan for the year 2000-2001 reflects its commitment to reaping the social and economic benefits of immigration while maintaining Canada’s long-standing humanitarian tradition. The plan maintains the current balance between the economic and family class components, ensuring that immigration provides significant economic benefits while at the same time giving priority to family reunification. There are three principle classes of immigrants:

Family class — close family members sponsored by a Canadian citizen or resident, including spouses, fiancés, dependent children, parents, and grandparents.

Independent — selected for their economic contribution, including skilled workers and business immigrants.

Refugee — includes United Nations Convention refugees and other displaced persons resettled from abroad, with government assistance or private sponsorship, and persons who have successfully claimed Convention refugee status in Canada.

In 1978 for the first time the number of persons from the family and refugee categories combined exceeded the number of independent immigrants. Coinciding with this change was the evolution away from the traditional source countries - the United States, the United Kingdom and Western European nations - to the less developed countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa. These changes are widely viewed as having had an impact on the process of immigrant adaptation.

Overall, in 2000, the country received some 26.6% family class, 13.2% refugee class, and 6% business class immigrants; 51.9% were skilled workers, and other categories totalled about 2%. This breakdown differs somewhat from the pattern of Francophone immigration to the country. There remains a significant difference in the percentage of refugees who spoke French only upon arrival and the overall share of refugees within the total Canadian immigration. In Table 13 we can observe that there has been a recent decline in the proportion of refugees who speak French only and a large increase in the percentage of French-speaking skilled workers. It is worth examining how Canada’s targets for immigration categories affect the overall admission of French speakers.

Table 13

Immigrants who know French only, by category of immigrants and share of total immigration, 1996-1999

Category	1996	1997	1998	1999
Family	2,446 (25.6%)	2,242 (27.6%)	1,830 (22.0%)	2,115 (22.3%)
Refugee	3,363 (35.1%)	2,412 (29.7%)	2,050 (24.7%)	2,672 (28.2%)
Business class	317 (3.3%)	340 (4.1%)	479 (5.1%)	426 (4.5%)
Skilled workers	3,458 (36.1%)	3,125 (38.5%)	4,028(48.2%)	4,251 (45.0%)
Total	9,584	8,119	8,377	9,464
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures: Immigration Overview, 1996-2000.

Table 14 points to important differences in the categories of immigrants on the basis of their knowledge of official languages. While there were considerably more refugees who knew French only upon arrival than those who knew both official languages, bilingualism was far more pervasive among skilled workers.

Table 14

Immigrants who declare knowledge of French only and of English and French in Canada, by category of immigrants and share of total immigration, 2000

Category	Overall immigration	French only	English and French
Family	60,517 (30.2%)	2,235 (22.3%)	1,454 (14.8%)
Refugee	30,044 (15.0%)	2,661 (26.6%)	825 (8.4%)
Business class	13,655 (6.8%)	361 (3.6%)	263 (2.6%)
Skilled workers	118,495 (59.2%)	5,072 (50.0%)	7,292 (74.3%)
Total	222,711	10,329	9,834
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures, 2000.

Regional variations are also notable in the categories of Francophone immigrants who come to Canada. In 1999, the Montreal region had a higher proportion of skilled workers and investor class immigrants among its Francophone immigration (50.3%) than either Ottawa (30%) or Toronto (39%). Ottawa had a high proportion of refugees (42%) within its total French language immigration, while Toronto had a higher proportion of family class immigrants (33.2%).

Since the introduction of its new selection criteria, the Quebec Ministry of Immigration is better able to select those independent immigrants who can best contribute to economic well-being, participate fully in the society and require less assistance from the state. The MRCI points out that some 60% of independent immigrants know French (80% when one excludes business class immigrants). This proportion drops to 30% for family class immigrants and 25% for refugees.

C. Integration and Adaptation

1. Canada

The Commissioner of Official Languages has already pointed out that in the large urban centres the linguistic majority communities have developed the structures and services designed to help new immigrants adapt to life in Canada and make them feel at home as quickly as possible (Commissioner of Official Languages, 1989).

CIC regards the successful integration of immigrants as a priority. Both immigrant and non-immigrant generally identify economic insertion as the key to successful integration. It is therefore not surprising that, in surveys of immigrants, they describe this as the main problem they confront upon their arrival in Canada.

According to CIC, successful integration is aided by:

• proficiency in one of Canada’s official languages;
• the ability to find and keep a job;
• the ability to transfer, and make use of, previously acquired occupational skills and educational credentials;
• the ability to integrate commonly held Canadian values and attitudes; and
• the ability to access and fully participate in the institutions and associations that are available to all Canadians (CIC, February 2001).

Canada’s immigrant settlement programs focus on enabling immigrants to become participating and contributing members of Canadian society as quickly as possible. CIC emphasizes several aspects of the process of immigrant adaptation. Perhaps the five main areas are: employment, housing, education, health, and income security.

A series of integration fact sheets issued by CIC (June 97) alludes to the importance of learning English or French in order to secure employment. The following is a relevant excerpt from the employment section of a fact sheet.

If you practised a profession or trade in your country of origin, you may need to upgrade your skills to meet Canadian requirements. Your qualifications may not be accepted until you have Canadian documents or training, some work experience and good ability in English or French.

CIC regards the ability of immigrants to speak one of the official languages as vital to their economic insertion. But it notes that linguistic requirements will vary by region of settlement.

Several times during the 1990s, CIC opted for arrangements with organizations representing official language communities for the provision of services for immigrants. But determining to whom or what body such support should be extended has not always been simple. In addition to language-based services, many Francophone immigrants also have requirements related to their ethnocultural backgrounds. There has been much discussion over which segment of the linguistic community should be responsible for receiving the immigrants and, depending on the answer, how resources should be allocated.

 

2. Quebec

As immigrants were directed to Quebec’s French-speaking institutions, the province began to develop expertise on the adaptation of new arrivals. In its 1990 policy document on immigration, the Quebec government adopted the following principles.

• Integration affects every aspect of community life.
• Integration requires the commitment of both the immigrant and the entire host society.
• Integration is a long-term process of adaptation that unfolds at varying rates.

Quebec policy makers add that the linguistic dimension of immigrant integration largely depends on the socio-economic milieu, the level of immigrants’ participation in the institutions of the host society, and the quality of the interpersonal relationship between immigrants and members of the host society. All these factors influence both the opportunity to speak the language and the immigrants’ attitude toward it. As elsewhere, in Quebec the process of integration has given rise to many questions about the respective roles and responsibilities of the immigrant and the host community.

During the 1990s Quebec’s integration strategies for new arrivals were structured around the concept of the Centre d’orientation et de formation des immigrants (COFI). The COFIs’ primary function was the delivery of French language instruction and services to non-Francophone immigrants. The COFIs were to be a “single window” for the francization of new arrivals.

In the initial years of settlement, the degree of contact immigrants have with Francophones is considered a critical factor in the acquisition of the French language. A study commissioned by the MRCI describes the absence of contact with Francophones as a major obstacle for the acquisition of French, and this is particularly true for those who have rapidly entered the workplace.

A working group on the government’s integration services recommended more individualized support service for the new immigrant through the process of adaptation that follows francization and social and economic insertion. Thus a counselor would follow the immigrant’s integration process and provide support appropriate to the changing condition of the immigrant (MRCI, 1998).

In November 1999, the MRCI reformed the welcoming and integration services offered to new immigrants. The principal measure was the replacement of the Centres d’orientation et de formation des immigrants (COFIs) with the Carrefours d’intégration. The Carrefours d’intégration offer immigrants a wide range of reception and integration services in their new environment.

Each Carrefour provides the new immigrant with access to services and necessary information regarding:

• his or her first contact; and
• support for the settlement process in Quebec, notably in the areas of health, education and employment.

As to francization, the Carrefours will evaluate the needs of new immigrants and provide access to appropriate training, either on-site or in an institutional or communal setting (MRCI, Rapport annuel, 2000).

The reform was designed to bring francization and integration services closer to the institutional mainstream. The ministry will deploy francization services in the college and university network, making available the training that best corresponds to the needs of the immigrant clientele. The opportunity to learn French will be more in line with the level of integration of the immigrant and will be sensitive to the context within which the new arrival adapts. The integration services will operate in greater harmony with the broader range of services provided in a given territory. The emphasis will be on partnerships with the neighborhood institutions of the general Quebec population, such as the local employment centre, the local health centre, the school, the municipality and the local community organization (the MRCI maintains partnerships with many public, parapublic and community organizations to provide services for new immigrants). Placing the immigrant at the centre of the institutions of the Francophone community, the francization process is believed to be an essential element of integration (MRCI, Les carrefours... 2000).

3. Francophone Official Language Minority Communities

All levels of government offer services in both official languages in a number of areas. However, we do not know whether immigrant Francophones are less able to access government services in French than are non-immigrant Francophones. Research in this area would be useful.

Over three decades ago the government of Ontario recognized the need to offer services in French to the province’s Francophones. In November 1989 it passed a law that guaranteed the provision of services in French. This permitted all citizens who so request to be served in French in the principal offices of the ministries and provincial government organizations in 23 designated regions.

The government of Ontario’s Office of Francophone Affairs estimates that some 85% of the province’s Francophone population has access to these services. Larocque’s study (1997) reveals that medical and health matters are the services in greatest demand among Francophone immigrants.

The vast majority of Francophone immigrants have sought services in the French language. Nearly one-quarter of those who did were able to obtain the services they sought, about one-third reported they were able to secure them only in part, and just under a third were unable to receive service in French.

Table 15 identifies the services that Francophone immigrants found particularly difficult to obtain in the French language.

Table 15

Services refused in French

Service	%
Medical	21.3
Legal	14.7
Educational	13.3
Immigration	12.0
Social	10.7
Employment	9.3
All services	8.0
Source: Daniel Larocque, Survey of Toronto Urban Community for CIC, Ontario Region, and Canadian Heritage, 1997.

Outside Quebec the integration and settlement services for immigrant Francophones are still in development, and adjustments are being made to existing structures depending on the number of such immigrants and their source countries.

It is largely over the past two decades that French-speaking communities outside Quebec have been developing strategies for the reception of new arrivals. Such initiatives coincided with the period when several Francophone communities struggled for the control of schools and other institutions. It is essential for the integration of new immigrants that French schools be managed by Francophones.

In 1998 consultations held in Ontario for CIC examined the principal settlement issues of new immigrants and discovered that, independent of ethnic and or/linguistic differences, immigrants shared many basic concerns. In meetings held specifically with Francophone immigrants, they reported needs similar to those of non-Francophone immigrants (Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs, 1998). Some of their main recommendations can be summarized as follows.

• Sensitize those responsible for integration services offered in English to the existence and importance of the Francophone community and the services it has to offer.
• Ensure that immigrants are aware that services are available in French.
• Support research that helps identify the existing means for integration in French and adapt them to the Franco-Ontarian experience.
• Establish links with French service providers and widely disseminate information to Francophone immigrants.
• Be more flexible with respect to new organizations created by the immigrants themselves.
• Create a resource centre for Francophone immigrants of African origin.
• Establish ways to reflect the diverse needs of the Francophone immigrant population.
• Establish partnerships with employers that may require employees who speak French.

A study on settlement services in Ontario’s African community refers to some of the same concerns raised previously about immigrant adaptation. George and Mwarigha (1999) point to difficulties encountered by immigrants from French-speaking Africa in Toronto because of inadequate bilingual services. According to focus group participants, many agencies that serve newcomers do not have French-speaking settlement staff. Consequently, clients either do not receive service or may endure long waits. Limits to the capacity to speak English and the absence of services in French slow down the resettlement and integration process of these newcomers. Africans who are Francophone often have a difficult settlement experience, even if they possess very desirable professional qualifications and job skills.

Participants in the focus groups stated that there is insufficient information about settlement support services such as health and child care, education and the Canadian legal system. The Francophones consulted expressed a very strong need to have a resource centre or “hub” that would help them obtain badly needed information (George and Mwarigha, 1999).

Similar recommendations have been made in the rest of Canada. In Manitoba, the Société franco-manitobaine (SFM) has defined the main challenges with regard to immigration as follows.

Linguistic

• The majority of Francophone immigrants have very little knowledge of English, and in Manitoba it is necessary to have some knowledge of English to function properly in society and to find a job (it can take from half a year to a full year to attain the level of English needed to join the workforce).
• There are no French language classes offered to immigrants. (Why only ESL classes?)
• The linguistic evaluation for English classes (e.g., the service at reception desks is offered only in English; the clients must sign a contract that is available only in English).
• Many provincial and federal offices lack bilingual personnel.

Employment

• Provide assistance in the translation of CVs into English.
• Put newcomers in touch with employers.
• Provide evaluation services for professional certification (even when dealing with an exceptional case, the service is available only in English). Often certificates and diplomas are not equivalent to Manitoban ones, and the clients must return to studies.
• Provide training in professional domains.

Housing

• There is a lack of housing in the Francophone neighborhood of St. Boniface or near French language schools.

Schools

• Schools must offer more support services for new students (the SFM is considering a plan of action).
• Programs need to be developed and implemented to sensitize teachers and others in the education sector about immigration (SFM, 2000).

D. Institutional Life

1. National Organizations

Outside Quebec the debate over the impact of Francophone immigration in the established Francophone communities has perhaps been most active in Ontario. Within Francophone communities, there has been very little outreach to immigrants. According to one analyst, beginning in the1960s, Franco-Ontarians gradually came to understand the challenges presented by cultural diversity and were concerned that the presence of the immigrants would ultimately throw into question the notion of Canada’s two founding peoples (Martel, 1995).

Still, in 1990 the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) adopted a series of resolutions in response to the phenomenon of pluralism both within and outside the official language minorities. In a declaration of principles on the issue of pluralism and immigration the FCFA highlighted the following.

• Whereas:

  Canada is facing irreversible demographic changes and in a few years, the “multicultural” population shall be larger than that of the majority Anglophone and Francophone populations of Canada. It is of importance to the Francophone and Acadian communities that:

  • Immigrants, new and established, fully and willingly adopt the national ideology of linguistic duality, regardless of the linguistic community into which they wish to integrate.
  • Immigrant Francophones as well as immigrants opting to learn French have the opportunity and the means to integrate into the Francophone and Acadian communities.
  • The Canadian francophonie can and shall adapt to forthcoming changes so as to increase the number of French-speaking Canadians wishing to participate fully in the development of the Francophone and Acadian communities (Churchill and Kaprielian-Churchill, 1991).

A publication the FCFA commissioned on the issue of pluralism and Canada’s francophonie made a number of suggestions to improve the relationship, among them:

• the need for greater outreach by established Francophone community organizations to Francophone immigrants.

Concerning multicultural policies, the following suggestions were made:

• to develop, through the provincial member associations, joint programs aimed at cooperating with different racial and ethnocultural groups to improve mutual understanding and, specifically, to promote the theme of protecting individual rights and the rights of members of minority groups in a pluralist society;
• to pursue discussions on the subject of how Francophone New Canadians can best be integrated within Francophone and Acadian communities across Canada. The provincial Francophone associations should emphasize their desire to develop relationships that, in a spirit of open-mindedness, respect cultural differences of immigrants (Churchill and Kaprielian-Churchill, 1991).

At the national level, Canada’s Francophone leadership has moved toward greater openness to immigration and multiculturalism. Indeed the FCFA recently established an initiative called Dialogue, which seeks to sensitize various segments of the population, including ethnic communities, to the concerns of Canada’s Francophones (FCFA, 1999).

With regard to strategies, it is contended that Canadian Francophones and Acadians can demand to be partners in the recruitment and settlement of immigrants who speak French. Opportunities exist for Acadian and Francophone communities to take effective action in conjunction with Citizenship and Immigration Canada via their local organizations and their provincial and territorial associations.

Clearly it is important that the national representative body of Francophone Canadians outside Quebec is reflecting upon the contribution of immigration to the regional and local communities and is pursuing initiatives in that regard. It is essential to find ways to actively involve Francophone immigrants in the national bodies themselves and to ensure that the structures properly reflect their presence.

2. Education

While the right to French language instruction is not automatically conferred upon them, there is little evidence that immigrant children have been turned away from French language schools outside Quebec where the parents expressed a desire for them to receive such instruction. Still, there may be a disincentive to enrol in French language schools where access is difficult.

In Ontario, subject to parental choice and local availability, the provincial Education Act provides for a procedure whereby a non-rightsholder can have access if a request is submitted to the French language admission committee of the appropriate school board. Admission is granted in accordance with the board’s own set of established criteria, which may include the newcomer’s knowledge of French or the parents’ attitude with respect to the mandate of Franco-Ontarian education.

In Saskatchewan, concerns have also been raised about access for the children of Francophone immigrants to French language schools. The problem was illustrated in a recent case involving two immigrant Francophone families that wished to enrol their children in a French language school. To be eligible, they 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.

Although Francophones have control of the French schools, immigrant Francophones need authorization from the Anglophone school sector for student enrolment if they do not fall under the provisions of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Francophone school division of Saskatchewan is examining the relationship between the provincial law providing for the management of French language schools in Saskatchewan (Bill 144) and the relevant section of the Charter (Radio-Canada, Saskatchewan, 2001).

To a significant degree, it is in Quebec (notably in the Montreal region) and Ontario (notably in Toronto and Ottawa) that the French language schools have confronted the reality of pluralism. In Quebec, since 1977, the Charter of the French Language has obliged nearly all children of immigrants to attend French language schools. In fact, in the Montreal area a number of such schools have a majority of immigrant children. Toronto and Ottawa also have some schools in which most students are children of immigrants, but such institutions are the exception rather than the rule. In only one year, 1989-1990, the percentage of immigrant children in one of Ottawa’s large French language high schools rose from 30% to a majority of the student body.

In 1995, the Ontario government’s Royal Commission on Learning concluded that “the impatience and frustration experienced by newly arrived Francophones is quite certainly legitimate, but the resistance to change or the slow pace of it among certain elements of the Franco-Ontarian community are also understandable in the provincial educational context.” The Commission noted that submissions from most major groups involved in French language education stressed the importance of opening up to ethnocultural Francophone communities.

In the following year a complementary consultation in the province focused on the issues that preoccupied the ethnocultural Francophones. The following recommendations were issued.

• Curriculum and educational programs should respond to the needs of a pluralistic Francophone population. This should be reflected in the teaching of history and geography as well as in the field of literature, which would focus on Canadian as well as international francophonie.
• Teaching and administrative staff in French language schools should reflect the ethnocultural diversity of the student population, in particular in schools with a high concentration of such diversity.
• It is important to instil self-confidence in the students by providing them with role models who have succeeded in their professional lives.
• A credible provincial structure should be put into place to represent the concerns of the ethnocultural Francophones to school boards, regional bodies, the provincial administration and other governmental authorities (États généraux complémentaires, Ontario, 1998).

A study conducted in 1991 by the Comité canadien francophone pour l’éducation interculturelle shows that much work remains to be done to introduce multicultural education into minority language schools, both within the large urban centres and on a lesser scale in areas where there are fewer ethnocultural Francophones in the school system. For many Franco-Ontarians ethnocultural diversity is a relatively recent phenomenon. Very often the Francophones are dependent on the strategies adopted by the English language sector relative to the presence of ethnocultural pluralism.

In some instances, schools whose ethnocultural composition has shifted rather suddenly feel a need to revisit their mission and adjust to a new path that recognizes the value of French within a multi-ethnic and often within a multilingual context. All this is occurring in a situation where many Francophone institutions are struggling with a rising sense of biculturalism among the Francophone student population (Lafontant, 2000).

In an FCFA publication, Stacy Churchill and Isabel Kaprielian-Churchill (1991) suggest that the national organization “promote actively the role of the French school as a place of welcome and a place for the initial integration of Francophone immigrant children, intended to help newly arriving families identify themselves closely with the local Francophone community.”

While attention and resources are primarily focused on Ontario, the challenges described above are by no means confined to schools in that province. In Alberta, despite the government’s support for the financing of French language schools, many believe that not enough is being done to respond to the needs of new immigrants. Apart from the lack of choice of educational institutions in Alberta, there are too few teachers in French language schools to support the number of students (Couture et al., 2001). In 1996 non-sectarian French schools were established in both Calgary and Edmonton in response to the fact that many immigrants sending their children to French language schools were not of the Christian faith and thus ineligible to attend the Catholic schools. According to Robert Stebbins, it is unknown “how Canadian-born Francophones in Calgary and Edmonton feel about these newcomers in their midst, most being racially and religiously different and most having a good command of the French language, though they often speak it with an unfamiliar accent” (Stebbins, 2000).

3. Pluralism

Conflicts between established members of a community and new arrivals are not uncommon, especially where the demographic situation evolves rapidly and the community’s identity is in flux. Those who believe that the notion of two founding peoples is fundamental to the defence of the rights of French speakers in Canada may encounter difficulty situating immigrant Francophones in this paradigm. Moreover, these immigrants challenge the way many rooted Francophones have traditionally understood the link between language and ethnicity.

As the composition of Francophone minorities in the predominantly English-speaking urban centres becomes more ethnically diverse, the presumed opposition between linguistic duality and multiculturalism begins to wane. Recent public opinion surveys indicate that the presence of multicultural policies has not contributed to any erosion in support for the French language outside Quebec among non-Francophone Canadians. Moreover, such policies have not deterred non-Francophone Canadians from learning French (Jedwab, Ethnic Identification..., 2000). Much more can and should be done in this regard. The phenomenon of multiculturalism in the French language is on the rise. In future the Multiculturalism Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage should be increasingly supportive of the French fact.

Visible-minority Francophones represent a relatively small proportion of the overall French-mother-tongue population: less than 1.5% in Quebec, slightly over 2% in Ontario and about 2.5% in British Columbia. However, as nearly all those defined as visible-minority Francophones reside in the large urban centres, their proportion of the metropolitan minority Francophone population is quite different. When the category used is first official language spoken, there is a modest increase in the proportion of visible-minority Francophones. For example over 12% of Toronto’s mother-tongue Francophone population (including York and Peel regions) are defined as visible minorities, and when FOLS is the criterion used their share rises above 20%.

One analyst has identified three types of Francophones in a multi-ethnic school context: one, described as “rooted” (de souche), consists of those born in Canada who constitute a minority within the larger English-speaking majority; second, there are the immigrant ethnocultural groups that have joined the rooted Francophone minority, making the latter the dominant group from an interethnic standpoint; the third group consists of those ethnocultural groups and rooted Francophones who together see themselves as a minority community in their interaction with the English-speaking community (Gérin-Lajoie, 1995).

These categories are a reflection of the intersection of linguistic, ethnocultural and ethnoracial identities and the respective importance that the immigrants attribute to such attachments. The cohabitation of students with different cultural baggage gives rise to new questions about membership, community formation and solidarity. For example, one observer points to a contradiction over the rooted Francophones’ view of themselves as a group not receiving equitable treatment with English speakers and the ethnocultural Francophones’ feeling of inequality within the broader Francophone community. Monica Heller contends that “it becomes increasingly difficult to rally all components of the population to the Franco-Ontarian cause of fighting common oppression when certain groups within that population themselves feel oppressed by others; this is notably the case of immigrant groups who feel shut out of the educational process by the locally-established population” (Heller, 1994).

Much of the growing intercommunal debate among Francophones in a multiethnic environment revolves around the changing definition of the host or receiving society. What are the respective roles and responsibilities of the established Francophone community and the new arrivals? It is difficult to talk about the integration of ethnocultural Francophones into the broader Francophone minority context, since both communities are in their own ways undergoing a process of redefinition.

A number of immigrant Francophones have complained that the co-operation with the established community has been inadequate (Quell, 2000). Initiatives to include ethnocultural Francophones have often been perceived as too limited, and there is a feeling that resources are not adequately shared across the entire community. Therefore the pleas for unity made by some established Francophone leaders are often looked upon with skepticism by ethnocultural and ethnoracial Francophones. For the latter, this failure to have a communal meeting of the minds has culminated in the distinction made between the ethnoracial and the rooted Francophones. The debate about these identity questions and how they get translated into an equitable formula for resource distribution is a good deal more complex, given that neither party within the language community is monolithic.

Robert Choquette acknowledges that traditional Franco-Ontarian institutions did not always greet French-speaking immigrants with open arms and, as a consequence, a whole range of associations were created by the ethnocultural Francophone communities. He points to one source of such tension in noting that it was the tenacity of the rooted Franco-Ontarians that resulted in the strengthening of the institutional network that the province’s French speakers possess. Choquette believes that dialogue between immigrants and non-immigrants is essential and that rapprochement will require compromises from all in order to pursue joint projects and develop common strategies (Choquette, 2000).

A linguistic community can include many expressions of ethnicity, just as an ethnic group can function in more than one language. However, as noted previously, the federal government’s commitment to promote the linguistic vitality of official language communities does not imply support for the ethnocultural expression of the group identities. Such support may be available under the Multiculturalism Program, although the latter no longer offers significant funding for mono-ethnic groups. Thus it is hard to justify support for the promotion of ethnic identification within the support for official languages. On the other hand, it is essential that those who receive government aid for the promotion of official languages be inclusive and reflect the diversity of the communities they represent.

For its part the Multiculturalism Program can support dialogue among Francophones of different origins. Partnerships have been attempted in Ontario between the provincial French language organizations and the ethnocultural and ethnoracial Francophones. Although they have not all met with success, it is important that efforts continue to support such co-operation. Too much fragmentation may not be compatible with the objective of fostering vitality, since it may make it difficult to determine all the needs of the Francophone population and in what areas service may be remiss. The common desire for services in French is a strong reason for pooling efforts. The ethnocultural and ethnoracial communities may be able to enhance support for such goals among the broader non-Francophone ethnic minority population. In addition to reinforcing the French language in Ontario, ethnocultural and ethnoracial Francophones may create opportunities for greater participation in the international Francophonie.

Attempts have been made to establish a structure for community dialogue based upon the values and identity of the Francophone community. Without cooperation and a sense of inclusion in the Francophone community, there is a risk that ethnic and racial attachments will lead immigrants to pursue their integration in such a way that, in some cases, they will identify primarily as a linguistic minority within their broader ethnocultural or ethnoracial community. For many such immigrants, however, the French language is an important expression of their cultural identity. For example, many African Francophones want to preserve their linguistic distinctiveness. By not pursuing the objective of full participation, immigrants risk further language loss, and this is not conducive to creating conditions of vitality.

A number of the organizations that address the needs of ethnocultural Francophones are supported by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Ontario branch of Canadian Heritage has shown interest in assisting ethnocultural Francophones in the development of an institutional model to accommodate their needs. Members of Ontario’s ethnoracial Francophone community have drawn the provincial government’s attention to the following challenges:

• mistrust of various national and provincial Francophone organizations and a questioning of their leadership;
• the difficulty of assessing the impact of ethnoracial Francophone organizations with respect to the needs of community members, notably in the areas of employment and training; and
• inadequate access to information from various government ministries and departments.

In 1994 the Department of Canadian Heritage met with representatives of Ontario Francophone organizations to discuss new ways of distributing funds to language minorities in the province. A new structure was to be established that was to be called the Coalition for the Development and Expansion of the Franco-Ontarian Community and the Ethnic Francophone Groups of Ontario. Some ethnocultural Francophone groups that participated in the meeting felt they were being obliged to accept that the traditional organizations would control both the funding and the distribution of services.

In 1996 Canadian Heritage included the development of racial minority Francophones as part of its multi-year agreement to support the official language minority communities of Ontario. In fact the Minister committed to paying special attention to this issue. A recent report looked at the needs of the Francophone ethnoracial communities in Ontario. These communities make a vital contribution to the diversity of Ontario’s Francophone population. The Canada-community accord for the province of Ontario has recognized the ethnic and racial minorities as part of the francophonie of Ontario, and in concrete terms this required that a plan of action be established to give substance to this recognition.

One of the principal questions regarding integration involves the type of co-operation between non-immigrant and immigrant Francophones that is best suited to address the needs of the new arrivals. Three types of partnership have been envisaged for the groups: (1) partnerships between organizations representing racial and ethnocultural minorities to better harmonize their efforts and avoid duplication of services; (2) partnerships with existing Francophone organizations and institutions, which should not be limited to the appointment of one ethnocultural or ethnoracial representative on boards or committees of such organizations but should aim for equitable representation of members of these communities; (3) partnerships with different levels of government and with the private sector. Government officials do not believe that such initiatives have been explored to their full potential (Muse et al., 1999).

E. Mobility

1. Employment and Income

Earlier we looked at the importance Citizenship and Immigration Canada places on immigrants’ knowledge of official languages in determining their eligibility for entry to the country. The relevance of such knowledge is frequently based on an evaluation of the economic adaptation of immigrants over several years. Research conducted by CIC reveals that knowledge of an official language generally results in higher earnings. In fact a skilled worker lacking such ability earns less on average than someone with lesser skills who is able to speak an official language. Furthermore, individuals who have the highest levels of language proficiency are most likely to be employed throughout their working careers. In each case, however, there is variation across the country depending on the economic circumstances of each region and the official language in question. Thus knowledge of French, for those who reside in most parts of the country outside Quebec, will not measurably enhance their situation without some knowledge of English as well.

The relationship between language knowledge and economic insertion can be assessed in a variety of ways, and the conclusions drawn often depend upon what the analyst chooses to emphasize.

Over the past four decades one of the major developments on the language front has been the considerable economic progress of French speakers throughout the country.

Although immigrants have a lower income upon their arrival than non-immigrants, many analysts maintain that the new arrivals will catch up over time. But the estimated time it takes to achieve a certain degree of economic parity has a profound influence on policy makers as they develop selection criteria sensitive to the country’s perceived economic needs and its humanitarian obligations.

According to the study of Francophone immigrants in Toronto referred to previously, some 94% of the new arrivals had no prearranged employment upon their arrival in the country.

Of those seeking employment, some 30% secured a job within one month. For about 12% it took over a year, and 9.6% were unable to find employment. This approximates the national unemployment rate at the time of the study. Nearly one person in four (24.7%) did not receive help finding employment, while others obtained such assistance from family, friends, newspapers, employment offices, and members of their ethnic community.

A number of empirical studies have furnished evidence of a deteriorating labour market experience among recent immigrants. The results are consistent with the observation that a shift in the composition of new arrivals around the 1980s has brought about a decline in immigrants’ economic adaptation as measured by average income and employment rates. Nonetheless, the reasons for such erosion are not always adequately explained, and perhaps some have been too quick to attribute the situation to the overall lower skill level of immigrants.

In Quebec there have been important changes in the income differentials between immigrants and non-immigrants, largely depending on how long an immigrant has been established in Canada. Overall, immigrants who arrived in the country between 1971 and 1981 have an income closer to that of the Canadian-born population than those who arrived more recently. If the overall income gap between immigrants and non-immigrants is greater, this is due to the lower earnings of non-European immigrants.

Looking at the situation across Canada, we observe that immigrants who knew French only upon arrival had income levels only slightly higher than those who knew neither official language and had unemployment rates higher than other immigrants, although fewer reported welfare benefits than entrants who knew neither English nor French. But there is considerable variation among the major urban centres. As we shall observe, settling outside Quebec does not result in a greater economic penalty for immigrants who knew French only upon arrival.

Several factors that contribute to the varying employment and earnings condition of immigrants merit further inquiry. Our purpose here is confined to reviewing the findings generated from the data. Further research is required to better understand the economic adaptation of French-speaking immigrants in the various regions of the country.

Table 16

Socio-economic conditions of immigrant taxfilers 18 and over upon arrival, by years since admission
and knowledge of official languages, Canada, 1995

Years since admission	Average annual employment earnings				Percentage reporting Unemployment Insurance income				Percentage reporting welfare benefits
	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None
1	16,423	12,798	18,865	10,498	10%	16%	11%	14%	10%	29%	20%	12%
5	23,418	16,028	23,878	17,023	15%	20%	16%	20%	11%	21%	11%	18%
10	28,242	21,961	33,599	21,108	13%	17%	13%	17%	12%	25%	9%	20%
15	36,158	25,446	39,187	24,995	9%	15%	9%	14%	8%	14%	5%	18%
Source: CIC and Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Immigration Database, 1998.

Table 17

Percentage of immigrant taxfilers 18 and over upon arrival who reported receiving Unemployment Insurance benefits, by years since admission and knowledge of official languages, 1995

Years since admission	British Columbia				Quebec				Ontario
	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None
5	15%	19%	18%	26%	17%	20%	16%	21%	15%	18%	16%	18%
10	13%	19%	9%	21%	16%	18%	16%	20%	12%	13%	11%	14%
15	10%	14%	8%	18%	9%	15%	11%	17%	9%	12%	7%	13%
Source: CIC and Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Immigration Database, 1998.

Table 18

Average employment earnings of immigrant taxfilers 18 and over upon arrival, by years since
admission and knowledge of official languages, 1995

Years since admission	British Columbia				Quebec				Ontario
	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None	English	French	Both	None
1	16,648	15,088	18,461	10,438	14,264	12,633	17,182	9,383	16,618	14,292	21,729	11,077
5	23,828	20,242	25,148	15,147	18,420	15,383	21,028	13,380	24,158	17,617	28,228	18,597
10	28,414	23,593	32,663	18,232	25,305	20,852	31,877	17,187	28,998	28,862	36,023	23,481
15	34,878	24,971	35,995	23,473	34,612	24,223	37,193	20,116	37,567	31,461	42,377	27,512
Source: CIC and Statistics Canada, Longitudinal Immigration Database, 1998.

The leaders of ethnoracial Francophone groups in Toronto insist that members of their group have difficulty finding employment that corresponds to their level of education. Whether they are English-speaking or French-speaking, non-European immigrants tend to have a much lower income than do European immigrants. According to some analysts, the growing variance between visible minority and European groups (as measured by the unemployment rate and lower employment income) may arise from the following factors.

• Increasingly, more immigrants from different ethnocultural groups have come to Canada and they bring different socio-economic attributes (such as education and language proficiency) that provide the “basis” on which to build their socio-economic status.
• More ethnocultural groups came from non-traditional sources.
• Declining settlement support for immigrants means that more recent immigrants lack the proper knowledge/skills and organizational supports for better socio-economic integration.
• Immigrants from ethnocultural groups that have strong community support networks do better than those without them; thus the socio-economic gaps widen.

Daniel Larocque explored whether jobs landed by immigrant Francophones reflected their previous training. In his survey, the answers to this question were evenly divided. Some 48.7% responded that their work did not correspond to their abilities, and the same percentage felt that their jobs did indeed reflect their training (including 1.3% who reported their jobs were better than they expected).

Immigrants from Asia were more likely to say their jobs reflected their previous training (50%). Not far behind this group were immigrants from Europe (46.5%). The numbers decline precipitously for immigrants from the Americas (23.1%), from Central and Southern Africa (20.6%), and from North Africa/Middle East (5.3%).

CIC data indicate that immigrants who knew French only upon arrival had lower levels of education than did those who knew English only. Those who knew both English and French upon arrival tended to possess higher levels of schooling. The gap between those with greater education who knew French only upon arrival and those with lower levels of education has nonetheless narrowed somewhat since 1980. In general the majority of immigrants who knew both official languages upon arrival had university degrees or some equivalent. Educational differences may explain in part the employment and income differentials among the two linguistic groups. In Toronto a high proportion of immigrants had trade certificates and non-university diplomas.

This situation of underemployment is in part attributed to the non-recognition of training and diplomas received outside Canada, the requirement for Canadian work experience, and the state of the economy (many Canadians, whether they were born here or elsewhere, have difficulties in finding work that reflects their abilities and training). When considering issues of employment it is important to bear in mind that the state of the provincial economy in a given period undoubtedly has an impact on the overall situation of the labour force.

2. Language Transfers

The phenomenon of language loss has a profound impact on most Francophone communities outside Quebec. Language loss is widely viewed as the principal challenge to the linguistic vitality of French-speaking communities in Canada outside Quebec. It is a phenomenon that affects all Francophones, non-immigrant and immigrant alike. Language transfers experienced by Francophone immigrants are a reflection of the phenomenon in the overall Francophone population. In Table 19 we can see that language shifts vary in different parts of the country. In New Brunswick and Quebec there appear to have been few language transfers among mother-tongue Francophone immigrants, and the Francophone population benefited from a certain number of new arrivals whose mother tongue was neither English nor French and who ultimately adopted the French language at home.

Table 19

Immigrants with French mother tongue and French as a home language in selected provinces, to 1996

Years	New Brunswick			Quebec			Ontario
	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)
Before 1961	320	320	0.0	16,115	22,915	+40.0	3,920	1,515	-61.0
1961-70	330	360	+9.8	22,205	30,695	+37.1	4,160	2,170	-48.0
1971-80	1,150	1,290	+12.5	29,150	44,525	+40.0	3,970	2,395	-40.0
1981-90	430	480	+11.0	25,110	41,905	+60.0	4,035	3,005	-23.7
1991-96	150	175	+16.8	24,415	36,290	+50.0	3,040	2,805	-6.7
Total	2,380	2,625	+10.3	116,995	176,330	+52.0	19,120	11,890	-37.5
Years	Manitoba			Alberta			British Columbia
	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)
Before 1961	340	115	-66.2	615	185	-70.0	1,460	470	-68.0
1961-70	230	130	-43.5	575	240	-57.9	1,350	460	-66.0
1971-80	260	195	-25.0	720	280	-61.2	1,470	570	-61.3
1981-90	225	175	-20.5	430	185	-57.0	955	600	-37.2
1991-96	85	85	0.0	205	195	-5.0	975	625	-35.9
Total	1,150	710	-38.3	2,545	1,090	-57.1	6,220	2,730	-56.2
(MT) Mother Tongue
(LSH) Language Spoken at Home
(DIFF) Difference
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Compilation, Census of Canada, 1996.

There has been a significant rate of language transfer among immigrants in the provinces west of Quebec, particularly following a decade of settlement. In part this is due, in the earlier period, to the vast majority of immigrants including those of French mother tongue being drawn to English-speaking institutions. They had limited opportunity to participate in the institutional life of those Francophone minorities that were struggling to secure their status. For those who arrived more recently, the rates of language transfer are considerably lower. To curb language transfers among Francophone immigrants, however, it will no doubt be vital to draw them to French language institutions.

It is worth noting that the recent trends vis-à-vis language shifts in Ontario have been more intense outside the Ottawa and Toronto areas. In Ottawa the arrival of Francophone immigrants has actually generated net population gains, largely a function of the shift of certain allophones to the French language.

Table 20 provides data on the phenomenon of language transfer by source country or region, with a focus on immigrants whose mother tongue was French. For comparative purposes we chose the country of France and the regions of North Africa and continental Africa. As seen in the previous tables, an acceleration of language transfer can occur after ten years and, in Canada outside Quebec, about half of Francophone immigrants make such a transfer. Clearly, for those who do retain the French language at home in much of Canada outside Quebec, there is little difference based on the immigrant’s country of origin.

Table 20

Language transfers of Francophone immigrants, by region of origin

Canada
Years	France			North Africa			Continental Africa
	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)
1981-85	3,525	3,060	-13.2	1,375	1,120	-18.5	705	505	-28.4
1986-90	4,830	4,185	-13.4	2,100	1,710	-18.6	1,720	1,240	-27.9
1991-95	10,875	10,370	-4.6	2,255	1,835	-18.6	3,570	2,950	-17.4
Quebec
Years	France			North Africa			Continental Africa
	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)
1981-85	2,800	2,725	-2.7	1,115	995	-10.8	415	370	-10.8
1986-90	3,835	3,690	-3.8	1,885	1,615	-14.3	1,010	865	-14.4
1991-95	9,345	9,140	-2.2	2,035	1,740	-14.5	2,365	2,135	-9.7
Rest of Canada
Years	France			North Africa			Continental Africa
	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)	MT	LSH	DIFF (%)
1981-85	725	335	-53.8	260	125	-51.9	290	135	-53.4
1986-90	1,000	500	-50.0	215	95	-55.8	710	375	-47.2
1991-95	1,540	930	-39.6	220	95	-56.8	1,205	815	-32.4
Source: Statistics Canada, Special Compilation, Census of Canada, 1996.

Table 21

Interprovincial mobility of immigrants, by knowledge of official languages and province where immigrants landed (1980-1995).

Destination at landing	Language	Arrivals	Out-migration	In-migration	Net change	Net %
Atlantic	English	14,180	5,820	1,945	-3,875	-27.3
	French	320	150	70	-80	-25.0
	Both	1,020	355	215	-140	-13.7
Quebec	English	56,965	19,320	5,515	-13,805	-24.2
	French	47,175	2,750	1,020	-1,730	-3.7
	Both	31,865	3,905	1,760	-2,145	-6.7
Ontario	English	393,795	22,655	37,135	+14,480	3.7
	French	6,180	910	2,335	+1,425	23.1
	Both	14,215	2,160	3,725	+1,565	11.0
Manitoba	English	21,900	6,505	1,645	-4,860	-22.2
	French	250	85	35	-50	-20.0
	Both	505	220	100	-120	-23.8
Saskatchewan	English	8,000	3,920	1,160	-2,760	-34.5
	French	95	60	10	-50	-52.6
	Both	285	155	60	-95	-33.3
Alberta	English	61,480	15,560	8,585	-6,975	-11.3
	French	780	250	185	-65	-8.3
	Both	1,850	615	415	-200	-10.8
British Columbia	English	101,975	10,025	27,150	+17,125	16.8
	French	815	130	655	+525	64.4
	Both	3,250	520	1,545	+1,025	31.5
Source: CIC, Longitudinal Immigration Database, 2000.

3. Interprovincial Migration

Mobility or interprovincial migration has had an important impact on the demographic situation of Francophone communities. It is fair to view the absence of significant interprovincial migration of immigrants as an important component of successful adaptation. One analyst who tracks such patterns has found that between 15% and 20% change province of residence within six years after arriving in Canada (Dougherty, 1994). Further, immigrants seem quite sensitive to economic conditions in choosing their destination. Dougherty's findings suggest that the link between the regional income and unemployment differentials of immigrants will imply higher mobility if immigrants' initial choice of location was determined by other factors.

From 1980 to 1995 some 1,020 immigrants who spoke French only upon arrival and initially settled elsewhere in Canada ended up moving to Quebec; meanwhile, some 2,750 who first settled in Quebec moved to another part of Canada. The data suggest that in large urban centres outside Quebec there is a reasonable degree of retention of French-speaking immigrants. On the other hand, the smaller centres have experienced significant losses of those French-speaking immigrants who first arrived there.

Finally, we can see that about one-third of those who knew English only upon their arrival in Quebec left in the ensuing years.

Discussion/Policy Implications

Recruitment of Francophone Immigrants

The demographic data presented in this chapter (see Table 2) point to a significant disparity between the number of English-speaking and French-speaking immigrants: 3.6% who spoke French only compared with 78.8% who spoke English only. The upward shift since 1961 in the percentage of immigrants who spoke French only upon arrival in Canada (5.4% in 1991-1996 compared with 73.3% of immigrants who spoke English only) is related to Quebec’s recruitment of more Francophone immigrants to support the vitality of the French language. Unlike Quebec, the federal government does not make any direct effort to recruit French-speaking immigrants overseas: CIC can do much more in this area. Delegations of Francophones from official language communities should visit source countries of potential immigrants and provide information about conditions and opportunities in their communities. Resources can be put in place in countries where there is potential for recruitment, and arrangements can be made with international organizations that are involved in the migration process. CIC should develop benchmarks relative to the annual numbers of Francophone immigrants that Canada receives and should annually review the progress achieved. It is essential to plan for the arrival of immigrants and establish structures to meet their initial needs. This should be done in close co-operation with the official language communities and, where possible, be based on submissions from them. Such submissions should describe the settlement needs involved in the process of adaptation.

Settlement and Integration

The pattern of settlement of Francophone immigrants closely resembles that of the majority of persons who come to Canada; in short they do not necessarily choose to settle in areas where Canada’s Francophone population outside Quebec is concentrated. A broader national survey of the needs of Francophone immigrants would be of considerable value in determining the needs and gaps in service that the new arrivals confront in different parts of the country. Eventual integration into the minority communities is linked to the institutional vitality of these communities. The capacity to receive immigrants is greatly affected by the resources, institutions and structures in place to respond to their needs. We need to give the communities the tools they require to fully develop, including the instruments they need to favour the integration of immigrants. An immigrant from an official language minority not only requires the means to be a full participant in the broader society but may also wish to contribute to the life of the minority community. The absence of institutions aimed at meeting the latter objective no doubt constitutes a major obstacle to community participation and runs counter to the commitment to promote vitality.

Attracting immigrants to the traditional institutions of the Francophone community is an important challenge. Many Francophone immigrants have expressed disappointment with their initial experiences in Canada. Immigrant insertion depends greatly on the knowledge of available services and the initial contacts that are made upon arrival in the new environment. The Carrefour model as developed by Quebec and examined in section C2 of this chapter may be employed by Francophone communities outside that province to draw immigrants to the communities. OLM Francophone communities have requested that centres or hubs be created to facilitate the adaptation of immigrants.

Barriers to entry to French language schools for the children of Francophone immigrants should be eliminated. For many of Canada’s Francophone communities, the French school provides the only milieu outside the family where there is contact with the French language. As such, to a considerable extent, the linguistic integration of the children of immigrants is conditioned by the language of instruction chosen by the parents. While a number of studies have looked at the socio-cultural impact of the presence of Francophone immigrants in French language schools outside Quebec, to date no study has looked at their attraction and retention rates of the children of Francophone immigrants. Such a study would help us understand both the desire of immigrant Francophones to send their children to such schools and the profile of those persons who do choose such instruction.

It is also important to ensure that the professional credentials of immigrants are properly recognized. The role of professional bodies composed of doctors, engineers, psychologists and other professionals in accrediting professionals wishing to immigrate to Canada is important. More thought and adjustments are still required to fully recognize the training of potential immigrants.

Language loss among French-speaking immigrants is similar to the pattern in the wider Francophone community. Efforts to draw immigrants to the Francophone community will help both immigrant and non-immigrant Francophones deal better with the phenomenon of language loss.

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. French-speaking immigrants often introduce ethnic diversity into rooted linguistic communities. Moreover, during the past four decades there has been a growing emphasis on regional/provincial identities as well as local/municipal attachments. The presence of Francophone immigrants invites consideration of the defining elements of Canada’s French language communities of the future, notably as regards the ethnoracial dimension. It will be essential to enhance the presence of Francophone immigrants in the local and regional and national organizations of the francophonie. French language institutions will confront the need to accommodate the diverse needs of ethnoracial Francophones. Programs aimed at sensitizing service providers in French-language institutions to cultural pluralism should be expanded. There is expertise in this area across the country that can be employed for such purposes. Initiatives should be developed that contribute to further harmonizing the policies of multiculturalism and the promotion of official language communities. Those responsible for the Multiculturalism Program should support the vitality of Francophone communities through cross-cultural initiatives involving immigrant and non-immigrant Francophones as well as other communities. The FCFA program Dialogue is a good example of such an intercultural initiative.

 

Highlights from the data

• Since 1961, a relatively consistent proportion of immigrants to Canada (16% to 17%) possess knowledge of the French language.
  
• Over the decades there has been a slight increase in the share and real number of immigrants for whom the first official language spoken was French, especially in the period between 1981-1990.
  
• Some 96% of immigrants who declare as their first official language a knowledge of French only reside in Quebec, whereas about 54% of those immigrants who declare knowledge of both English and French reside in that province.

Previous Page | Table of Contents | Next Page