Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. The Journal de Montréal has just published a whole section that characterizes the federal government’s immigration goal as a trap for Quebec and an existential threat to the survival of French in America.

I personally reject this perspective, which fuels xenophobia and the fear of immigration in Quebec. That said, I don’t believe that the federal government can simply ignore these alarmist scenarios. Ottawa has the responsibility to rebut these arguments and explain its objectives to reassure people. Senator Gold, what does the federal government intend to do to explain its policies, demonstrate the benefits of immigration and reassure people?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Welcome to the Senate of Canada, Minister Bibeau. In addition to the need for temporary labour, there is also the issue of land use and occupancy. Not only do agricultural areas need seasonal workers, but they also need new residents to take over farms, ensure a younger demographic and justify keeping schools open. There is a need for permanent and not just temporary immigration. What could the minister do, together with the provinces, to increase the number of permanent immigrants in Canada’s agricultural sector and to make it easier for them to come to Canada?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Welcome, minister. As we know, many of the services offered to francophone minority communities depend on their demographic weight, which is declining. Francophone immigration is probably the most effective remedy. However, Bill C-13 merely states that the future immigration policy is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of the francophone and Acadian communities.

Minister, isn’t this vocabulary too weak, too vague, to ensure that we have an ambitious policy, considering that, for more than 20 years, Canada hasn’t met the targets set in this area at all? The current rate of francophone immigration outside Quebec is only 2%, when we would need a target of 8% just to maintain our demographic weight.