An Ontario legal clinic argues that Ottawa contradicts itself by wishing to welcome more French-speaking immigrants outside Quebec, while refusing access to French-speakers who wish to apply for asylum at a regular border crossing. The Roy McMurtry Legal Clinic (RMC) brought this motion in the context of the Supreme Court challenge to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
At the beginning of October, various parties opposing the agreement presented their arguments to the highest court in the country, while the CJRM tried to obtain intervenor status to be heard in court. Under the agreement, migrants, with some exceptions, cannot apply for asylum at a regular border crossing if they arrive from the United States since this country is deemed safe. To circumvent the agreement, these people go through irregular entry points, such as Roxham Road in Montérégie.
The CJRM cannot openly challenge the Safe Third Country Agreement, explains the clinic’s lawyer who co-signed the petition, Audrey LaBrie. His request to intervene was refused. However, it reiterates certain arguments of the parties opposing the agreement. “The CJRM is concerned about the safety of people who are forced to enter Canada through irregular passages”, we read for example in the request.
Many of these migrants are French-speaking according to the CJRM. From 2017 to 2021, notes an affidavit attached to the petition, “a significant proportion of people who made asylum claims who crossed the border irregularly were from Haiti or the Republic of Congo”. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB), for the year 2018-2019, 41% of hearings of people who crossed the border irregularly, and whose application was favorably received , took place in French.
“We have French-speaking asylum seekers who arrive from the United States and who have returned when they are people who could contribute to minority French-speaking communities,” said Ms.e Audrey LaBrie. According to the petition, the survival of Francophone communities “depends on immigration”. Refusing French-speaking asylum seekers would run counter to the Canadian government’s obligation to take measures to promote the development of these communities.
French not considered
If Francophones see their asylum applications refused when they arrive in a regular position or after a hearing before the IRB, it is partly because the country does not consider spoken French as a factor in the processing of applications. asylum, thinks Audrey LaBrie and her colleague, Me Anne Levesque. Audrey Labrie would like to see a “French lens” added to the application process, although this may require changes to certain international treaties.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) explains that the country has the legal responsibility “to assess asylum claims in accordance with these international conventions”. When making a decision, the IRB checks whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race or political opinions, for example. But unless there is a connection between the claimant’s language and their fear of persecution, “it is not necessary for the IRB to take this into account when considering the claim,” says the IRCC.
In the absence of a “Francophone lens” during the processing of asylum applications, refugees see their applications refused “which represents a missed opportunity to protect Francophone communities in a minority situation”, notes the affidavit of Robert Coulombe, the Director General of the CJRM. Reports published in the last few weeks, including one from Statistics Canada, show a reduction in the demographic weight of Francophones outside Quebec.
The CJRM hoped that the Official Languages Act sheds light on the court’s analysis. According to parties opposing the deal, the Canadian government would violate the article by returning asylum seekers to the United States, where they could be detained indefinitely. The Official Languages Act obliges the government to promote the vitality of Francophone minorities.
The legal clinic did not have the chance to present its point of view during the challenge to the Supreme Court, but it wishes to see the argument of the French language continue to be put forward in the public debate. “We hope that there will be other opportunities to promote this perspective, whether presented in individual applications by asylum seekers or through community organizations,” explains Ms.e Audrey LaBrie.
This story is supported by the Local Journalism Initiative, funded by the Government of Canada.