An Ontario legal clinic argues that Ottawa contradicts itself by wanting to welcome more French-speaking immigrants elsewhere than in Quebec by refusing entry to French speakers who show up at a border crossing to apply for asylum. This is what Roy McMurtry Legal Clinic (CJRM) claims in a motion to intervene in the context of the Supreme Court’s appeal to the Safe Third Country Agreement.
In early October, various parties opposed to the agreement presented their arguments to the highest court in the country, while the CJRM sought to obtain intervener 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 as this country is considered safe. To get around the deal, these people go through irregular entry points, such as Roxham Road in Montérégie.
As his request for intervener status was rejected, the CJRM was unable to present its views on the Agreement before the Supreme Court. As an intervener, the legal clinic could not, however, support a party or take a position on the desired outcome of the dispute, explains the clinic’s lawyer who co-signed the request, Audrey LaBrie. However, you reiterate some arguments of the parties opposed to the agreement. “The CJRM is concerned about the safety of people who are forced to enter Canada through irregular passages,” she reads for example in the request.
Many of these migrants speak French, according to the CJRM. From 2017 to 2021, an affidavit attached to the petition notes, “a significant percentage of people who applied for asylum who crossed the border irregularly came 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 for people who crossed the border irregularly and whose application was accepted are held in French.
“We have French-speaking asylum seekers who come from the United States and who have returned when they are people who could contribute to the French-speaking minority communities,” said Ms.And Audrey LaBrie. According to the petition, the survival of French-speaking 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 French speakers see their asylum applications rejected when they arrive in a regular position or after a hearing before the IRB, it’s partly because the country doesn’t consider spoken French as a factor in handling asylum applications, think Audrey LaBrie and his colleague MAnd Anne Levesque. Audrey LaBrie would like to see a “French lens” added to the application process, although this may require changes to some international treaties.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) explains that the country has a legal responsibility “to evaluate asylum applications 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, for example, their race or their political views. But unless there is a connection between the plaintiff’s language and fear of being persecuted, “the IRB need not take this into account when considering the complaint,” says the IRCC.
In the absence of a “Francophone lens” when processing asylum applications, refugees see their applications rejected, “which represents a missed opportunity to protect Francophone communities in a minority situation,” notes the affidavit of Robert Coulombe, director general of the CJRM. Reports published in recent weeks, including one from Statistics Canada, show a reduction in the demographic weight of French speakers outside Quebec.
The CJRM hoped that the Official Languages Act shed light on the court’s analysis. According to the parties opposed to the agreement, the Canadian government would violate the article by repatriating asylum seekers to the United States, where they could be detained indefinitely. The law on official languages obliges the government to promote the vitality of French-speaking minorities.
The legal clinic did not have the opportunity to express its point of view during the appeal to the Supreme Court, but hopes that the topic of the French language will continue to be brought forward in the public debate. “We hope that there are other opportunities to promote this perspective, both presented in the individual applications of asylum seekers and through community organizations,” explains Ms.And Audrey LaBrie.
This story is supported by the Local Journalism Initiative, funded by the Government of Canada.
