A law clinic in Ontario argues that Ottawa is contradicting itself by wanting to welcome more French-speaking immigrants elsewhere than Quebec, while denying access to French-speakers who are at a border crossing to seek asylum. This is how the Roy McMurtry Legal Clinic (RMC) argues. a request for intervention in the Supreme Court challenge to the Safe Third Countries Agreement.

In early October, various parties opposed to the agreement brought their arguments before the country’s highest court, while the CJRM sought intervener status to be heard in court. According to the deal, with some exceptions, migrants cannot apply for asylum at a regular border crossing when entering from the United States, as that country is considered safe. To circumvent the agreement, these people pass through irregular entry points such as Roxham Road in Montérégie.

Since its application to intervene was denied, the CJRM was unable to present its position on the agreement before the Supreme Court. However, as an intervener, the legal clinic could not have supported either party or comment on the desired outcome of the challenge, said the clinic’s attorney, who co-signed the motion, Audrey LaBrie. However, she repeats certain arguments of the parties opposing the agreement. “The CJRM is concerned about the safety of individuals who are forced to enter Canada through irregular routes,” the request reads, for example.

Many of these migrants are French speakers, according to the CJRM. From 2017 to 2021, according to an affidavit accompanying the petition, “a significant proportion of those applying 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 2018-2019, 41% of interviews with irregular border crossings whose applications were approved are conducted in French.

“We have French-speaking asylum seekers who are arriving from the United States and have returned if they are people who could contribute to French-speaking minorities,” Ms. said^e Audrey LaBrie. According to the petition, the survival of francophone communities “depends on immigration”. Rejecting French-speaking asylum seekers would go against the Canadian government’s commitment to taking action to encourage the development of these communities.

French not included

When Francophones have their asylum applications rejected upon arrival in a regular position or after an IRB hearing, it is partly because the country does not consider spoken French as a factor in processing asylum applications, Audrey LaBrie and her colleague M^e Anne Levesque. Audrey LaBrie wants a “French lens” added to the application process, although this may require changes to certain international treaties.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) states that the country has a legal responsibility to “assess asylum applications in accordance with these international conventions”. When making a decision, the IRB examines whether the person has a well-founded fear of being persecuted, for example because of their race or their political opinions. But as long as there is no link between the applicant’s language and their fear of persecution, “the IRB does not have to take this into account when considering the application,” says IRCC.

In the absence of a “francophone lens” in processing asylum applications, refugees see their applications rejected, “representing a missed opportunity to protect francophone communities in a minority situation,” according to the affidavit of Robert Coulombe, director-general of the CJRM. Reports published in recent weeks, including one from Statistics Canadaalso report a decline in the demographic weight of Francophones outside of Quebec.

The CJRM hoped that the Official Languages ​​Act would shed light on the Court’s analysis. Parties opposed to the deal say the Canadian government would violate Section 7 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by sending asylum seekers back to the United States, where they could be indefinitely detained. The Official Languages ​​Act obliges the government to promote the vitality of the francophone minorities.

The Legal Clinic did not have an opportunity to present its point of view during the challenge before the Supreme Court, but would like the French language argument to continue to be raised in the public debate. “We hope that there will be other ways to promote this perspective, whether through individual applications by asylum seekers or through community organizations,” explains Ms.^e Audrey LaBrie.

This report is supported by theLocal journalist initiativefunded by the Canadian government.

To see in the video