Evidence of meeting #39 for Official Languages in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bilingual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Of the cases that have been filed so far in 2010, we've had 164 requests, not 125 requests. That was 2009 data I gave you. I'm sorry.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Coakeley, I would like to finish with the issue of Governor in Council appointments. Are the appointments generally made according to advice about the need for language abilit6y
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
For some time, there was a lack, if not a complete shortage, of members appointed by the governor in council. Since appointments have been made, the linguistic needs that we set out have been met.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So there was a period of time when there was a gap in that regard.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
For example, perhaps 18 months ago, in the Refugee Protection Division, there were a little over 50 vacant decision-making positions out of 127. These positions were filled based on our needs. As I just said, it's a matter of linguistic capacity, a gender balance, and so on.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Are there budget constraints on having the documents translated or on using interpretation services?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
As the chief financial officer, Mr. Gascon could answer your question.
There are always budget constraints. But if asked whether we currently have enough money to do our work, I would say yes.
Serge, do you want to continue?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Corporate Planning and Services Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Since I've been with the IRB, we have not experienced additional pressure in terms of our translation needs. We have always ensured that the translation envelope has enough in it to meet the demand.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So we can say that there has not been a case where the demand for translation and interpretation has not been met because of a lack of financial resources.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Corporate Planning and Services Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Exactly.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you.
I can't find Part VII in the IRB Official Languages Plan 2009-2011. Can you tell me why?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I will start, but I'll ask Mr. Gascon to continue.
As you probably know, Part VII is a challenge for a number of departments, but it's particularly challenging for an administrative tribunal. Actually, given the nature of our organization, our involvement with the people who appear before us and with their communities must be fairly limited to protect the tribunal's neutrality.
Then, given that our organization is very small compared to a lot of other federal departments, Canadian Heritage does not include us in the group of departments that must provide a report and have a specific plan.
We also don't give subsidies to groups. We have regular meetings with what we call the Consultative Committee on Practices and Procedures. This is where we meet with more institutional stakeholders, such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Québec Immigration Lawyers Association in Montreal, an organization like the Refugee Lawyers' Association of Ontario, and the Canadian Council for Refugees. These are all mainly lawyers' organizations…
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Let me stop you there, Mr. Coakeley, because I only have a minute left.
I understand that this may be a challenge, but if we see absolutely nothing, this indicates to me that efforts haven't even been made.
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
I can say that we have talked about it, but I know that that's not enough.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Corporate Planning and Services Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Fine.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I see that official languages are not part of your strategic plan. I also see, Mr. Coakeley, that official languages are not part of your staffing objectives. Furthermore, the Commissioner of Official Languages hasn't done an evaluation since God knows when, and there is absolutely nothing about Part VII of the Act, which is one of your legal obligations in your official languages plan. This leaves a lot to be desired.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much, Mr. Bélanger.
We'll continue with Mr. St-Cyr.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you.
I will continue with my previous questions.
You said that it's the people's choice. This doesn't correspond with reality or the numbers. Last year, the Rue Frontenac newspaper published the numbers on that. Most of the decisions in the Immigration Appeal Division in Montreal, the second largest French-speaking city in the world, are given in English. So it isn't true that it's the natural flow of things and that it's simply because most of the people said that they absolutely want it to be in English.
Perhaps you could pass along the message to your friends at the Canada Border Services Agency. The reality is that, when border services officers receive a person or a request, or do an interview, and the person doesn't speak French, they automatically check the "English" box. They do this without telling them that, because they are in Quebec, they can have the services of a francophone lawyer and a francophone consultant. These people are not told this, they are not given a choice and the "English" box is checked. Then, when they get to you, at the board, the documents that have been produced in English are all submitted, and even if the client or his or her lawyer asks to have the documents translated before the hearing even starts, they are told that the documents have already been produced and cannot be translated. So it's a trap. The numbers don't lie. When you get right down to it, most of the decisions given last year by the Immigration Appeal Division were given in English. That's what we get.
Don't you think that there's a glitch in the system to get so warped a result?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
You're right when you say that, from 2006 to 2010, most of the cases at the Immigration Appeal Division were handled in English, even if it was sometimes a slim majority, for example from 49 to 51%. However, from 2006 to 2010, close to two-thirds of the cases handled by the Refugee Protection Division were heard in French.
It's important to understand that the procedures in each section are different. For example, let's take the Refugee Protection Division. It is very likely that, when the Canada Border Services Agency meets an individual who shows up at the border, the officer checks the "English" box or begins filling out the document we call the Port of Entry Notes. But the document that is used as a basis for proceedings here is the personal information form, which the subject must complete him or herself. It's on that form that the subject is asked to indicate which language he or she would prefer to use. The notes taken by the Canada Border Services Agency have no impact on the choice of language. This document, which we call the PIF, even in French, tells us which language the proceedings will be held in.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I understand that we basically don't agree on the reality, on what's really happening.
I have an even more specific question.
We recently had a case where the agency submitted a document in English while the language of the proceedings was French. Five or six minutes later, when the lawyer objected to the submission of this document, the member responded that he should have voiced his objection as soon as the document was submitted, and not five or six minutes later.
Is this a normal policy or was this a specific decision of a member?
9:30 a.m.
Senior General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Are you talking about notes taken by the Canada Border Services Agency?
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
No, I'm not talking about that. For example, the language of the proceedings is French, and the agency submits evidence in English. When it is the lawyer's turn to speak, he says that the document is not in the language of the proceedings. The member responds that he should have objected five minutes earlier and that it is now too late. That's not the official policy of the board, is it?
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Executive Director, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
No.