Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today, minister.
I would like to continue on the question of the use of French at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We've been talking about that for a long time, you and I, and I am still as concerned about what is going on.
We are observing that, increasingly, newcomer files are systematically being opened in English by default. In fact, that has become the rule in Montreal. There are cases in which, even if the newcomer is neither francophone nor anglophone, the file is still opened in English. There are cases in which, if the newcomer is a francophile, or at least someone who has an affinity with the French language, the file is opened in English. Consequently, later on, when the matter goes before the immigration tribunals, the evidence is filed in English, government representatives want to proceed in English, and it is very difficult to get permission to proceed in French.
There was the specific case of Mr. Handfield, who asked, on behalf of his client, to be able to proceed in French in his case. The tribunal ultimately agreed, but refused to order the evidence to be translated. At the time, I questioned you about this matter, and you answered that the tribunal had made a decision and that, as minister, you could not interfere in the matter.
This matter of the use of French at the IRB is now before the Federal Court. In that case, the respondent party was the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I have before me the brief filed by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, which clearly states that he is acting on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. He sets out the points he is addressing, that is the claim of counsel and his client that the latter has a right to a trial in French, which, it seems obvious to me, presupposes that documents can be produced in French.
When I asked you the question in the House, you answered me that the applicant in question had first asked to proceed in English, which was inaccurate to say the least, not to say false. The briefs submitted by counsel representing you contain excerpts from the proceeding, and at no point did anyone say they wanted to proceed in English. At most, the board member asked him if he spoke English.
Minister, you know from having spoken personally with me that I speak French. That does not mean that I would agree to proceed in English before a tribunal. Those are two different things.
In view of all these arguments, why is your department engaged in this legal guerilla warfare to avoid proceeding in English from the outset and translating the documents?