Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, I want to talk to you about the use of French in the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I have already spoken to you about this several times. I have asked questions about this issue in the House of Commons and at this committee. However, you have always hidden behind the judicial independence that the members of this board enjoy to tell me, ultimately, that you could not get involved.
Now, the Bolanos file, handled by Mr. Handfield, went before the Federal Court and, through your lawyers, you are directly challenging this person's right to have access to evidentiary documents in the language of his choice. That is clearly the case you are making. I have with me the brief that was presented by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In paragraph III, it states the following: "The case at hand is not concerned with Mr. Bolanos Blanco's language rights, but it has to do with his right to benefit from a full and complete defence."
I attended the part of the hearing in Montreal that dealt with language, and I was surprised to see how much effort your lawyers expended to tell the court that it did not have to obey its own rules on the use of French. With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the Guide to Proceedings before the Immigration Division, prepared by your legal service. Item 6.3.3 is entitled “Consequences of changing the language of the proceeding on the presentation of the documentary evidence“. I will spare you the reading of the whole thing, but let me emphasize that the case described is exactly like the case at hand. In fact, the evidence was first drafted in English, then a request was made to change the language to French. It says:
Under rule 25(2), if the minister provides a document that is not in the language of the proceeding, the minister must provide a translation. Consequently, a change in the language of the proceeding may mean adjourning the hearing so that the documents provided by the minister can be translated [...]
The government has spent a great deal of effort and energy on this situation. It is truly a legal guerrilla war that seeks to demonstrate that the board does not have to follow its own rules, namely that evidence be presented in French.
However, when I ask you questions in the House, you say that you are in favour of using French and that you believe that the board must respect that. What you are saying politically and what your lawyers are saying before the court on your behalf are two different things.
I would like to have an explanation of this discrepancy and I would like to know why you are making such a to-do. Substantial resources have been invested in this.
Your government even issued a deportation order against Mr. Bolanos Blanco before the Federal Court had handed down its decision, which is rather extraordinary. Fortunately, the Federal Court granted a stay.
Why all this excitement? Are you afraid that it will create a precedent that favours the use of French?