Official Languages Committee on March 2nd, 2022

[Stéphane Handfield]

I have not today, I am sorry.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Let me quote clause 44.1. I will go right to the content:

44.1(2) The policy shall include, among other things, (a) objectives, targets and indicators; and (b) a statement that the Government of Canada recognizes that immigration is one of the factors that contributes to maintaining or increasing the demographic weight of French linguistic minority communities in Canada.

I could keep reading, but do you feel that this could give you some tools and could allow your clients fair access to French as the language to be used in making their cases?

[Stéphane Handfield]

Unfortunately, given the little information you have just provided me, I must answer your question in the negative. A desire to have thresholds for francophone immigration and an attempt to achieve them through various mechanisms will not result, either within the department or before the tribunal, in any more respect for French in the services provided to those involved in the process, meaning those seeking to immigrate.

I believe that more concrete measures should be taken in order for French to be respected, once and for all. It's important to recall that my experience is not recent; the situation has been going on for many years. Sadly, it seems to be here for good.

As long as there are no more concrete measures than those you have just mentioned, the situation will not change.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Hadfield.

My next question is a quick one; it goes to Ms. Ngountchoup.

You must surely have noticed the reports, as I have, that currently, more than 80% of francophone immigrants from Africa are refused. In your testimony, you expressed the feeling that you were a victim of racism to some extent. Do you attribute that to your country of origin or to the language you speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have 40 seconds, Ms. Ngountchoup.

[Honorine Ngountchoup]

I would not be able to say whether it has to do with my country of origin or with the language I speak. However, I do know that I had the feeling that, for no reason, my application had been bungled and processed unreasonably.

Let me give you a concrete example. When I submitted my application for permanent residency, the officer who was handling my file asked me to provide additional documents. Shortly afterwards, she told me that my application had been rejected because I had not provided those documents. Clearly, she had not even taken the time to check whether I had provided the documents before she rejected my application. All of a sudden, it—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ngountchoup. That is six minutes exactly. I am sorry to interrupt you, and I am not trying to be impolite, but you will be able to continue your answer when you are asked other questions.

The next speaker on the list is Mr. Drouin, for six minutes.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to let Ms. Ngountchoup finish her story.

[Honorine Ngountchoup]

Okay.

As soon as I submitted my application, I was asked to provide additional documents, which I did. The officer told me that my application had been rejected without checking whether I had provided the documents that had been requested. I pursued the matter and made a number of calls. I did everything necessary in order to submit my application again. Shortly thereafter, my application was refused once more, on the ground that I had not adequately demonstrated that I was working in the category of employment for which I was applying. I had the feeling that the officer handling my file had made no effort to call me or write to me to ask for the appropriate information. The worst of it is that there is no recourse.

Let me point out another injustice. My letter of refusal was not in my IRCC account, so I could not see the reasons for which my application had been refused. I pursued the matter and an officer sent me the letter of refusal. To this day, that letter is still not in my account.

Meanwhile, I submitted another application for permanent residency under a new program that had been launched. From the letter that the new officer sent by email, I realize that I made the same mistake.

There is no recourse. At that point, you have to call an officer. I must have called 50 times, perhaps even 100 times, not counting all the hours on hold, waiting. It really makes no sense.

Anyway, I would not be able to tell you whether my application was refused because of my origin or my language. However, one thing is for sure, in terms of language. When I called for an appointment to sit the medical exams, the person only spoke English and made no effort to speak French. I made an effort to communicate in English and I was forced to write my emails in English in order to get an appointment. I had to translate everything with Google Translate. I finally got my appointment and off I went.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ngountchoup.

My question goes to you, Mr. Jolin. I want to make sure that I have the right statistics. According to your testimony, through the Ontario immigrant nominee program, the provincial government achieved 4.09% in 2020, although the objective was 5%. Did I understand you correctly?

[Carol Jolin]

The 4.09% was for francophone immigration as a whole. Through the Ontario immigrant nominee program, the Government of Ontario was able to select its candidates and meet its objectives. The 5% objective was even surpassed: they achieved 5.4% in 2018 and 7.3% in the following year. The Government of Ontario was able to select 8,350 people who wanted to settle in Ontario in 2021.

We are asking, as the Government of Ontario is also asking, for the government to be able to select 13,000 newcomers itself. The program gives every indication that it will achieve, and even surpass, the objective of 5%.

Given that the Government of Ontario has demonstrated that, through this program at least, it is able to meet its target for francophone immigration, the Government of Canada could it give it more power to select more immigrants.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have no position for or against, but you make a very good argument.

It is calculated that we could accept about 400,000 immigrants by 2023—perhaps the figure is 450,000, I don't recall exactly. That is about 16,000 francophone immigrants, using the 4% target for 2023. Your solution for meeting that target would involve giving the provincial government the tools so that it could help the federal government out.

[Carol Jolin]

That is one factor.

We still have to find out whether the 4.4% target for francophones outside Quebec remains appropriate. The Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA, is just finishing a detailed study on the issue of targets. The study is based on Statistics Canada data and on the analysis model that the organization has set out. We are waiting for that study to be published before we express an official opinion on what must be done with the 4.4%. But we absolutely have to do better.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I do not remember the name of the professor from New Brunswick, who explained that it is very difficult to attract francophones. I'm not looking to point any fingers, but Quebec has a large booth for use at conferences and at places where immigrants may be recruited. Quebec has a large booth that says that they speak French and invites people to settle there. New Brunswick and Ontario have small booths that also say they speak French, but ask people not to forget them.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Forgive me for interrupting you, Mr. Drouin, but you have 30 seconds left, and the bells are summoning us. Do we have unanimous consent to continue the questions until the vote?

I see that everyone agrees. Let's continue.

You have 30 seconds left, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much.

This is what I want to get at: regardless of the legislation that will be passed, how are things going on the ground?

Do you have any evidence on how things are going in countries where we would normally like to recruit French-speaking students?

[Carol Jolin]

Francophone immigration involves a lot of people from Africa. In that regard, we have a terrible lack of visa offices—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I am sorry for interrupting you, Mr. Jolin, but you will be able to continue as you answer other questions.

We will now give the floor to our second vice‑chair, Mr. Beaulieu, who has six minutes.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question goes to Mr. Handfield.

You are telling us that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has actually denied you the opportunity to make your case in French, despite it being at your client's request. It happened at an immigration hearing, in Montreal, in Quebec.

Surely, that's an exception? You seem to be saying that it happens quite frequently.

[Stéphane Handfield]

I would really like to be able to tell you that it is an exception, but unfortunately it is not. Situations like that certainly happen and attempts are made to prevent us from presenting cases in French.

I was talking about a case where we had to complain to the Federal Court, which had to intervene and bring the Refugee Protection Division panel back into line. It told the panel that it had to accommodate the language of proceedings chosen by the client, French in this case. If the client chooses to proceed in French, the proceedings must be conducted in that language.

In another case, I insisted on proceeding in French, although the panel wanted to proceed in English for its own reasons. So I insisted and brought up that good old Federal Court decision. I got a curt reply, in English, that the panel knew who I was and that I was a troublemaker. The panel then walked out and, subsequently, we were given a hearing in French.

Of course, as we all know, in Montreal, there are huge number of cases involving claims for refugee protection. Roxham Road, of course, got a lot of coverage in the media in Quebec. A number of cases were transferred to the regional office in Toronto. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to be able to discuss matters in French with a registry officer in that regional office. In one case, when we insisted on speaking with a registry officer in French, we were told that someone would call us back. Several months later, we are still waiting for that call to be returned.

Unfortunately, the trend seems actually to be on the way to becoming entrenched.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I find this situation to be quite incredible, even though I am familiar with it. I experienced this kind of situation in another life when I tried to exert pressure so that lawyers would have the right to make their cases in French.

How do we explain that, in Quebec, someone would refuse to proceed in French? In your opinion, how can that be explained?

[Stéphane Handfield]

I cannot explain it, any more than I can explain that, in 2021 and 2022, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada advertised unilingual English positions for immigration officers in Montreal. The clear message seems to be that immigration files are processed in English, in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. That's the only explanation I can see.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Incredible.

There was one explanation in the Federal Court ruling. At the outset, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada said that it was not necessary to proceed in French because no prejudice was caused. How did the Federal Court respond to that?

[Stéphane Handfield]

Actually, the Federal Court was clear. Neither the panel nor counsel for the ministers, whether for the Canada Border Services Agency or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, get to choose the language of proceedings. The choice belongs to the client, the claimant, who must choose whether to proceed in French or in English. The right to proceed in either of the two official languages belongs to the client and to no one else, certainly not to the panel.

As soon the client expresses the wish to proceed in French, the panel must accommodate that decision and provide services in French. Documents must therefore be submitted in French, and, if the claimant does not have a command of either of the two official languages and if everything must be translated into their first language, an interpreter speaking French and the client's first language must be assigned to the case. That, fortunately, was the Federal Court's ruling.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

If the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Board had the political will to allow everyone to proceed in French, which is a right provided for in the Official Languages Act, but even more so in the Charter of the French Language, do you think it could be effective to remind immigration officers and board members to treat French with respect?