[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will begin. Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, a review of Order in Council appointments will take place today.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have five witnesses, so I'd like everyone's cooperation to stick to the time given, because we're going to try to get through that today, hopefully before the bell rings for the vote in the House. We will be going until 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. probably.
I'd like to invite our first witness, from the Immigration and Refugee Board, Ms Pia Zambelli. Would you please come forward?
.1535
Mr. Philip Palmer (General Counsel, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Madam Chair, may I be permitted to sit with Ms Zambelli?
The Chair: Certainly.
Would you like to introduce yourself for the benefit of our listeners and also for my colleagues?
Mr. Palmer: Thank you. I'm Philip Palmer, general counsel to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, please begin.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Welcome, Ms Zambelli. I tried to obtain information on your curriculum vitae.
[English]
Do you speak French?
Ms Pia Zambelli (Full-time Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Montreal Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Yes, I do, but I'm going to use the earpiece.
The Chair: Avant que M. Nunez commence, I'd like also to reiterate what I said at the last hearings of the Order in Council. We are not here to be the Inquisition. I want all of the witnesses to relax, please. We are here to look at the backgrounds and CVs of the nominees on the new appointments.
I read last time, and I'd like to do it again for the record, a decision that was made in 1986 by the Speaker, the Hon. John Fraser, concerning the powers of examination of a committee under such rules that are ``narrowly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post'' - so let's try to limit our questioning in terms of what directly affects this - ``and questions in committee and reports thereon ought to be strictly relevant to such qualifications, competence and performance of duties.''
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, please begin.
Mr. Nunez: I would like to make a preliminary comment. On March 28 I sent a letter to the committee Chair. I requested that we invite someone from the advisory committee chaired byMr. Gordon Fairweather, because we do not know what methods or procedures they use or how they operate. As far as I am concerned, this is not at all clear. I don't know what the role of that committee is.
I also suggested that we invite - not call but invite - someone from the IRBC to testify, because I don't know to what degree they are involved in the process of appointing or reappointing board members. Does the IRBC make recommendations? Are board members evaluated? Is there a procedure for making complaints? I would like to know why you did not deem it appropriate to invite people from these two bodies so as to help us better understand the appointment process. The Minister could also come.
The Chair: If you want to spend your five minutes on asking questions which the witness can't answer, you are entitled to do so. However, you can address your question to the committee itself, and the members from the three parties concerned will discuss the issue among ourselves.
Today, the witness has come to discuss her responsibilities and recent reappointment. Therefore, please limit your questions to those issues. I will say the same thing to all committee members here today. Given that we have five witnesses and not a lot of time, I will be very strict regarding the content of questions.
Mr. Nunez: I would like to make another observation. The one-page document I have is only in English, although the board member comes from Montreal, where the official language is French, and there are no details given regarding her professional experience. I have only one page. Therefore, there is not a lot of information on which to base questions.
The Chair: Well, would you like to ask a question about her qualifications?
Mr. Nunez: Why did you not prepare a more detailed currilum vitae and why did you not draft it in French?
.1540
[English]
Ms Zambelli: Concerning why I did not produce a resumé in French, my understanding is that as an institution the Immigration and Refugee Board functions in both official languages, and in the scope of our duties we have the option of using either official language. Many members are bilingual, and being an anglophone, I prepared my resumé in English.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, did you receive a copy of the CV in French?
Mr. Nunez: No.
The Chair: That was done.
[English]
Mr. Nunez: I could understand if you worked in Ontario or British Columbia, but you are working in Quebec.
Ms Zambelli: That's correct. I'm working in Quebec. But the Immigration and Refugee Board functions in both official languages.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Before your appointment, did you practice in the area of immigration law? What experience do you have with organizations working for immigrants or refugees?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: I was an immigration lawyer. I practised immigration law for five years. I did not work with any NGOs - non-governmental organizations - or any community works, but my practice was 100% immigration and refugee so I had the opportunity to meet many refugee claimants in the course of my practice.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, we will return to that if we have time.
[English]
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wondered whether Mr. Nunez was going to ask the question, but he did - that you did practise law and you practised immigrant law. I think I heard you say that 100% of your legal practice was within immigration law.
I would like to ask you whether in the 100% of the cases you dealt with you were acting on behalf of the refugees claimants or immigrant claimants.
Ms Zambelli: Yes, I was.
Ms Meredith: So when you approach decision-making at the board level, do you feel you are open-minded to the whole aspect, not only of the refugee's application or request but also of the position that the country is getting the proper balance? Having spent 100% of your time working on behalf of refugees and immigrants, do you feel that you're in a position...?
Ms Zambelli: The answer is yes. If I could elaborate -
Ms Meredith: Please do.
Ms Zambelli: In the course of an immigration practice, yes, you are an advocate for the refugee claimant, but at the same time, you have the opportunity to observe the system and how it functions as a whole.
Nobody - not the immigration bar nor the board nor the Canadian public - is in favour of abuse of our refugee system; it does not help anyone. As a lawyer I am sensitive to protecting the integrity of the system. So even though I was an advocate on behalf of refugee claimants, in order to function I have to have some sense of perspective of the whole system and do what I can to improve the system as a whole.
Once I came to the board, of course, it is again a balancing, but I didn't find it difficult at all to make the transition from immigration lawyer to board member because I was already aware of essentially what the competing interests are in terms of the system as a whole.
Ms Meredith: Okay. I have in front of me the CRDD members' decisions, and I'm going to run over the last couple years.
In 1994, of the decisions you participated in, 43 were positive and 7 were negative; in 1995, there were 85 positive decisions and 8 negative decisions; and in 1996, up until the end of March, there were 25 positive decisions and 5 negative decisions. Can you give me any idea of in what percentage of these decisions you might have reflected a positive decision?
I understand they're two-member boards, and if one member gives a positive decision and the other person gives a negative decision, the positive decision overrides. So I'm asking whether, with those numbers, you can give me an idea of what percentage of those decisions you would have been giving positive decisions on.
.1545
Ms Zambelli: Are you talking about split decisions?
Ms Meredith: Just the decisions in total.
Ms Zambelli: Since I came to the board in 1994, I've had only one split decision. In other words, I went positive and my colleague went negative. There were two in which I went negative and my colleague went positive, to my recollection.
I'm not sure how these figures were compiled. If the decision is positive, unless it's a split decision, both members are in agreement. If you make a positive decision, it goes in the computer as a positive decision. But the statistics don't differentiate between whether it's a split or a unanimous decision. I know those three split decisions come to mind, so obviously the majority of these decisions would have been unanimously positive.
Ms Meredith: So are you telling me that of all of these decisions, there were only two that you went negative on?
Ms Zambelli: I'm sorry. I don't...
Ms Meredith: Okay. Just to follow up, you said there were three split decisions: one in which you went positive and your associate member went negative, and two in which you went negative and the associate went positive. So that's three split decisions. For all of these, then, you would have given positive decisions.
Ms Zambelli: Yes, I would have made a positive decision. That's right.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Ms Zambelli, not being an immigration lawyer, I wonder if you could describe... I notice that you're a member of the New York bar. Presumably that's New York State. I'm wondering why you would be a member of the New York State bar and how that might be or would not be relevant in terms of these duties that we're looking at here today.
Ms Zambelli: It has no relevance to my duties with the Immigration and Refugee Board, obviously, because you can't simultaneously practise law or give any legal opinions while you're a Governor in Council appointee.
In terms of the first part of your question, the reason I am a member of the New York State bar is that I was born in New York State. I decided that it might be useful, should I ever wish to return to the United States, to become a member of the bar.
Mr. Cullen: But you're not a practising member of the New York State bar?
Ms Zambelli: I passed the bar exam. I was called to the bar. I've never practised, but just in case I should ever wish to return, I thought I would write the bar exam.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to talk about decisions that are made, not in the same vein as my colleague across from me, but in terms of the cases that come before you.
In these times when we have limited resources, is there a case that comes before you about which you yourself wonder why it had to go to that point? Obviously a tremendous amount of resources are spent in this whole process when matters come to appeal, both by the individual taking the case and by the government. In my experience, there have been cases that could have been resolved at an earlier time.
Do you get cases that you yourself felt over the two years perhaps should not have got to the appeal board and should have been resolved at an earlier stage because of the huge expenses to get to that point? Obviously, from the percentage that my colleague has put forward, there's quite a high percentage in terms of positive responses from you. Maybe that's a reflection of the board in general.
Also, maybe you can tell us on average, if you know, the time it takes before a two- or three-year matter gets to you. Is there, in the immigration department, another way to deal with some of those matters that come before you? I can think of lots of examples that should have been resolved. But what happens is that once an immigration officer has made a decision, rightly or wrongly, the only way the claimant can really deal with it is through the appeal board. It's a very lengthy, complicated process, and it requires legal assistance.
.1550
I'm wondering if there's some way to deal with some of the more frivolous matters that come before you. Do many come before you such that you wonder if it could have been resolved at an earlier stage?
The Chair: Give the witness some time. Ms Zambelli doesn't sit on the appeal board,Mr. Dhaliwal. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Well, the refugee board. It's the same thing.
The Chair: Just to be clear.
Ms Zambelli: Are you talking about manifestly unfounded refugee claims, claims that are manifestly well founded, or both?
Mr. Dhaliwal: The well-founded cases. Because you're ruling so much in favour, shouldn't we have dealt with it at an earlier stage in a positive way?
Ms Zambelli: There is an expedited process for dealing with claims that are likely to be accepted. I don't participate in that. I'm not assigned to that expedited process. So there's that.
I personally have not seen any cases where I felt... In my opinion, there are no simple cases and every case must be thoroughly examined and investigated on a case-by-case basis. So I have to answer the question by saying no, I have never seen any cases I felt were so clear they should have been disposed of, either positively or negatively, through some more simplified process.
On the question you asked about the time it takes to come before the board, how long a claimant would have to wait, I think it's about eight or nine months people are currently waiting for their hearings. But we are working very hard right now to reduce that time.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How did you know that there were vacancies at the IRBC, and who recommended you?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: Someone, I can't remember who, told me there had been an advertisement for this position in the Canada Gazette back in the summer of 1993. So I simply submitted my resumé.
I don't know how or why I was appointed. I was not at all privy to the process. I can tell you I do not have any political connections with the government. That's all I can say. I don't know.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You were reappointed for a term beginning December 29, 1995. Could you describe the renewal process? Did you appear before the Fairweather committee? What was the procedure?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: No, I never appeared before the Fairweather commission in person. My understanding is that I was evaluated by my superior. A detailed evaluation of my performance was done. I then sent this updated resumé and the evaluation. They were both sent to the Fairweather committee. After that I don't know what happened.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And what does your evaluation contain?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: There are several categories or several areas in respect of which members are evaluated. One is on the way they conduct the hearings: if they're capable of dealing with the procedural issues in the hearings, if they're timely in writing their decisions and writing their reasons in making their decisions, if they're able to write decisions effectively - their writing skills. We're judged on whether we participate in various committees, our knowledge of the jurisprudence. Those were the criteria for assessment I saw in my evaluation.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Do you have an evaluation form? I don't know if any of my colleagues are familiar with the system. In any case I am not, and I think I am the longest serving of all committee members here.
.1555
[English]
Ms Zambelli: I don't have a form here, so this is just from my memory. There were several criteria listed. Under each one, there was a little paragraph written about the member by my superior describing how well we did on each of those criteria.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In your evaluation what ranking did you receive? I am not familiar with the process, but on a scale of one to ten, where did you rank?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: I thought it was a very good evaluation. I did well on all the criteria. I was very happy with it. But I don't know how it compared to other people's evaluations because I didn't see anybody else's evaluation.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Were there not categories, such as A, B, C, or 1, 2, 3?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: You mean a rating.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think that she has already answered that question three times, Mr. Nunez.
[English]
You can answer if you like.
[Translation]
Do you have any other questions?
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
The Chair: You have one minute left.
Mr. Nunez: If I understood correctly, you were born in the United States. Canada is negotiating an agreement on refugees with the United States. One of the questions discussed was the right of a refugee claimant to choose the country where he or she wishes to make that claim, in accordance with the Geneva Convention.
The Chair: In view of the subject we are considering today, I consider that question to be out of order.
Mr. Nunez: Not at all, Madam Chair, because I saw in her CV, under the heading of professional activities: the Convention refugee definition. My question was in fact based on the Convention refugee definition.
The Chair: But you're asking a question about...
Mr. Nunez: On the refugee definition. Is it stated there that they have the right to make a claim in the country of their choice?
[English]
Ms Zambelli: The definition doesn't specifically address that issue of country of choice.
The Chair: Ms Meredith, do you have any other questions for this witness?
Ms Meredith: Yes, Madam Chair.
If you don't mind, I'd like to go back into the concept of your coming from a field dealing with applications for refugee and immigrant process. I noticed in your references that you've usedMs Barbara Jackman and Mr. Lorne Waldman. They are well known for their advocacy positions in promoting refugees, in getting their acceptance into the country and, I would suggest, in perhaps stretching their involvement with that community.
Do you find yourself being contacted or brought into the NGOs, the refugee advocacy groups, in your job as a CRDD member?
Ms Zambelli: No, I stay as far away as I can from immigration lawyers and from NGOs. It's not proper for me to have any communication with them.
Ms Meredith: So you're telling me, then, that although they show up here as references on your CV, you no longer associate with that group of individuals whose sole purpose is to promote the cause of refugees.
Ms Zambelli: They're on my CV because... I don't know...Lorne Waldman does not appear on the copy of the CV that I have. Perhaps it was -
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]
Ms Zambelli: Does it? Okay. They would be in the best position to judge my work as a lawyer. This is my resumé for no matter what job. That's why they're on my resumé, but I don't continue to have contact with them. And I'm certainly not going to ignore them if I see them on the street.
Ms Meredith: My concern - and I'll be honest with you - is to reach this balance. You're sitting on what is basically an arm's length, semi-judicial body. I would like to think the people who sit in that position are neutral, that they don't have a proclivity to one side or the other. That's how I perceive the semi-judicial process to take place.
.1600
So I found it somewhat concerning when I saw your references, people who are very strong advocates for the refugees and the immigration applicants. I see that all of your experience has been in that field. Then I look at your record as far as positive and negative decisions are concerned. What I am asking is, do you have that neutrality that is so important in a quasi-judicial body?
Ms Zambelli: I agree that neutrality and impartiality are the most important things. As a former immigration lawyer, it would be difficult for me to have found references who were not also immigration lawyers.
In terms of the acceptance rate, the numbers in and of themselves don't tell you much. An acceptance rate depends very much on what countries you're working with. For example, I work with only four countries, and I've done so since I came to the board.
Ms Meredith: Your jobs are separated from one country to the other. So some may deal with countries that are more likely to be refugee origins.
Ms Zambelli: Yes. I happen to deal with four -
Ms Meredith: What countries are they, if you don't mind?
Ms Zambelli: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
In terms of my acceptance rate and the overall acceptance rate of the people I'm working with in Montreal, it's not out of line, from what I know. In general, it may be even slightly lower.
Ms Meredith: You work solely out of Montreal. So if you were to compare your acceptance rates from these particular countries of origin, they would be on par with all the other offices - Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg or wherever.
Ms Zambelli: My personal acceptance rate or my team's in Montreal?
Ms Meredith: I guess I'm looking at your numbers now, so I'd have to say your numbers.
Ms Zambelli: They're generally in accordance with the team in Montreal that deals with those countries. I don't know what the acceptance rates are, for each of my countries, for the other regions. But I would like to assure you that I do strive to be impartial. I feel that the fact that I was an immigration lawyer previously does not have any effect. In a criminal justice system, the pool of judges is taken from either the criminal defence bar or the prosecution.
In terms of looking for people with experience in refugee law, which is what I gathered the board was trying to do, the pool happens to be immigration officers, immigration lawyers and members of NGOs, perhaps. That's the pool.
I haven't had any difficulties at all, and I feel I have a very good perspective on the system as a whole.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith.
If there are no other questions, I'd like to thank you, Ms Zambelli, for appearing before the committee, and I wish you good luck in your reappointment.
I will now invite Mr. Abdolhossein Kafai to take the witness stand. Mr. Kafai is a full-time member of the convention refugee determination division of the Toronto regional office.
Mr. Abdolhossein Kafai (Full-time Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): I'm with the Montreal regional office.
The Chair: We had the wrong one. Thank you for correcting me.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, would you like to begin? You have five minutes.
Mr. Nunez: Your term was renewed as of November 22, 1995, but you have been a board member since 1988. I see from your CV that you speak a number of languages. Persian, English, French, Arabic, Italian, German and Russian. You don't have Spanish.
Mr. Kafai: I don't speak all of those languages perfectly. But I am familiar with them. You have to practice a language, or otherwise you will forget it.
.1605
For example, I spoke Russian fluently when I was in Moscow, Italian when I was in Italy, but now I find it difficult to speak those languages although I still understand refugees when they appear before me. Before hearing the interpretation, I already know more or less what the person said.
Mr. Nunez: Are you of Iranian origin?
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Do you hear cases involving Iranian refugee claimants?
Mr. Kafai: From time to time. Sometimes colleagues ask me questions about Iran.
Mr. Nunez: And when you hear those cases, do you sometimes feel in a slight conflict of interest situation, or do you consider that you are able to act impartially?
Mr. Kafai: I can act impartially. I even sat on cases where my decision was negative.
What I looked for in each case is to determine whether the person in front of me is a refugee within the meaning of the Convention.
Mr. Nunez: How were you appointed initially eight years ago?
Mr. Kafai: That is a good question. I worked previously on the advisory committee for refugees. Subsequently, Mr. Weiner appointed me to the board. When the board became active then they put me on the Board.
Mr. Nunez: And how were you reappointed last time? What procedure did you follow then?
Mr. Kafai: When?
Mr. Nunez: On November 22, 1995. What did you do to be reappointed? Did you apply?
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: To whom?
Mr. Kafai: I said I was interested in continuing to serve. I think that then the minister ordered that the committee chaired by Mr. Fairweather, that the advisory council be formed... My application was submitted to them, they looked into my background, and they decided in my favour. I was then appointed, and I am very happy about that.
Mr. Nunez: When the committee examined your application for reappointment, did you send it just the CV we have here?
Mr. Kafai: Yes, the same document. There has been no change on my life or my career. I have had the good luck, the pleasure and the honour to work at the same place for the past five years. The CV remained the same.
Mr. Nunez: And what was the role of the IRBC before the Fairweather committee?
M. Kafai: I really don't know. I could not answer that question because it is an internal matter. I don't know how that works, who sits on it, who says what, but I know Mr. Fairweather is there.
Mr. Nunez: Were you not called to an interview and asked to pass tests?
Mr. Kafai: No, because I worked at the board at the time when Mr. Fairweather was Chairman. Therefore, he was familiar with my work, as I think were the other board members. There was Susan Davis who also knew that I had worked earlier for refugees. I think there was also Mr. John Frecker, or Ms ... I really don't know.
The Chairman: We will come back. Ms Meredith.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
You have a very impressive resumé here. It's quite intensive. I want to talk to you about your role, because it seems to be quite a different role from some of the others.
As I understand it, you do the expedited process where they determine a high-risk area. It would seem the years 1993-94 almost overload you with the number of cases. Is there some reason why you would see - it would appear - more cases than the average board member?
.1610
Mr. Kafai: Madam, the numbers might be misleading sometimes. I think the reason the numbers are higher is that I may have had some expedited cases. Normally we have two cases per day for a hearing, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. But when it comes to expedited cases sometimes we handle five, six or seven files each day, so if you do this job for two or three weeks, the numbers go up.
The acceptance rate over there is higher than the others. I think some studies were made before and came to the conclusion that... Let's say, for example, that you have ten cases, with eight accepted and two rejected. They even followed those two cases, and they saw when it went to the full hearing that it was accepted over there too.
The way it worked...I don't know right now, but maybe it's the same thing. At that time the refugee hearing officer read the file and I read the file. Then I identified the issues, and if there were some areas that were not clear, such as how he came to Canada or what he did or did not do with his passport, I would instruct the refugee hearing officers to ask these questions. They asked the questions and then came back to me with the replies.
Ms Meredith: My numbers - and correct me because it sounds as if you don't agree - indicate that the decisions that you were involved with were... Oh, I see, it says ``includes expedited''.
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
Ms Meredith: So does that mean that the majority of them would have been expedited cases? Or would the majority have been non-expedited? Do you have any idea of what percentage you're dealing with there?
Mr. Kafai: To be quite honest with you, I don't remember - it was three years ago - how many, but I was handling the expedited for some time.
Ms Meredith: I asked because you made mention of the fact that normally expedited cases are positive. Yet in 1993, 78 were positive decisions and 62 were negative, which, to be quite honest with you, is a more balanced accounting than, shall we say, other individuals had.
So I didn't see that in that year. According to my statistics here, you saw 140 cases. That seems to be quite a heavy caseload, so I would assume that a good number of those are probably expedited cases. In 1994, my numbers say you saw 160 cases. In comparison, other members of the board may have seen 50, 60 or 70 cases.
You saw substantially more than anybody else, albeit in that year most of them were positive, so I would assume... I guess that's what I'm asking. Would most of those have been these expedited cases that had kind of been identified as most likely to be positive, so it was a case of getting them through the system and out of the way so you could deal with the others that may have been more questionable? Do you feel that's a fair assessment?
Mr. Kafai: Yes, madam. If you will allow me, the numbers really are not my concern. I'll tell you why. I feel I have a mandate, and I carry out that mandate on behalf of the Canadian people.
Before entering into the hearing room, I have never said to myself that I was going to say no or yes. I confess that after reading the personal information form, one says that a case is strong or that there is nothing in it. You are there for surprises. You can go there with a small question - I have cases I can cite for you - and the whole thing falls through.
So when I go there, my aim is to see whether the person in front of me is a genuine refugee. Does he or she need Canadian protection? If I come to the conclusion that the person needs our protection... I think I will betray the trust of the Canadian people, if I know somebody needs our protection, if I just say no because I want to bring down numbers of my positives or vice versa. This is my aim.
.1615
I have another comment, if you will allow me to make it. If you see high numbers...our system is generous, madam. You know we have the principle of giving the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. We have three types of claims. First, there is the very strong one, when you know the claimant was tortured, beat up or persecuted. And you really know it. It's easy to decide on this one.
Second, we have the manifestly unfounded claims. We call them ``mock''. I always have examples to cite if you like. These are easy.
Then you have the in-between cases, the borderline ones. They are not strong, but they are not weak. It moves up and down. Over there if the policy of the government or of the IRB is not to give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant but to recognize him or her only if he or she is 100% refugee, I think we wouldn't have so many positives. We have so many positives because I think we give the benefit of doubt to the claimant when there is room to do so.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Are there any questions from the government side?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. Did you see your evaluation?
Mr. Kafai: What evaluation are you talking about?
Mr. Nunez: The evaluation conducted by the board which was probably sent to the Fairweather committee, as happened in the case of Ms Pia Zambelli. Are you aware of that evaluation?
M. Kafai: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: In that case, what sort of evaluation did you receive?
Mr. Kafai: I think that basically it was positive. Otherwise, I would not have been reappointed.
Mr. Nunez: What countries do you deal with?
Mr. Kafai: Various countries: countries in the Middle East, in Africa and sometimes Latin America. In most cases, it is countries in the Middle East because when I am sitting,
[English]
I am in full control.
[Translation]
Even before an Afghan claimant begins to speak, or when he makes any statement, I can follow him before his words are interpreted. As you know, interpretation is very important.
Mr. Nunez: On the first page of your curriculum vitae, you have written that one of your responsibilities is: ``Assessing refugee claimants' credibility''. What are the problems you have to deal with?
Mr. Kafai: The issue of credibility is very difficult and very important, in that you have to take into account a large number of factors.
[English]
In a hearing room I look for honesty, sincerity and coherence. I assess whether the claimant answers without hesitation all the questions put to him, and whether there are exaggerations or implausibilities in his testimony. In case there are, we share with them our doubts in order to give them the occasion to...
.1620
Then they would answer. Then we would see whether what he says is compatible with the documentary evidence. I would assess whether we have received refugees from that country before. I would look into the issue of the human rights record of that country. I would look into the issue of whether the judicial system in that country is functioning.
[Translation]
Therefore, there are many criteria I have to take into account before reaching a decision.
Mr. Nunez: Do you work within the regular or the expedited process?
Mr. Kafai: The regular process.
Mr. Nunez: And are there two members sitting?
Mr. Kafai: Yes, but I've been sitting alone for a month. I volunteered to sit alone. In all modesty, I believe that I have sufficient experience to reach a fair decision. Obviously, the lawyers must say that they agree. And they generally do.
Mr. Nunez: Given that there is such a heavy caseload at the Montreal section of the IRBC, how many cases do you deal with each week or each month.
Mr. Kafai: Normally, we hear two cases a day. Wednesdays are set aside for considering previous board decision or discussing our cases or problems. Friday is reserved for deliberation. If our decisions are to be written, you need the necessary time to do so. That takes time.
The rest of the time we are sitting. Those are the criteria we follow. Sometimes we are ready, but... Yesterday, my colleague and I were ready, but the lawyer was sick. Or the claimant may not be there. Things like that sometimes happen.
Mr. Nunez: How many cases do you deal with on average each week?
Mr. Kafai: I did not sit in January, because I had just come to Montreal and was new. I've been transferred from Ottawa to Montreal. The numbers you see here are not high, but I began to sit in February.
Mr. Nunez: I understand.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: I'd like to follow up on some of the questions Mr. Nunez was asking. I got the impression from something you answered that you now routinely sit as a one-member panel.
Mr. Kafai: Not routinely. I have said we have lots of work over there. The workload -
Ms Meredith: Just in Montreal?
Mr. Kafai: Yes. I don't know about other regions, but the workload is heavy. I think they are short of members, too. So I just said if the lawyers would accept it, instead of having two members...I am ready to sit alone. Then my colleague would be used in another hearing. I have sat -
Ms Meredith: Is there a backlog you're dealing with in Montreal?
Mr. Kafai: I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers. Maybe management could answer that.
Ms Meredith: So are we seeing - I think we all know it - a change from two-person panels to one-person panels? Do we more often see one person sitting?
Mr. Kafai: No, not to my knowledge. All panels are two-member panels. I just put an offer there. It's up to the lawyers to take it or not take it.
Ms Meredith: But with the expedited process it's a one-member panel, isn't it?
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
.1625
Ms Meredith: Where it's just... I don't want to call it a formality, but basically it's a formality.
Mr. Kafai: The member normally does not see and talk with the claimants. Sometimes they do, of course. If they have a problem, they say to the RCO - the refugee case officer - that they want to ask them personally to answer some questions.
Ms Meredith: So with the expedited process, you don't see the applicant? You're not interviewing the applicant? It's just a paper thing?
Mr. Kafai: No, we are, but it is done through the RCO - the refugee case officer.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Your decision is made just on recommendations or on information provided to you, so it's sort of like a judge reviewing a case.
Mr. Kafai: Yes, exactly. If the case is really very strong and you know that a country is a refugee-producing country, you know the human rights are violated day and night in that country, and you know the judicial system is not functioning - it's not democratic, it's military...
Ms Meredith: You have parameters, don't you?
Mr. Kafai: Oh, sure.
Ms Meredith: As a board, do you not say these are the parameters and these are the sorts of things that are happening around the world that you accept as being legitimate reasons? You deal with those parameters, do you not?
Mr. Kafai: Of course. We have a documentation centre that is exemplary. I think even Americans have come and approached us, so we are well equipped.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
Mr. Kafai: Thank you, madam.
The Chair: Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I just want to ask a couple of questions. First of all, thank you for the question the hon. member had in terms of the numbers. You're really not concerned with the numbers; you're there to look at it case by case, and you're not given any quota system whereby you're supposed to determine a certain amount of positive or negative. You're basically working on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
Mr. Dhaliwal: The other question is on human rights. Obviously one of the important considerations is for you to be knowledgeable in terms of the human rights situation in the countries you're dealing with.
Mr. Kafai: Yes.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I'm wondering if you can first enlighten me in terms of whether you have regular briefings and who briefs you on those situations in the countries you deal with.
Secondly, do you follow groups that follow human rights, like Amnesty International? Are you, as part of your job, required to follow what's happening with them? Because situations in countries do change regularly, how often would you be briefed on situations?
Also, just for my own knowledge, could you explain to me what kind of file would be an expedited file? How would you deal differently with an expedited file as opposed to an appeal file? What makes a file an expedited file? It's not quite clear in my mind what those are. Perhaps for my knowledge you could explain that to me.
Mr. Kafai: May I start with the last question?
Regarding expedited files, we have some criteria. I don't know right now exactly what those criteria are, because it is management who will take care of those criteria. Normally, as far as I know and as I said before, if the refugee is from a refugee-producing country, if the regime is not democratic at all, if the human rights are violated, if we have enough documentation to corroborate that the judicial system is not functioning and that if somebody persecutes you you'll have no recourse whatsoever, if there is evidence that you were tortured, you were imprisoned, you ran away, you left the country illegally and came here... So there are many criteria they look at to decide whether a case should be expedited or not. To tell you the truth, I am not competent to go further than that, but there are some criteria.
Regarding human rights violations and Amnesty International, we do regularly follow that. But may I just make a distinction here? Some regimes are there for many years, so the situation does not change as it does in many of these countries. Take Iran, Afghanistan, or the Middle East. But in every case that comes in front of us we receive Amnesty International documents, we receive U.S. country report documents. We are well equipped, sir.
.1630
The Chair: I'd like to thank Mr. Kafai for appearing before the committee and I wish him good luck in his new appointment.
Mr. Kafai: Thank you very much. It was an honour and a pleasure to see you.
The Chair: Now I'll invite Ms Ethel Teitelbaum to come forward, please. Ms Teitelbaum is also a member of the immigration appeal division of the Toronto regional office.
Thank you for coming.
Ms Ethel Teitelbaum (Member, Immigration Appeal Division, Toronto Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Thank you for inviting me.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, you may begin.
Mr. Nunez: I see there that you were a member of the Immigration Appeal Board, that you were born and lived in Montreal and that you worked for a member of Parliament and minister,Mr. Donald Macdonald. What kind of work did you do for him?
Ms Teitelbaum: First, I apologize that I will not be speaking to you in French; I do not speak French fluently.
[English]
You want to know what work I did for Donald Macdonald. I was his political adviser.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What did that consist of? What was your job description?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: I ran his constituency office for a year or two, then I came to Ottawa to work with him directly as his political adviser. I handled all matters that did not pertain to the portfolio. I accompanied him to many meetings. I acted for him. I spoke for him. I advised him on political matters. I was with him through several portfolios, but I had nothing to do with any of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And in 1989, who proposed or recommended your application?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: In 1989 I don't know who recommended me. I've been appointed by two governments. How they arrived at the decision to appoint me I can only speculate.
Mr. Nunez: Which government?
Ms Teitelbaum: The Liberal and Conservative governments. Both have appointed me. Both of them have appointed me and reappointed me. I can only deduce from their having appointed me that they considered me to be competent and capable of doing my job.
Do you want me to expand on that?
Mr. Nunez: No, it's okay.
[Translation]
You will now have to answer other questions.
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: Okay. I'm here.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you sometimes been asked to sit outside Toronto?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: Occasionally I do. When the board was small, which was when I was first appointed, there were fourteen members across the country. So we travelled from coast to coast constantly, which had many advantages that I won't go into now because that's not what you want to hear about, I'm sure. As a result, I got to know all the ways in which members think in various regions.
Now, I suppose because we're so big, although the appeal division is still relatively small, there are financial constraints. So we travel very little. We have travelled to penitentiaries, and I have travelled to Winnipeg, and some of my colleagues to Vancouver. I used to sit in Montreal a fair bit, but not any more.
.1635
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And what type of cases did you hear in Vancouver?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: The cases are the same across the country. We are strictly an appeals court and we hear cases of people appealing their deportation orders. We hear cases of people whose sponsorship applications have been refused. We hear appeals from people who consider themselves to be returning residents but who have overstayed the required number of days, which is 183, six months, who are not allowed to come back into the country. We hear those kinds of cases. That's standard across the country.
The application of the law is always the same. When I say that it was valuable to learn how the different regions thought, it's because there are some little differences. For the sake of consistency, it's been very useful to do the travelling.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: During all those years, were there any complaints about you on the part of lawyers or clients?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: I'm just checking with my highly paid counsel here to make sure I don't misunderstand your questions.
I don't think so.
Are you aware of any complaints?
If there are any, none have been brought to my attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Therefore, your evaluation is very good.
The Chair: We will have to come back to this subject, because your five-minute period is over.
[English]
Do you want to answer?
Ms Teitelbaum: Oh, sure.
The Chair: Answer it.
Ms Teitelbaum: They're always excellent. I don't mean to sound immodest, but that's what they are. I see them; that's why I can say that. We all see our evaluations and have to sign them.
Mr. Nunez: Do you have copies?
Ms Teitelbaum: You'll have to take my word for it.
Ms Meredith: I have to admit that I didn't quite catch your earlier answer. Did you apply for this position, or was your name somehow given to somebody and you were appointed? I know you said you were appointed by two different governments and reappointed, but did you reapply?
Ms Teitelbaum: I've always made my interests known, oh yes. Do you mean right from the beginning?
Ms Meredith: Was it advertised in the Gazette? We heard another witness say that they fulfilled a request for applications from the Gazette.
Ms Teitelbaum: No. That's a recent development. It's only in the last few years that these positions have been advertised. It used to be that you would make your interests known to various people.
Ms Meredith: When you say ``various people'', to whom would you have made yourself known to, that you were interested in this sort of thing?
Ms Teitelbaum: In my particular case, at the beginning I made my interest known to various cabinet ministers who made this decision. They were all familiar with my abilities, and, I hope, my sensitivities.
I come from an immigrant family, I come from an immigrant community, and I felt that I would bring those kinds of sensibilities to this kind of work.
As I say, I indicated to a variety of people that I was interested. At that time it was very difficult to obtain a position as a member on the board, because there were only 14. The numbers of applications were, for want of a better word, legion. I can't tell you how they decided. After that, I just kept doing the same thing as my appointments... In those days, the appointments were for very lengthy periods.
Ms Meredith: Did you start out in the appeal division, or did you do all applications?
Ms Teitelbaum: No. When I came to the board it was the Immigration Appeal Board and we did everything. We did the appeals and we did the refugee stuff. The split occurred only in 1989.
.1640
Ms Meredith: So in 1989 then you went into the appeal division.
Ms Teitelbaum: No, I went into the refugee division. Then I was responsible for overseeing the credible basis division, which has since evaporated.
Ms Meredith: In Toronto you hear anybody who has been denied status, who has the deportation order. Does it always go to a deportation order? Would you only hear people who are facing deportation?
Ms Teitelbaum: We deal with people who are appealing their deportation order or sponsors whose sponsorship applications have been refused and a variety of other types of cases. In the appeal division we have nothing to do with refugees. We only take the issue of refugees into account if someone has been determined to be a refugee, has been convicted of a criminal offence, and appears before us. Then we apply another section of the act, if they haven't been granted landed immigrant status.
Ms Meredith: But if you have a refugee applicant who has not been granted status, you would not hear their appeal?
Ms Teitelbaum: We would, but it would be under another section of the act. We would normally just hear an appeal by a landed immigrant, but this person would not have that status. Slightly different criteria are applied, and that's why it's a different section of the act.
Ms Meredith: But you would still hear that individual's case.
Ms Teitelbaum: Yes. If they're landed immigrants, we hear all the circumstances of the case. If they've been determined to be refugees, then we apply humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
Ms Meredith: Do you find there is more work in Toronto than there might be in Montreal? Is there a difference between major centres in Canada?
Ms Teitelbaum: I can't answer that question accurately. The only thing I can deduce from the number of members on the appeal side in Montreal as compared with those in Toronto is that we have a heavier load. There are two in Montreal and I think we have ten.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
I'm just wondering how many years you have been involved with the appeal board.
Ms Teitelbaum: It's been about 17 now.
Mr. Dromisky: In your travels to various parts of the country, did you notice anything unusual, any strange phenomena or characteristics or factors that seem to be emerging in certain areas of the country, simply because of the way certain people are being processed by certain individuals? Would you say there are any unusual characteristics that you can trace to a heavier emphasis in one area of the country on certain portions of the act than in another area, simply because of an individual's biases, or anything like that? Is there anything peculiar? Certainly because of your travels there must be something you are aware of that nobody else could be aware of.
Ms Teitelbaum: And my age.
Mr. Dromisky: Yes, and intelligence, sensitivity, experience, and so forth.
Ms Teitelbaum: Thank you.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Teitelbaum: No, there are no peculiarities. The only thing I can say on that subject is that it's been my observation that when new members come onto the board they tend to be less judgmental. They tend to be more... I don't want to use the word ``generous'' because I hope I continue to be generous.
Mr. Dromisky: What about ``compassionate''? Would that be a good word?
Ms Teitelbaum: No.
The Chair: Now, Mr. Dromisky, don't put words in the witness's mouth.
Ms Teitelbaum: They tend to give more positive decisions as time goes on, and they have a dose of reality. That's where I see the differences.
Mr. Dromisky: That's what I'm referring to.
.1645
Ms Teitelbaum: That's where I see the differences.
Also, the cases come from different segments of society in different regions. They have, for example, more East Indians in Vancouver. They have more Haitians in Montreal. We have more Jamaicans in Toronto. These are the differences. So I suppose they're approached a little differently. I don't really know. The only chief...and I can't call it a peculiarity, is this difference in length of service, actually. They're seeing enough cases that their point of view starts being altered somewhat.
Over the years things have changed. For many years I was considered, along with one other person, the small-``l'' liberal on the board. But for a long time it was very easy to be that generous. I think what a lot of people don't understand is that the nature of crimes has changed. There are far more drug-related criminal activities than there used to be. There are more tougher crimes. Also, the act changed so the people we saw were those who were committing more serious crimes: the robbers, the pimps, the sexual assaulters, and all those people who could net bigger sentences than the ones we used to see. So that has changed. There have been a lot of changes of that nature over the years.
The Chair: Ms Minna, please.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Welcome.
I would like to go back to your resumé, your front page, for just a moment. You say you were a coordinator of the convention refugee determination division, where you were responsible for ensuring proper application of procedures and so on. But then you say the credible basis division no longer exists. Where is that sort of work done now, then? Who oversees the procedures and the efficiency of the operation or the application of policy, interpretation of policy? What's that called now? I'm not familiar with it.
Ms Teitelbaum: I'll try to be very brief. I think I can be, believe it or not.
When the board split into its two arms, there was a segment of the refugee determination process that ultimately did not work. That was the credible basis hearing.
What happened was that when someone applied for refugee status they would come to this division and make their application. This body included a two-member panel, which consisted of an adjudicator and a member of the board. If this person was determined to have any possibility of establishing a proper claim for refugee status, it would be referred on to the next level, which was a full hearing before the CRDD. If it was determined that there no credible basis for a claim, then the decision was made there. It was like the old RSAC, the refugee status advisory committee. And off they'd go.
Well, the referral rate was 92% or 97% and it was absolutely idiotic to continue to have this division, since it wasn't really doing its work with that high level of acceptance. ``Acceptance''! It was a way of shoving off responsibility. Again, if one person on the panel saw fit to move it along, that's what happened. It was usually the adjudicator who would say to let it go to a full hearing.
So that's what happened.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. How many cases do you deal with each year or each month?
Ms Teitelbaum: That depends.
.1650
[English]
We're usually scheduling three cases a day now. That's a very heavy scheduling load. The reason for it is that the withdrawal and postponement rate has increased. To try to circumvent -
Mr. Nunez: Because of the lawyers?
Ms Teitelbaum: To a large degree because of the lawyers, yes. It's very easy for me to blame them, but it happens to be true.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Could you give us a general idea of how many cases you heard in 1995?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: If the statistics are to be believed, last year - and I was a bit shocked by this - I wrote 57 sets of reasons. I was shocked because I thought it was a bit low. I'm not sure the figure is accurate.
Just so that I'm clear, all sponsorship appeal decisions have to be written.
Mr. Nunez: Negative or positive.
Ms Teitelbaum: That's right. Whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed, you have to justify. All of the cases we hear in the penitentiaries are written, but otherwise there's no obligation to give written reasons unless asked to.
So on the basis of the 57 sets of reasons I did write, I can assume I've probably heard at least twice as many cases.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How many of the decisions in those 57 cases were appealed?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: Oh, very few. They're dealing with old Teitelbaum here.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Did you win or lose? Were those decisions upheld or set aside?
[English]
Ms Teitelbaum: They can only go for a month to the Federal Court of Canada, on leave, and then from the Federal Court to the Supreme Court. That's it. Most of the time, when my cases have gone to the Federal Court - and again, I don't mean to sound immodest - usually they have been upheld. Occasionally I've been embarrassed.
Mr. Nunez: Okay.
The Chair: Ms Meredith, have you any other questions for the witness?
Ms Meredith: I'm not sure whether my questions apply to this particular field. I'm fascinated with the process, and I find that your experience and your history with the establishment can offer me some insight as to the process, what your job is and what we try to accomplish.
Ms Teitelbaum: I'll talk to you any time.
Ms Meredith: I think it was answered already, but you've basically worked yourself out of a job. Your transfer from claimant into appeal was because the credible basis division -
Ms Teitelbaum: No.
Ms Meredith: Was that your change, into the appeal division?
Ms Teitelbaum: That lasted for two years until the powers that be realized it was unworkable. When that happened, I just went into hearing refugee claims full time.
Ms Meredith: So why the change into the appeal division? Was that your choice?
Ms Teitelbaum: Yes, my choice.
Ms Meredith: You just decided it was time to move on into something new.
Ms Teitelbaum: Yes. It interested me more. There's more variety. I like the legal challenges.
On the refugee side you're dealing a lot with credibility. You are here to a large degree as well because you have to determine rehabilitation in the cases of criminal appeal.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
.1655
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith. Mr. Dhaliwal is next.
Mr. Dhaliwal: There was a question I put earlier, but perhaps it was much more appropriate to put it to you since you are on the appeal board. It was, first of all, about the amount of time it takes before it gets to you. Second of all, do cases come forward that make you wonder why they weren't resolved prior to getting to you? There are huge amounts of resources expended to get to that point in terms of legal fees and in terms of the government side getting ready to present its case.
I know of cases that we've brought forward because we thought it made sense to put them through. But they often tell us it doesn't matter, that once someone has appealed it, it has to go to the appeal board. I sometimes wonder why we... Take, for example, someone who has a child but is told it's not a bona fide marriage. They have a child who is two or three years old, but they have to go through...once an officer says no, the only way to really remedy it is to go to the appeal board. A lot of the time, it becomes a fairly easy case, but it's just that you have to go through the formality.
Are there many cases that come before you that you thought could have been resolved prior to it even getting to you?
Ms Teitelbaum: I don't know of many, but there are some. The board has recently instituted a system that may be very workable, I'm told, but we'll see. I haven't done it yet myself, but it includes video conferencing and teleconferencing.
I realize I'm not answering your question very directly, but I have had very few cases that really could have been resolved outside of the board. You're quite right, though. Once the thing is set in motion, I don't know the point at which you can stop it. It just starts rolling, and the whole system is geared to it stopping at a certain point, that being the appeal section.
Mr. Dhaliwal: How long might that take? Two or three years?
Ms Teitelbaum: To get to us?
Mr. Dhaliwal: Yes.
Ms Teitelbaum: I know it can take two to three years before the problem is finally resolved, and sometimes longer. But please bear in mind that the board does not determine when the cases are going to be heard. It's the minister who does that, or the minister's representatives. They determine when the record is going to be prepared.
We can't proceed without a record. The record includes the examination of the person, and all the documents pertaining to the particular problem. All of that has to be prepared by Immigration, and all of the documents have to be sent to the appeal office, which is the minister's office, and the record is then sent to us. Once we get that, I do the assignment course, so I have a fairly good idea of what's coming in and how I'm scheduling hearings. I can tell you that sometimes there are a lot of them and sometimes there are very few. But it's never the board's fault. Once we get them, we spring into action. So the hearing comes on quite quickly once we get the material.
Sometimes I look at when they submitted their notice of appeal. I find it shocking, to tell you the truth, that I sometimes see that this person launched an appeal in 1993 but it hasn't come to the board until now. But that's not a problem we can deal with. It's not within our range.
Mr. Dhaliwal: So three years is not uncommon for the appeal - if someone makes an appeal - from the time it's rejected -
Ms Teitelbaum: Oh, no, it's not common. It takes less time than that. What happens after the decision is made at the appeal, I can't say. I've heard of people complaining that it then takes another year or two years before... But you're going to have to have another hearing into why that happens.
Mr. Dhaliwal: So once you've made a ruling, the matter isn't expedited. Once you've even ruled in favour, it could take another couple of years to have the thing processed.
Ms Teitelbaum: I don't know personally. I just know this happened, because people complained to me on a personal level. They say, this happened to my brother-in-law, it happened to my friend; they still had to wait a long time.
.1700
On the other hand, I allowed an appeal of a sponsor whose husband had been deported from Canada. It was clear that he had rehabilitated, and the whole family was here; there were a lot of good reasons to allow the appeal. About six months later I got a card of thanks from this woman saying that her husband had returned and everyone was really truly happy. He was a changed man, and blah, blah, blah. So clearly it does happen that they do it quickly.
I'm sorry, I would like to answer but I don't know.
The Chair: I'd like to thank Ms Teitelbaum for coming before the committee. I wish you good luck in your reappointment. Thank you.
Ms Teitelbaum: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I will now invite Mr. Nirmal Singh to please come forward. Mr. Singh is a full-time member of the convention refugee determination division, Vancouver regional office. Welcome, Mr. Singh.
Mr. Nirmal Singh (Full-time Member, Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Chairperson, I would like to remind you that I'm actually a member of the appeal division.
The Chair: I'm sorry that's the information I had, but thank you very much.
Mr. Singh: Thank you.
The Chair: Okay, which one?
Ms Minna: The appeal division in Vancouver. We did get the city right.
Mr. Singh: Yes, it's in Vancouver.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: The information we have leaves a little to be desired. I also find that your curriculum vitae is not very long, consisting of only one page, or very detailed.
The Chair: Does it really bother you just to ask questions?
Mr. Nunez: No. The problem is that I do not know if this is a strategy. The first time we examined appointments of board members, we had far lengthier and more detailed CVs. Now, we have only one page.
You are originally from India.
[English]
Mr. Singh: Why is my curriculum vitae so short? I've done only two things in my life, Honourable Chairperson. For twenty years I taught at a community college, and for the last ten years I've been on the board. I've been here in Canada for thirty years, so it was pretty straightforward. Before that, I did research in atomic energy for five years.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You have a master of science degree. Given that your education is essentially scientific and that you have an MS, how do you explain your interest in becoming a member of the IRBC? Did you have previous experience with refugees or immigrants? How do you explain this interest?
[English]
Mr. Singh: No, I didn't have any experience in refugee law or in immigration prior to my joining the Immigration Appeal Board, which it used to be at that time. I was teaching in a small community in the interior of British Columbia, which was the first community college in British Columbia. I was extremely devoted to my work, and there were less than half a dozen people of minorities or of my nationality.
My member of Parliament recommended my name to be appointed because there was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Singh, where we were to hear everybody who was making a claim as a convention refugee. So at that time the board was increased from 15 members to 50 members. I took a leave of absence for two years from the community college and I joined the board. At that time, perhaps due to my performance in my work, I was asked to continue.
.1705
This is my third reappointment. I was reappointed in 1989 for five years. There were fewer cases in the appeal division at that time, but there were more cases on conventional refugee determination. I was asked by the then chairperson, Mr. Fairweather, if I would be in interested in going to the conventional refugee determination.
I was, and I served there for a year and a half. In fact, I often had the great opportunity of sitting with Mr. Fairweather as a panel member and I also did some expedited hearing during 1991. Then in the appeal division there were more cases of sponsorships and deportations and I was asked to come back to the appeal division to be inside. Since 1993 I've been serving on the appeal division.
Presently I'm acting as the assistant deupty chairperson. In 1994 there was only one member of the appeal division, the other terms having expired; so I was the only full-time member and I was asked to be the assistant deputy chairperson as an acting person. At that time I instituted a few things in Vancouver. That's mainly where I sit, although we also sit in Alberta, and Calgary and Edmonton are in our jurisdiction.
I started a few new things that will help expedite the process of those people who have been sitting there for two to three years. We started an assignment code, which means people could come and be given a date so that we could proceed. Our problem is not legal counsel, our problem is immigration consultants. Some of those people do not proceed. Other cases have to be postponed because so often it's not a genuine sickness or some other excuse. So often those cases don't proceed. I instituted a few of those things, which have been bearing fruit.
Now in Vancouver, I am very happy to report to you hon. members, we can hear the cases within less than six months. Previously not even a hearing date was given for a year. Today we can now schedule cases that will be heard in September or October.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go on record as saying that I for one am not concerned that you don't have any background in the NGOs and those kinds of communities. I find it very refreshing that it would be somebody with, hopefully, an open mind.
I want to follow up, and I don't mean to be nasty by saying this, that you're obviously a political appointment. You acknowledged that it was a member of Parliament who asked you to sit. Do you find that most of the people who you work with in the appeal division...and I assume your represent all the appeals, not just an area. For instance, we heard from people who say they represent certain areas: Sri Lanka, India -
Mr. Singh: No, it's from every place.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Do you find that most of the members in the appeal division have a similar background to what you have, which is coming in with an unbiased open mind?
Mr. Singh: I think it's still very diverse. I think it's fair representation from every segment of society. I think I'm very happy that it is so. It's not loaded in one direction. I think it's very fair. Also, since 1993 we have been sitting as single members, because originally the act says three-member panels - we used to be three - but with financial restraints and everything I'm glad to report to you that for 90% to 95% of the cases we sit as single members.
But as assistant deputy chairperson, for the sake of consistency a few times I will sit in Toronto so that we know we are not going in a different direction. This is because the intent of Parliament in every case has to be followed, and we do. We are only 20 people in the field region so we really know everyone. If somebody is trying to go out on a limb it becomes a matter of concern to everybody.
Ms Meredith: So what you're telling me, as I understand it, is that there is a check and a balance within your own board members to make sure you're not doing something in Vancouver that isn't also being done in Toronto or Montreal, to ensure that you're somewhat consistent.
.1710
Mr. Singh: Very much so, hon. member. Last week we had our national conference for a week. We met for four days to do that only, because we want to be consistent. If a person is heard in Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver or Edmonton or Calgary, that person is entitled to the same sort of treatment. If the facts are the same, the decision should be the same, so that people can expect under those circumstances what the outcome would be. We try as much as is humanly possibly. We all have our certain biases, some ways we can't really come... But on the whole, if a decision is out of line, I think it's a matter of concern to each and every member.
Ms Meredith: You mentioned the pressure of the numbers in Vancouver. Do you find that the numbers of hearings in Vancouver are, say, greater than in Toronto or Montreal? Are you dealing with greater numbers?
Mr. Singh: I think that everywhere there's been an increase in sponsorships, because for the last six months or a year there have been cases of certain types from certain countries - I suppose the visa officers were cleaning their offices. Sometimes you get bunches, like 300 in a month in Vancouver. I think more or less it's all resolved. We have opened another court in Vancouver and that was the reason we could hear the cases quickly. We are six members in Vancouver. We are hearing in each court at least two cases every day, so we have three courts running. If one court is in Calgary, then we will run two in Vancouver, because Alberta is in the other jurisdiction.
Ms Meredith: Correct me if I'm wrong. You're in the appeal division, so you're only hearing those cases particularly in sponsorship where it's been denied for whatever reason. You're telling me that you are seeing an increase in those cases over the last year?
Mr. Singh: Yes.
Ms Meredith: Do you see it dropping off?
Mr. Singh: I think it's dropped off. Since September it has been what it used to be historically. In Vancouver we might get 90 appeals a month, less than 100 and more than 80, and it has dropped to that same level. But at certain times, I think it was in the spring of 1995, there have been certain jumps in sponsorship appeals.
In terms of deportation cases, as you will know, Bill C-44, which came into effect last year, has taken our jurisdiction, because the ministers have deemed that if a person is a danger to Canada then we don't have jurisdiction to hear it. That will lower the number of cases in Vancouver, actually quite a few.
Ms Meredith: I don't want to dwell on this, but are we talking about the same number in Toronto, in Montreal, or is Vancouver a particularly busy area, a heavy section work-wise?
Mr. Singh: I think there is a little difference. There are more deportation cases in Toronto relatively than in Vancouver. We have more sponsorship cases than deportation cases.
Ms Meredith: So it's really the situation that varies more than the number of cases.
Mr. Singh: Yes.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Dhaliwal is next.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I don't know if this is appropriate, but I want to ask you in terms of human rights and in terms of your having been deputy chair of -
Mr. Singh: Assistant deputy, only acting.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I'm sure that will change in the future. I want to ask you, because I've been a spokesman on human rights and particularly on the human rights situation in the Punjab, which is a very serious situation - I've visited there - would you say that the members are quite informed on human rights violations that exist in India, particularly in the troubled areas like Punjab, Kashmir and Nagaland?
Mr. Singh: Hon. member, in effect in sponsorship cases the question of human rights comes in a very indirect way, because somebody might say their parents can't get out of their home - they are old, they are sick, please let them come. It's in that sense. But we are not doing determination on convention refugee status, so really it doesn't enter the picture, except for those people who have committed criminal acts after they have been found to be convention refugees - then we have humanitarian and compassionate grounds. We are made aware of it because one party or the other will bring it to us.
.1715
Mr. Dhaliwal: Let me just follow up on this. When I was in India, I was told that 80% of adoptions were rejected from New Delhi. In my own office we have lots of people who have problems in the area of adoption.
Would you say that you get a lot of appeals in the area of adoption, and what percentage would you say are positive once they get to the appeal board?
Mr. Singh: I'm sorry; I won't be able to tell you the positives and negatives. Somewhere we could be keeping a record, but we really don't see the total numbers.
I agree with you. As I just answered the other hon. member, there were some files in which substantial numbers were adoption cases from India, especially from Punjab. We are dealing with those.
There have been changes in the regulations, which came into effect at certain dates - some last year, some two years back - because there were some abuses of the process. I don't want to go into the legislation. That's your job. But there were some changes in the regulations, and we are dealing with those.
Of course, those cases go to the superior court and they make the final decisions.
I can't honestly tell you how many were positive and how many negative, because each case is heard on its facts and the evidence presented.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, do you have any other questions?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. You did not indicate in your curriculum vitae when you were appointed for the first or second time. Nor did you indicate how many languages you speak.
[English]
Mr. Singh: I grew up speaking Punjabi. In the state of Punjab in India, that was my mother tongue. I've been out from there for many years, because I was doing research in atomic energy. So I left my home quite early, but I'm fluent in understanding and talking in Punjabi, and the Urdu language, which we were taught when we started our schooling in grade one. That was the language of Pakistan. So those are the two other languages I'm familiar with.
I could translate papers, with the help of a dictionary, into Russian, because we were supposed to learn Russian. It's not very much. I could translate scientific papers at that time. Now I have been out for quite a few years. I'm not really very fluent in Russian.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: If there is not a very significant backlog in Vancouver, and the waiting period is only six months, why do other board members have to go to Vancouver?
[English]
Mr. Singh: We don't get that many members from outside. We have just a new member reappointed -
Mr. Nunez: Mrs. Teitelbaum said that she went to Vancouver.
Mr. Singh: She went to Vancouver some years back -
Mr. Nunez: Why?
Mr. Singh: - not last year or this year. My colleague Mrs. Teitelbaum was in Vancouver, if I recall, at least four years back.
Sometimes we get members travelling to the other regions so we will be consistent. That's why I sat in Toronto last year for two weeks: so I could see the cases. There might be something I might pick up, some positive things of how they proceed, just to learn if something is happening better in another region. But usually we don't travel just for the sake of travel.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Do you hear cases of refugee claimants from India or the Punjab?
[English]
Mr. Singh: No, we don't hear in the appeal division. That's the CRDD, the convention refugee determination division. We are hearing appeals only from the visa officer's refusal of somebody's relative coming to Canada or of people who have done criminality who are residents only and not citizens of Canada, for deportation. Those are the main cases we hear. We can also mention convention refugees who have not landed, who have status as convention refugees but they have done some criminal act. So we have humanitarian and compassionate grounds to hear those cases.
The Chair: Ms Meredith?
Ms Meredith: I'm fine.
The Chair: I'd like to thank Mr. Singh for appearing before the committee. I wish him good luck.
Mr. Singh: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Our next witness is Mr. Stéphane Handfield, a full-time member of the Convention Refugee Determination Division at the Montreal Regional Office.
Welcome, Mr. Handfield.
.1720
Mr. Stéphane Handfield (Full-Time Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Montreal Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Thank you.
The Chair: We will begin with Mr. Nunez. Please proceed.
Mr. Nunez: I see from your curriculum vitae that from October 1993 to date you were self-employed, working in Montreal. What is meant by ``to date''? There is no date specified in your curriculum vitae.
Mr. Handfield: I think that was a curriculum vitae I sent when applying to be appointed to the board. Therefore, it covers a period up to December 1993.
Mr. Nunez: It is an old curriculum vitae.
Mr. Handfield: It's the first one that I sent to the board.
Mr. Nunez: You have written ``Professional Association: 1992 to date, Member of the Quebec Bar Association''. Are you still a member?
Mr. Handfield: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Can you explain to us how you were appointed as a board member? Who recommended your application?
Mr. Handfield: I sent my curriculum vitae. I was notified that there was an advertisement in the Gazette. I have no idea who referred me. I think that I appended letters from my previous employers to my curriculum vitae. I don't know if you have them, but I think I appended those letters.
Mr. Nunez: What role did the former minister, André Ouellet, play in your appointment?
Mr. Handfield: I have no idea. You would have to ask him that question.
Mr. Nunez: No, I'm asking you.
Mr. Handfield: I have no idea.
[English]
The Chair: That question is out of order, Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Was he involved or not? Did he recommend your application?
Mr. Handfield: Madam Chair, I have no idea. You would have to ask Mr. Ouellet.
Mr. Nunez: You know that there are many allegations in that regard.
Mr. Handfield: I can't tell you anything else.
The Chair: Mr. Handfield has answered. Do you have another question, Mr. Nunez?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. What was the procedure for renewing your term as a board member? Was your renewal examined by the Fairweather committee or were you reappointed directly by the minister?
Mr. Handfield: I sent a letter to Ms Mawani, Chairperson of the Board, indicating that I would like my term to be renewed. I think that my evaluations, both formal and informal, conducted by my supervisors were sent to the Chairperson. I was sent a memo confirming my reappointment, and in fact it was subsequently mentioned that my reappointment was among the first assessed by the Fairweather committee.
Mr. Nunez: I would ask once again, are you related by family or any other way to Mr. Ouellet?
Mr. Handfield: I have no family relationship with him. Madam Chair, I find the question of Mr. Nunez somewhat inappropriate.
The Chair: I agree with you.
Mr. Nunez: If, as a board member, you were interviewing someone, would you allow them to say that your question was inappropriate? Would you accept that?
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, that is not a question. We have already established criteria for the committee's questions.
Mr. Nunez: But it is not the role of the Chair to defend someone. It is totally unacceptable for you to say that you agree with him. It is not your role as Chairperson to do that. You said you agreed with him.
The Chair: I agree that the question is out of order for this committee.
Mr. Nunez: In any event, I have here a summary of the decisions that you have handed down. In 1994, you delivered 33 favourable decisions and 40 unfavourable; in 1995, 20 favourable decisions and 54 unfavourable; in 1996, until the end of March, you made only 4 favourable decisions and 13 unfavourable. How do you explain the enormous difference between your decisions and those of Mr. Kafai and Ms Zambelli?
Mr. Handfield: I don't place much trust in figures. They can be interpreted as you wish. You would have to look at the countries those other people dealt with in comparison with the ones I was dealing with.
.1725
I make my decision based on the evidence in the file, the credibility of the claimant's testimony, the law and past decisions of higher courts. Mr. Nunez, please believe me that I certainly do not enjoy it when I have to say no to a claimant.
Mr. Nunez: What region do you deal with?
Mr. Handfield: Since I've been at the board, I have been assigned cases of claimants from the Maghreb, that is Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. I have been assigned particularly to cases of claimants from Algeria.
Mr. Nunez: Algeria.
Mr. Handfield: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Where there are an enormous number of problems.
Mr. Handfield: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Your curriculum vitae indicates that you were a store detective. What was that exactly?
Mr. Handfield: I began when I was studying. It was detective work, as a floor walker. I investigated internal theft, thefts in stores committed by customers.
Mr. Nunez: In your curriculum vitae, I do not see any experience in the area of immigration or with refugees prior to your appointment as a board member.
Mr. Handfield: As regards immigration, I worked in the area of criminal law, and most of my clients were immigrants.
When I worked for the Legal Services of the Quebec Provincial Police, part of my work dealt with the Immigration Act.
Mr. Nunez: What I still don't understand is your acceptance rate. Is it the lowest in Montreal?
Mr. Handfield: I have no idea. I don't think so.
Mr. Nunez: Did you receive evaluations?
Mr. Handfield: Yes. One formal and one informal evaluation. I would describe them as A1.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Meredith.
Mr. Dhaliwal: She's very happy.
Ms Meredith: Well, unlike my colleague, I don't have any problem with the fact that you don't have a heavy background in refugee advocacy groups or as an immigration lawyer. I'm not sure that is an attribute. It may allow one to understand clearly what goes on, but I'd like to suggest that your record is probably one of the more balanced ones I've run across. Certainly it's considerably different from some others.
I want to go back, though, to something Mr. Nunez brought up and you seem reluctant to deal with. I will be direct and upfront. How did you know about this position? How did you get the position? Would you consider yourself to be a political appointee to this position?
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: I saw in the Gazette that there were vacancies and I sent my curriculum vitae.
[English]
Ms Meredith: So you applied for the position through an advertisement, basically, in the Gazette, and you were hired without direct contact with a member of Parliament or somebody in a political position.
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: As I said, I sent my curriculum vitae and I was informed that I had been appointed.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Okay. Again, I'm being honest. You seem rather young to be appointed. One usually brings life experiences to these kinds of jobs. Do you feel that's a detriment when you're hearing cases? It's not that I want to discriminate against you because of your age, but do you feel that is one of the things you do have to deal with?
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: I cannot do anything about my age. If anyone is to be blamed for that, perhaps it should be my parents.
No, I don't think that that is a disadvantage. On the contrary, all groups in society are represented within the IRBC: there are female board members, males, representatives of cultural communities, but there were no young people. I think it is important that we should be able to see things from a young person's viewpoint, when sitting on a human rights tribunal interviewing claimants, many of whom are quite young.
.1730
In the case of the countries I deal with, the claimants I hear are often young. I believe that they feel more comfortable being able to tell their story to a young person who can understand them and experiences the same things as them. I'm not suggesting that I have the same problems as they do, but young people do have all the same aspirations.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Okay.
You deal only in Montreal? Is that the only place you hear cases?
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: Yes.
[English]
Ms Meredith: And I missed something. You said you dealt with Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and one other country, which I missed.
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. I don't deal exclusively with those countries. However, my supervisors designated me as a specialist on the Maghreb, that is Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Handfield, just as a matter of interest, what percentage of the cases you hear in Montreal are conducted in English and what percentage are in French? I just want an approximation.
[Translation]
Mr. Handfield: One hundred percent in French.
Mr. Cullen: One hundred percent?
Mr. Handfield: Yes, in French, but I am not the person who decides.
Mr. Cullen: Yes, I understand. Thank you.
Mr. Nunez: Have there been any complaints against you?
Mr. Handfield: In so far as I know, there's been one complaint which is currently being considered. As the investigation is not yet over, it has not been decided whether there was or wasn't any basis to the complaint. I would prefer not to discuss it since the investigation is underway.
Mr. Nunez: Who filed the complaint?
Mr. Handfield: An employee.
Mr. Nunez: And who is dealing with this complaint?
Mr. Handfield: It goes through the regular process.
Mr. Nunez: What is that?
Mr. Handfield: It goes to the people responsible for receiving complaints.
Mr. Nunez: Ah really?
Mr. Handfield: Yes, I was called by the regional director for personnel. That is the only person I have met to date. The investigation is underway. It has not yet been decided if there was or was not any basis to the complaint.
Mr. Nunez: And you would prefer not to specify the nature of the complaint?
Mr. Handfield: No, since the investigation is under way and it has not even being decided whether or not there is any basis to the complaint.
The Chair: No.
[English]
Could I be the chair today? Thank you very much.
I allowed three questions, but I will not allow any more. Somebody wants to know my judgment on this. It does apply on the reappointment of a member of the board. I will not allow any more questions on the details of it, because it is in process. Thank you.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes. You did not answer the earlier question: did your renewal go through the Fairweather committee or directly to the minister?
Mr. Handfield: As I think I already said, I received a memo which came I think from the Communications Branch of the IRBC, stating that I was among the first renewals whose names had been referred by the Fairweather committee. I have the letter here.
The Chair: Do you have any other questions, Mr. Nunez?
Mr. Nunez: No.
The Chair: Very good.
[English]
Ms Meredith?
Ms Meredith: No.
The Chair: Are there any other questions from the government side?
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Handfield. I wish you all success.
[English]
I would like to also thank Mr. Philip Palmer for being with us today.
I thank the hon. members. We will be back on Thursday at 3:30 p.m. in room 209 for the draft report on the Canada-U.S. agreement.
Thank you very much. We are adjourned.