[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
.1558 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee,I will call the meeting to order.
You all have before you a lengthy sheet of paper on which the agenda of this standing committee is presented. The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, a study of Order in Council appointments.
However, before I go into the order presented for the witnesses who shall be appearing before the committee, I would like to clarify one little important point regarding the standing order. This is a quote from a former Speaker of the House of Commons:
- It is the opinion of the Chair that the committee's powers of examination are narrowly limited to
the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post, and questions in committee
and reports thereon ought to be strictly relevant to such qualifications, competence and
performance of duties.
- We must adhere strictly to those guidelines.
Mr. Wappel (Scarborough West): I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, my mike wasn't working. What were you reading from?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): The Speaker's rulings.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): We will first hear from Azar Ali Khan of the convention refugee determination division.
Thank you very much for coming. The other three witnesses beside you are just there for -
Mr. Azar Ali Khan (Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Moral support.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Moral support, right. Okay.
We'll deal with you in order. Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today.I would like you to relax and enjoy the experience as much as you possibly can.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): If you have anything you would like to say before we begin, I would appreciate any comments you might have to offer and share with us. Thank you.
.1600
Mr. Khan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a great honour and a privilege for me to be called to this committee. It is part of the democratic process that we are very lucky to have in Canada. I really feel very honoured and very pleased. I only hope my wife stays with me, because I had the flu last week and it's still giving me some trouble. But it's a real pleasure to be here.
Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): All right. We'll continuing with questioning now. We will take questions from the floor.
Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Merci, monsieur le président.
Do you speak French?
Mr. Khan: I'm learning, because it's a lovely language and it was also required in my job. But the problem was that although the Public Service Commission told me to go for full-time training for one year, and they said I would then become very fluent, because of the downsizing and the shortage of staff in the department they were sending me only on a part-time basis. So I'm trying and learning a little bit.
Mr. Nunez: Okay. Where do you come from?
[Translation]
What country do you come from, Mr. Khan?
[English]
Mr. Khan: I now consider Canada my country. I've been here 31 years. But I was born in India and then I moved to Pakistan immediately after partition because of the communal riots and so forth. I came here from Pakistan.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You have also lived in the Philippines?
[English]
Mr. Khan: Yes. I went there after I received a scholarship. I went and studied for one year at the University of the Philippines.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You have been a senior policy advisor and director of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. What was that forum and what did it do?
[English]
Mr. Khan: These are two questions.
On the first question about the forum, this was created by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney at the end of 1990, because at that time the government felt Canadians needed to understand each other and they needed to have a common vision of the type of country they wanted.
So they established the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. Their task was to go to the people of Canada, especially the disadvantaged who, unlike the lobbyists, do not always come and speak to the parliamentarians and the government and to the media. Their goal was to listen to their concerns and try to get their views on their vision of the country of the 21st century, and to try to build a consensus.
This country has a lot of diversity. We have the first nations, we have the founding nations, and we have had immigrants throughout its history. So what binds us together as Canadians? What kind of vision do we have as a country for our children and for our grandchildren?
This is why the Citizens' Forum was created.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I don't see anything in your curriculum vitae that suggests that you have experience in the area of immigration or in the determination of refugee status. Have you worked in this area before?
[English]
Mr. Khan: As part of my job, I was working very closely with ethnocultural communities and with immigrants throughout the country. I was working with ethnocultural organizations throughout the country. In addition, when I was the foreign affairs analyst at the newspaper The Ottawa Citizen, were I worked for 25 years, I often used to write on immigration, refugee and multiculturalism matters. I also visited refugee camps.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Are you familiar with the Immigration Act?
[English]
Mr. Khan: Yes. As a layman I have tried to keep myself informed, because my work has also involved other fields. I'm not a specialist in this law, but it is a field that interests me considerably and has interested me for many years.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You state in your curriculum vitae that you have been president of the Multilingual Media Association of Ottawa. Are you still president of that association?
.1605
[English]
Mr. Khan: That was in the past. I was elected president and then my term ended. This represented the media, print and television of various ethnocultural groups within Ottawa. I was their president for some time.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. We'll now continue with the questioning by asking Ms Meredith to ask you questions.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. I'm curious. Is this a new appointment for you rather than a reappointment?
Mr. Khan: Yes.
Ms Meredith: Was it something you sought or were you approached to let your name stand for it?
Mr. Khan: I was not really approached. What happened was that after the Kim Campbell government came into power in 1993, she made an announcement that all vacant seats will be advertised in the Canada Gazette and the government will choose future nominees from this list.
So out of curiosity I started to look at the Canada Gazette from time to time. I saw an advertisement from the Immigration and Refugee Board for members, a deputy chair and so forth. After reading the qualifications, I felt it is an area that is, has always been and always will be very close to my heart. I also feel this is going to be one of the major challenges in the 21st century for all of mankind and especially for Canada.
Canada has played a major role in this, a noble role. We have received a Nansen Medal for peace because of our work with refugees. I think Canada has both a humanitarian approach and an approach based on the rule of law, because most of the things we do are done in accordance with the law. So I felt we could be a model for the rest of humanity. I thought this was going to be very exciting but also very difficult work, so I applied.
Ms Meredith: So you are actually bringing a very extensive, very impressive background into this new field of endeavour. I guess the question I have is this. Do you see yourself as an advocate for those applicants coming in, or do you see your role as determining whether they fall under the convention of refugees?
Mr. Khan: No. I think my role is very clear. It was defined, both by the Gordon Fairweather committee when they announced they were going to screen applications, and also in the original Canada Gazette. We are not there as advocates of anybody. We are there to determine in a humanitarian and open manner, and yet within the bounds of the law and respecting the law, whether a particular applicant falls within the concept of convention refugee as defined by the Geneva Convention, the 1967 protocol and also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I've never really been an advocate, because even when I was in the newspaper business my job was to study and analyse, not to pursue my own hobby horses.
Ms Meredith: Do you have any strong feelings on whether or not Canada should consider opening the doors to economic refugees? Do you have any strong feelings at all on Canada's approach to refugee settlement?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Just a moment. I think the question is really out of order. You're dealing with a hypothetical situation not really relevant to the kind of discussion that should be taking place here. You're dealing with feelings. I think really his mandate is quite clear as far as his responsibilities are concerned. So try to keep in within this mandate. All right?
Ms Meredith: I guess, Mr. Chair, what I am seeking is to see whether the persons who have been appointed bring a bias with them or are more neutral.
I guess I didn't see it as being out of place to see whether or not you have any definite feelings about it. Do you bring any biases with you or are you fairly open to sticking to the United Nations definition of refugee?
.1610
Mr. Khan: Well, I would say both. I think any definition that you define at a particular time becomes outdated. Even the Geneva Convention of 1951 dealt only with the refugees of Europe who had been created by the war. It became outdated, therefore they had to adopt the 1967 protocol.
So I think whatever definition you make today will be overtaken by events, and for your policies to be really relevant to the reality of the world, you have to have an open mind and evolve with it. However, you also have to have certain convictions.
I'm very proud of Canada. I think we can play a role in a world where, Mr. Nunez, as you know very well, the rule of law is not always respected, and the rights of human beings are not always respected.
Canada is perhaps the most respected country in the world and has been determined by the United Nations to be so. It brings the humanitarian component to that body through its politics. Throughout history it has opened its doors to refugees, by and large. So it's a country with a heart, and you can't be a human being without a heart. But you will have also a lot of anarchy if you are totally led by your heart and you have no respect for the law. So I think Canada tries to make a very delicate and fine balance between the two - that you have to have humanitarianism, but you also have to have law.
You mention economic refugees. If Canada were to open its doors to economic refugees, ours probably would become one of the most populated countries in the world. Our population will jump from 30 million to 300 million, and we will all sink. So I think in any planning, whether you intake refugees, or immigrants, or any sort of planning, you have to plan on a realistic basis. You have to have humanitarianism; you have to also have realism. You have to set objective and realisable goals that you can meet, and you have to operate within the rule of law.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I think it's an admirable answer, but it deals with the whole area of policy, and whoever is employed in the role that you have must adhere to the policies that are established by the government or previous governments. I'd have to agree with that.
Now we will go over to the government side, and the first questioner would be Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to say, though, as a way of starting, that there is no such thing as an economic refugee. Our Immigration Act is where people apply if they wish to come to Canada. The refugee per se suggests protecting a group of people from persecution or what have you. I don't want to get into that whole direction because it doesn't have anything to do with Canada's existing refugee laws or immigration laws.
What I want to ask, though, Mr. Khan, is this. In your resumé you have Information Services Institute of Canada and then the Group of 78 and Dialogue Canada. Would you expand a little bit for me what they were?
Mr. Khan: You're talking about three things. The first is the Information Services Institute. This is a professional organization of the media people within the government who want to upgrade their skills, who want to raise their standards, who want to exchange information with each other, and who periodically arrange competitions among themselves in order to recognize and appreciate the work being done by some of their members who have done a better job.
The Group of 78 was started by a lot of Canada's thinkers, and they have three main objectives: to try to strengthen the United Nations and to promote the rule of law, both within every country and also between nations; to promote the respect of human rights all over the world in whatever way they can; and to try to reduce the disparity not only between the rich and poor within Canada but also between the rich countries and the poor countries, because that in itself creates instability and injustice around the world.
As far as Dialogue Canada is concerned, this thing was started three or four years ago, led by a University of Ottawa professor. Their main objective is that all Canadians are basically good people and have very human objectives. They want to protect their language, their culture, and they all feel Canadian at the same time. But Canada is a very vast country and Canadians from one coast to the other don't get to talk to each other often enough.
.1615
Dialogue Canada is designed to promote discussions and dialogue between Canadians so that we understand each other better and appreciate what is common, what we share as Canadians.
Ms Minna: Can you tell me very briefly about what you believe makes you qualified for this particular type of job, not just in terms of your background but in terms of the work you've done?
Mr. Khan: Thank you so much. I feel by the grace of God that I am very qualified for this job and I'm very grateful to God for this opportunity. I also feel very humble because I feel that it's a very difficult job. It's not going to be easy. You are dealing with human beings who are in suffering and who sometimes have to flee, who do not always have proper documents. One immigration officer told me in New Delhi once that one of his problems is that he deals with forged documents. Therefore it's not going to be an easy job.
I feel that I'm qualified for various reasons. I was the foreign affairs analyst for The Ottawa Citizen for many years. I have visited many refugee camps in many parts of the world. I have written about them. I have seen them first-hand. I have talked to refugees.
I was also president of Ottawa's Muslim association, and we have refugees in our organization from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, India, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Kashmir, as well as Kurds. I have been dealing with them on a human basis. I feel that I know them and I understand them. I was a refugee. I had to flee my country as you did, sir, because of circumstances beyond our control.
I have a deep sympathy for refugees, but at the same time I recognize that you cannot have a civilized society without the rule of law, that everything you do must be firmly anchored in law.I know that in this situation we are here to uphold the law as defined by the United Nations and by Canada.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
Mr. McTeague, do you have a short question?
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence, I'll be very brief.
Mr. Khan, salam alaikum, it's good to see you. I was rather impressed with your resumé, andI noted in particular your unique relationship with Pakistan. It reminded me of some of the problems that we as members of Parliament are experiencing with respect to our embassy there, particularly with the issue of immigration.
Can you provide me with some of your own insights about the difficulties as you understand them - and certainly through the community - as it relates to those refugees who would like to come to Canada but find that it's almost an impossible task?
Mr. Khan: Sir, I thank you very much. This is an old CV.
Mr. McTeague: Oh, oh!
Mr. Khan: It doesn't mention that in the Department of Canadian Heritage I was the coordinator of the interfaith group, a group of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, Jews, Sikhs and aboriginal people. It is trying to do the same thing that these other organizations did. We're trying to understand each other better.
I used to visit Pakistan fairly regularly when I was with The Ottawa Citizen. I have not done so much in the last eight years, but I understand that the conditions are very bad in the country, largely because of the Afghan war. Because of the war in Afghanistan a lot of drugs have come into the country.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you. I have to terminate your answer at that point.
Thank you very much, Dan.
I'm going to break from the normal pattern we've established here simply because I have something very important to deal with at this present time. I have to deal with it right now before we lose quorum.
First, there will possibly be a meeting tomorrow to hear two more Order in Council appointments at 3:30 p.m., in room 536, the Wellington Building.
Second, we need unanimous consent to debate the motion of Mr. Nunez and the steering committee report next Tuesday, October 8, or Thursday, October 10. Can we have a motion for the unanimous consent?
.1620
Ms Minna: I don't think people quite understood what we're doing, Mr. Chairman. I'm not clear myself.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Oh. The motions were circulated to all the offices. What I'm really asking is that we have unanimous consent to debate that motion at the meeting of either Tuesday, October 8, or Thursday, October 10.
Mr. Wappel: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification. If unanimous consent is obtained, what happens?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I really don't know what the rule is.
Mr. Nunez: We don't need unanimous consent to discuss a motion.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Susan will explain to the committee exactly the problem here regarding the regulations.
The Clerk of the Committee: Normally we would have to do the steering committee right away. Those should not be delayed. They should be dealt with right away. And since we're meeting tomorrow, there's also a chance that we would have to deal tomorrow with Mr. Nunez's motion. It's more convenient at this point, since they are all future business items, to remand it to a future business meeting, which will be held next Tuesday or Thursday. It's not yet clear.
Mr. McTeague: Susan, do you require unanimous concurrence, then?
The Clerk: I think you will find there is unanimous consent.
Mr. McTeague: Yes. I don't want to do it now.
The Clerk: Just to put it off for a while, that's all.
Mr. Wappel: It's convenient any time we decide it's convenient. It's inconvenient to our witnesses, and for that reason alone we should agree unanimously to adjourn discussion of this to another day. It's up to the committee to decide what's convenient or not. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the motion today, but for the fact that we have witnesses who have come from around the country and want to talk to us. So that's fine by me.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Okay. Do we have unanimous consent?
Motion agreed to
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
I'll also announce that from now on the witnesses will only have 15 minutes, so govern yourselves accordingly, because we're going to have a vote in the House of Commons at 5:30 p.m.
We'll continue with the process. I'll now call upon Janet Susan Rowsell.
Ms Janet Susan Rowsell (Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Hello.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Good day, Ms. Rowsell. I have two of your CVs. One of them is more detailed than the other. I see in this more detailed CV that you campaigned for an Ontario MPP, Michael Brown, and that you have been chair of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of the National Women's Liberal Commission. Your references are Allan rock, Linda Julien, the chair of the National Women's Liberal Commission and Alvah Hanrahan, director of the National Women's Liberal Commission. What role did the Liberal Party play in your appointment as commissioner?
.1625
[English]
Ms Rowsell: Mr. Nunez, in response to your question in relation to Mr. Brown, Michael Brown was a candidate for the Etobicoke West riding in the 1995 Ontario provincial election. He is simply a reference on my curriculum vitae, as is Mr. Rock, and as is Linda Julien. To my knowledge, they played absolutely no role whatsoever. I therefore have no idea, sir. They are references, and they are people to whom I had specifically made requests for permission to use them as such. I asked them if they would mind if I used them as references, as I did with Elizabeth Keshin, my supervising counsel at the office of The Children's Lawyer; as I did with Steve Hilb, who is the head of legal services at the Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel; as I did with Bonnie Racz, a lawyer in the community. And I also did the same thing with William Gilmour as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Ms. Rowsell, you explained the difference between the references contained in your CV and this one quite clearly. In your CV, one reads that you occupied two very important positions within the Liberal Party. And, on page 3, one finds the names of persons who know you.
[English]
Ms Rowsell: Yes, that is correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: The two first items on page 2 of your curriculum vitae are not references. How do you explain that?
[English]
Ms Rowsell: Well, Mr. Nunez, I wanted to mention them because I'm quite proud of my efforts. I think they contributed to my ability to deal with people, to deal with public policy issues, to have some kind of insight into how government functions generally, to have the opportunity to work around the people who make up the governing forces of this nation - or the province, as was in the case of Mr. Brown.
I don't know what you're asking specifically, sir.
Mr. Nunez: Did Mr. Rock play a certain role in your nomination?
Ms Rowsell: I certainly don't think so. He is a reference on my curriculum vitae, and I had asked him if he would -
Mr. Nunez: This is the resumé you sent to the Minister of Immigration and to the IRB?
Ms Rowsell: Yes, it is. That is an updated curriculum vitae. I submitted my curriculum vitae in January or February of 1994. I subsequently revised the curriculum vitae, but Mr. Rock has been on it throughout, as has Mr. Hilb. At that time, I was -
Mr. Nunez: Did you work for him?
Ms Rowsell: Did I work for him? In the sense that it was voluntary work on his campaign, that's correct.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Okay, we'll have to go to -
Ms Rowsell: I'd be happy to answer additional questions if Mr. Nunez wishes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): No, he doesn't have any more time.
Ms Rowsell: All right. I don't know whether or not my answer was to his satisfaction.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not prepared to give Mr. Nunez my time today.
In looking at your curriculum vitae, my concern is that it says you are practising immigration law. Again, however, I would like to know from you directly whether or not you're practising immigration law. Being an advocate for refugees or immigrant applicants, do you feel you are in a position to approach this new position without any biases - meaning in a very neutral position - while looking out for the interests of Canada as opposed to specifically looking out for the interests of the applicants?
Ms Rowsell: Making a decision with regard to a refugee claim is a very difficult thing, because the decision you make is going to affect someone's life, and potentially very detrimentally. They could potentially be killed or suffer some grievous harm if you make a mistake. Nevertheless, you have to balance public policy issues, you have to balance the legislation itself. While basically looking out to preserve the definition of a convention refugee, you have to act accordingly and bear in mind the guidelines, whether they be the guidelines in respect to gender-related issues or in respect of minors or what have you.
I can basically say that I would endeavour to approach my role with a great deal of gravity, since it's a very serious thing. Nevertheless, you can't have an attitude of lightly granting refugee status, because you have to preserve the integrity of the system. The integrity of the refugee determination system depends upon being vigilant in regard to making sure the person fits squarely within the definition.
.1630
Ms Meredith: I would agree with you that the integrity of the refugee process is in question, that Canadians have lost a lot of confidence in those persons who are making these kinds of decisions. It therefore does concern me when your background shows that you have come from representing -
Every member of Parliament has to deal with people who are in a hurting situation, and has to decide whether this is a legitimate claim or not. It's very difficult sometimes to say that you're sorry but you don't feel that a claim is legitimate. Do you feel you have the ability to take somebody who is presenting himself or herself as a conventional refugee, but who is in essence an economic refugee, and to tell them that you're sorry but they do not fulfil the requirements of a genuine refugee?
Ms Rowsell: In answer to your question, because of the fact that I've been a refugee lawyer for as long as I have - for the last six and a half years - I believe I'm ready at this point to actually take on the role of decision-making, because I've had so many varied experiences with my clients. In view of my maturity in the profession, I believe I can spot it when someone is potentially lying, when a claim is without merit, or when it is in fact with merit. I'm quite confident that I am in a position to make a decision in respect of that - and such a decision is a very serious one.
I have been practising refugee law since the time I was called to the bar in March 1990. I've also been practising family law for three years now. As a result of those three years, I finally feel as though I'm a very capable solicitor with regard to being a family practitioner. With refugee law, however, I'm quite confident.
Being a refugee lawyer -
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you. We'll go to Mr. Wappel now.
Mr. Wappel: As a refugee lawyer, I think you will bring what is first of all a legal view to something that hasn't been too legal on occasion. In my opinion, you will bring some experience that will in fact help you ferret out the truth from the lies - not potential lies, but actual lies.
What I want to know is whether or not you are going to give up your practice.
Ms Rowsell: Oh, most definitely. I've been required to do so. Basically, there are certain things one has to give up when one assumes a position such as this, because it is a very serious position. You're a decision-maker, so, yes.
Mr. Wappel: So this in fact will be a full-time job for you. You won't be moonlighting as a lawyer.
Ms Rowsell: Oh, I certainly couldn't do that.
Mr. Wappel: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Is there anyone else on the government side who would like to ask a question?
Ms Minna: No, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): The next witness will be Dick Sai-Chu Chan.
Mr. Nunez: Mr. President, I still have a few questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Just a moment, please. You're out of order.
Mr. Dick Sai-Chu Chan, please come to the front.
Mr. Nunez: You said we would have 25 minutes, but we only had 10 or 15 minutes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): No.
[Translation]
Mr. McTeague: I think he had said 15 minutes, but -
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): There's no need to discuss this.
Mr. Nunez: [Inaudible - Editor]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Please, Mr. Nunez.
Ms Rowsell: I don't mind answering the question.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): No, it's all right.
Mr. Nunez, you now have a chance to ask any question of this witness, but you only have four minutes.
Mr. Nunez: It's four minutes now? All right, we'll go with it, then.
[Translation]
Mr. Chan, how were you appointed commissioner? Did you apply for the position, contact someone, or did someone call you?
[English]
Mr. Dick Sai-Chu Chan (Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
Yes, I think I applied around November 1993. I submitted my resumé to the person at the IRB who was in charge of the appointment.
Mr. Nunez: Did you go through the Fairweather commission?
Mr. Chan: Yes, I was interviewed by a member of the Fairweather commission in April of this year.
.1635
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I see that you hold several degrees and that you are an engineer. But are you familiar with the Immigration Act? Do you have any legal training?
[English]
Mr. Chan: I'm an engineer and I've been a practising engineer for 25 years, but I went back to law school two years ago. I have successfully completed two years of law school.
I am also very active in the community. I have been active since the 1970s, so I've worked with many community groups. I was secretary to an ad hoc committee to study the immigration green paper in 1975. I was also involved with the resettlement program for southeast Asian refugees in 1979. Just recently, this past summer, I was sent to Hong Kong by the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights as a law student intern to help the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission create a legal database on the Internet.
Mr. Nunez: You were president of the Toronto Association for Democracy in China. Are you going to hear some refugee cases from China?
Mr. Chan: I don't know whether I will hear any cases from China. I am a strong believer in human rights and social justice and have a strong belief in the rule of law. That's why after 25 years of engineering practice I went back to law school, because I believe in our law and I believe in human rights. I will base my decisions on the facts presented to me and I will apply the applicable law.
Mr. Nunez: Did you contact somebody else before being appointed?
Mr. Chan: Yes. I have been active in the community, so I know a lot of people. I knowDr. Joseph Wong, I know Mr. Gary Yee, and I know Ms Jean Augustine and Mr. Raymond Chan.I believe that all of these people wrote letters of recommendations for me.
Mr. Nunez: What other help did they provide to you?
Mr. Chan: I don't know. I don't know what help they provided. I only know that they wrote letters of recommendation.
Mr. Nunez: To whom?
Mr. Chan: To the minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What were your duties?
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I'm sorry, your four minutes is up.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Just to be consistent, thank you for coming out.
This may seem like a strange question to ask, but there is a lack of confidence in the government's ability to fulfil Canada's role in accepting refugee claimants. I think it's very important that we know that the members who have been appointed to the refugee determination part are coming with a clear mind of what their job is and aren't bringing any bias with them. I ask you, do you bring neutrality to this job?
Mr. Chan: Thank you, hon. member, and I appreciate your question. From my record, from my community record and my professional engineering record, I am confident that I will be able to remain objective and open-minded. I'll be fair, I'll listen to all the evidence, and I'll decide the case based on the merits and apply the applicable law.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Before I ask my question, I want to make a comment. The hon. member has said a couple of times that there is a lack of confidence in the department or in the IRB, that Canadians have no confidence in the system. I beg to differ. I don't think that is necessarily a general assessment. It's a matter of opinion. I just wanted to put that on the record because it's being repeated constantly today.
I do want to ask Mr. Chan a question. For the last three years, I believe, you've been in law school.
Mr. Chan: Two years.
.1640
Ms Minna: Have you been studying immigration law? I'm just wondering whether this has been part of your studies.
Mr. Chan: Not yet. I will be taking immigration law in the third year if I have not been appointed. So I feel very honoured to be appointed, because I feel it will help me with my law studies after my two-year term with the Refugee Board.
I did study administrative law, and I believe that is very important in the quasi-tribunal process. I know the principle of natural justice and the importance of the rule of evidence. I think these are all important.
Ms Minna: Tell me what interested you in this particular position and where you feel your talents are in terms of this particular responsibility, given its specific focus.
Mr. Chan: I went back to law school because of my interest in immigration and refugee issues and also because I've been involved with many community events, as you know, and I'm very sensitive to the cross-cultural issues that may be important in the decision process.
So I feel my education, my professional experience and my volunteer experience qualify me for this position, although I know this is a very difficult position and it's a new challenge to me. As you know from my resumé, I never shy away from challenges. I have been trying to meet challenges with hard work, and I'm sure I'll do a good job, or at least I'll try to do a good job.
I just want to take this opportunity to thank the government for appointing me. I feel very honoured to be appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. This can only happen in Canada, and I feel very honoured.
Thank you.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
Mr. McTeague.
Mr. McTeague: Mr. Chan, I note in your resumé that this last summer you were working as a student intern for the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights and you provided assistance to the Hong Kong Human Rights Commission. Is that correct?
Mr. Chan: Yes.
Mr. McTeague: Could you tell me what you may have worked on with respect to the human rights commission and if it included the plight of Cambodian and Vietnamese refugees?
Mr. Chan: The Hong Kong Human Rights Commission is a non-governmental organization. It's not a government organization. It's an umbrella organization consisting of 10 community-based social agencies, and one of the agencies is involved with the refugee problem in Hong Kong.
I didn't participate in the field work or in actually helping the refugees. I was involved with the research and creating the legal database on the Internet. That's what I did.
Mr. McTeague: Oh, okay. That's fine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
We'll call upon our next witness, Yasmeen Siddiqui.
Mr. Chan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you.
Mr. Nunez, you have four minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Ms. Siddiqui, are you still the co-proprietor of a consulting business which specializes in interracial relations and anti-bias programming?
[English]
Ms Yasmeen Siddiqui (Convention Refugee Determination Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): I am, Mr. Nunez, and I am expecting a call...well, all the new members are expecting a call from the ethics and conflict of interest expert at the board to discuss what we can do and what we can't do. If at such time she says I need to either remove myself from the business or hand over the partnership, I will do so.
Mr. Nunez: Who is going to decide what you are going to do?
Ms Siddiqui: The ethics committee of the IRB will tell us what is and what isn't allowed. As far as I know, no one has yet told me that ownership of an educational consultancy, which I no longer take part in, is a conflict, but if I am told it is a conflict, then I will resign my partnership from the business.
Mr. Nunez: When will you get a decision about that?
.1645
Ms Siddiqui: I joined Monday - that's yesterday - and we were told that later in the week we will have someone come over to speak to us about ethics and conflict of interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And are you still a coordinator for the Islamic Social Services Referral Association?
[English]
Ms Siddiqui: No, I'm not.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And you were one of the founders of the Runnymede Parents Race Relations Committee?
[English]
Ms Siddiqui: Yes, I was.
Mr. Nunez: Could you explain.
Ms Siddiqui: My children go to school in a neighbourhood where there are very few visible minorities, and as such they were subjected to some racist remarks. So with some other parents, I founded a parents multicultural and race relations committee.
The duties of that committee were to provide information to parents about cross-cultural issues, to talk about board policy relating to race relations and human rights, and to help teachers work on programming that would sensitize other children to these issues, as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Can you tell us about the content of the Canadian anti-bias program you submitted to UNESCO on international education?
[English]
Ms Siddiqui: As a part of my business, my partner and I have developed educational programming for the schools to discuss anti-bias issues, race, citizenship, and Canadian identity.
There was a group of UNESCO educators visiting Canada. They went across Canada looking at programs like this, and ours was the only program that was included in their guidelines. They chose a privately developed program to put into their guidelines over and above many similar school programs.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you.
Ms Meredith, you have four minutes.
Ms Meredith: Good afternoon. I will ask you the same question. Your background shows you've spent most of your energy on interracial kinds of programs and minority educational programs, that sort of thing. Do you feel that you can bring neutrality to this position, or do you feel that you will bring biases because of your background?
Ms Siddiqui: I feel very strongly about my neutrality. That's because my initial training, if you will look at my CV, has been in communications. Then I became a journalist and practised in India, as well.
One of the tenets of journalism is to be as unbiased as possible - you know the media isn't always unbiased. Nevertheless I've spent the past year with CFMT television as a senior writer on their South Asian news desk, dealing with only sensitive issues concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka and the conflict between India and Pakistan. It was my job to ensure that whatever we wrote, whatever we did, was balanced; otherwise we'd hear from the public. There would be a complaint to the CRTC. So I feel very strongly that I can bring that neutrality.
I'm not a refugee advocate. I do believe in Canada's humanitarian traditions, but I also believe our refugees must fit the definition of a convention refugee. So to answer your question, yes, I do think I can.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Would anyone on the government side like to pose a question?
Ms Minna.
.1650
Ms Minna: I wanted to commend you for the long work you seem to have done in the area of cross-culture, in assisting with communication. In a country like Canada, understanding one another is one thing that is very important, and I've always admired people who are able to do that.
Given your broad background and the work you've done as a journalist, I'm curious to know what interested you in this particular job, what motivates your interest in this work.
Ms Siddiqui: I've worked for a long time in the educational system, as you'll see, and during that ten years I've come into contact with a lot of refugee children in the system. I've come into contact with a lot of refugees in my job as a volunteer coordinator. I am a trained crisis counsellor for them - I was; I no longer work for them. I feel strongly about human rights issues and equity issues. I've also spent the past two years being a member of the College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists. I was on the discipline committee there, where we were trained to hold discipline hearings. That's not in my CV because it came later, after I applied.
So I wanted to combine the experience in human rights, immigration and refugee issues with my introduction to fair law and natural justice. I wanted to put those two areas together, and I found the IRB was what I wanted to do next.
Mr. McTeague: Ms Siddiqui, could you tell me a little about your perspectives on the consular activities in some of the countries you visited? I think you state here South Asia and the Middle East. Earlier I had queried Mr. Khan, particularly with respect to Pakistan. What could we be doing better outside this country with those outposts to ensure a much smoother transition for those making applications to Canada, in particular refugees?
Ms Siddiqui: I think it's having people in place who understand the issues involved much better. The experience of a lot of people applying in those countries is that they're not treated very well, that the people they meet with don't understand the situations they're coming from. Either their briefing isn't sufficient or they're just insensitive; I don't know.
My business partner just returned from Seoul, Korea, and she said that people have a hard time believing that brown people are Canadian. It seems that around all those issues, whether they be situations outside different countries...there is the need for more sensitization.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
We will continue by introducing our next witness, Susan Kitchener.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Good day, Ms. Kitchener. How did you obtain your position as commissioner with the IRB?
[English]
Ms Susan Kitchener (Immigration Appeal Division, Immigration and Refugee Board):I made an application to the IRB, to Madame Jeanne Léger.
Mr. Nunez: Are you a member of the Liberal Party?
Ms Kitchener: I don't think I am now, but I have been in the past. I certainly was active for quite a long time, but I think it has slipped now.
Mr. Nunez: You are the owner of Susan Kitchener and Associates. Are you still the owner of this company?
Ms Kitchener: No, I'm not.
Mr. Nunez: What did you do with that company?
Ms Kitchener: I did public policy advocacy for community associations as a consultant. Some organizations that spring to mind are the March of Dimes, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and the Canadian Hearing Society.
.1655
Mr. Nunez: Did you sell this company or did you -
Ms Kitchener: No, I folded it.
Mr. Nunez: When?
Ms Kitchener: I don't have my CV here. I folded it whenever I went to the Alzheimer Association of Ontario. I think it was 1992.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): It was in 1992.
Mr. Nunez: What did you do as a patient policy assistant for the Government of Ontario?
Ms Kitchener: It was an extremely interesting position.
Mr. Nunez: For whose government? Who was the premier?
Ms Kitchener: The premier was Mr. Peterson. It was an extremely interesting position. They had a minister responsible for disabled persons. I think it's the first and only time as far as that position goes. The minister sat at the cabinet table and ensured that all of the legislation coming from all of the ministries had a good impact on people with disabilities.
Mr. Nunez: Did you go through the Fairweather commission?
Ms Kitchener: Did I what?
Mr. Nunez: Have you been called?
Ms Kitchener: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Have you been selected by the commission?
Ms Kitchener: No, but I was interviewed by a member of the Fairweather commission.
Mr. Nunez: What kind of interview? Was it about your qualifications?
Ms Kitchener: Yes, it was a long interview, maybe about two hours.
Mr. Nunez: I don't see any experience in matters of immigration and refugees in your resumé.
Ms Kitchener: My resumé doesn't show anything like that. I present my background. My two passions in life have been international relations and human relations and human rights. The IRB seems to combine the two. You'll notice that my degree is in international relations, and it seemed to me that the application of the Immigration Act in Canada combines those two things.
Mr. Nunez: Did you get some letters of reference, some recommendations?
Ms Kitchener: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: From whom?
Ms Kitchener: From Monsieur Clem Sauvé, who was the assistant deputy minister in the office for disabled persons, with whom I worked, and from Mrs. Edna Hampton, who was director of communications for the same office.
Mr. Nunez: Did you send these letters to Mrs. Robillard?
Ms Kitchener: No. I listed them as my references.
Mr. Nunez: When are you going to start your functions?
Ms Kitchener: Yesterday.
Mr. Nunez: When are you going to hear the first case?
Ms Kitchener: I don't know that. I'm looking forward to the training.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. Ms Meredith is next.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be quite honest with you. Because you don't have a background in working with refugees or with any kind of visible minority group shown in your resumé, it would appear on the surface that it is a political patronage appointment. Do you feel that if you didn't have connections to the Liberal Party your application would be given consideration?
Ms Kitchener: Oh, I think so. Yes. I wouldn't have applied to the IRB if I didn't think I was qualified or had something to offer.
Ms Meredith: So without the experience in the refugee and immigration field, is it management skills that you will be contributing to the IRB?
Ms Kitchener: My real strength is weighing information. That's what I've been doing for the last ten years. If you're doing public policy that's what you're doing, whether it's for government or volunteer sector organizations. Most public policy arises, as you know, from individual situations or group situations.
.1700
In order to do it successfully - and I've been successful in doing it - you have to be able to weigh information, analyse legislation, law and case law, apply it to a situation, and then come to informed considerations and write good assessments. I think that's a pretty fair scope for what I'm supposed to be doing.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. On the government side we have Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to pick up on what Ms Meredith was just talking about. You have a fairly extensive background, not working directly with immigrant communities but working with community organizations in community-type situations, in terms of organizations of disadvantaged groups and so on. Do you feel this kind of background gives you the interest as well as assisting you to deal with this kind of work?
Ms Kitchener: I think so. I've been involved in initiating legislation - making people such as parliamentarians listen to what kind of human rights legislation should happen, human rights legislation in particular - then forwarding the legislation, and then actually writing it and developing public policy.
The community groups you refer to, of course, consist of people from diverse backgrounds, and that's where I develop sensitivities to other ethnocultural groups.
Ms Minna: So you don't see this as a major departure from where you've been, but more a continuation of it?
Ms Kitchener: I see it as a bit of a circle, actually. I don't see it as a departure. It really is where I started. I started with international relations, and my career opportunity took me in a slightly different direction, but always within the same framework, and that is social policy. At first it was international social policy, but within Canada it's local social policy.
It's a dream. I think I'm back to where I started. I know it will be a huge challenge, but I'm very proud to have been selected.
Ms Minna: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Do you have a question to ask, Mr. McTeague?
Mr. McTeague: Briefly, Mr. Chairman.
Your CV, Ms Kitchener, is that of someone who has an extensive background in championing the causes of the underdog, particularly with the Alzheimer Association. If I'm correct, you worked with Beryl Potter years ago.
Ms Kitchener: Yes. How did you know that?
Mr. McTeague: I'm from the region where she is involved. I can't remember the name of the secretariat, though.
I wonder how frustrating you're going to find your job given that in many circumstances you may have to make rulings that may challenge your desire to be compassionate and to stand up for those who cannot speak out for themselves.
Ms Kitchener: That's a really good question.
Mr. McTeague: Oh, thank you. It had something to do with my stomach, I'm sure.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Kitchener: Probably.
I've given it considerable thought myself, as you can imagine. It's always seemed to me that Canada is on the one hand a country that is a haven for people who find themselves to be unsafe in their homeland, and on the other hand a country whose richness comes almost entirely from the talents and diversity of perspectives of the people it's attracted to its shores.
So what seems to me absolutely critical is to protect the integrity of the system, to make sure that the people who deserve to be landed are and that the people who don't deserve to be landed aren't, so that the law is applied well and humanely.
.1705
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much.
That concludes the sessions of questioning the witnesses. I would like to thank very, very much the members of the committee for their indulgence, patience, and so forth. Above all, congratulations to the witnesses who appeared before us.
I think it could be said that what you have experienced here is comparable to going to a dentist. After your experience in the dentist's chamber, you come out and say it was painless. So thank you very, very much.
Mr. Nunez: I would like to ask for the CVs, the resumés, for tomorrow. We don't have the documents.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): The clerk tells me that we will have them ready for tomorrow.
Mr. Nunez: Before coming here, please.
The Clerk: I will try.
Mr. Nunez: We also need more time for tomorrow. It's not serious to spend only fifteen minutes with people who are coming from Toronto.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): I know.
Mr. Nunez: Also, we need evaluations.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Yes.
Mr. Nunez: We need the evaluations for people who have been reappointed as members.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): The meeting is adjourned.