[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, October 30, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we are today studying two Order in Council nominations.
From the Immigration and Refugee Board we welcome Mr. Kofi Sordzi, a part-time member of the convention refugee determination division in the Montreal regional office, and Ms Anita Fuoco Boscariol, a full-time member of the convention refugee determination division in the Vancouver regional office.
I welcome you both. Please relax; this is not the Spanish Inquisition, as some people think. We're here to do our duty to the democratic process.
Welcome, members. I would like to remind you on the ruling I have already made on Order in Council nominations. I will be very strict in terms of the types of questions that will be asked of the witnesses. According to the Speaker's ruling, they should be -
.1535
Yes, Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Could I say a few words before we begin?
The Chair: No, I'm going to finish, and then I will give you the floor.
Mr. Nunez: But it's a preliminary point.
The Chair: I have already started introducing the witnesses. You can raise your point of order at the end.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but I would like to say that we should discuss your interpretation of Standing Orders 110 and 111. What you are reading is an interpretation of these orders, not the orders themselves, which in my opinion, are much broader. Your interpretation is too restrictive. I wonder whether we could talk about this. I do intend to raise this point, probably during another question, because it does not just affect the people who are here right now, it affects our entire discussions.
The Chair: You could discuss this first at a meeting of the sub-committee if you wish.
Mr. Nunez: Fine.
The Chair: Honestly, I have to tell you that I won't change my mind, but if you like, we can talk about it all the same.
[English]
I'll read again the ruling by the Speaker of the House, that:
- It is the opinion of the Chair
- - which is the Speaker -
- 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'll give twenty minutes per witness, and we will begin with Mr. Sordzi.
[Translation]
I'll start with Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Good afternoon, Mr. Sordzi. You have been appointed for a one-year term, beginning June 3, 1996. You had already been a member of the board earlier. I would like to ask you a number of questions about certain rulings you gave and certain complaints that we have received.
Justice Pinard of the Federal Court made the following remarks concerning the case of Mohamed Zrig vs the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on July 6, 1995:
- Yet, if one compares the documents in their entirety with the passages that are quoted in the
ruling, one finds major omissions, including punctuation, words and entire phrases that are
missing, which have the effect of confusing the reader or even misleading the reader as to the
true source of the information, the identity of the person who said certain words and the very
existence of views opposite to those reproduced.
Mr. Kofi Sordzi (Part-time Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Montreal Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you, Mr. Nunez. It is true that I have made more than 200 decisions for the Board.
Mr. Nunez: I had heard that it was 500 decisions. Could you explain that to me? Five hundred cases is quite a large number.
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you. So you are referring to a specific decision, but I don't have a copy of it here.
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but please, could you...
The Chair: Copies of the decision are now being distributed, Mr. Sordzi.
Mr. Sordzi: You are telling me that this decision has to do with Mr. Zrig's case.
Mr. Nunez: This person is from Ghana.
Mr. Sordzi: I do not know whether we can discuss a particular case under the Act, because everything is confidential.
Mr. Nunez: But the decision is right here.
The Chair: We would be taking quite a few liberties, and I did notice that Mr. Sordzi was willing to respond. I'm really having a hard time understanding how we could discuss such specific cases and at the same time respect the guidelines that I just gave about the purpose of this committee. If you would like us to vote on this issue right now, I am ready to call a vote on my decision.
This is a specific case, and we are not here to judge specific cases. I'm willing to accept questions about the judgment of witnesses before the committee in general cases, but not in specific cases.
Mr. Nunez: I would like him to respond to a...
The Chair: I don't see the point of distributing this document to the committee members.
.1540
Mr. Nunez: Where is all this going to lead to? This is not an inquisition here, Madam Chair.
The Chair: That is exactly the same thing.
Mr. Nunez: Our committee has the right to examine appointments.
The Chair: But, Mr. Nunez, you are...
Mr. Nunez: If you don't accept that, I will leave, because it is impossible...
The Chair: That is your choice, Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: No. But I would like you to allow the opposition to ask very relevant questions about this appointment. We are dealing here with a ruling that he made and a very harsh judgment delivered by a Federal Court judge.
The Chair: Assuming that it is a judgment, how is it relevant to the general performance of Mr. Sordzi in discharging his responsibilities?
Mr. Nunez: It is relevant because it states that there are omissions which a Board member cannot make. He confused the reader. Really, there are so many... I hope he will be able to answer our questions.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
[English]
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Madam Chairperson, I think this really is an invasion of privacy of an individual case from a very large collection of cases the witness had dealt with in the past. I don't think we have approval from the individual in writing that we can discuss his case in isolation regarding the competency of the witness and how that case was handled.
We have the machinery and we have the process for that type of work to be done - in other words, the appeal process and so forth - but in light of what we are mandated to do at this meeting at this time, I don't think we should be discussing the thrust and the intent here, Mr. Nunez.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky. Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Madam Chair, I think Mr. Nunez could proceed with his questioning without necessarily referring to the specific name or particulars of the case and putting it on public record. In the House, we're never allowed to say the specifics of what happened. It's part of our legislation.
But certainly Mr. Nunez can ask questions with respect to the criticisms, if I understood you, of the writing, the nature of the report, the way the report was written, the clarity of the report and the criticisms made by the court. That goes in line with the ability or the judgment of our witness here today. It's not so much who this individual was and what he came from or how old he was or just the specifics of the case. That's a little bit different from the criticism made with respect to the clarity of the written decision that was taken. We're looking at two different things here. I think you can't do that without getting into problems here.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, do you want to rephrase your question?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes. I am not asking why an application was dismissed or allowed or why he made a particular ruling. I am referring to a sentence which is very critical of him, and I think he should answer the question without mentioning the names of the individuals concerned or commenting on particular cases.
I will table other affidavits later with the committee. If such questions cannot be asked here, where can they be asked?
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, I think we all agree that you have the right to ask questions about the general judgment of witnesses, but you do not have the right to mention names or particular facts in each specific case.
Would you like to rephrase your question? Generally, what are you asking the witness concerning his competence in the position to which he was appointed?
Mr. Nunez: His competence is strictly linked to his qualifications as a Board member. I have here a quote concerning people claiming refugee status:
[English]
- 27. The Ghanaian refugee claimants are extremely fearful to pass before Kofi Sordzi because he
refuses to acknowledge the crimes being committed in Ghana today;
- 28. The Ghanaian refugee claimants are also fearful to testify...
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: This is an affidavit by Mr. Nee Okai, dated March 22, 1992...
The Chair: You are again mentioning...
Mr. Nunez: ...made under oath.
.1545
The Chair: But you are once again referring to a particular case and mentioning a name. I find that we are again getting into what Mr. Dromisky described as privacy information.
Mr. Nunez: What is in fact private...
[English]
The Chair: It's an affidavit.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: The Federal Court is a public institution. Everyone has access to its decisions, which include the name of the individual concerned and other details. As regards the affidavits, it is the person who made them who is sending them to us.
[English]
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This is going all over the map. Mr. Nunez was reading from a piece of paper about people being afraid to go in front of the witness. I would like to know who wrote that and where it comes from. That was my question.
Mr. Nunez: I will show you -
Ms Minna: Please just tell us, Mr. Nunez. Tell all of us, not just me.
Mr. Nunez: That's what I was doing. This is -
Ms Minna: No, you were reading from a different piece of paper. I want to know about that other piece, the first one you were reading.
Mr. Nunez: The other piece of paper is an affidavit -
Ms Minna: No, the one you were reading from. I can see it from here. I am going to -
The Chair: Ms Minna, please.
[Translation]
Do you want to ask a question, Mr. Nunez? The witness will decide whether to answer or not.
Mr. Nunez: Yes. Some people are afraid you might hear their case because you refuse, for example, to recognize that crimes were committed in Ghana. What is your answer to that?
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. You have finally managed to ask a clear and specific question. As regards the affidavit to which you referred...
Mr. Nunez: I was the person who received it.
Mr. Sordzi: While respecting all necessary confidentiality, I would like to read to you decision no. A-85-93 by the honourable Mr. Justice Joyal of the Federal Court, who ruled specifically on the point you raised. On page 2 of the ruling, which was written in English, the following statement is made:
[English]
- This Court should not waste too much time in further detailing the sorry allegations contained in
these affidavits. First of all, this Court should eschew any attempt by anyone to import into
Canada tribal conflicts which are based on values or considerations which have absolutely no
relevance to the Canadian experience. Heaven knows that every community in Canada suffers
enough internal conflicts without being saddled with transplanted ones. This is especially true
when dealing with the administration of justice in Canada by way of courts or administrative
tribunals. The basic premise on which the credibility and viability of these systems are
maintained is that all Canadian citizens who hold judicial or quasi-judicial office leave behind
them whatever baggage of earlier affiliations or prejudices...
Mr. Nunez, I will answer your question if you are ready.
Mr. Nunez: Even if I was an all-powerful minister, I could stay here all afternoon because I consider this to be very important. I do not agree with you about limiting time for discussion. I think it reflects a lack of respect towards the individual concerned to bring him or her here from Vancouver and listen to them for only 20 minutes.
Mr. Sordzi: Basic premise.
The Chair: Our committee has a great deal of respect for everyone, Mr. Nunez. Mr. Sordzi, would you like to conclude by summarizing your statement?
Mr. Sordzi: In conclusion, he states:
[English]
- It is an aberration to suggest that Mr. Sordzi, who arrived in Canada in 1968 and became a
Canadian citizen in 1976, cannot, by reason of ancestral warfare and conflict, carry out
properly, objectively and judicially the duties and responsibilities which Parliament has
imposed on him.
Mr. Nunez: Do you have a copy of that? I gave you a copy of what I said.
[Translation]
Mr. Sordzi: This is a decision by the Court, which goes on further. As you can see, some people sign affidavits containing erroneous statements. It was with this in mind that the judge in question made a ruling dated April 7, 1992 categorically rejecting any allegation of bias made against me. While respecting the principle of confidentiality, Mr. Justice Hugessen, in decision 92-A-2635 under file number M91-11903, upheld my decision, and subsequently, in decision 92-A-3851, ruled on other allegations made by a group of Ghaneans who believed that I was not sufficiently objective.
Mr. Nunez: Is there not a conflict of interest here since you are originally from Ghana and you hear cases concerning Ghana, where there are so many problems? Have you considered that?
Mr. Sordzi: Mr. Nunez, when the Parliament of Canada appointed me, it did not place any particular restrictions on my mandate. I was appointed to hear cases and I was capable, and still am, of deciding which cases I should hear and which I cannot hear. I think that it is the basic responsibility of a Board member to decide when there is a conflict of interest between himself or herself and a particular case. It is the reasonable person, the Board member, who decides.
Mr. Nunez: You heard...
The Chair: Your time has expired.
[English]
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am a little hesitant to even ask this question, because it's quite apparent from Mr. Nunez' questions and from your responses that you don't feel you are showing any favouritism.
I noticed your background; you've been very involved in community organizations and multicultural organizations. My normal question to members such as you is, with that kind of background, do you feel you can put aside your connections to the multicultural community and look at your decisions based on truth and the best interests of Canada, more so than on a sympathy or empathy with the applicant?
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you, madam.
The Canadian Parliament has given us a job to do and there's a law we have to follow, and this law says you listen to a case and determine whether the person falls within the convention refugee determination. So that's what I do. I don't take into consideration any personal feeling or any humanitarian consideration, because that's not my job. Unless the government modifies the law and gives us that power, I will not consider it and I've never considered it.
Ms Meredith: So you do appreciate that your position is to look at the applicants and determine whether or not they fit under the guidelines of the United Nations convention.
Mr. Sordzi: That's exactly what I do.
Ms Meredith: I would imagine you have given a fair number of negative decisions, or else there wouldn't have been this discussion we've just had. Do you find you are pressured or encouraged to give positive decisions, or do you feel it is left up to you to make the determination of whether or not the applicant should be granted status?
Mr. Sordzi: I will talk about the Montreal region and my experience there. There is no pressure and there has never been any pressure coming from anybody to take a decision either way. The decision is entirely left to individuals.
.1555
Personally, I would find it very difficult if a vice-president suggested how we should take our decision. That has never happened to me and I've never heard of it in the Montreal region. I guess it's the same across the board.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
Mr. Sordzi: You're welcome.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to follow up a bit on the line of conversation we've been having. You are a reappointment, am I right? You've been with the board how long now, Mr. Sordzi?
Mr. Sordzi: I was first appointed in August 1990 for two years, and in August 1992 I was reappointed. Then in June of this year I was appointed part-time for one year.
Ms Minna: To follow up on the conversation, it's quite clear from your reading of the decision of the Federal Court that those complaints had been dealt with by the courts with respect to certain specific cases that had come forward.
Mr. Sordzi: That's correct.
Ms Minna: Over the last year and while you were going through the reappointment process, in the evaluation done on you, was there any admonishing; were there any problems from your supervisors or superiors in terms of your reappointment, with respect to either those cases or anything else?
Mr. Sordzi: I'm not sure I grasp -
Ms Minna: You were recommended for reappointment, and there obviously is a process for evaluation by your superior of the work you do. With the exception of the complaints, were there any other concerns in your evaluation? I'm not asking to see it; I'm just asking if it was good, bad, medium or average.
Mr. Sordzi: In 1994 I had a good recommendation. What they are calling complaints were from some individuals who were not satisfied with my decisions, but the Federal Court has dealt with them.
Ms Minna: But your supervisors, the people who - ?
Mr. Sordzi: I've never had a problem with my supervisors. I think they were happy to see me back.
Ms Minna: So their evaluation of the overall picture was positive and you have a good evaluation report?
Mr. Sordzi: Yes, exactly.
Ms Minna: Fine; that's all I wanted to know.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much.
I'm not going to go back into that whole area of judgment on your part.
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you.
Mr. Dromisky: I'm not going to make a judgment about you, simply because many judgments have been made regarding how competent you are, and if you weren't competent, you wouldn't be here sitting before us today.
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you.
Mr. Dromisky: So let's wipe that off the slate.
However, when I take a look at your curriculum vitae, I find you have been involved in numerous organizations and groups, and you have even been co-founder of some of them. Do you feel at any time that some of the learning experiences you have had, for instance with refugee groups you belong to, have an impact on how you perceive a refugee claimant before you and the kinds of judgments you would make, not only with refugees but with other groups you have been involved with over the past 15 years?
I don't know whether you can really answer that in specific terms, and I'm not asking for specific guidance, but in general are you more sympathetic to any specific group simply because of your involvement with that type of group and your helping them to establish themselves in this country or serve their needs?
Mr. Sordzi: Since my appointment, I've been relieved of any community work, so I have never mixed community work with my duty as a board member. Therefore there's no way I can sympathize with a particular group over another.
I'm someone who can make a sound judgment. I used to make good judgments when I was a community leader and I do the same thing here as a board member, without favouring any particular group. The only criterion is: does the gentleman or the lady in front of me fit into the definition, yes or no? That's all.
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much.
Mr. Sordzi: You're welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Nunez, you can have the last question, because I saw you had one before, unless there are other members who wish to ask any other questions of the witness.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Since you were appointed in 1990, have any complaints been made about you?
Mr. Sordzi: To the best of my knowledge, there have not been any complaints. I even checked with the office of my Deputy Chairperson before coming here today, and to my knowledge no complaint has been made.
Mr. Nunez: And did you not know about the affidavits I mentioned?
.1600
Mr. Sordzi: I consider that these affidavits were made by individuals who do not appreciate the fact that I am a Board member. These are people who are self-seeking and I cannot pay too much attention to that. Moreover, the Federal Court, which is recognized as having higher authority, has ruled on this point.
In another decision, a judge described the lawyer and the people bringing up these cases with affidavits as pamphleteers. I find that quite interesting. I do not consider these to be complaints.
Mr. Nunez: Oh, really!
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, that was your last question. You asked the same question at the beginning.
On behalf of the members of the committee, thank you very much, Mr. Sordzi.
Mr. Sordzi: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Do you have anything you would like to say to the members of the committee?
Mr. Sordzi: I would just like to thank the committee for inviting me here. It was quite a fruitful discussion. Thank you.
The Chair: We wish you all success and good luck in the performance of your new responsibilities.
[English]
We have the pleasure now of welcoming - I apologize if I mispronounced your name - Anita Fuoco Boscariol, who's a lawyer by profession.
Ms Anita Fuoco Boscariol (Convention Refugee Determination Division, Vancouver Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board): Boscariol. That's the real way to pronounce it.
The Chair: Welcome. I'm going to start with Ms Meredith on this one, because it was her call to bring the witness before the committee.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I looked through your resumé. I don't really see any background in immigration work other than 10% as a lawyer. Where do you feel that you have a background to contribute to the IRB?
Ms Boscariol: First of all, being a lawyer, I do have a knowledge of administrative law, the rules of evidence and the rules of natural justice and fairness, which are important for work on any kind of quasi-judicial tribunal work or for the courts.
I was the chair of the race relations committee for the city of Vancouver. I was on that committee for five years. I chaired the committee for two years. I dealt with issues that did touch upon immigration matters.
Also, I would just add that in rendering decisions in any particular area, it can be of benefit to be thoroughly familiar with that area, but it's not uncommon for decision-makers to have to make decisions in an area that is not their primary area of expertise.
I point, for example, to the courts. You very often will get judges, for instance, whose practices have been entirely in the criminal law area and who have to deal with contracts and civil litigation in areas and matters of which they didn't have any knowledge.
What I bring to the position is a general, overall knowledge of procedures for tribunals, as well as some experience working with immigrants. Also, there's the fact that I'm an immigrant myself. I grew up in a community. I have a certain sensitivity to the issues that immigrants can face.
Ms Meredith: Did you become aware of this position through advertising?
Ms Boscariol: I was aware that the board existed. I was interested in being considered for a position on the board. I originally applied to the board three years ago. The resumé you see is three years old; it is not a current resumé.
I was contacted by letter by the board about three years ago, soon after I first applied. I was told that my resumé would be retained on file. I was finally re-contacted earlier this year, was interviewed for a position through the Fairweather committee, and was given an appointment as of August of this year.
.1604
Ms Meredith: Do you think your husband's position as president of the B.C. Liberal Association helped you get shortlisted for your appointment?
Ms Boscariol: I don't know whether it had any effect or not.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): From the government side.
Ms Minna: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I noticed that you have done a great deal of work with aboriginal communities in Canada. I was quite interested in that aspect. How do you see the benefits of that kind of background, that kind of involvement, in dealing with refugees?
Ms Boscariol: That experience has certainly taught me to be culturally sensitive in a large way. When I first began working with native communities, for example, I noticed, particularly among elders, that when I spoke to them they never looked directly at me. Coming from a Eurocentric type of culture you would think that refusing to look someone in the eye is a sign of being evasive or something else, but through that experience I learned that in that community it is actually a sign of respect. If you are speaking to someone you consider to be in a position of authority, you do not look them in the eye. It would be considered disrespectful to look directly at someone.
That's just a small example of the kinds of experiences that lead me to be a bit culturally sensitive to differences in approaches to situations.
Ms Minna: Your stint on the multicultural or race relations committee - was that part of the reason you were interested? Why this particular area of practice as opposed to perhaps a more lucrative private practice? What drove you to actually get into this area?
Ms Boscariol: Yes, having worked on the race relations committee and seeing the immigration issues that came up before city council, and through us to city council, did increase my interest in the area. As I said, having been an immigrant and been raised in an immigrant community also lead to this interest.
Ms Minna: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you.
Are there any other questions from the government side? All right, we'll jump over to Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Do you speak French?
[Translation]
Ms Boscariol: Yes, I speak French, but I prefer to speak in English; it is easier for me.
Mr. Nunez: As you wish.
Did your husband, who is president of the Liberal Association of British Columbia, contact people in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration or people at other levels before your appointment?
[English]
Ms Boscariol: I did not meet with anyone other than the person who interviewed me for the position, who in my case was the assistant deputy chair of the immigration appeal division.
Mr. Nunez: You didn't have any contact with Citizenship and Immigration before being nominated?
Ms Boscariol: No, not other than through written correspondence. I applied in writing and I received responses in writing.
Mr. Nunez: Did you send a letter to the minister?
Ms Boscariol: I believe I originally sent my resume with a covering letter through the office of the minister. I didn't have any other address to send it to other than the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and it was forwarded to the board.
Mr. Nunez: Did you an answer from the minister?
Ms Boscariol: No, my resumé was forwarded to the board and all correspondence that I received was through the board.
.1610
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you already begun to hear cases?
[English]
Ms Boscariol: Yes. I began hearing cases as of September, first as part of a three-member panel. To correct the chair, I sit on the immigration appeal division, not on the convention refugee determination division. So I began sitting as part of a three-member panel, and the last little while I have been sitting as a single member.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Are you familiar with the IRD guideline concerning women claiming refugee status on grounds of gender, spouse abuse, or other such reasons?
[English]
Ms Boscariol: I'm aware that guidelines exist, but I have a very peripheral knowledge of the refugee division. It's very superficial because I don't work in that division.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How many cases have you heard to date?
[English]
Ms Boscariol: I have to count those. I can still count them on my fingers. Seven.
Mr. Nunez: How many did you accept and how many did you refuse?
Ms Boscariol: All of my decisions but one have not been finalized, so I haven't actually rendered final decisions on most. The very first is on its way to being finalized, but because it isn't I don't believe I can give you the decision at this point.
Mr. Nunez: And when did you start? On August 12?
Ms Boscariol: August 12, yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Were you given training?
[English]
Ms Boscariol: When I began in August I had some one-on-one sessions with individuals from legal services on the general area of immigration law and on the particular sections of the act and regulations that pertained to the work I would be doing. Following those sessions I began sitting first, as I said, as one member of a three-member panel. I've just completed a two-week course in Toronto that was an intensive review and study of the information I need to know to conduct the duties.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
Ms Meredith is next.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Do you not see a potential conflict of interest in sitting on an appointed federal board when your husband has run and is planning on running for the Liberal Party in the next election?
Ms Boscariol: This issue, if there is a conflict of interest, is something I would want to discuss with the ethics counsellor or the office of the ethics counsellor just to be sure. My own personal view is that I am not an extension of my husband. I'm a person in my own right and I should be able to take a position and be able to do the work that I'm capable of doing separate and distinct from him.
Ms Meredith: Do you not see the potential of pressure being put on you to give positive decisions so that there isn't a negative impact on his career choice?
Ms Boscariol: My experience to date leads me to believe there's no pressure of any kind to make any kind of decision. We are independent decision-makers, and that's in fact as well as in theory or policy. In the decisions that I've drafted and that I'm rendering, there's been no input from my assistant deputy chair or anyone as to what the content should be. I am an independent decision-maker.
Ms Meredith: So you don't foresee any external pressures being placed on you to give more positive decisions?
Ms Boscariol: I don't. I've been a civil servant before, as you can see from my resumé. I'm a professional and I can separate personal feelings and what have you from my professional duties, and I do so all the time.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Mr. Godfrey.
.1615
Mr. Godfrey (Don Valley West): This is really more a question of general interest than anything. You're new to the game and you've just done seven hearings. What surprised you the most in terms of what you expected the reality to be? Is there anything that struck you as being different than you might have thought it would be?
Ms Boscariol: The process was more or less what I expected, generally. I think the difficulty of the job itself is what I probably underestimated before. It's very difficult to make decisions, to render decisions, and it's very difficult to write them. Certainly, from my experience from reading them, I hadn't expected the jump to be quite as much as it is, but it's a wonderful challenge. I really welcome it, and I'm thoroughly enjoying what I'm doing.
Mr. Godfrey: Do you think the difficulty is just a function of your being new, and that as you develop confidence...? Or do you expect this is going to continue to be a difficult thing to be involved in?
Ms Boscariol: No, it's my expectation that it will get easier. I'm told by colleagues that it does get easier. As I say, though, the difficulty is the challenge, but that doesn't detract from what I think of the position. I'm very honoured and happy to have an opportunity to work in this area.
Mr. Godfrey: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much, Mr. Godfrey.
I'd like to thank the witnesses and, on behalf of the chair, I'd like to make a judgment. My judgment is that I'm very pleased with the kinds of answers that you have presented to the sometimes somewhat difficult questions, indicating clearly to all of the members here that the right decisions have been made. You people have clearly revealed your competency and integrity in the roles you are fulfilling at the present time.
On behalf of this committee, I wish you the very best in the years to come, and I hope you continue to be happy in your role as a member of the appeal board.
Ms Boscariol: Thank you.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.