[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
.1538 
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will begin. The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, is a review of Order in Council appointments.
From the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada we have Ms Eunice Harker.
I would like to remind the members of the committee that, according to a ruling by the Speaker, the powers of examination of a committee are narrowly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post.
We will begin with Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome. In looking over your résumé, I notice you have been a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board since 1989.
Ms Eunice Harker (Full-time member of the Convention Refugee Determination Division (Ottawa/Atlantic Regional Office), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Yes, that's correct.
Ms Meredith: Your background would seem to have been very much a background of an individual who worked with refugees or persons internationally, with your Amnesty International positions - is that correct?
Ms Harker: Yes, that's correct. My background has been for a number of years in human rights issues.
Ms Meredith: Okay.
Individuals I have talked to who have been involved with the IRB, or who are out in the community as observers, seem to be very concerned with what would be perceived as the IRB working only in the interests of the refugee applicants, and not for Canadians. Would you say that is a fair assessment of how you perceive your role as an IRB member?
.1540
Ms Harker: I believe my role as an IRB member is to follow Canadian law, which is to determine fairly whether or not an individual before me in a hearing is a convention refugee. In so doing, I have to take cognizance of all of the facts before me, apply the law as I understand it, assess the person's credibility, and then render as fair a decision as I believe I can.
Ms Meredith: From your comments, your role as a member of the IRB is to determine whether or not an individual would be determined to be a genuine refugee, not whether or not they should be allowed in or denied, but whether or not they fulfil that determination of being a genuine refugee. Is that right?
Ms Harker: I believe that my role is to listen to all of the evidence presented before me from the claimant, examine all of the documentary evidence that's presented, and in applying the law as I understand it - and that's set down by the Federal Court of Canada - to determine whether or not this person has a reasonable chance of persecution were they to return to their home country.
Ms Meredith: When you're looking at this information, do you look at an applicant's criminal activities when examining them?
Ms Harker: If there's an issue of criminality involved in the case, that would be examined as part of the overall evidence before us.
Ms Meredith: Do you ever ask them if they've been involved in criminal activity?
Ms Harker: That question is a regular question on an information form that every claimant has to complete, and the answer to that forms part of what we consider.
Ms Meredith: Have you ever granted refugee status to someone who has been convicted of a serious crime outside of his or her country of origin?
Ms Harker: I've been on the board for seven years, and I'm really going to have to spend some time to think back over the enormous number of cases I've done, whether or not there was such a case. To my knowledge I can't think of a case.
Ms Meredith: According to records I have obtained, the Federal Court was involved in a case where you made a positive decision on a claim where the applicant had been convicted of a serious crime outside his country of origin.
Ms Harker: If I remember the case you are referring to.... I misunderstood your question. The person had not committed a crime in Canada, I believe. I misunderstood your question.
Ms Meredith: No, this individual had been convicted of a serious crime outside of his country of origin.
Ms Harker: Yes, I am aware of the case, but I'm not sure that I'm at liberty to talk about an individual case to that degree.
Ms Meredith: Well, according to the Federal Court in the Gill case, you can't balance persecution against a criminal activity when it's happened outside of the country of origin.
Under paragraph (f) of the act, it says that
- The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are
serious reasons for considering that...he has committed a serious non-political crime outside
the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.
Ms Harker: I don't believe that I'm here to deal with individual cases. In a general case like that, it would be a question of looking at the evidence, making a decision on the basis of whether the person is included as a refugee, then looking at the issue of exclusion, and on the basis of what my understanding of the Federal Court jurisprudence on the issue is, making a decision based on that. That decision then would be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.
.1545
The Chair: Ms Meredith, I'm not going to allow any more questions on a particular case. We're here to discuss - as I said earlier, and based on the ruling the Speaker made in the House of Commons - the performance of duties rather than the specific case involved. I think the witness has spent more than enough time on this one individual case. Would you continue?
Ms Meredith: My concern, Madam Chair, is the idea or the concern of Canadians that individuals who have a criminal record are being allowed into this country and being considered as genuine refugees.
It's quite clear in the act that an individual who has committed crimes outside their country of origin is not to be considered a genuine refugee. I think Canadians are expressing a concern that the IRB and its members are ruling in favour of these claimants when it's outside of their jurisdiction to do so.
Do you believe that your role is to determine who is a genuine refugee under the act, or to determine who should or should not be allowed into Canada as a refugee?
Ms Harker: I believe my role is to determine who is and who is not a refugee under the act, and that all of the information that is relevant is before me, and, on my best understanding of the law, to make a determination on that claim.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, are you ready or would you prefer that I come back to you later?
[English]
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): If I could jump into the fray.... Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Ms Harker. The case that has been before the newspapers recently - and I know nothing more other than what I've read in the newspapers - has to do with this vessel, I don't know if it's a Romanian vessel or a Taiwanese vessel, but there are allegations -
The Chair: I'm going to interrupt you, and perhaps you could clarify once you've finished your question. What relevance does that have to the performance of duties of this witness?
Mr. Cullen: I was just going to ask, Madam Chair, based on the newspaper accounts, what sort of observation Ms Harker would have from her experience, what sort of inferences she would draw, what line of questioning or evidence she would look at to determine whether the people who I believe are seeking political asylum in Canada - what sort of questions come to her mind and what kind of evidence -
The Chair: I fail to understand, Mr. Cullen, how a witness who has not even looked at this particular case would answer your question. I still don't see the relevance to her background and the reason she's here today - to discuss the performance of her duties as a member of the IRB.
Mr. Cullen: All right, I'll pass then.
The Chair: No questions on the government side? Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I was looking at the decisions and the number of cases, which I have in front of me, of the members we're going to be talking to today. I'm looking at the caseloads. They seem to be in some cases - with the witness we're going to be seeing later - much higher, and in some cases much lower.
I'm wondering, do you deal specifically with very hard cases compared to.... Are cases assigned to members on the basis of the degree of difficulty?
Ms Harker: Are you referring to the statistics?
Ms Minna: Yes.
The Chair: We're looking at the member's decisions. Does everybody have a copy? Perhaps we could make copies for everyone. It's just the number of the negative and positive decisions rendered.
Ms Harker: I just wanted to comment that I've already informed the board that there seems to be some problem with these statistics. I've been on the board since 1989, and I'm not sure why you only have partial statistics for 1992 to date. That's just one point I'd like to mention.
.1550
All I can say with regard to statistics is that I deal with each individual case as I hear it and make the best decision I can based on all the evidence before me. On occasion over a number of years, I have been assigned some of the more complicated or difficult cases. I'm not sure what else I can say with regard to the statistics.
Ms Minna: Another thing, Madam Chair, if I could, is the volume. When I look at some of the other ones, the volume seems to be much higher than in your case. I'm just wondering whether you're dealing with different types of cases, more difficult cases, if they're assigned on that basis...or the part of the world where there seems to be more difficulty? I'm just trying to get a handle on the volumes going through, because we talk a great deal about backlog and stuff.
Ms Harker: We deal in our region with a large number of countries - a small number of cases from each country, but a large number of countries. We try to do some specialization. I deal with eastern Europe and Latin America primarily, but that hasn't always been the case. It has changed more recently. I have had some of the complicated cases take much longer; therefore, that may affect the statistics.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Welcome, Ms Harker. Do you speak French?
[English]
Ms Harker: No, I'm afraid I don't.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You were appointed for the first time in 1989. I see that you have also been involved with Amnesty International and that you have also worked for the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Did you have any experience in the fields of immigration and refugees prior to your appointment?
[English]
Ms Harker: For the eight years I worked with Amnesty International prior to my appointment, one of my responsibilities was to oversee the refugee group within Amnesty International. I had occasion to interview refugees and to deal with whether the individual would qualify as a refugee for Amnesty International to take up the case and press it with the Canadian government. So I did have some experience with refugees, but also with the other range of human rights issues that Amnesty International deals with.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I see here that we have some statistics, although they date back to 1992 and not to the year in which you were appointed. I see that in 1992, all of your rulings were negative. Could you explain the reason for this to me?
[English]
Ms Harker: I can only explain it with the comment I made earlier when the statistics were mentioned first. I believe there's a considerable problem with the statistics. I don't know why they are not there from 1989 until present, and I believe that the statistics for 1992 are not accurate at all. I can only say that I've asked for a more up-to-date, corrected list and I can offer to provide you with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: We have a very serious problem here. Who prepared these documents?
The Chair: The Board.
Mr. Nunez: Madam Chair, I have already asked that we call a representative of the Immigration and Refugee Board before the committee to explain several things to us. How can I ask questions if I must rely on statistics that Ms Harker herself says are false?
.1555
I have even offered you a valid alternative since I would like the Board to give us some explanations when it reviews the mandate of members; this is ridiculous. We are here in Parliament, madam Chair; I would like you to act, as chair, on behalf of all members, because it isn't true that...
The Chair: These statistics were supplied to us by the Board and, as committee members, we have no control over their accuracy. We assume that the information provided is correct.
We will discuss your resolution, a copy of which you sent me today, tomorrow in committee. I do not want us to debate it today.
As far as the witness is concerned,
[English]
Ms Harker, perhaps you could tell us why you think the statistics are not accurate, and that may clarify the situation.
Ms Harker: Well, it is partly because they start only in 1992 and I was on the board from 1989 on. That was the first thing that drew my attention to it.
I am not aware that in 1992 I would not have made any positive decisions. It simply surprises me. I don't keep a record of my own statistics. I simply hear an individual case, make an individual decision, and our people who keep statistics, keep statistics. I'm absolutely convinced that this is inaccurate for 1992.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez,
[Translation]
we will ask the Board to provide us with a new list of its rulings, but in the meantime, we have to work with this document. Do you wish to continue?
Mr. Nunez: In 1993, the majority of your decisions were positive, although 42 were negative. Are these figures accurate or are they wrong too?
[English]
Ms Harker: I'm afraid I can't comment on whether or not the statistics for 1993 are absolutely accurate. I can say that I made decisions based on the evidence I heard. If there were 54 positive and 39, according to the statistics I have, in which the people in my view were not convention refugees, that was the decision I made.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but I want to know if these figures are accurate or not.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, we have already discussed this. The witness believes that these figures are inaccurate; we received a letter from the Board. We can't continue to debate the same question. Please move on.
Mr. Nunez: I will shift gears. You work in Ottawa and you also travel to the Atlantic provinces. Describe your work for us. Do you hear cases here in Ottawa or elsewhere?
[English]
Ms Harker: In our region we cover Ottawa, Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. We travel on an occasional basis to Halifax and St. John's. The members in Ottawa basically take turns travelling to those regions. We would normally hear cases for a week in St. John's and a week in Halifax.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Is your work evaluated every year? Are you aware of the evaluation results? Do you have them here with you?
[English]
Ms Harker: Yes, we do have an evaluation process in the board and we are evaluated regularly. The process involves our assistant deputy chair doing the evaluation. He can consult with the lawyers who appear before me. He can consult my colleagues. He can consult the refugee claim officer who appears before me. He can also listen to transcripts of hearings, and he reviews all of our decisions.
.1600
That evaluation is then sent on to the deputy chair and the chair, and then presumably forms the basis of any recommendation on reappointment. I've had at least four if not five evaluations in my career on the board, and they've indicated that I have exceeded the expectations of the office I hold.
Mr. Nunez: Do you have a copy of the last evaluation?
Ms Harker: I believe that is personal information that I don't have to reveal.
Mr. Nunez: That is not my opinion.
I'd ask the chair to explain this evaluation.
You are here to evaluate. You have the competence and the training necessary to become a commissioner.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, I'm going to stop you here. In my opinion, there's no point badgering the witness on her evaluation when she already answered your question.
[Translation]
We're back to the same question that you have raised on numerous occasions before the committee. We had agreed, Mr. Nunez. We will have the opportunity to put your question to the chair of the Board when she testifies on June 18. Perhaps she will be able to answer your question; I don't think it is in the committee's interest to continue with this line of questioning. Your ten minutes are up. Are there any further questions?
[English]
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: I notice in 1994 you dealt with nineteen cases that were positively expedited. Can you please tell the committee where those expedited cases were referred to - what country of origin?
Ms Harker: I'm afraid I couldn't tell you specifically which countries they came from. It's possible that a number of them came from Somalia, because that's a significant part of our caseload here.
I'd like to explain the expedited process. A case is reviewed by a member and issues are identified. It's reviewed after a refugee claims officer has already reviewed it. Based on the information contained in the form and based on a knowledge of the country's situation, there's a recommendation that this case may be possible for expediting.
The member would then review the file and raise issues of concern that still were not dealt with on review of the file, and would inform the refugee claim officer that those are concerns that should be raised in any interview. The refugee claim officer would then hold an interview with the claimant and witnesses and then come back and report to the member on the answers to those specific questions. Based on their interview, the officer would then make a recommendation to the member that this case would likely be accepted at a full hearing, if one were to be held.
At that point, if the member is not satisfied that all of the answers have been forthcoming, the member has the option to send it to a full hearing for a full determination. That is the process provided for in the legislation.
Ms Meredith: So would questions about criminality be part of the expedited process? When you're trying to ascertain whether the individuals are likely to go through the process very quickly, in an expedited fashion, because they happen to claim they've come from a country that is recognized as a source of refugees, is there any questioning as to criminality or any concern of investigating their backgrounds through INTERPOL or other means to check into their criminality?
Ms Harker: With our new process, we now have a more enhanced system for gathering information in advance of a hearing. All of that information is there, available to be part of the questioning and the interview. If there's any information to indicate there may be issues of criminality, that would exclude it from the expedited process. It also has to be fully examined in a hearing by two members.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
.1605
The Chair: I'd like to thank you, Ms Harker, for being before the committee, and we wish you good luck in your renomination. Thank you.
Ms Harker: Thank you.
The Chair: I will invite Mr. Auguste Choquette to come forward, please.
[Translation]
Welcome, Mr. Choquette. We will start with Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Welcome, Mr. Choquette. I see here that you have a law degree, that you work as a lawyer and that you have even argued cases before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Were you disbarred at some point?
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Full-time member, Refugee Status Section, Montreal Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board): Yes.
M. Nunez: Could you explain what happened to us?
Mr. Choquette: First of all, I must say that this is a very emotional occasion for me because I once served as a member of the House of Commons. It is exciting to be back here. I want to thank you for inviting me to appear before this committee.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Nunez, for giving me the opportunity to explain this event which was both painful and rewarding.
Let me say right away that I was never disbarred for dishonesty or for professional malpractice. I have always practised the law with integrity and to the best of my ability.
However, something happened and I felt, naively perhaps, that it was my duty to pass along to police authorities information about certain judges who are no longer with us today.
I tried to explain my actions to the person responsible for discipline at the Bar, but we were never on the same wavelength. I was told that if I wanted to plead guilty, I would only get a reprimand. I responded that I shouldn't have to plead guilty for telling the truth.
Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the Bar official. This happened 20 years ago; it was a painful, albeit enlightening experience because it enabled me to understand...
Mr. Nunez: Did you appeal the decision?
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, it is not within the purview of this committee to discuss a case which has no bearing on the duties of the witness as a member of the Board.
I allowed the question because I thought that other committee members may have had it on their minds, but I will not allow another one. We are here to determine if this individual is qualified to perform the duties of his position, not whether he is qualified as a lawyer. Thank you.
Mr. Nunez: I do not appreciate your decision, madam Chair.
The Chair: Do you have another question, Mr. Nunez?
Mr. Nunez: Yes, I have more questions, but in view of your actions...
The Chair: This is not an interrogation.
Mr. Nunez: This is unacceptable for a democratic committee.
You say you are a former member of the House. Which party did you represent?
Mr. Choquette: The Liberal Party of Canada. I was a member of the government of the Right Honourable Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, and I was around when the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau came to power. I also have to say that these were interesting times.
Mr. Nunez: You were appointed to the Board for the first time in 1994. Is that correct?
Mr. Choquette: That's correct. I was appointed in January 1994. I have been a member since then and my mandate was recently renewed following a favourable report.
Mr. Nunez: Why were you reappointed for five years, whereas Ms Harker's term was renewed for only two years?
Mr. Choquette: I would have liked her to have been reappointed for the same term as me, but unfortunately, I have no authority over these appointments.
.1610
I think I did everything I possibly could during my two years in office. I worked hard in every way. I performed my duties to the best of my ability and I feel I expended maximum energy and effort. In my humble opinion, my appointment is justified.
Mr. Nunez: According to our statistics, so far this year you have heard only 14 cases in January, February and March. Is that correct?
Mr. Choquette: I did not keep a record and therefore I cannot answer that question. I certainly didn't hear the usual number of cases because my appointment was up for review. At one point, we didn't know for certain that our mandates would be renewed. As you know, minister Marchi had set up an advisory committee which, I believe, was supposed to evaluate the qualifications of those individuals seeking another term. I can't explain why there was this kind of vacuum, but the evaluation period was extended somewhat.
Mr. Nunez: And how was your mandate renewed? Who proposed your reappointment? Were you heard by the Fairweather Committee?
Mr. Choquette: If I understand the process correctly, we are first of all evaluated by the people from the Board. Since I sit in Montreal, in my case, I am assessed by the people in Montreal. Ms Colette Savard is my chief justice, in a way. I have a great deal of admiration for this very competent woman who has devoted a good part of her life to the Board and who oversees my colleagues and myself and what happens to us.
There is also consultation with what we call coordinators, coordinating members. According to the information I have, an evaluation report is presented to Mr. Fairweather. Perhaps it is a bit risky to say such things, but it is said that the Fairweather Committee makes an in-depth investigation before making a recommendation.
Personally, I have never had reason to doubt my own abilities. Since I was a member of Parliament for five years and practiced law for almost 30 years, it seems to me that I have the necessary mental development to be able to determine whether a given person is a refugee or not. I say this very humbly, and with all due respect.
[English]
The Chair: Merci.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madame Chair.
I notice on the records here that you have an abnormally high number of positive decisions, to the tune of 109 positive to 12 negative and 101 positive to 33 negative in the two years you've been on the board. Can you explain why?
Mr. Choquette: First of all, I don't keep any statistics. I don't think it's a good thing. What I do is decide on a case-by-case basis.
The Chair: Excuse me, are we having trouble with translation in the back?
Go ahead, please, Mr. Choquette. I'm sorry to interrupt.
[Translation]
Mr. Choquette: I'm not trying to be ostentatious by speaking English. I know that a lot of people absolutely want to show that they are bilingual. I can express myself in French. I am sure the interpretation will be fine.
.1615
I would like to limit myself to saying that we decide each case on its merits. May I make a comment, if I am not overstepping the responsibilities of a witness? The members of the Board are not there by virtue of what you would call judicial appointments, in the strict sense of the term, but our duties are quasi-judicial. Our duties are not, for instance, similar to those of a member of the Canadian Transport Commission or the Société des alcools du Québec (Quebec Liquor Board), who only issue a permit, even though those boards do have other, quasi-judicial activities. Basically and fundamentally, all of our responsibilities are quasi-judicial.
Thus, and I say this with the greatest respect, when I see a legislative committee dealing with judicial or quasi-judicial activities I am - and again, I say this with the greatest respect - surprised. I understand that you have the authority to do so.
[English]
We are not judicial appointments, but our functions are essentially quasi-judicial. So it's almost an interference. It's the way I see it, with all due respect.
The Chair: With all due respect, Mr. Choquette, I should have ruled you out of order before.
We'll continue, Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: I think it's very important. I am here representing the Canadian public, which is very concerned that Canada has a record of what is considered an abnormally high rate of refugee acceptance in comparison with the rest of the world. There is a concern that this process does not seem to have justification. So when I see a decision record that is so positive that there doesn't seem to be a balance, I feel I'm justified in asking you, sir, whether you see your role as determining who qualifies and is determined as a genuine refugee as opposed to who you feel should be allowed into the country.
Mr. Choquette: As I said previously, I'm not absolutely convinced that the statistics are accurate. I am not here to challenge documents you have in your hands, but I still maintain that I always decide on the merits of the case. It's possible that a situation like this one occurs.
Ms Meredith: When you're deciding on the merits of the case, do you take criminality into account? Do you concern yourself with whether or not individuals have a record of criminal activity, either in their country of origin or outside their country of origin, before they make their claim?
[Translation]
Mr. Choquette: There are what are known as exclusion clauses. If, for instance, someone's behaviour does not comply with the principles set out by the United Nations, we must necessarily take that into account.
Without revealing anything confidential about the cases I have heard, I have not had any blatant cases similar to the ones you described. There may have been people who had been convicted of shoplifting, but these were isolated acts, due to the poverty and destitution of the person, acts which had nothing to do with his or her claim to refugee status.
We must first and foremost assess whether the fear of persecution is grounded, should the person return to his or her country of origin, the country against which he or she is making certain claims. That is our paramount concern.
.1620
I would say categorically that criminality must be taken into account, according to the parameters defined by the Geneva Convention and by our Immigration Act. Personally, I don't know if I have just been lucky, but I have not had many cases of that nature.
[English]
Ms Meredith: I'm a little curious as well to know if you specialize in an area around the world or take claimants from all over the place.
Mr. Choquette: I'd like to express my views, but I think I had better refrain.
[Translation]
I consider that we were appointed by the Governor-in-Council who thus conferred upon us the power and the necessary jurisdiction to hear the claims of people from all over the world, in both languages, unless one is incapable of speaking one or the other of the country's officials languages. In that case, pursuant to our oath of office, according to which we swore to perform our duties under the law, a person who cannot understand the language has absolutely no right to sit and hear a case in that language. But, in principle, as soon as the order has been signed by the Governor-in-Council, we have jurisdiction to hear cases from all countries.
Did I become specialized? As I mentioned at the outset, we have a chief justice, in a way. In my case, it's Ms Savard, for whom I have the greatest respect. She's the one who sometimes tells us, through our coordinators, that this morning we have such and such a file and this afternoon another one and that we will have to go and sit in such a place. Therefore, I'm not specialized. I take the files as they are given to me.
In all honesty, although this Board should not be made up entirely of lawyers, I feel that it is far easier for a law graduate who has acquired some legal knowledge to deal with the lawyers who, in virtually 100 per cent of all cases, represent the refugees. When these lawyers appear in front of a Board member who is also a lawyer, there seems to be some balance struck, and they cannot take advantage of their legal knowledge as they would before people who don't have any. That's why being a lawyer can be an advantage in some circumstances.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Choquette. Ms Minna.
[English]
Ms Minna: To start off, I want to say that while my colleague may find the numbers for acceptance abnormally high, it depends which way you look at it. I also represent Canadians, and the Canadians I speak to are not concerned about an abnormally high rate of acceptance. They are concerned, obviously, that the people who are refugees in Canada are legitimate. I interpret the high numbers to mean that we have a fairly large number of credible refugees coming to our shores, given the situation around the world.
My question to you has to do with something else. I am looking at your résumé. I don't know if I have the wrong sheet, but I have only one sheet. It goes from 1962, and then from 1963 to 1968 when you were a member of the House. Then I have 1970 to 1979, when you were animateur et commentateur à la télévision. Then from 1979 to 1994 I have nothing. I'm wondering what sort of employment you were involved with during that period.
Mr. Choquette: Since 1962 I have been practising law almost without interruption, as is mentioned there. When I was on television I had my office -
Ms Minna: So you were practising law the whole time?
Mr. Choquette: Right.
Ms Minna: Were you practising law just before you were appointed?
Mr. Choquette: Right.
Ms Minna: I just wanted to clarify that; I wasn't clear. Thank you.
.1625
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier): I don't know whether there are any lawyers around the table, but are you taking advantage of those of us who aren't lawyers, Mr. Choquette?
Mr. Choquette: Far from it, Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: You gave the impression that in order to talk to lawyers, you have to be one. I wanted to make sure that wasn't your intention.
Mr. Choquette: Not at all.
The Chair: Are you asking for clarification, Mr. Bélanger?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes. I would also like Mr. Choquette to be more specific about what he means. He was saying he was surprised that a legislative committee would be called upon to deal with an appointment made by the executive.
The Chair: Before you answer, I would like to know if all members agree because in my opinion, we're going off topic here. We're here to examine the performance of members of the Board.
If the members around this table want to have a discussion, and not a debate, on this issue, I will go along with the consensus and will allow a maximum of ten minutes for this, although this is not part of our mandate. We're here to ask the witness how he discharges his duties as a member of the Board, and not on his opinion about a process or the Board itself.
[English]
If everybody agrees, we will continue. If everybody disagrees, I'll take a vote on it. But I rule that question out of order as the chair.
Ms Meredith: I disagree with that. The witness said something and I think it's only fair to follow it up.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I have no objection to having Mr. Choquette share his comments since he has been a member of Parliament in the past. This could be useful to the committee.
The Chair: All right.
[English]
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: I think it would be useful to have a debate, because if Mr. Choquette is saying this is ultra vires, or outside the scope of this committee, I'd like to know why he believes that.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): I think the majority has already indicated which way they want it to go, so we might as well progress.
The Chair: Well, I as chair find that type of question out of order. On June 18 we will have the chair of the IRB before the committee. I think that's an appropriate question for the chair of the IRB and the members of the IRB, so I will not permit the question, as chair.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Bélanger: Excuse me, Madam Chair. You've asked the opinion of the members and they've given you their opinion. It's not the one you want and therefore you say you don't allow the question?
The Chair: I don't think it's not what I want, but I see it out of order.
Ms Minna, we can have a debate on this too.
Ms Minna: No, I was simply going to say, Madam Chair, as I said at the outset, that I thought it was.... We can have a very lengthy discussion on this issue. It doesn't really go to the witness's experience or ability to do his job as an IRB member.
Ms Meredith: I disagree. Madam Chair, I think the attitude of an IRB member is very much.... If an IRB member feels they are not answerable to a parliamentary committee, whose role it is to oversee the IRB and the immigration departments, then I have real problems, more with the attitude of the member who feels he is beyond being questioned by us. I think it's very much appropriate. This witness made the statement, not the minister, not the chair of the IRB.
The Chair: I was just getting some advice.
I am prepared to allow Mr. Choquette to give his opinion - and I'll underline that, his opinion - on why he feels this committee does not have the relevant powers to question the Order in Council, even though those are given to us under Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons. That's why I ruled the question out of order. To me, the Standing Orders specifically give us that mandate, and I don't see why we are questioning it.
.1630
If the consensus around the table is that we shall allow the witness to give his opinion, and I think it is, I will allow it. But I will not allow any more questions on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Choquette, would you like to explain your views?
Mr. Choquette: There was no mention that it was ultra vires. I said that I was surprised but our decision-making methods could be investigated, because I simply wanted to indicate that our Board was certainly kind of special. It is a rather particular administrative tribunal in the sense that its responsibilities are fundamentally quasi-judicial. We don't simply give someone a permit to stay in Canada; we don't give him a visa. We're there to determine the rights of the person and that's extremely important. Therefore, pursuant to the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers enshrined in British law, I simply and quite respectfully expressed my surprise. I never wanted to contest the legality of your action.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other questions outside of this question to the witness? Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Mr. Choquette, I've noted that you have not rendered any decision under the fast track process. Why not?
Mr. Choquette: I have never taken part in the fast track process. I know that in the past, that question has been put to some of my colleagues. I feel that this is not necessarily the best process.
What I would strongly recommend, if you allow me to do so, is that one member of the Board have jurisdiction rather than two. Right now, the quorum set out by law is two members. I think that this quorum considerably slows down the process. I'm not talking about the fast-track process since it only has one member. Perhaps we could replace the fast-track process, but I'm not sure. I'm just saying this. We would need a much more thorough examination of the issue. What would certainly be a worthwhile improvement would be to amend the act to allow one member to exercise his or her jurisdiction. That would simply require an amendment to a brief sentence in the act; a simple amendment, a single sentence and one member would have jurisdiction.
Mr. Nunez: I'm not concerned by your positive track record of acceptance, but I would like you to specify which regions you look after because often the origin of the refugee claimants can have a significant impact.
Mr. Choquette: Since I've been in this position, I've had an opportunity to hear cases from Bangladesh, Ghana, Venezuela, a few from Chili, Peru, Zaire, Rwanda and Burundi. When I enter the room, I always bring with me a map of the country the claimant comes from and I spread it out. This surprises some of my friends. I think this is a way of demonstrating to people who come to Canada that we're interested in them. I made it my business to get my hands on a wide range of maps. I'm wondering where I can get a map of Zaire here in Ottawa. I can't find one and this is frustrating.
.1635
Mr. Nunez: How much time do you usually take to render a decision?
Mr. Choquette: It's difficult to set a standard because you sometimes want to evaluate and re-evaluate certain cases. Paragraph 203 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, published by the United Nations, says that we have to give claimants the benefit of the doubt. That's more or less the law in Canada, although the Supreme Court has stated that the United Nations' handbook was not the law and recently, in the Chan case, it handed a majority decision indicating that the United Nations' handbook had a persuasive influence. Even if it's not the law, we almost have to follow it to the letter. Paragraph 203 of this handbook clearly states that we have to give claimants the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes we may hear things that are not completely satisfactory, but we tell ourselves that if ever it was true... So we give people a chance.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions on the government side? No?
Ms Meredith, you have the last question.
Ms Meredith: I want to follow up on something you just said. You're saying that if you hear evidence that doesn't sit quite right and you doubt its correctness, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. You cannot cross-examine them to verify whether or not they are telling the truth.
Mr. Choquette: As a matter of fact, credibility has to be assessed, and I think we all do that very carefully. But at the end of it, when you have to make the overall assessment sometimes it's not easy.
[Translation]
In such cases, we refer to paragraph 203 of the United Nations' handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status.
[English]
Ms Meredith: In what percentage of the cases that you hear would you rely on that paragraph to help you render a decision?
Mr. Choquette: I would say very honestly that it is a good percentage.
Ms Meredith: Would you say 50%, 60%?
Mr. Choquette: No, not that high. I would say 25%.
Ms Meredith: So in about a quarter of the cases you hear, you are somewhat uncertain as to the legitimacy, but you use giving them the benefit of the doubt to give them the determination.
Mr. Choquette: I don't know if ``legitimacy'' is the word I would use.
[Translation]
I would use the word credibility instead. When the witness appears before the Board, he may speak spontaneously like a sincere person, or he can be intensely prepared. Some people are highly intelligent. They have at their disposal a documentation centre where they can go and read some material; some people are able to say things with a great deal of conviction. But in evaluating credibility, there's always body language and a multitude of criteria that are such that at one point you ask yourself: "Is what he is saying true? He's very intelligent. Did he learn this whole story?"
Moreover, since the evidence consists of documents and unrebutted testimony under oath, what can we do? This is why, - and I'm speaking for myself here - I must say that the benefit of the doubt is certainly an important factor in a high percentage of cases.
.1640
The legislator could remedy this situation if he's not satisfied. As you stated very accurately, you represent the Canadian public; jurisprudence is an echo of that. I know that in many judicial rulings, it is said, and especially Judge Muldoon who is very frank and outspoken, that the interests of Canada must be represented. I therefore completely agree with you, Ms Meredith.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: We still have two minutes. Mr. Nunez, do you have a final question?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. Could you tell us how many decisions you hand down every year?
Mr. Choquette: To be absolutely honest, I don't have any statistics.
Mr. Nunez: Do you not know the average in Montreal, for example? Aren't there a lot of pending cases in Montreal?
Mr. Choquette: Yes. We were asked to try to hear two cases a day: one in the morning and one in the afternoon. That's the objective in a way. The minister is not represented.
Mr. Nunez: Only three days a week?
Mr. Choquette: It all depends on the way the program is prepared. Sometimes we work five days a week; sometimes we're asked to work three days a week and take two other days to deliberate, or we can sit two weeks in a row and take a week for deliberation. As I was saying, everything is done in a coordinated manner, with the associate vice-chair, the coordinators and the administrative staff. All this has to be done on a pragmatic basis.
I would point out that it's not a cushy job. The air quality is dubious at Place Guy-Favreau, a place you probably know since you're from the Montreal area. The government could increase productivity if the air was cleaner. Our work is very intense, especially since it is always done through an interpreter. It requires exceptional powers of concentration.
A multitude of factors could be considered, but I would like to come back to this: it would make things easier for us if you gave jurisdiction to a single board member. I assure you that a great deal of work would be done and efficiency would be greatly increased.
The Chair: Thank you. We have another witness.
Mr. Nunez: We will invite you to appear when we discuss the act.
The Chair: Mr. Choquette, thank you very much and good luck in your new responsibilities.
[English]
I invite Edith Nee to come forward. Welcome, Ms Nee.
[Translation]
We will begin with Mr. Nunez.
[English]
Are you ready?
Ms Edith Nee (Member, Convention Refugee Determination Division, Vancouver Regional Office, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada): Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Welcome, Ms Nee. I notice that you have worked with minorities and that you were appointed for the first time in 1989 and that your mandate was renewed effective April 4, 1996 for three years. I fail to understand the government's logic. Ms Harker's mandate is two years, Mr. Choquette's is five years and yours is three years. Do you know why you were appointed for a period of three years?
[English]
Ms Nee: I don't think I can answer for the government. That's not my role.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Fine. Have any complaints been filed against you in the course of your duties as a board member?
.1645
[English]
Ms Nee: No, not that I'm aware of. My supervisor has never brought any to my attention.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I would like to table two affidavits concerning Ms Nee's duties.
Are you familiar with these affidavits?
[English]
The Chair: Ms Nee, you're welcome to take counsel, and you can take your time in answering, if you like.
Are you ready to answer, Ms Nee?
Ms Nee: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: Are you familiar with these two affidavits? The first...
[English]
Ms Nee: Yes, I do.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: ...is signed by a lawyer, Mr. Gill, and the second by a witness, an Indian national. They both appeared before you and one of your colleagues, Mr. Burke, in May 1995.
According to the two affidavits, you and your colleagues were passing notes on bits of paper and giggling. In the interim, the Indian national testified that you were laughing.
Are the claims made in these affidavits true?
[English]
Ms Nee: First of all, both of these affidavits pertain to one case. They are of the same case.
Secondly, I want to alert you to the fact that the ADC did bring this to my attention, and subsequently, we heard, Mr. Burke fell ill and took medical leave, so the case had to go de novo. Our assistant deputy chair told me he telephoned the lawyer to ask her if she wanted to pursue the complaint and he never heard back from her.
So the status of this complaint, to my knowledge, is null and void.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I asked you whether complaints had been filed, and you answered no. Could you tell me what the status of that complaint is right now?
[English]
Ms Nee: Because I consider it a non-complaint. It was never pursued by the lawyer any further than this initial....
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Are these the only two affidavits that you have knowledge of or do others exist?
[English]
Ms Nee: No, not that I'm aware of.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In Vancouver, is there a complaint system in place for people who are dissatisfied with the behaviour of a board member?
[English]
Ms Nee: There is for the whole board. It's not just for Vancouver alone. There are complaint mechanisms for lawyers and individuals to appeal to regarding board members.
.1650
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Is this the only affidavit received in Vancouver or were there any other complaints?
[English]
Ms Nee: About me?
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: About you or anyone else in Vancouver.
The Chair: I gather she does not know.
Mr. Nunez: If she does not know, she can say so.
[English]
Ms Nee: I'm not entitled to know what transpires between my colleagues and my supervisor. I'm not privy to that information.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I see.
How is it that your mandate was renewed for three years? How did this take place? Is there a performance appraisal? Who recommended the renewal of your mandate?
[English]
Ms Nee: I'm evaluated on a regular basis. During my seven years on the board, I have probably been evaluated four to five times. The last evaluation took place some time last year. At that time my immediate supervisor, the assistant deputy chair of the Vancouver area, asked me if I would consider being nominated for reappointment. I told him I wasn't sure but to please put my name in. After that, I wasn't concerned with the process. I don't know what transpired after that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Have you taken part in the fast-track process?
[English]
Ms Nee: According to the statistics, I participated in a few in 1991 and one in 1995.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In 1992, you made 24 favourable decisions and 103 negative decisions. Can you explain to us why?
[English]
Ms Nee: I cannot because I look at each individual case that comes in front of me and I evaluate the evidence in its totality. Each case is different from the others. No one case is exactly the same as another. That's the only basis upon which I evaluate them. I look at every single piece of evidence that's submitted in support of the claim.
I do not keep statistics myself.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Yes, but...
[English]
The Chair: We'll come back.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome. I'm pleased to see that your record of decisions seems to be more balanced than many other records I've seen. But I want to ask you the questions I asked other witnesses who came before us.
When you are considering the information, do you raise the issue of criminality? Do you have the opportunity to ask the individuals whether they have committed criminal activities in either the country of origin or since they left their country of origin but before they reached Canada?
Ms Nee: We have a so-called personal information form that each claimant must fill out and submit to the board before commencement of the hearing. There is a standard question in there regarding criminality and whether the person has committed any crimes. From that the panel or board member can ascertain whether the person has committed any criminality.
Second, when exclusionary issues are involved, the minister's representative is called in to participate. Criminality can fall within the exclusionary ambit, so the minister's representative would come in and question the claimant on those allegations.
Ms Meredith: Do you in British Columbia ever have one-person panels?
Ms Nee: Yes, at times.
Ms Meredith: Do you sit on any one-person panels?
Ms Nee: Yes, I have quite a few times.
Ms Meredith: And there doesn't seem to be a problem? I have heard in other areas that when a person has a record such as yours, the lawyers request two members in order to benefit the applicants. Do you find that kind of thing happening with you?
Ms Nee: No, I don't.
Ms Meredith: Okay.
.1655
Ms Nee: At the beginning of my work with the board I enjoyed sitting with other members because of the intellectual exchange and the sharing of information. But as time goes on - I've been with the board for seven years - I feel very comfortable sitting as a single member. In fact I find it challenging to sit as a single member.
Ms Meredith: I understand that Vancouver has a large number of individuals making applications. In the earlier days of the IRB, British Columbia had a much lower rate of acceptance than the rest of the country - substantially so. I understand that appointments to the board were made to balance that, to bring the acceptance rate in British Columbia up to that in the rest of the country.
Obviously you were brought in early on in the IRB. As an IRB member, do you think pressures are put on you to give positive decisions to keep that balance, to keep that record up?
Ms Nee: If there is any pressure, it is not from the IRB management. Counsels and NGOs - particularly counsels - would bring on that pressure because they have the interests of their clients at stake. I find it quite natural that they try to put pressure on in favour of their claimants.
Ms Meredith: Do you have the ability - I'm asking this because of something a previous witness said - to cross-examine, to clarify the legitimacy...that wasn't the word they used, but I can't remember the other one. Do you think you have the opportunity to make sure the individual applicant is credible, or do you rely on this clause that allows the claimant to be positive if there is any question?
Ms Nee: The presiding member of a panel controls the conduct of the hearing. Should I be presiding I certainly can or should control the hearing to how I want to conduct it. In that sense I don't feel I lack opportunities to canvass the credibility of the claimant.
Ms Meredith: The other individual mentioned that in about 25% of his cases the benefit of the doubt was given to the claimant. When would you use that benefit-of-the-doubt provision?
Ms Nee: When there is no hard evidence to justify the other way.
Ms Meredith: So if there is no hard evidence that this individual is misrepresenting the truth, you would give them the benefit of the doubt.
Ms Nee: I should be more clear. In that case there is no benefit of the doubt because there is no hard evidence to go the other way. I have not used that very often. It's very hard for me to talk in specifics.
Ms Meredith: So you find that you do not use benefit of the doubt very often.
Ms Nee: I can't comment on the percentage. I might have, but I can't put it down to 25%, 10% or 5%.
Ms Meredith: So it's not something you find you are always falling back on.
Ms Nee: No.
Ms Meredith: So you're quite able to determine whether the applicant is credible or not. You don't need to use the benefit of the doubt in a large way.
Ms Nee: I don't often use it.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, I'm pleased to hear that.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna: I too want to go to the statistics a little bit. The caseload numbers seem to jump somewhat. Does that have to do with the particular part of the world...? What area are you responsible for? Are you responsible for just general, or do you specialize in a certain region?
.1700
Ms Nee: For about six and a half years there was no specialty in our region because of its size. For the last six to eight months we have divided into two teams. I have chosen to be on the Asian team, so I deal with countries in the Asian region.
Ms Minna: I'm looking at the fluctuation of the caseload. Was 1989 a partial year because of your appointment?
Ms Nee: Yes, it was a partial year. I didn't come on board until May and also there's a training period.
Ms Minna: But even when I go from 1990 to 1995, in 1995 it dips to 71 and then in 1991 it's as high as 151. The range is quite broad and I'm wondering what that is due to. I'm not sure. Is it just that you had more complicated cases one year than the other? Do the types of cases take a lot longer? The span is huge, from 71 in 1995 to 151 in 1991.
Ms Nee: First of all, I have to echo my colleagues' earlier comment that I do not believe -
Ms Minna: Sorry, maybe I shouldn't have asked that.
Ms Nee: - these statistics are entirely correct.
Secondly, there are a number of factors. It could have been that I took no vacation in one year and took more in the other -
Ms Minna: You took it all in 1995. All right, that's possible. I was just curious.
On the other side of the coin, as my colleague was asking, the majority if not all of the appointments we've met with to date have had generally more acceptance and a lower number of negatives. You're quite the opposite. In the main, you have a very large number of rejections and a very small number of acceptances. I'm wondering why that would be, this huge divergence. It's not necessarily a positive. I see it as the opposite. I'm just curious why there is a jump in this particular case. It's different from everyone else we've met with.
The Chair: Given that the statistics are being questioned, I'll let the witness answer, but....
The validity of the statistics is being questioned by the witnesses. As I said earlier, and I want to put it on the record again, these statistics were provided by the IRB.
Ms Minna: We understand that.
The Chair: Please go on. If you want to -
Ms Minna: I just wondered if the witness had a....
Ms Nee: I can't explain the statistics. I'm not a person who does my cases by looking at statistics. I can only explain how I interpret the definition and apply the law in each case as the evidence is presented.
Ms Minna: I have a final question as a point of clarification. You know what types of cases, more or less, your colleagues may get. Do you tend to get more difficult cases? I'm curious to see if there's a difference in the type of caseload you would receive compared with any other colleague.
Ms Nee: I have never discussed with my supervisor how he assigns the cases, so I cannot tell you whether I get cases with more complexities or more simple cases.
The Chair: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: I am not sure if I missed something earlier, so you may rule me out of order. I don't know.
The Chair: I think I've abused my power today according to some people, so I'll try to be....
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Nunez tabled two affidavits and then we got into a discussion of whether these were technically complaints or not, but we didn't get into a discussion of the allegations. I'm wondering if we're going to give Ms Nee an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Is there some litigation involved here, or is it appropriate to ask Ms Nee for a response?
The Chair: I believe the witness answered, but you can answer again.
Ms Nee: Can you ask your question again? What are you looking for in terms of a response?
Mr. Cullen: In the affidavits, which I think you have in front of you, there are certain allegations made about your conduct. Have you responded to the allegations? Would you like to respond to the allegations? Or is it a matter of litigation and you would not respond?
Ms Nee: I don't feel that I have to answer, but I will. I have already had a discussion withMr. Burke regarding what took place.
.1705
First of all, notes were passed in terms of procedural issues. Sometimes members want to make suggestions in terms of how a hearing should proceed or what points to note. I remember that notes were passed between us in terms of moving the hearing along, because that particular hearing had taken four half days, and the claim itself, I remember, I didn't find particularly complex. So we both wanted to move the hearing along expeditiously, which is required in our performance.
In terms of the snickering, neither myself.... Well, I shouldn't speak for Mr. Burke, but I have no recollection of that allegation.
Mr. Cullen: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I'd like to come back to these statistics. I don't know if they are accurate but even if they are not accurate, I don't quite see the logic or the consistency of your decisions. In 1989, you accepted almost all applications except for two. In 1990, they were about equally divided. But in 1991, 1992 and 1993, you turned down the great majority of applications. Starting in 1994, the situation changed and today, for the first quarter of the year, it's 10 to 9.
I'd be interested in having an explanation because this is the first file I've seen where I can discern no logic or consistency. In the case of the other commissioners, we can see that they tend to go in either one direction or the other but in your case I can't see any common thread.
[English]
Ms Nee: I think that's because the cases that come in front of me are not consistent in terms of the evidence, and I evaluate each case on its own merits. I have no control as to what cases come in front of me or the evidence to be adduced.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Strange that some years the cases are easier and other years they are always more difficult. I haven't noted that in any of the other files and we've seem many of them here.
[English]
Ms Nee: But I have to note that for the 1989 statistics, I believe - although my recollection is not perfect - there are errors. I don't believe it's two negative and 47 positive. I think I'm fairly certain of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Although this may not be to your liking, madam Chair, I'd like to state publicly for the record that I would like to have the correct statistics for the three files we have reviewed here today.
The Chair: It has nothing to do with my liking it, Mr. Nunez. I never said such a thing and I even said the opposite, I believe, as Chair. We asked the appropriate authorities to provide us with the statistics. I am not responsible if those present, that is the witnesses and the counsel accompanying them, are not responsible for the statistics presented to the committee. Your request was already taken into account and we will put in another request so that next time the statistics are more up to date and more accurate.
I don't want us to keep on repeating the same thing. This has been going on for an hour and a half. Do you have another question?
Mr. Nunez: Yes. Have you been called upon to make a judgement, under the directives of the IRBC, on women's claims based on sexual discrimination?
[English]
Ms Nee: Yes, I have.
Mr. Nunez: How many days?
Ms Nee: Again, I have not kept statistics as to how many I have made using the guideline.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What are the factors you take into account in such cases?
[English]
Ms Nee: That's a legal opinion. I'm not certain whether I should answer that. But if I -
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: There are IRBC standards that are supposed to be known by all commissioners. In any case, that was what we were told by the committee chair.
[English]
The Chair: I think what Mr. Nunez is asking, if you'll permit me, is whether you use the guidelines and in what way you use the guidelines. I think it's a legitimate question.
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
.1710
Ms Nee: Yes, I do use the guidelines. Personally, I do not find it any different from the normal steps I take in evaluating any other claims. I take the same steps.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: If the previous answer was made on the advice of your counsel, I do not think it is sound. Yes yes, because I don't know whether...
The Chair: Mr. Nunez!
[English]
You're out of order. I mean, what was said, you're interpreting what was said.
[Translation]
Is there another question?
Mr. Nunez: How long to do you take to make a decision?
[English]
Ms Nee: If I may boast, I am one of the ones in Vancouver who have a fairly short turnaround time in terms of rendering or giving written decisions. Of course, a decision from the bench is immediate, but in terms of written decision, I have a very short turnaround time.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Is it your practice, like your colleague, to sit three days a week and deliberate two days a week or do you sometimes sit five days a week? How do you do the job over there?
[English]
Ms Nee: We sit five days a week for two weeks, then we get five so-called reserve days, but out of those five reserve days sometimes we have professional development. Sometimes we have administrative meetings or very often out of those five days at least two of them are taken up.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: And who recommended you re-appointment?
[English]
Ms Nee: My immediate supervisor. I assume he would have to have made the recommendation for it to go further.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Were you called by the Fairweather Commission?
[English]
Ms Nee: No. I'm not aware that they call existing members for the purpose of evaluating whether they should be reappointed.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You are not familiar with this committee?
[English]
Ms Nee: I'm aware of the committee, but to my knowledge they interview potential new members. I haven't heard that they call existing members to be interviewed for reappointment.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
If there are any other questioners, I'll allow them to continue. Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: I, unlike Mr. Nunez, appreciate the fact that you would appear to be taking the concerns of Canadians and the protection of Canada in your decisions and I am pleased to see that there is a balance.
I would like to ask you if you find that consultants and immigration lawyers respect the process of the IRB hearings. Do you find that you get cooperation from consultants who are representing the applicants, or do you find you are faced with concerns of misrepresentation?
Ms Nee: I think there are good consultants and there are inefficient consultants, just as there are good lawyers and there are bad lawyers. I think the only concern I have is should the consultant become unethical is there a regulatory body to deal with ethics questions in their performance.
Ms Meredith: Do you have any way of dealing with individuals who you feel are unethical? Do you have any way of bringing to the attention of the IRB those persons you may be concerned about?
Ms Nee: In terms of immigration consultants?
Ms Meredith: Immigration consultants, representatives appearing with applicants.
Ms Nee: If I have any concerns I usually bring them to my immediate supervisor.
Ms Meredith: Are you aware of whether anything is done on that behalf?
Ms Nee: I personally have not made any formal complaint to my supervisor.
Ms Meredith: Okay. Thank you.
.1715
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Mr. Nunez?
Thank you very much, Ms Nee, and good luck in your new functions.
[Translation]
I'd also like to thank Mr. Roger Cantin who is with us today.
[English]
Thank you, everyone. There's a steering committee meeting tomorrow, and we will be discussing Mr. Nunez's motion before the committee. Also, there's no meeting on Thursday for the members. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned.