Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, we're at 7:35. Thank you, Ms. Grewal. That completes our seven-minute round.

We'll now go to our five-minute rounds and begin with Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi, go ahead, please.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Jobin, you mentioned a delay between the time the case is filed and the time it comes to the board member. We have had a variance in the timeframe. I believe it went down. At one point it was quite short. As the vacancies increase, of course, it takes longer. Would that be your experience?

[Michel Jobin]

When I spoke about delays, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the delay between the time when a person arrives in the country and submits his or her claim and the delay until the claim is ready to be heard. Of course, the number of members of the board vary. Some leave, and others arrive. Personally, I have no comment to make about appointments. That has nothing at all to do with me. Even if there were a full complement of members present, there would always be delays because files must be documented, people have to submit exhibits, we have to send out notices of hearings, and so on. Otherwise, I have no comment to add about the delays as regards the number of board members present or missing.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

You specialize in Middle East hearings, and you have quite a high rejection rate. What I would like to know is how your rejection rate compares with that of other centres: Vancouver, Toronto, or wherever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Could you repeat that question, Mr. Telegdi? I'm sorry, I was preoccupied.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It's very simple. Mr. Jobin has been a member for a period of time. Over that time, he certainly has established a record. He has a fairly high rejection rate for people applying from the Middle East region. What I'm trying to understand is how that compares with that of other centres, such as Toronto, Vancouver, and what have you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you wish to answer that question, Mr. Jobin.?

[Michel Jobin]

In answer to the member's question, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that I have worked on Middle East cases for quite some time, more specifically those from North Africa. In Montreal, we assigned cases from North Africa and the Middle East to the same team. At the time, I was hearing mostly claims from Algeria and Tunisia.

Each case is different. When I hear a claim from Algeria, I take into account the evidence presented to me. My colleagues in Vancouver could hear a claim from Algeria and take into account the evidence presented to them. I make a decision one way or the other at the end of the hearing. Personally, I look at the evidence presented to me. I comply with the various sections of the act and the decisions made by superior courts. I have no other comments to make about the acceptance or rejection rates on files I hear.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I were a member, I would certainly be interested in knowing how similar cases turn out in other regions. It's quite well known that in some places there is quite a variance.

I wonder, since Mr. Guilbault is here, if he could provide the committee with that information on the acceptance and rejection rates in various centres, in terms of the country, for the same groupings. I think that would be useful information for the committee to have. I would request that the information be made available.

Mr. Chair, we have sentencing across the country. That's the criminal justice system. We expect similar kinds of outcomes for cases. I think that's one level of challenge the board has, particularly when you don't have an appeals system, as we have in the court system. Obviously, criminal trials have appeals, which helps to set a standard. In this case, we're lacking that. So I think the committee would benefit very much from that information.

Mr. Guilbault, perhaps you could make it available to the committee.

Thank you very much. Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Go ahead, Mr. Guilbault.

[François Guilbault]

I would like to make another comment about the acceptance rates. The question comes up often. We would be pleased to provide the committee with the acceptance rates for each country and the variations for various regions, because we do have those figures. I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that this may be one of the least reliable measurement tools. Actually, I would stress that the best guarantee of a good decision are the reasons in support of the decision, not a figure taken randomly for a particular region. And as Mr. Jobin said, each case is different, and a good decision has nothing to do with the region or the country of origin of the claimant. We are dealing with people, not with countries. We have to listen to what every individual has to say, and disregard what the country represents to us.

I have had an opportunity to make some comparisons, because the acceptance rate was varying depending on the region. I noticed that an important factor in the variation had to do with the fact that the history of the various regions was completely different. For example, in Montreal refugee claimants from Kazakhstan were rejected, while they were accepted in Toronto. When we analyzed this on a case-by-case basis, we realized that the history was completely different in each region.

So you have to be extremely careful when you talk about acceptance rates. They are a very poor reflection of what happens in the hearing room.

[Anna Maria Silvestri Corriveau]

I would like to add something, Mr. Chairman.

We have to be very cautious here. Recently, for example, I have had to deal with a number of cases from Algeria. We are not talking about the Algeria of seven or eight years ago, we are talking about the Algeria of today. So we have to be very careful. Were these decisions made five, six, seven or eight years ago, or were they made six months ago? The situation in Algeria has changed a great deal. So that is what I mean when I say we have to be cautious.

The rate varies depending on the situation in the country as well. When the situation in the country changes, the rate changes too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I will allow Mr. Telegdi a very brief point of clarification that I think he's interested in here.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, the committee can decide whether it's relevant. We've got cases...we're hearing about Algeria today in Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver, so we can make those comparisons, and I think the comparison would be useful, because as I said before, we have absolutely no appeal. We've got no standardization of decision-making and no accountability, quite frankly, outside of the few cases that get to the Federal Court of Appeal, so I think it would be useful for the committee to have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

In our five-minute rounds we generally go back and forth between this side and that side. Are there any questions from that side?

Ms. Grewal, please go ahead.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Jobin on the renewal of your term.

We hear stories about the large number of asylum applications that come from the Refugee Protection Division, but how many applications would you hear in the course of a year, and how many claimants have asked the Federal Court to review your decisions? Also, could you please describe your public service and community involvement, and how they relate to your functions as a board member?

[Michel Jobin]

I will answer the member's first question. Our workload in Montreal is 16 cases a month. That is the number of cases we must hear each month. There may be postponements or sometimes some cases are more complicated. Then it becomes difficult to give an exact figure, but, generally speaking, the workload is 16 cases. However, if a claim is more complex, we will spend a day or even two hearing it. We must always look at this figure with some caution, but generally speaking, 16 cases are assigned to each board member.

With respect to the member's second question, I must say that as a decision maker on an administrative tribunal, it is my duty not to get involved in any association, because this could be harmful to me, mislead me or influence me in some way or another. I must remain as impartial as possible in all the decisions I make. I am not involved in any charitable organization nor in any other organization in my community.

I hope that answers your questions, Ms. Grewal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We now go to Madam Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to actually share my time with my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to back up a little.

Ms. Corriveau said there was no difference between the decisions made by men and those made by women. I am not in complete agreement on that. I think that even two men would not make the same decision. People are never 100% objective and impartial. We interpret the act, in my opinion. The act is there to be interpreted. So the decision always depends on the individual making it.

Mr. Jobin said that when a case was closed, it was closed. How can we say that? We are not talking about a hospital; we are not talking about numbers. A board member may make a mistake. And yet his or her decision is final.

New rules have been in place for a while now. Formerly, there were two board members, and the benefit of the doubt must have played a role in the decisions that were handed down. Now you hear the cases alone: you have a huge responsibility.

Are you getting more comprehensive, longer training programs? How can you say that there are no errors? We are talking about human beings, not animals. I feel a little uncomfortable about all this.

[Michel Jobin]

To follow up on your statements, sir, let me say that the file is finalized, which means that I have made a decision. After that, the individual is free to request a judicial review of my decision by the Federal Court. In addition, there are humanitarian factors like the pre-removal risk assessment that the honourable member mentioned earlier. There are other stages in the procedure that follow a member's decision.

The legislation was amended a few years ago. In fact, there used to be two board members on the bench. The current legislation provides for only one member on the bench and three in exceptional cases.

After the new legislation was adopted, we received training. The legislator had decided that from now on, asylum claims would be heard by a single board member. Please do not think that after a positive or negative decision, the process is over. There are further stages following a commissioner's decision, including the two elements mentioned by the honourable member: the pre-removal risk assessment and the humanitarian considerations. Moreover, one can appeal to the Federal Court if there is an obviously unreasonable issue in fact or in law.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

All right. May I add something?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Yes.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

When the act was amended and the number of members was reduced to one, a right to appeal should have been provided. This right to appeal is not yet in force. We have to go to Federal Court. This would be a useful mechanism to implement, because decisions can be arbitrary or mistaken. I am entitled to appeal court decisions. Why do asylum seekers not have this right? They are human beings, after all.