Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 22nd, 2018

[Asiya Jennifer Hirji]

Absolutely.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

—and there is a human contact element in there.

[Asiya Jennifer Hirji]

Sure. I think that is a great idea.

It's such a rare instance to have an entire hearing that is recorded. It's not a transcript. It's an actual recording, which is available to the reviewing member. If a complaint is well founded, I think it is incumbent upon the decision-maker who is reviewing the complaint to review the CD in its entirety, because you can hear the intonations there and so on.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

This one may be for Ms. Roushan.

To some degree my colleague Ms. Kwan has already asked this, but when it was brought, I believe, to the acting chair, Monsieur Aterman said, “We consulted with stakeholders. We sought their input.” You have stated that your organization was consulted, but you're stating that perhaps the concerns you had weren't addressed.

Can you elaborate on how the consultations could have been better in terms of gathering information for a newer system or a better complaint system?

[Nastaran Roushan]

It shouldn't have started with, “This is what we're already probably going to implement. Give us your comments.” That's not really consultation. It's a facade of consultation.

If the IRB is going to make these very drastic changes, they need to have a complete discussion with the different groups that represent refugee lawyers.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Do you think what he's doing is a step toward a better system, or do you think it will still be flawed with the current process that they are implementing?

[Nastaran Roushan]

It is absolutely flawed. The chairperson is in an inherent position of conflict. Why would the chairperson admit that somebody under his or her watch did something wrong? As you said, sir, you're a member of the law society. If I were working for somebody, my employer would never admit to the law society that I was incompetent because then their name is also on the line.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

What do you think the next step should be in this regard? We're doing a report, clearly, but what do you suggest the next step should be?

[Nastaran Roushan]

I don't know if this has to be done through regulation, but we do need an independent panel of individuals for the hiring process, for CLEs and training, and for complaints, because the management is just not doing its job.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Do you think the current method of Governor in Council-appointed IRB members, including public servants, is appropriate? Do you have any suggestions as to what the selection process should be?

[Nastaran Roushan]

I think our colleagues will have more to say on the hiring process, but certainly members should be required to take a substantive test on refugee immigration law and human rights administrative procedures.

Again this is rumour, because it happened before I started practising in this area, but I believe that they did that when they initially switched from GICs to public servants, and from what I've heard, so many GIC appointments were failing the test that it was embarrassing, so they took away the substantive portion.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you. I'm going to pass the rest of my time to Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Ms. Hirji, in the last minute of your testimony you talked about wide variances in decision approvals. I have in front of me information that one judge designated 54% of all claims as having no credible basis, and another judge had 28.6% of cases with that designation.

In your opinion, do you think there should be an oversight on this?

[Asiya Jennifer Hirji]

Yes, “no credible basis” is a very legalistic determination, which I think, as Ms. Kwan discussed in a previous sitting, really limits a claimant's access to the federal courts, access to a stay, etc. Certainly there's no doubt, as Nas suggested, that the test for refugee protection is very legal also, so it ought not to matter to a very significant degree who an individual appears in front of. The same goes for no credible basis. I think variances in statistics are at least cause for concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's it. Thank you.

It's a five-minute round; I think we'll have time for Mr. Maguire and Mr. Whelan.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you very much for coming and providing the testimony that you have today.

Ms. Roushan, I wanted to first ask you about the process. I believe in your testimony you indicated that information you wanted was going to be forthcoming from the IRB chairperson for the case that you had, but that decision was changed later on, and no additional information was given in your case, in your situation.

Looking at the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, I see they've got some pretty wide powers in regard to that role, from what I can pick up. They can review these complaints and make recommendations and they can do a lot of things. They can dismiss a complaint. They can refuse to deal with it. They can refer it to the director of the Office of the Integrity Commissioner for investigation, or they can just refer it to another person, including an external investigator.

How often does that happen, that latter one—going to an external investigator?

[Nastaran Roushan]

This new complaint process just started in December. I think there have only been a handful of complaints filed under the new process, and from what I've heard, none have been referred to an independent external investigator, but again, it's an opaque black box, so I wouldn't know.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

For one of those areas, it also says that a complaint can be addressed through another process. Can you elaborate on what that process would be?

[Nastaran Roushan]

I'm assuming they mean some sort of alternative dispute resolution process, and I don't know how relevant, if at all, that sort of process would be in these situations. You don't sit down the decision-maker with a claimant and come to a resolution about how unfair or incompetent they are in your proceeding.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. You were quite explicit, I think, and clear. Often there's a lack of competency in regard to the members who are being appointed, or their work, at least, and they have a responsibility to get up to speed on what's happening, from what I've read.

You've recommended a three-member panel. Can you elaborate on their roles and responsibilities, and how they'd be picked?

[Nastaran Roushan]

It would be similar to the process for JPs, which is that individuals are picked and put on a roster. The chairperson would be presented with these individuals before they're approved on the roster, but then we don't think that they should be ranked. I know that this was a situation years ago with a certain government. Someone was getting a list of individuals who were ranked, and this individual was not picking the most qualified individual.

Therefore, it wouldn't be a ranked system. It would be a list of people we think would be competent for a potential roster. The chairperson would select, and then this roster would be made up, and then every time there was a complaint or a hiring decision was made, three members would be picked from that roster.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Ms. Hirji, I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly.

[Asiya Jennifer Hirji]

Yes.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

You mentioned something—I believe it was in your testimony—about an initial vetting process.

[Asiya Jennifer Hirji]

Yes.