Member Beckow
Archangel Michael has been bringing home to me the importance of ensuring that I’m an independent decision-maker, especially in areas of financial stewardship.
In my June 9, 2017 reading, he acknowledged that my time at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada was designed to introduce me to the practice of independent decision-making and to the valuing of justice.
At the IRB when I was there (1998-2006), the decision-makers were called “Members.” We were denied contact with the public. We were to be impartial ourselves and to allow no one to influence our decisions.
We were allegedly sheltered from the political process, but, because we were reappointed every four years, we were in effect at the whim of the political regime – at least for six months of every four years.
But for three and a half, we could forget about the politicians.
I and my colleagues interpreted and administered a section of the then Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
Sitting in front me was a person appealing to me to let them into my country and telling me that they faced major harm at home for a reason covered in IRPA.
They expected to face Canadian justice, which in my case, meant:
- A fair hearing with an unimpeded opportunity to state their case,
- in a system that provided them with financial support until trial, fair appeal and judicial oversight,
- before an official trained in the law,
- who, after a review of all the evidence before them and upon due reflection, uninfluenced by any external source, gave their impartial, factually-based decision.
I had to be independent. If I showed by word or deed that I served an outside interest, my decision could be overturned by the federal court on a presumption of bias.
Ensuring that all of these standards were observed was only one facet of my job. If I told you the mountain of material I had to read to decide a case, you might fall dead in your tracks.
Country conditions, precedent, leading cases, statutes, international conventions, procedures, IRB decisions, discussions of legal points, etc.
All my decisions were recorded. Oral decisions were accompanied by a transcript.
The rights of the refugee claimant were protected at every go. I just assumed that was the way it was in all refugee-accepting countries. Well, of course, it isn’t.
I was fortunate to have been trained in one of the best legal systems I think this planet has ever produced. Fair, protective, and impartial.
***
May I say more? Because this subject is so important.
In doing this work, I represented several interests.
I represented the interests of my country which did not want me to let in torturers and murderers and servants of dictators, etc. I was their line of protection, their border guard.
Remember that, unless overturned by the federal courts above me, my decision was binding. The politicians were bound to respect it.
I was not to be swayed by political or public opinion. When I’m facing a Peruvian torturer lying to me to get in or a young boy manifestly trafficked in a shipload of refugees that the Canadian public does not want let in, I need to know that the system and the law have my back when I make an unpopular decision (unpopular with someone).
I also served the interests of justice, which meant the interests of the claimant sitting in front of me. He or she expected fairness from me. For some people, it might be the first time they ever received fair treatment from a judicial official.
OK, no external sources, but no one ever told me not to consult an inner source. That would have been too much and I would not have joined such a system.
In fact everyone was tacitly expected not only to do that but to make their decisions in accordance with their inner sources – conscience, guidance, the heart – once the factual requirements had been satisfied.
This was the standard I was asked to live up to and I thank heaven for this invaluable training.
(Concluded in Part 2, tomorrow.)