document

The Toronto Star
OPINION, Wednesday, August 11, 1993, p. A19

Refugee from racism on the refugee board

By Sam Ifejika

AN OPPORTUNITY to serve Canada! That was how I saw it in March of 1989 when the phone rang from Ottawa offering me a position on the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I felt well qualified. Background? Law, a Ph.D., widely travelled, writer, author, journalist, book-publisher, human rights activist, former manager of Ontario's Race Relations Division and extensive community involvement.

But in a few months much would go wrong because I was determined to serve with conscience and dignity - not simply as a "black man."

The signs began on Aug. 4, 1989. An "assistant deputy chairperson" (ADC, as they are called), had come for lunch. We met her at the members' lounge, with tales of our adjustment.

Like others, I said we didn't have much to do yet.

She turned on me impatiently: "Anybody who doesn't like it here can resign."

I held my peace; we all did. Later, we discussed the incident with the co-ordinator. This manner of dealing with a Governor-General-in-Council appointee forced me to reflect: "Know your place," she seemed to be telling me.

By an accident of history, this ADC is now gone. She was asked to leave, struck by the same sword of intolerance she had wielded so fiercely.

Stories abound that she called black refugee claimants "niggers" and "bastards." This was confirmed by a former board member before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Labor, Employment and Immigration.

In the end, my work situation led to the difficult decision to resign from the board on Nov. 19, 1992. I could not carry on in the face of blatant racism (which I am not used to facing or tolerating), bias against refugee claimants and inaction and arrogance of public officials. Human rights issues and the letter and spirit of important United Nations conventions were being brazenly violated before me.

I had started keeping record of the board's problems in 1989, long before I resigned. I tried to discuss them at all levels with managers and colleagues. At meetings, I was forthright beyond the norm. I wrote letters outlining my concerns. I talked to people outside the board.

As early as the summer of 1990, I questioned what I was doing on the board, feeling the situation was hopeless. But I felt I should stay on - to fight for what is right, to not yield to injustice and racism.

I reported racism and bias against refugee claimants, and interference by managers. Given my background, I should know racist acts. Besides, acceptance of the board's methods and refugee approval rate cannot mean acceptance of individual acts of racism.

Yet, whenever wrongdoings are exposed, the board resorts to public relations. Then chairperson Gordon Fairweather met with the editorial boards of major Toronto newspapers in response to a storm of bad publicity in 1992. Rather than lobby the media, why not let them do their work, to look in by themselves, unfettered by private or institutional interest?

For much of 1992, the board told the public that, administratively, the backlog in refugee cases would end Dec. 31, 1992. But a meeting of senior board, immigration and adjudication officials in February, 1992, had concluded that the backlog cases could come forward until Dec. 31, 1993.

Officials aimed for what would be "politically most palatable" and tried to look efficient. Inevitably, backlog cases are still being heard.

It is with the same arrogance that managers have brushed off accusations that they tend to prefer negative decisions and that members have been pressured for this reason.

This allegation was made in the past by different board members and more recently has been supported by some board members in Montreal. The practice continues even today, in spite of the board's open denials.

Minority board members generally feel insecure; many, therefore, have a high negative decision rate. Most other colleagues rely more on their connections with managers and the political establishment and flaunt the certainty of their status.

In May, 1992, out of 10 people in Ontario reappointed to a two-year term, only one was a visible minority. And this in a province that harbors half the country's minorities.

Therefore, just to stay on, some ethnic and visible minority members publicly tolerate racism and unequal treatment while privately protesting their experiences.

Some deny or rationalize their attitude. In the name of upward mobility, they do or condone things that negate the interest of refugee claimants. An upwardly mobile minority board member once told me - matter of factly - that an ADC berated members for "shaking hands with those niggers."

Many minorities were appointed to the board in the early '80s for political reasons - to shore up the government's ethnic support. Their current attrition is happening - again for political reasons - to win ultra-conservative support in western Canada.

And most of those who control immigration and refugee policies in Ottawa and determine the board's direction, come from non-ethnic parts of Canada.

There is much covering up going on at the board. It relates to issues of fundamental process, such as bias against refugee claimants.

If the board really wants to answer the allegations against it, it should embrace an independent, third-party public inquiry.

This, I will continue to fight for. And so will many groups working in this field. For the issues are that important and the board is a public trust of no mean importance.

Sam Ifejika is a former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Illustration(s):

Photo Sam Ifejika

Subject(s) - The Toronto Star : Immigration and Refugee Board
Edition: AM
Length: Long, 713 words

Doc. : news?9930811·TS?3834