[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 10, 1996
.1634 
[English]
The Chair: I'd like to begin with Standing Orders 110 and 111. We are gathered today for the Order-in-Council appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Welcome, everyone.
.1635
Witnesses, I'm sorry for the delay, but we had a vote in the House of Commons. We're happy to have you here before the committee.
We have a vote at 5:30, so we're limited in terms of time. Yesterday we had twenty minutes for questions to each of the witnesses, so we'll do the same today.
[Translation]
If Mr. Nunez is ready, we shall begin.
We have with us today Mr. Emmanuel Didier, who works at the Refugee Division. Welcome.
Before beginning, I would like to remind the members of the committee of the ruling concerning our examination in this committee.
[English]
That ruling was made by the former Speaker of the House and I'd like to quote it again just to refresh our memories about why we're here today:
- It is the opinion of the Chair that the committee's powers of examination are narrowly limited to
the qualifications and competency to perform the duties of the post, and questions in committee
and reports thereon ought to be strictly relevant to such qualifications, competency and
performance of duties.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Good afternoon, Mr. Didier, I looked at your curriculum vitae carefully. To say the least, it is impressive.
You are a great lawyer, but I do not see much evidence of work or experience relevant to immigration or to refugee status. Could you comment on that?
Mr. Emmanuel Didier (Refugee Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much for your kind words, Mr. Nunez. My interest in refugee-related issues goes back a number of years. This is not the sort of thing you write in a curriculum vitae; rather these are experiences which you actually live.
For example, many years ago when I was a young man of 17 or 18, I worked not far from here in the Maniwaki region at the camp of Marie-Paule Lafontaine, who was working at the time for the Quebec Immigration Department to help immigrant integrate.
We worked with groups of people, half of whom were immigrants and half from disadvantaged areas of Montreal, such as Saint-Henri et la petite Bourgogne.
From 1975 to 1979 when I was studying law at McGill University, I had the good fortune to take a very interesting course on poverty law given by Professor Irwin Cotler, who also taught me the basics of public international law.
At that time I carried out a research project, which was the first of its kind in Canada and in Quebec, on the problems of poor immigrant women in Quebec. Therefore, my interest in immigration goes back a long way. I have retained my interest in these issues throughout my career, perhaps somewhat indirectly but still in a way fundamentally related to immigration law.
For example, when doing graduate legal studies, my speciality was international law, international public law and international private law, areas which are basic to immigration as regards territorial jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of a state to allow or refuse to allow individuals on its territory.
In the area of private international law, there are issues such as the status of individuals, citizenship, nationality and conflicting legislation concerning nationality and marriage.
Mr. Nunez: How did you choose to seek appointment to the IRB? Who recommended you?
Mr. Didier: Many people recommended me, including the Clerk of the International Court of Justice, my former chief, Mr. Valencia-Ospina. I was also recommended by Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache of the Court of Appeal of New-Brunswick.
Mr. Nunez: Do you have any family working here?
.1640
Mr. Didier: Could you clarify that?
Mr. Nunez: Working for liberal Members of Parliament, for example?
Mr. Didier: No. I know that the question might be out of order, but I can give a clear and unambiguous answer. The answer is no.
Mr. Nunez: You are saying that the Liberal Party played no role in your appointment?
Mr. Didier: The federal government was responsible for my appointment. In order to give a clear answer to your question, I would, if I may, like to refer you to a discussion which took place in November 1994, in which you stated:
- ...it is our obligation to check whether the appointments were made on the basis of competence
and in a non-partisan way.
Mr. Nunez: Did you meet the members of the Fairweather Commission?
Mr. Didier: No, I met Mr. Frecker; he asked me questions and had me do a test, and I had an interview with him. But I do not think...
Mr. Nunez: You were not recommended by the commission involved in selecting candidates for appointment to the Board?
Mr. Didier: I went through the process required of me.
Mr. Nunez: Where did you sent your curriculum vitae, your application?
Mr. Didier: Do I really have to answer that question because you are...
Mr. Nunez: We have a chairperson here, and it is not up to you to characterize questions asked of you.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez is right. Mr. Didier, you can answer the question or ask the legal counsel accompanying you whether you have the right not to respond.
Mr. Didier: That is not the problem. The problem is that I would like to know what exactlyMr. Nunez is trying to get at.
Mr. Nunez: I am asking questions because that is our responsibility. If I could go further, it would be difficult.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, would you like to ask your question again? This will be your last question. We will then move on to Ms Meredith.
Mr. Nunez: I was asking you what was the role played by the Fairweather Commission in your appointment. Since you were not interviewed by then, did you go directly to the minister or to the IRB? What was the process involved in your appointment?
Mr. Didier: I was simply interviewed by Mr. Frecker after sending a curriculum vitae. I believe I went through the normal process.
The Chair: Perhaps the witness does not know what the Fairweather Commission is,Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Didier: That's right. Excuse me, it's just that I am not familiar with the Fairweather Commission.
The Chair: Mr. Fairweather is the Chairman, but there are other members who interview potential candidates.
Mr. Didier: I see. Excuse me, but my knowledge of the process is very limited.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I must say that I am very impressed with your résumé, Mr. Didier. Perhaps it's not fair to say this, but you seem to be overqualified for the position. I understand from your responses toMr. Nunez that you were encouraged by others to put your name forward, but I would like to know from you what your reason is for taking this position. What motivates you to sit on the IRB?
Mr. Didier: First of all, thank you very much for this compliment. I've never in my life or in my career thought that one can be overqualified. One is never overqualified, because one always needs new skills, new trades, new abilities, and new knowledge. On every day of my career I learn, and I learn in all areas of knowledge, in the areas of language, facts, history, law - everything.
.1645
This activity, if I can characterize it as such - to use a neutral term - is the accomplishment of an old dream of mine. When I was at McGill University I specialized in public law, which means public international law and public national law. I received the prize for being the best student in public law at McGill University. This prize was attributed to me because of my excellent results in the domain of administrative law.
I always had in my mind, directly or indirectly, the hypothesis of working as a member of a court or a tribunal, whether an administrative tribunal or a judicial tribunal, because I see my activities as a continuum and not as a planned straight clear career in one area. To give you an example, I started with the studies of public and private international law. Then, because of circumstances, I went into legal translation.
Some people will ask what the relationship is between legal translation and the law. I got in touch with the University of Moncton many years ago and by pure chance I was reading the paper and found an ad recruiting people to do the translation of the laws of Manitoba and New Brunswick. Since I had a very rare background at this time that gave me the possibility of working in common law and civil law in French and English, I thought it might be a very interesting experience to do something that nobody had done before.
So I went into that field, and it was so interesting for the two years after I started to work for the University of Moncton that I wrote my PhD thesis on the law of languages and the languages of the law. That made me a specialist, in Canada and in francophone countries, of problems of language rights and the articulation between language rights and how you put them into practice.
For example, here in Canada we decided we would translate all the laws into French and English. This is the reason why, but how do you do that technically from the point of view of grammar, vocabulary, semantics and so on? These are areas that are not directly linked to such things as administrative law, municipal law or tax law, but they are still at the very core of the law because how can you do tax law, administrative law or constitutional law in Canada if you don't do it in both official languages?
Through this I would say - not remote but side alley - I dug into legal principles and into Canadian law and it gave me an insight into very important principles of law. For example, I wrote my PhD thesis on the problems of the private international law of language. What happens when the law of a province, in matters of registration of deeds, is different from the law of another province on registration of deeds with regard to the language of that registration? There are some very interesting cases in Quebec and Alberta.
So you can see how, through these strange but very interesting paths, one can still cling to the nature and the very substance of the law.
It has been the same thing in international law, which has always been the core of my interests. Public and private international law are the very foundations of immigration law. You cannot understand, for example -
[Translation]
The Chair: I think you have answered the question. I don't know whether Ms Meredith has other questions, but your time has expired.
[English]
Do you have another question, Ms Meredith? We're on a second round.
Ms Meredith: No, that's fine, thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much.
I'm most impressed with the continuum you keep referring to. I do not question your qualifications whatsoever. I think you are superbly prepared for any role in the field of law and anything that's related and allied.
.1650
I'm going to go back to your dream. As a young person, you envisage something you hope is going to happen. Things start happening and you go along that continuum. Many of your objectives are achieved as you go along. But I'm wondering about that continuum. I'm wondering why you're going along this path and you're not, with your qualifications, heading in a different direction with that continuum - possibly as a top-notch support staff member in the Supreme Court, for instance.
Mr. Didier: I did work for two years with Mr. Justice Gilles Létourneau, who is a member of the Federal Court of Appeal. Several years after I became a member of the bar of Quebec and the bar of New York I wanted to become a member of the bar of Ontario. I was told I would have to go back to bar school and do articling, so I did. I was lucky enough to find myself with a very fine lawyer and jurist who was wonderful enough to give me his confidence for a year as a full-time clerk and then another year as a part-time clerk. It was a very important experience for me.
If we go back to that continuum, for me it was the very first time I had worked full-time with the judiciary, and I must say it was a revelation. I had dreamed about it and thought about it, but the fact of being into it was very different. I must say that the personal human qualities I found in those people who are sitting in the Federal Court - whether the Federal Court at the basic level or in appeal - is remarkable.
When I was working at the Bank of Canada several years before, around 1984, I had the extreme luck of working with people of similar qualities and abilities, who bring to their jobs not only great professional qualifications but also great moral and human qualities, which are absolutely essential.
I find that in the work we are doing right now in the commission as commissioners, moral qualities are absolutely fundamental. There's a kind of even mystical aspect to what we are doing, because making decisions that affect the lives of others so directly demands a deep commitment from you. You have to make those decisions in conscience.
I said it to one of the claimants a few days ago: ``I want to make my decision in conscience. I'm going to have to live with that decision as a human being, as a lawyer, as an attorney, as a commissioner, so I need more information about that case.'' So we went into recess and got the information. I felt I could not make a proper decision without getting the information. For me, it was more a matter of conscience because I was involved. I could not leave aside my responsibilities. This is what I mean when I speak about a mystical aspect to what we are doing. We have to live with our consciences.
I think the most important quality of a member of the board is humility. You certainly know, sir, as a member of Parliament, how frequently and how deeply you may become involved in the decisions you have to take every day, whether you're going to vote in favour or against a motion or a piece of legislation, whether or not you're going to help a person. These are decisions that are very important, and the very basic foundation of your judgment is your moral values.
The Chair: If we're going to meet everybody's timeframe, we're going to have to limit both questions and answers. We have to be back in the House at 5:30 for a vote. Are there any other questions on the government side?
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): Perhaps just one, Madam Chair.
I too am somewhat taken by the extensiveness of your résumé.
.1655
[Translation]
It seems to me that, given all the experience you have, you might find this job which pays $84,000 a year a little boring. Do you think you might have any difficulty with your new job?
Mr. Didier: No. I will answer quite frankly: it is a job which is never boring.
Every file, every case is different. You can do this work for years without ever getting tired because every situation is different. I was discussing this just yesterday with one of my colleagues who has become a friend, and generally it is impossible to forecast what will happen each day.
As far as I'm concerned, money is not the key factor. So long as I have enough to adequately support my family, I don't have any particular financial ambitions.
However, I do have personal and professional ambitions concerning the quality of my work. In all my previous activities, I have always been recognized as someone who does very high quality work. As a result, I worked as an advisor to the government, for example with the Office de la langue française, and also for the United Nations, where the position of first secretary at the International Court of Justice is one of great responsibility and very great interest.
But there was a turning point, if only for family reasons: my parents are getting older and my mother is sick. It was good for me to be able to return and live closer to them. This position suits me perfectly because it gives me a great deal of autonomy and the opportunity to realize an old dream, namely to do justice.
I have the opportunity to work with remarkable colleagues for whom I have the greatest respect, and as a member of a body, the Board, which is also remarkable and outstanding in its ability to reflect on issues and evolve. I have the good fortune to be in an extraordinary workplace.
The Chair: One last question. Ms Meredith.
[English]
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to follow up on something you said. You said your decisions have to be a matter of conscience, and they're very much a part of your feelings. I may interpret this information incorrectly, but it would appear you've done most of your work with the written word, with legislation and what not rather than with individuals and having this one-on-one contact. There isn't a member around this table who can't identify with the difficulty, when you meet people and hear their stories, of having to determine to what degree you're going to help them.
Do you feel you will be able to remove yourself enough from being personally involved in these stories you're going to hear to be able to make judgments when you haven't a background of hearing stories, of being able to determine validity, reasonableness, all the rest of it? Do you feel you have a strong enough background in dealing with people to be unbiased in your decisions?
Mr. Didier: Oh, yes. When I was talking about conscience, my job as a lawyer and as a commissioner is to apply the law. I'm not the one who's making it. The definition of refugee is very clear, so my job is to apply this definition. For example, a person is an economic refugee. I'm convinced the person does not fit within the framework established by the act. Well, I'm sorry, but whatever the consequences may be, it is not my job to replace the legislation. It is my job to see in conscience that the law is applied properly. You see this is important for me. This is the most important aspect for me. It is my job to make sure the law is applied and only the law.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Any other questions? We have one minute left.
Mr. Nunez: Have you already begun to sit?
Mr. Didier: Yes Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: It is absolutely essential that you apply the definition of refugee to claimants. What is your perception of that definition? Is it based on the 1951 Convention? Do you believe that that definition of refugee is broad or too narrow?
.1700
Mr. Didier: I will answer in a way which may appear very simple but which is obvious as far as I am concerned. It is not up to me to judge whether the definition is too narrow or too broad. I am simply required to apply a definition adopted by Canada both because the country has become a party to an international convention and because it deemed appropriate to incorporate that convention in its legislation.
Mr. Nunez: You know that the notion of gender is not included in the definition? What do you do in the case of women who are victims of marital violence or persecuted because of their gender? That is not included in the definition.
Mr. Didier: One of the grounds recognized under the convention is membership of a particular social group. It has been recognized in certain decisions - and on that point I do not distance myself from previous decisions - that being a woman, for example, could be accepted as grounds, but still within the category of belonging to a particular social group.
Mr. Nunez: Do you follow the guidelines of the IRB in that regard?
Mr. Didier: Yes, of course, I apply them. We do have cases pending which I cannot talk about in detail, but...
Mr. Nunez: Have you already heard cases where you applied those guidelines?
Mr. Didier: Yes, on a number of occasions.
Mr. Nunez: How many cases do you hear each week?
Mr. Didier: At the present time, each of us hears at least six cases a week. We hear six new cases, but there are also hearings which are ongoing or have resumed, and on Wednesday mornings we also hear all the reasons for abandonment of claims.
Therefore, during a very heavy week with six regular hearings and abandonments of claims, I may hear 20 to 25 cases.
However, the abandonments of claims are a very specific category.
Mr. Nunez: From what countries do the claimants come?
Mr. Didier: To date, I have worked on one case from Africa and others from the Middle East, primarily Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq.
Mr. Nunez: Did you take a training period?
Mr. Didier: Yes, of course, I had one week of training initially and there is ongoing training provided by the Board, in which I have participated very regularly. The training is remarkably well done.
Mr. Nunez: How do you understand the principle of impartiality which must be shown by every tribunal?
Mr. Didier: I think you must come to the hearing every morning with an open mind. The main rule we learn from experience is that what you see on a personal information form is just an outline. You have to fill in the outline. You have to make contact with the individual and seek out the substance of the case, not only the personal but also the general facts and circumstances. We learn the general facts and circumstances through the information folders provided to us. They are remarkably well prepared. As regards the personal information, the claimant himself provides it to us. We let him or her talk, we let the officer talk, we let the hearing officer question the claimant, and if we are not satisfied about certain points regarding definition or credibility, we ourselves then ask the questions needed to be absolutely convinced that the convention definition has been really respected.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Didier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Didier, and good luck in your new position.
Mr. Didier: I would like to thank you all for giving me the privilege to appear before you. This has been a very important occasion for me. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you and good luck.
We have distributed a new copy of the curriculum vitae of Ms Folco. Do you all have the right copy?
Welcome to the committee, Ms Folco. Perhaps you could explain to us the difference between the former version which we received and the version which you distributed today.
Ms Raymonde Folco (Refugee Division, Immigration and Refugee Board): First, before going into details I would like to thank the Chair.
.1705
I am very pleased to see you again in this new position, as well as to meet all the members of the Standing Committee. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon.
I would just like to draw your attention to page 3 of my curriculum vitae, where I list other professional experience acquired since last year. I added at the top of the page several assignments, one of which was in the Ivory Coast and others in other parts of Africa and also Haiti. Although they are not listed here I would invite you to ask me any questions you may have on the various publications I have written.
The Chair: It is also a great pleasure for me to see you again, Ms Folco.
Ms Folco: Thank you.
The Chair: For those who are not aware of the fact, we worked together at the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration. Ms Folco was president and I was vice-president.
Mr. Nunez: I knew that.
The Chair: That was before I was elected.
Mr. Nunez: I also know that Ms Folco was vice-president of the said council from 1988 to 1990 and president from 1990 to 1995. I also know that she was a Liberal candidate in the riding of Laval-East at the last federal elections.
Did the fact that you were a good Liberal candidate in 1993 contribute to your appointment?
Ms Folco: Mr. Nunez, you and I have known each other for many years. I think you know that I am not going to answer your question directly.
What I hope is that everything I have done and everything included in my curriculum vitae, and even certain things which are not included, have contributed to making me what I am both personally and professionally. Those things which have made me what I am, as described in my professional experience, have given me the competence I hope I have to sit on the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Mr. Nunez: Your curriculum vitae does not seem to mention the fact that on January 8 1987 you were appointed as a member of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, a position which you held until January 7 1989.
Ms Folco: That was my mistake, Mr. Nunez. I would ask you to refer to the top of page 7 of the new curriculum vitae which the Chair distributed earlier. I'm sorry to refer to the English version; that was an oversight on my part. I could send you the French version of the same curriculum vitae tomorrow morning.
Therefore, the top of page 7 of the English version reads as follows:
[English]
``Boards of Directors and other community activities: 1995...International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.''
[Translation]
It was simply an oversight on my part. I should have pointed it out to you earlier.
Mr. Nunez: As a director of the Centre, you were paid between $260 and $325 a day. Have you resigned from that position or are you now occupying both positions?
Ms Folco: No. I resigned just before. I thought that I should resign. I resigned from my position as a member of the Board of the International Centre before being appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Therefore, I never combined the two positions. Never.
Mr. Nunez: You were appointed on June 3 1996 for a two-year period?
Ms Folco: That is correct.
Mr. Nunez: Nor did you ever have any other contracts with the government?
Ms Folco: No, Mr. Nunez. As you know, working for the Board is more than a full time job. You just heard from Mr. Didier, and you heard other people yesterday who confirmed that.
Mr. Nunez: You were the owner and CEO of the firm Johnson-Folco Communications. Does the firm still exist?
Ms Folco: The firm still exists. As explained in my curriculum vitae, through this firm I was able to work for a number of year in editing and especially creative activities. It was under the name of that firm that I was able to write and subsequently have a number of books published.
.1710
I continue to receive royalties from those books which are still on the market. Those royalties are paid directly to the firm. That is the only purpose the firm has served for me for several year, specifically since I became vice-president of the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration. One of the requirements of that position was to devote myself full time to the responsibilities of the vice-president, and I fully agreed with that. I therefore stopped all the work I was doing at the company, but it continues to exist so that the royalties I receive can be paid into it.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
In reading your résumé, I noticed you have an extensive background working with immigrant communities and multicultural groups.
Do you feel you will be in a position to make those tough decisions when you need to, that you will be neutral, that you will be looking at the rule of law and the expectations of Canada in the application of the rule of law? Do you feel you will bring a neutrality to your position to allow you to do this?
Ms Folco: I think this is, if not the very first question, certainly one of the very first questions I asked myself when I decided this is what I wanted to do for the next few years.
You heard my colleague, Mr. Didier, a few minutes ago. I'm entirely in agreement with what he has said. When you accept a position with this important responsibility, you accept it in terms of three major things.
The first one is the Canadian law, the law of immigration and the responsibility Canada has undertaken towards the international committee and towards refugees. That's one thing.
The second is you are a Canadian citizen. You represent the Canadian government when you hear refugee claims. Therefore, you have a responsibility toward the Canadian public. I feel I have a responsibility toward the Canadian public. My responsibility is to make sure those people who are accepted as refugees are really and truly refugees.
The third responsibility, and I place it as a third, is towards the people who appear, who ask to be accepted as refugees. We have the responsibility, and I personally feel this responsibility, of hearing them and judging whether what they are saying is really true, in terms of credibility. I also have to judge whether it concurs with what I know through the documentary evidence and what I know personally of the political state in that particular area or country of the world. Then I have to make a decision.
I think you have to make a decision in terms of the people you have in front of you who are asking for this status, as well as the repercussions this will have on the Canadian public and on the country as a whole. These have to be balanced. I think these considerations help one's own impartiality when one is at a hearing.
Ms Meredith: Do you feel you will be able to maintain your own convictions and your own positions on your decisions, even though there might be pressure from advocacy groups or from the IRB to bring up levels of acceptance and to give more positive decisions than negative decisions? Do you feel you will be able to maintain your conviction of applying the rule of law rather than giving in to the pressures that will be placed upon you?
Ms Folco: I think one could judge a person by this person's antecedents and experience.
Before I came to the commission, I was president of the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration du Quebec. As president, my role was to create an equilibrium between the Quebec government and the immigrants themselves, including former immigrants. This wasn't always an easy task.
I was directly responsible to the minister of immigration in Quebec. One isn't always in agreement with one's ministers. One isn't always in agreement with members of the public one meets.
.1715
I was very reachable. I met a lot of members of the public. I also met a lot of the NGOs who worked with refugees or with immigrants. And there are pressures. But I think that's part of our job: to judge, to analyse, to say there is right here, there is right there, but I must decide one way or the other, a decision must be made, it is my responsibility to make this decision.
Of course you let yourself be influenced, because being influenced means also being open to what is presented to you. But being open in terms of a logical analysis of what you're hearing, of what you read, and then the decision in terms of what you know - that is very important. That is my role.
Whether I'm ever going to let myself be influenced in the future I don't know. I can never tell. But I know that in the past for someone to influence me to go against my own convictions has not always been the easiest task. Let's put it that way.
The Chair: Ms Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Madam Folco, I have no reservations about your qualifications or ability to do the job, obviously. I was just curious about something else, though. It's part of human nature, I suppose.
As I look at your curriculum vitae, most of the work you have done so far has been extremely interesting, but it has primarily been in the role of policy development, of management, in charge or in leadership, if you like, setting the direction or tone of something. I'm wondering whether in this role, which will be much more specific, more a role that is not passive but following a direction rather than setting a direction, if you know what I mean.... I wonder what your thoughts are on that.
Ms Folco: I think I understand what you mean.
It's true I did a lot of work in policy development, which I like. I hope what I had to bring was of importance, was pertinent to my job.
However, you know, when you're president of a council - and we were a small council - Madam Bakopanos is here to witness that you do a lot of things apart from what appears simply on paper. One of the things we did at the council was to give individual help to people who came to ask for it. It was as simple as that. We seem to be an open door for immigrants and for people who had been immigrants to understand how government works and where they could go to in government. So there was a great deal of that which never appeared anywhere but which took up a great deal of my time.
That's one thing. The other is that I'm basically, in spite of what you might read on the paper, a person-oriented person. I love to work with people. I come from a background where questions of immigration, questions relating to wars, refugees, and so on are almost an everyday occurrence. It's something I understand. It's something I have a great deal of sympathy with. To me it is not something new. Quite the contrary, I have also done a great deal of study in history, so the history of many of these countries is very familiar to me. To me it's a way of putting all the threads together and joining them in something that I think, or at least I hope, is going to be useful.
Many people, when they heard I had been named to this commission, said they felt this was the job for me because I had sympathy for the people I was going to be listening to, but I also had une rigueur intellectuelle, as we say in French, and they felt I would be objective but just. This is what I hope I will be. I hope I am already.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: You spent several years at the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration. Why did you leave your position before the end of your term?
Ms Folco: Mr. Nunez, my term as president of the Conseil des communautés culturelles et de l'immigration was for a five-year period and was to conclude in June 1996. I left that position in late January or early February 1996, before the end of my term.
.1720
I was appointed by Cabinet, on the recommendation of the then Minister of Cultural Communities and Immigration. The government in office after the last provincial elections deemed it appropriate, for reasons best known to itself, to change certain Board members who did not seem suitable for the position they held.
I think that was my case. The minister decided to replace me by another individual who might perhaps better meet his requirements. I don't know.
Mr. Nunez: You resigned voluntarily.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, please, seriously.
Mr. Nunez: No.
The Chair: There are many political reasons. That is why I say that. Excuse me.
Mr. Nunez: Do you think that a separatist will be appointed one day to the Board?
The Chair: You never know.
An honourable member: You are very kind!
The Chair: If he changes the... [Inaudible - Editor]
Mr. Nunez: Yes, I recognize your...
Ms Folco: Mr. Nunez, excuse me for interrupting you. At the time when Mr. Nunez and I worked together, several years ago, everyone always recognized his sense of humour.
Mr. Nunez: That's right. We have remained friends despite our political differences.
Ms Folco: Exactly.
The Chair: We also have known each other for about 15 years.
Mr. Nunez: Have you already begun to sit, Ms Folco?
Ms Folco: Yes, Mr. Nunez, almost right from the beginning.
Mr. Nunez: Have you been assigned a particular region of the world? What kind of claims do you hear?
Ms Folco: I am part of a team which focuses on Eastern Europe, that is all the former soviet socialist republics, and Israel. We hear from nationals of former republics who have settled in Israel and are now applying for refugee status here in Canada.
Mr. Nunez: I would like to ask you the same question as I asked your colleague, Mr. Didier. Are there many women from the former Yugoslavia or former socialist countries who have been victims of marital violence? You are a woman. You know the problem. What is your interpretation of the definition of refugee?
Ms Folco: To my great surprise, Mr. Nunez, I have not received many such claims. I would say perhaps that in one or two cases, women left the country because of harassment by their husband or spouse. I would say that there were one or at the most two such cases.
That surprised me a little. I think that perhaps I'm not on the right side of the world: there are perhaps other countries or regions where this does not necessarily happen more often, but perhaps there are more women claimants from those countries coming to Canada. But in my case, those were the only ones.
Mr. Nunez: But in the case...
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, there is hardly any time left if we want to go to the House. If you have a final question, please ask it.
Mr. Nunez: There are women coming to Canada, who are victims of the war in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia, and have been raped. How do you deal with those cases?
Ms Folco: I have not heard any myself.
Mr. Nunez: You have not heard any?
Ms Folco: I have not heard any, therefore I can't answer you. Since I began only on June 3, I do not have a very extensive experience of the Board. I do not yet have a very varied experience.
However, I believe that from region to region in Canada the countries of origin of claimants vary. I think you could understand that. We tend to follow somewhat the same patterns as immigration trends. People from certain countries will tend more towards the cities, whereas those from other countries will go elsewhere.
To the best of my knowledge, we have not received many claims from people from Bosnia or the former Yugoslavia. Personally, I have never dealt with any. Therefore, as regards such cases, I cannot really talk on the basis of personal experience.
Mr. Nunez: I wish you good luck.
Ms Folco: Thank you Mr. Nunez.
The Chair: On behalf of all the members of the committee, I wish you good luck and all success.
.1725
Ms Folco: Thank you Madam Chair.
The Chair: I would also like to thank
[English]
Ms Khan and Mr. Bell for being with us today as legal counsel to the two witnesses.
Members, we meet next Tuesday at the same time, but I don't know if it's in the same place. I will see you all then.
The meeting is adjourned.