Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 5 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, February 14, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:05 p.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Some of our senators are on their way and there is another committee that is overlapping. They will all be able to read the record of today's proceedings.
We are resuming the examination and reporting on Canada's international obligations in regard to the rights and freedoms of children. We are pleased to have before us today Mr. Peter Dudding from the Child Welfare League of Canada and Dr. Claire Crooks, Associate Director of CAMH Centre for Prevention Science.
Mr. Peter M. Dudding, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada: It is my pleasure to be with you to provide evidence to this committee regarding Canada's efforts toward, and compliance in regard to, the rights and freedoms of children and youth.
This is an important issue, which has not received sufficient attention, in our opinion.
Despite our best intentions as Canadians and as governments, we recognize that the rights and freedoms of children and youth are being neglected, ignored and abused every day. Some of these violations are on an individual or personal level. Many of these violations are at organizational and systematic levels, in which governments and agencies of government are directly implicated. In my presentation today, I will provide brief examples of some of these violations.
I am here representing the Child Welfare League of Canada. We are a national organization dedicated to promoting the well-being and protection of all children and youth. We are especially concerned about vulnerable children and youth, those who are abused, neglected and exploited. These children and youth, who experience exclusion, poverty, rejection and racism, are not able to participate fully in the benefits and opportunities of Canadian society. We have a particular interest in those children and youth involved in the child welfare, child protection, youth justice and children's mental health systems. These children, in our experience, are highly vulnerable.
Child and youth rights are a guiding belief of our organization. Our strategic plan states clearly that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child must be enacted in Canada and abroad to ensure that all children are protected and supported.
The 102 member organizations of the Child Welfare League of Canada are child and family service agencies, provincial and national associations, universities, and federal, provincial and territorial governments. We have members in all 13 provinces and territories. Together, our members serve over 500,000 families every year.
The Child Welfare League of Canada is a member of the International Forum on Child Welfare and the World Health Organization's Violence Prevention Alliance. The CWLC is also one of the participating partners in the Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare.
What are the issues before us? Today, I will pay particular attention to specific issues related to vulnerable children and issues related to articles 19 and 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, although my recommendations will have a broader application impacting on the rights and freedoms of all Canadian children and youth.
Although many child and family services are implemented by provinces, territories and municipal governments, the federal government has a major role in funding legislation and policy that supports those services. The federal government also has exclusive and direct responsibilities in such areas as youth justice, immigration and Aboriginal services.
I will come back to that situation later.
I want to describe three case situations representative of examples of rights violations which occur daily. The 17- year-old girl who has been severely beaten by her parent and has been thrown out of her home; in six provinces and territories this young person is not considered as a child in need of protection, as the age of protection is up to 16 years only. Although perhaps eligible for some form of income support through student welfare assistance, if the young person is attending school, she is on her own in securing accommodation, care and treatment.
The two-year- old refugee claimant with her mother from an African country who is denied an immigration hearing on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds because she is HIV positive, and this is a specifically-named exclusion. She is subsequently deported to her country of origin without adequate medical care.
The 12-year-old boy who is severely autistic and relinquished by his parents as a child in need of protection to a child welfare agency; the parents are unable to afford the specialized treatment required, and the child's behaviour is so severe that he is a risk to his siblings, his parents and himself.
It is certainly fair to say that these are the sort of circumstances that come to the attention of child welfare agencies every day in this country. The past decade has been a difficult and challenging one for vulnerable children and youth. The services providing support for these young persons have faced enormous difficulties keeping up with both the volume of demand and the nature and complexity of the problems.
The estimated number of children and youth entering the public foster care system has increased by more than 50 per cent in the past 10 years. Although it is extremely difficult to gather data on children in public care, a problem I will return to, the CWLC estimates that approximately 40,000 children and youth were in care in 1996, and the number had grown to 66,000 by 2003. The trend is a barometer on the well-being of Canadian children, youth and families, as well as an indicator about the nature of preventative social programs in this country.
In 1998 the ``Canadian Incident Study (CIS) of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect'' conducted the first national study to examine the incidents of reported child maltreatment and characteristics of children, youth and families investigated by Canadian Child Welfare Services.
In brief, the CIS found that there were 136,000 estimated child maltreatment investigations, an annual incidence rate of 21-and-a-half investigations per thousand children. To contextualize this, that is much lower than the United States at 46 investigations per thousand, and higher than England at 18 per thousand children. The single largest category was child neglect.
The CIS was conducted again in 2003 and we are expecting the data to be publicly released in 2005. We will then be able to determine what the national trends of incidence are.
The published data from the complementary Ontario incidence studies shows there were 44,000 investigations in 1993, and the number increased to 66,000 in 1998. The early trend data from the 2003 study indicates that the number of investigations has increased again dramatically. The major category from the 2003 data so far is children witnessing family violence as the main group.
The number of Aboriginal children and youth in care has been disproportionate to the size of the population. The numbers of Aboriginal children and youth coming into care has continued to increase. It is estimated by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society that the number actually exceeds the number of children cared for at the zenith of the residential schools program. Clearly the issue of treatment of Aboriginal children, youth and families in the context of their social and economic development requires specific attention from the federal government.
The rate of child poverty in Canada is worsening, according to Campaign 2000, with 1,065,000 children in poverty, and the rate of poverty up for the first time in six years to 15.6 per cent in 2004. In 2003, the government of British Columbia passed legislation enabling children of 12 years to enter the paid labour force. This legislation is not consistent with international standards that identify the age of 13 as the minimum age for admission to employment.
At a broader level, in his authoritative analysis of the ``National Longitudinal Study on Children and Youth,'' NLSCY, J. Douglas Willms of the University of New Brunswick has developed a vulnerability index, providing a summary measure of vulnerability in childhood. The data indicates, based upon the 1994 NLSCY, that 28.6 per cent of Canadian children are considered vulnerable, displaying behavioural, emotional or psychological disturbances which are sufficiently serious to warrant concern for their present functioning and future developmental health. As Senator Landon Pearson notes in the introduction to the study, ``we know that many children in this country are vulnerable and we are concerned that the number seems to be growing.'' There is no comparative study based upon more recent NLSCY data to indicate what the trends are at present.
In 2003, the Law Commission of Canada published its report on the economic costs and consequences of child abuse in Canada. The report indicated that, based upon 1998 CIS data, the annual cost to Canadian society is $15.7 billion. It is important to note, by reflection, that this is significantly higher than the federal government's total investment of $13 billion in the National Children's Agenda.
Finally, Canada has no national policy addressing the needs of separated children. Unaccompanied minors requesting refugee status in Canada, although their numbers are currently small and there is a correction to be made, estimated at 1,200 per year and not 2,000 per year, there are a number of important issues about this population we need to be aware of. Their treatment varies considerably across Canada in matters such as guardianship responsibility, provision of support services, housing, education and health. Their numbers are growing every year, and Canada will likely continue to see this increase with the implementation of the new Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.
Interestingly, there is a high dropout rate between making a refugee application at a port of entry and proceeding to make a request before the Immigration and Refugee Board. No one knows what is happening to these young persons who ``disappear.'' The aforementioned 1,200 applications end up looking like 25 to 35 requests before the immigration board, and nobody knows what has happened.
A related issue is the current moratorium that Canada has in effect on the admission of child and youth refugees from abroad who have no family or next of kin; the orphans. In the past, Canada's humanitarian practice has included the resettlement of a number of these children and youth who are most at risk, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
The CWLC was an intervenor in the Supreme Court challenge on the constitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code. Our position argued that the use of physical punishment contravenes children's human rights as articulated in the UN convention. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of section 43 while limiting the scope of its exemptions was, in our judgment, an error. Rather than providing clarity and effective protection to children against maltreatment the judgment has led to greater uncertainty and challenges for the systems created to protect children from violence. The research evidence on this subject is clear on two important aspects: In those countries that banned the use of physical punishment, rates of child maltreatment have decreased. Further, children raised in homes that use alternative forms of non-physical discipline have improved life outcomes. That is a matter of science.
There has been a growing concern in the last decade related to diminishing capacity of Canada's social programs; spending reductions, lack of well-defined objectives and outcomes are all problems. The Canada Assistance Plan was transformed into the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1995, and now into the Canada Social Transfer as of April 1, 2004. This has not improved our ability to promote social determinants of health and well-being for our children and youth. There is considerable ground to be made up in wisely investing in social expenditures to improve the quality of life for children and youth. This is now our most critical challenge.
What are the success stories? There is a spirit of renewal and opportunity in Canada to ensure that we invest greater attention and resources on social programs to vulnerable children and youth. The development of ``A Canada Fit for Children,'' Canada's National Plan of Action for Children, provides an excellent vision of what is possible to achieve on behalf of our children.
The document is comprehensive and provides a good framework for considering what needs to be done. It is important that the national action plan be supported with the development of goals which are time-bound and measurable, supported with data, monitor progress and are based upon research evidence to promote the best outcomes for our children. The federal government has initiated important investments in these areas, which require further development and support and are consistent with national leadership in the development of our children and youth.
The program, Canadian Looking After Children, CanLAC, has been supported by Social Development Canada. Its purpose is to provide comprehensive assessment and planning for children and youth in public care. It is an evidence- based child development approach to promoting good parenting to children who have faced exceptional adversity. There are now seven provinces and territories involved, and Canada is part of a 15-country group doing this important work.
CanLAC provides an opportunity to gather highly detailed information on this group of 66,000 children, and to monitor their development over time. The ``Canadian Incident Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect'' is funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC. This critically important health surveillance and monitoring program is done on a survey basis every five years. The initiative provides important basic information in better understanding the extent and nature of child maltreatment in Canada. The opportunity to increase the frequency of surveillance, improve reporting capability of organizations and expand linkage to provincial, territorial and community information systems will assist in eliminating the child maltreatment.
The Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare, CECW, is one of the four research centres funded by the health agency under its Centres of Excellence for Child Well-being Program. The centre is in its final year of funding in 2005, and is applying for a further five-year renewal. The centre has provided leadership and innovation for child welfare in Canada to develop a research to ``policy and practice'' agenda. This has been a new development for Canadian child welfare, to link universities with community organizations, identify evidence-based approaches and creating capacity for measuring outcomes. The Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare has also created the First Nations research site in Manitoba. The pilot project has been very successful, and planning for the further development and growth of the Centres of Excellence Program is going on with the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005.
Let me now turn to, more specifically, the federal role and responsibility. In our opinion, there is a vital role for the federal government in promoting the enhanced development of vulnerable children and youth. We recognize that Canada is one of the most highly decentralized federal states. The leadership role must be exercised in partnership with the provinces and territories, and must engage municipal governments, civil society organizations, citizens, and children and youth, as well as the private sector.
The federal government has two predominant instruments available to it, which in our view should be strengthened and improved. The first role is that of providing political leadership on important questions relating to children and youth. This political leadership role is the responsibility of all members of Parliament, Senate and government. In addition, there were two specific leadership roles identified: Secretary of State for Children and Youth, and Special Advisor on Children's Rights to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary of State position was eliminated entirely in July 2004. It is unclear why the role of Special Advisor on Children's Rights is limited to the Department of Foreign Affairs and does not apply to all federal departments, most notably Health, Social Development, Justice, Citizenship and Immigration, Indian and Northern Affairs, Human Resources and Skills Development and Heritage. There is now no dedicated minister who directly represents children and youth at the cabinet level. I will now go to the recommendations.
What are the recommendations? First, establish a child and youth secretariat within the Government of Canada, a secretariat to do specific case advocacy and monitoring, coordinate activities and the policy development of federal departments and agencies, and to provide secretariat support services to a Canada Fit for Children Commission.
The second important one is to establish a ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission. The commission will be comprised of children and youth, provincial and territorial governments, federal departments, civil society organizations, and other Canadians representing citizens and academics. I will note one other thing about that: The commission will have two commissioners, at least one of whom will be a youth.
The third recommendation is to review the roles, responsibilities and mandates, funding and support for the political leadership roles pertaining to children and youth. Fourth, direct a broad public education campaign promoting the use of positive non-physical discipline in parenting. Fifth, extend the protection against assault found in the Criminal Code of Canada to all of its citizens, regardless of age. Sixth, increase federal funding to support a wide variety of research- based initiatives for vulnerable children and youth. Seventh, develop enhanced accountability requirements for the Canada Social Transfer regarding national objectives, monitoring, reporting and outcomes, which are flexible and responsive. Eighth, request that the Law Commission of Canada conduct a formal study of the application of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, CRC, to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and relevant provincial and territorial legislation. The study will provide recommendations on how to integrate the CRC into Canadian law.
Ms. Claire Crooks, Associate Director, CAMH Centre for Prevention Science, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH: Mr. Dudding's remarks about groups of vulnerable youth in Canada is actually an excellent backdrop for my presentation. It is about a specific group of vulnerable youth in Canada, namely those half million Canadian children living with domestic violence and the aftermath of domestic violence, with a particular focus on what happens to children when their parents separate or divorce.
I will briefly outline a misfit between the current general direction on Canadian divorce, and separation and the needs of this special group of children. I will then propose three types of solutions that this country requires to meet the promise of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for this group.
The articles of the convention most germane to this discussion are article 3.1, which deems the best interests of children as a primary consideration in any decision making; article 3.2, which guarantees all children protection, and articles 9.1 and 9.3, which protect a child's contact with parents except where factors of abuse, neglect and best interests of the child indicate otherwise.
One of the complicated things about custody decisions in the context of domestic violence is that those three articles are not always matched up in this area. This is an area where complex analysis and complex solutions are required, and simple solutions will continue to be poorly thought out and administered.
I would like to start by highlighting some recent shifts in the way Canadians approach separation and divorce. Consistent with the UN convention on the best interests of the child, and the child's right not to be separated from parents, there has been a move towards collaborative law and more friendly solutions, more focus for parents to work with mediators to settle custody issues outside of court and to prevent the emotional and financial costs of a trial.
For many Canadian children these solutions have increased their ability to maintain relationships with both of their parents following separation or divorce. More fathers than ever are being awarded custody or joint custody and are remaining actively involved in their children's life, post-separation. Again, for most Canadian children whose parents are separating, these are wonderful initiatives and really increase their quality of life afterwards.
The proposed amendments to the Divorce Act, which have never been enacted, are consistent with this move towards collaborative solutions, and have actually moved away from the idea of custody to more of a shared- parenting-plan focus.
Although these directions are, by and large, positive for the majority of children whose parents are separating, they fail to protect the best interests of children whose parents have a history of domestic violence.
I will talk briefly about a whole other area of research and clinical awareness that has come forward over the past 20 years, and that is the whole impact of domestic violence on children. Research has shown that although there is a range of individual outcomes with respect to exposure to domestic violence, overall the picture is a negative one. Children who witness one parent assaulting another, and the aftermath, have a range of negative outcomes, including increased rates of symptomatology, for example, trauma, internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression, externalizing behaviour problems, sleep problems, problems in school, and problems with relationships.
We have come to realize that many of these children fare as poorly as children who are being directly abused. Recognition has dawned that these children are vulnerable, and they require and deserve protection, and indeed are promised it under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Here you see a bit of a misfit arise. On one hand, divorce is moving toward friendly collaborative law and mediation, and shared parenting. On the other hand, there is recognition in both research and clinical communities of the devastation children face living in homes in which one parent is abusing the other, and these two things have emerged separately.
Obviously there is a need to look at the intersection of these domains. What happens to children who live with domestic violence when their parents separate? As things currently stand, a mother who leaves an abusive partner to protect her eight-year-old daughter from ever again having to lock herself in the bathroom and call 911, may find herself in a joint-custody arrangement in which she has to mediate everyday parenting decisions with her former abuser. Possibly, she is exposed to more harassment and violence every Wednesday night and alternate weekends when she drops her daughter off. It is these children that I am arguing require more protection if Canada is to meet its full obligation under the UN convention.
To understand why domestic violence is so relevant to custody decisions, it is important to look at two fundamental myths about domestic violence and separation. The first myth is that domestic violence ends with separation. The thinking here is: We know this family had abuse and violence but now the parents have split up so why is this even germane? The reality is that in many cases, domestic violence does not end with separation. To the contrary, it may be a signal to the perpetrator of the violence to escalate or increase attempts to control or punish a partner who is trying to leave.
According to Statistics Canada data, one in four victims of domestic violence reported that the violence became more severe after separation. Two in five reported that the violence actually started after separation. The enforced contact between separated parents through access exchanges can present opportunities for ongoing harassment and abuse.
Separation is also the most dangerous time for a woman who is leaving an abusive partner. Domestic violence and homicides are inextricably linked, and national figures from the U.S. and Canada suggest that women are most at risk of homicide when leaving a partner who has been abusive.
A number of domestic violence death review committees have emerged in the United States and one in Canada, in Ontario, under the auspices of the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario. These committees review all domestic homicides to try to look for lessons learned and ways to prevent future tragedies. It is incredible that in almost every case reviewed, children are involved either as witnesses or at the very least by losing their primary caregiver, and in some cases have been directly murdered as a form of domestic violence. In cases in which there was no previous child abuse, children have been killed as a form of ultimate control over an adult partner.
The second myth is that as long as children are not directly involved, they are not affected. There is still the myth that someone can be a bad spouse and good parent. A number of lines of research show that it is simply not true.
Children are affected in an ongoing manner in numerous ways. They may continue to be exposed to various forms of violence and criminal harassment at access changeovers. They may live with a parent who is deathly afraid of the other parent, and have that impact their emotional security. They may continue to be exposed to a perpetrator of domestic violence who serves as a poor role model for healthy relationships. In addition, they can be used as conduits for ongoing abuse. I have seen in clinical assessments that children are made to monitor and report on the whereabouts of one parent to another parent. The emotional abuse of that is excruciating for children who are put in the position of being a spy in one parent's home.
In addition, children exposed to domestic violence are vulnerable to being directly abused due to the high overlap of these forms of maltreatment. A number of research studies show that the range of overlap is between 30 and 60 per cent, so if there is domestic violence occurring in a family, there is a 30- to 60-per cent chance that the children are also being directly physically abused.
Finally, these vulnerable children may also be adversely affected by long, drawn-out involvement with the legal system. Many perpetrators of domestic violence use ongoing litigation as a form of controlling and abusing an ex- partner.
I have outlined briefly the ways in which our system does not protect these vulnerable children. Now I will turn to the solutions. There are three types of solutions required: legislative changes, training and collaborative resources.
Currently, New Zealand and half of the states in the United States have developed what is called a rebuttable presumption against joint or sole custody for perpetrators of domestic violence. This simply means that a judge will not award sole or joint custody to someone who is an identified perpetrator of domestic violence unless there is compelling evidence to go against the rebuttable presumption. It shifts the onus to perpetrators to show that children and their primary caregivers will be safe in any ensuing parenting plan.
While a rebuttable assumption may be a best-case scenario, at the very least Canada needs to adopt legislation making domestic violence a mandated factor to consider in custody decisions. By making domestic violence a rebuttable presumption or a factor that must be considered, we will eliminate some of the randomness of the current situation.
Children's safety should not have to depend on whether their cases happen to have custody evaluators, judges and lawyers that understand the complexities of domestic violence. As it is now, it is a bit of the luck of the draw in terms of who gets assigned to a certain case.
One of the worries people have about adopting something like a rebuttable presumption is that in one capacity, you are developing a silver bullet for custody disputes, and people worry about false allegations. I remind the committee that evidence from our national survey suggests only a third of victims of domestic violence actually report to the police, and all evidence suggests that domestic violence is under-reported, if anything. Dr. Nicolas Bala of Queen's University has also done some research suggesting the number of genuine false allegations is minuscule.
Without adequate training and planning, new laws are at best irrelevant and at worst, lead to negative outcomes not consistent with the UN convention. A brief example is that the State of Minnesota adopted legislation to include exposure to domestic violence as grounds for child protection.
Recognizing that children exposed to domestic violence can fare as poorly as children being abused, Minnesota enacted a law saying that this is grounds for protection. Unfortunately, they did this without building the system capacity to understand which children and which families should be funneled into the child protection system.
The law was enacted. The number of children in care doubled. It totally overwhelmed the system and the law had to be repealed, so what looks like a poor law may have been a law that was put in place without the system capacity to be implemented properly.
There are excellent examples of good training this area. California requires 16 hours of domestic violence training on an annual basis to be a custody evaluator; 12 hours in the classroom and 4 hours visiting services for victims, perpetrators and children. In the U.S., the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges offers judges regular opportunities to enhance their skills in dealing with complex domestic violence cases. All of these things need to happen at the same time because these cases are really complex, and without a complex understanding, the solutions will not work.
Finally, in terms of collaborative resources, courts are only as effective as essential community services that are provided. For children to have safe and continued relationships with the perpetrators of domestic violence, supervised access centres, batterer programs that address both domestic violence and parenting and counselling programs for children are critical. In the absence of these services, communities do their best to manage but children pay the price.
Again, in my clinical work as a custody evaluator, I have seen well-meaning neighbours, family members or church members step in to fill the gap when there is not adequate supervised access centres, but they are without the training and information required. In some cases, family or church members are supervising a case they do not even know what they are supervising for, and children and their primary caregivers are exposed to further abuse.
In closing, the shift towards mediation, parent education, collaborative law, joint custody and co-parenting arrangements has benefited many children. Unfortunately, this broad movement leaves half a million children who have witnessed one parent assault the other in a very vulnerable position, particularly at time of separation and afterward. When there is a history of domestic violence, there needs to be very different remedies that recognize that children may be in a never-ending war zone.
All too often, the media portrays controversy about custody decisions as a battle between fathers' rights groups and women's advocates. My message today is that custody decisions in the context of domestic violence are not about mothers' rights or fathers' rights. They are about children's fundamental right to safety and security, which is inextricably linked to the safety and security of their primary caregiver. This fundamental right is one that is covered in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one that I hope the committee will take into account when making the recommendations.
The Chairman: Mr. Dudding, you pointed out a number of areas and a number of issues, including the Criminal Code, et cetera.
We are trying to study how international instruments, and particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a centrepiece, help us with children's rights in Canada. While the convention was signed and ratified, there is no one single enabling piece of legislation that puts it into law. It is moral guidance in some cases, and it is part of our law in other cases.
Do you believe that actually implementing more of the convention in a legal way would give more teeth to the workers in the field who work with children, to the advocates and, therefore, to the children? Are we talking about education and a change of cultural ideas and values in our society to strengthen children and their rights? Is it a legalistic or a facilitating environment where you would put your emphasis?
Mr. Dudding: That is a very important question. My answer would be, I think it is probably both. Certainly, when I consider, for example, a very basic kind of violation around this issue of 16-year-olds and their need for protection, it is an issue that in my opinion begets a legalistic solution. However, we also know that even in some jurisdictions, for example, where the law may provide to the age of 18 or 19, by and large, the practice is still to say, no, go make your own arrangements somewhere because the reality is that the system lacks either the training or the appropriate kind of resources to do what is right on behalf of those young people.
That certainly leads me to the direction, in terms of ensuring that in order for any law or legal concept to be realized, that we have to have in place the kind of right understanding, right attitudes, appropriate training and resources to support those things.
The framework must be there. At the risk of going over previous testimony, I will say that the issue here is one in terms of the question of how we embrace the CRC and give it life in this country is a challenge that we need to face and move forward with, rather than simply shrug our shoulders and say, ``Well, that is the way it is.``
Senator Oliver: I wish to thank you both for two very excellent presentations. I had a question for each of you. First, on page 5, you talk about the role of the federal legislator. You ended up by saying that there is no minister who is dedicated to the interests of children. However, earlier you talked about the fact that in Canada in our federal system, the federal government has jurisdiction over certain matters, the provinces over others and the municipalities over some. It takes a cooperation and coordination of all three to bring a definitive answer to many of the concerns that you have raised.
The main thing you talk about is what really is required to political leadership. Can you tell us more about what you mean by political leadership? The main thing people in the Senate do is we are public policy-makers. Where and how does that relate to what you call political leadership? In what ways do you want us to lead, knowing what our main job is? Are you saying just bring in more legislation? Is that what you meant by political leadership or what was that definition?
Mr. Dudding: The definition of political leadership as I see it is that, in the first instance, to have responsibility at a political level vested with some individuals is important. I suggest that two roles we have had are the one of Secretary of State for Children and Youth and the other one in the special adviser's role. That does not let anybody else off the hook, but to have those kinds of visible leadership roles within government is important.
The second component, having thought about it, is that the importance of providing a framework is the notion of the ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission; to have this kind of ongoing and focused discussion and provide the monitoring and the accountability, if you will, about all matters related to children and youth, is again another way of demonstrating that kind of leadership.
Senator Oliver: I suppose that having committees such as this in the Senate and a comparable one in the House of Commons to monitor and deal with this on an ongoing basis might also be something that would demonstrate that kind of leadership?
Mr. Dudding: Certainly, I agree with that.
Senator Oliver: I would like to go to the rebuttable presumption, if I could. It is an interesting idea, but it all turns on evidence. To be more specific, if the presumption can be rebutted, if there is enough reason to overturn the presumption, and one of the presumptions is that the children will be safe, my question is what kind of evidence would you need? If a father has been abusive, for instance, what kind of proof do you need? When the father takes the stand and says, ``I am not going to do it any more,'' is that enough to rebut the presumption? What is the evidence required to rebut it?
Ms. Crooks: That is an excellent question. You really have underscored the need for building system capacity. You need judges and custody evaluators who can wrestle with really complex issues. The rebuttable presumption might be appropriately overturned in light of the characteristics of the violence that occurred. For example, if somebody pushed somebody at the time of separation, it was out of character, and it was a one-time event. A perpetrator is taking responsibility. Those sorts of things might be taken into account. Someone saying, ``No, I am not going to do it again,'' certainly is not particularly compelling.
The other piece is that you need a system where everybody is capable of doing ongoing risk assessment. As a judge or custody evaluator, you need people who know the big risk factors for dangerousness. You need people to know that when somebody walks through a probation or protection order, that is really serious business and needs to be treated that way. If somebody was walking through a protection order, it does not really matter what they say in court. That is a really serious red flag.
Senator Oliver: That is not going to be rebutted.
Ms. Crooks: No, and the system-wide capacity for these complex deliberations is not there right now. What makes people nervous is when you rely on someone to say, ``No, I was abused.'' It becomes a he-said, she-said situation. It requires competent assessors and judges to be able to implement this.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Dudding, when doing research on any major topic, the place you begin is with a review of the literature. What have other people done in other jurisdictions and so on? In terms of political leadership and having a cabinet minister in charge of the covenant, what have other jurisdictions done? What are the ones that we should try to model after?
Mr. Dudding: I do not have an off-the-top answer to that. That is a very good question, senator. I could only give you an impression that most jurisdictions will have an identifiable minister responsible for these areas, but which and which titles I am not in a position to answer you right now.
Senator Pearson: Mr. Dudding, my first question is about your example of the 17-year-old who was thrown out. I know that is an issue of concern for various child welfare workers and so on. Would you recommend that we work hard towards a uniform age of 18 for compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines a child as every human being under the age of 18? If so, how do you think we could do it?
Mr. Dudding: I will answer the simple part of the question, which is, yes, the age of 18 is the age that is set in the convention. We believe that is the appropriate age. That is the simple part.
The more complex part of this is how we do it. We recognize that provincial governments have their own area of jurisdiction in this area.
That is why my thinking is to rely upon the notion of a ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission that would provide the forum for these kinds of issues to be tabled and discussed. Senator, relying upon morality, peer pressure and that kind of accountability to move these things forward at a provincial level is not terribly satisfactory, in my opinion. However, in recognition of our federal state, it is probably about as good as it can be.
In respect of saying this about the age of 18, it also recognizes that we need to have the kind of commensurate resources and services in place so that they are appropriate and will benefit those aged 17 and 18 years. Otherwise, we could do more harm.
I have experienced many instances where adolescent children were experiencing difficulties, and the local child welfare agency became involved. There were no appropriate kinds of services in place on those occasions, and the agency did more harm than good.
Senator Pearson: That point was raised by Dr. Crooks as well. We should be careful about legislation and regulations unless we have the mechanisms in place to benefit those who are targeted by the laws. Naturally, as co- chair of the custody and access committee, I was interested in your comments, which resonated a great deal with some of the things we have heard across Canada on that particular issue. At our meeting in Stockholm, where they have a presumption of joint custody, we were struck that they are doing some serious rethinking about whether that has been in the best interest it of the child.
I will not ask you a question but I will thank you for your presentation instead. There is a growing recognition of the issues in respect of children who witness violence. As a psychologist, you could perhaps answer one question. Do you consider any lower age? In my view, all children, including the very youngest, should be included. Have you any comment about the very young children who are being exposed to this?
Ms. Crooks: Senator, you have reminded me that I was to ask if I could distribute two papers. I brought 25 copies of two articles. One is on legal and policy implications of legislative changes but they are in English only.
The Chairman: Witnesses can testify in their language and you can provide us with the papers, which we will have translated and distributed.
Ms. Crooks: You have raised an important issue: The question of whether children, if they are too young to remember or to understand what happens, are affected by violence in the home or in the community. The answer is, unequivocally, yes they are affected in some truly scary ways in the area of neurological development. Compelling evidence is available on what happens to a baby's brain when it is constantly under stress and not being soothed. From a developmental perspective, children of different ages are affected differently but they are all affected. Another way in which the little ones are affected is in the area of development of secure and safe attachments with adult caregivers. That is the primary job of an infant. Those secure bonds form the basis for how they view the world, and how other relationships are developed. Attachment for an infant is based on having its needs met. If an infant is exposed to a great deal of screaming and yelling, it will become distressed and have difficulty sleeping, compounded by the lack of soothing and comfort provided by the caregiver. Children do not have to remember an event to be affected by it.
Senator Carstairs: Obviously, your statistics are not exactly positive. I sometimes have difficulty resolving whether the statistics are increasing because we are more knowledgeable about the things that are done to children, or whether they are actually increasing. We have more children in foster care today than we ever had before; there is no question about that. Are they in foster care because 25 years ago they would have been left with their families to their detriment, or are they in foster care because there are genuinely more children in need of care? How do you resolve that?
Mr. Dudding: The answer to the question is yes because I think both situations are true. Certainly, our attitudes and ideas about what constitutes risk or harm for children have changed and will continue to change. In many respects, we understand that as good news. We have seen and recognized that there has been a diminishment in the level of the social safety net in Canada. That reduction has harmed a great many people but, of course, it disproportionately harms vulnerable people. That statement is also true. It is a matter of teasing those things out but it also takes us to the conclusion in terms of where we are to be. The increasing number of children coming into the public care system places on all of us the obligation to provide better care for them.
We did not increase the number of foster homes correspondingly to the number of children coming into care. There is a disconnection between the trauma to the child's life, and our ability to do something better on behalf of that child. That is also a concern.
Senator Carstairs: Dr. Crooks, I was interested in the quick analogy that you drew between families in which there is domestic violence, and children who might be abused as a result. Have you done, or will you do, any additional work with respect to that direct correlation? I am of the view that if there is domestic violence in a family, it is highly unlikely that the children will escape that, especially if they get in the way, and it is hard for children not to get in the way. Children have an innate ability to be there all the time.
Ms. Crooks: There are some important facts to know about that. Dr. Jeffrey Edleson, from the University of Minnesota, has done some of the best work in this area of looking at the ways in which children are involved, and how parents think they are involved — parents are more likely to think the kids were asleep. Dr. Edleson did a phone survey of children exposed to domestic violence, and found a whole range of ways that children are involved. The overlap being 30 per cent to 60 per cent is based on a review of numerous studies and on physical abuse. Many people, myself included, would argue that there is emotional maltreatment to children in 100 per cent of the cases where one parent is assaulting the other parent. Any of those statistics depend on what has been reported and to whom. I am also involved in a group that has developed one of the first programs for abusive fathers. It is a pilot project in a number of areas in Ontario and the U.S. We have found that these fathers have been referred to the group typically by a Children's Aid Society for being abusive. In the context of the group, it becomes apparent that it is more undifferentiated violence than that. When they relay an incident, it becomes clear there is also a difference between who is recognized officially to have been maltreating and what is going on in the families. These are all interconnected, of course.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: My question is for Mr. Dudding. Your recommendations to the committee are listed on pages seven and eight of your presentation. I am not sure if you would like the committee to select one of these eight recommendations in particular, because quite often, it is important to prioritize, so to speak. My preferred recommendation is clearly the second one which calls for the establishment of a commission.
I would like you to explain to me the difference between a commission and a secretariat. As I understand it, a secretariat could provide support services to the commission. I would opt for the establishment of a commission because this entity would report to Parliament and would be supported in legislation. As such, the commission would be subject to other Canadian laws and to the Official Languages Act. Young children in minority situations in Canada would have the right to access the services of the commission.
This commission would have a mandate to examine all matters concerning children. Once it had done that, what pressure would it be able to exert to bring about compliance?
[English]
Mr. Dudding: There are two parts to the question, so let me start by saying — from my perspective — recommendation number two with regard to a commission is — I would agree with the senator — far more important as a means to provide the kind of visibility and significance that this issue presents to us all.
My sense in terms of recommendation number one around the secretariat is that it is really more housekeeping. I do not want to diminish it from that perspective, but to enable the federal government and the departments of the federal government to get their act together, as well as to do a specific job with regard to case advocacy issues that are uniquely within the federal role. When one lines the two up, a commission is a far more important legislative mandate than what the role of the secretariat would be envisaged as.
The second part of the question is the more difficult one. The work of the commission, by the way, if one follows it according to this document, will have its work cut out for it at least until the year 2015. That is probably far enough in advance to leave me comfortable. There will be work in 2016, I know.
More seriously about that is a primary question that we all must struggle with, which is this issue in a federal state around how is it that we bring a focus of responsibility here. There are no simple answers to that question. As of Friday, in the discussions around the child care program, we can understand what the complexities of these issues are.
The magic here is inviting and ensuring that the provinces and territories are at the table — much as we have done, and again not entirely successfully — with the health care council, but they have been given a role at the table with an ongoing mandate. To use that kind of model or approach with this commission, so that the pressure that will be brought on other jurisdictions to come into compliance, will be there on an ongoing basis.
The other question in terms of the more legally oriented issues of compliance would certainly run to number eight of our recommendations with regard to the role of the law commission. It will help us all from a legal perspective in terms of looking at understanding the federal and provincial roles that may be brought legally into compliance.
Senator Poy: This is for Ms. Crooks. Can you give me your thoughts on the Supreme Court's decision on section 43 of the Criminal Code in relation to corporal punishment of children? What do you think of that decision?
Ms. Crooks: I guess with respect to corporal punishment, there was a question earlier to Mr. Dudding about whether the law needs to change, or is it the will of the people and programming that needs to change. I think there is a clear cut role for law to set the standard with respect to corporal punishment. If you look internationally, for example, Sweden, from the time that it made any corporal punishment outlawed, in the seven years following there was not a single child's death as a result of maltreatment. To me, that is compelling evidence right there. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Poy: Yes, so this is what you would suggest to our government?
Ms. Crooks: Yes. I do not think the Criminal Code says you cannot assault children unless they are the ages of 2 and 16.
Senator Poy: It does not make sense.
Ms. Crooks: No, not particularly.
The Chairman: We thank both of you for coming and sharing information we have not heard before on the state of children in Canada, and sharing your opinions and suggestions. We will take them into account, and we will look forward to you filing the papers that you have indicated and any other materials.
We will move to our next panel without delay.
The Chairman: Thank you. We can reconvene now. We have Mr. Agnew, UNICEF Canada at the table and Ms. Vandergrift, Chair, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, World Vision Canada, and Ms. Austin, Policy Analyst, Child Rights and HIV/AIDS, World Vision — Canada.
We are running a little late. I would ask you to have some introductory remarks, not necessarily in detail from any briefs, but if you could hit the points that you think are most important to put on the record. Then we would like to leave some time for questions.
Mr. David Agnew, President and CEO, UNICEF Canada: I would like to thank you not just for the opportunity to address you but also for putting the spotlight on this too often neglected topic.
Knowing the panel before us and the other witnesses who spoke, you have had some wonderful expertise on child rights; leading NGOs and advocacy groups. In Senator Pearson, you have the senior voice for children's rights in the Government of Canada. You are well briefed on the domestic issues.
I wanted to touch on two issues. First, you have been exposed to the UN Study on Violence Against Children, which we are delighted to be the secretariat for. I want to underline the importance of that. I believe it could make a good contribution not just to engaging the public but also moving ahead on the critical issue of violence against children.
The second issue is to give you a heads up, or alert you that next month UNICEF will release a report on the levels and changes in child poverty rates in the OECD countries, including Canada, of course. Depending on which year you start and finish, this report reports an extremely modest improvement in the Canadian rate, but nonetheless, this bountiful nation of ours still allows, by our calculations, 15 per cent of our children to live in poverty. That places us, amongst the 26 nations, 19th. When we talk about obligations under our convention, I deposit those numbers with you, and point out that while the rights of children are not denominated in dollars, it is difficult to believe that tolerating that level of persistent poverty is anything but an example of the distance we have to go in this country to achieve the convention ideals and principles.
I want to focus on a different issue. Because I know you have been well briefed and will continue to be on domestic issues, I want to focus on one element of Canada's obligations under the convention. That is the contribution this country makes to building a world fit for children. The convention, and our embrace of it, obliges us to take a much broader focus than simply the domestic one, as important as that is, and to make a commitment to achieve the convention ideals and principles around the world. You will find that in article 4 of the convention, but this country's embrace of the UN Millennium Development Goals, our place in the G7, and any number of facts underscore why that is important.
I acknowledge Canada's important contributions on behalf of children around the world, starting with the generous and growing support of UNICEF in the 158 countries and territories where we work. We place a strong and welcome priority on our partnership with the Government of Canada, particularly with the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA. It is also important to recognize Canada's focus on war-affected children; its dedicated efforts to fight micronutrient deficiencies; programs to immunize children by the millions; important and timely investments in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; the Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines; and the significant list of international statutes, conventions and protocols to which our country has affixed its name. This is an impressive catalogue of commitments, but there is one area where Canada has unfortunately and unacceptably failed to live up to obligations to the world's children. That is the promise made 35 years ago to devote 0.7 per cent of our gross national income to development assistance.
Last fall, we released ``The State of the World's Children 2005,'' and laid out some raw numbers that are reminders of the persistent chasm between the world's words and the world's actions, and the human consequences of that gap. One out of every two children on this earth live in poverty; 20 children die each minute from a preventable or treatable disease; 121 million six-to-eleven-year-olds are not in school and should be; there are 90 million severely malnourished girls and boys around the world; there are 15 million AIDS orphans around the world, and legions of child soldiers and prostitutes — it goes on. It adds up to 1 billion children being denied the basic rights of childhood that any of us would wish for our own children.
You do not want to compare what we invest every year around the world in military spending and agricultural subsidies. It is about $1.5 trillion. We spend less than 5 per cent of that on development, yet the payback is enormous.
Children are at the heart of the Millennium Development Goals. There is not a hope in heaven that we will meet those lifesaving and rights-enhancing goals unless we have substantial change, particularly when not one of the seven richest countries in the world is close to 0.7, and only two of those seven have actually made a stated commitment in a calendar to reach the 0.7.
I suggest, with great respect, that this committee, in its deliberations, take up the challenge: to vault Canada from the bottom half of the OECD tables, where it now rests in terms of development assistance, and put us on the fast track to meeting our longstanding commitments. While some would think that is probably a delusional hope in this day and age to do that, I look at three separate things as evidence of some optimism.
The first is the absolutely extraordinary outpouring support from Canadians and the Canadian government for the millions of victims of the tsunami most recently. It shows Canada does care.
We are on the eve of a release of an international policy review. I gather it is coming out shortly after the budget. In the kind of leaking that goes on in advance of those events, we are seeing the reaffirmation of the Prime Minister's statement that he desires us to restore our place in the world. We all know that restoring our place in the world is not a cheap promise. It will, in fact, have a price tag.
Then, at the recent meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers, and this is a glass half full, half empty point of view, five of the ministers came to that meeting with a debt relief plan. Although it is somewhat embarrassing to be given five plans and no one could agree on one, at least they were there with debt relief on their minds, and at least they agreed in principle that it ought to be done faster and in greater measure than it has been done before.
I would ask you to consider two recommendations as part of your report. One is an explicit commitment by the Canadian government to the realization of the rights of children, at the heart of its international agenda. It is timely to do so, given the fact that we are on the eve of the Interim Progress Report, IPR. It would be a welcome statement from this committee in its examination of Canada's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child that children must have the first call on available resources. That is plain and simple.
The second is a sustainable and firm commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent target. Obviously, the increases announced in ODA in the last few years are welcome and certainly a good change from the cuts and the stagnant budgets we saw through the 1990s. We do not have a plan to meet that 1970 commitment, and it is important that we do so.
This is our fiftieth anniversary in Canada. We spent that 50 years not just working as best as we can to save and improve the lives of children around the globe, but we have also been taking the pulse of Canadians in that time. We believe the time is right to act on the deep and broad concern amongst Canadians for the world's children, and our collective commitment to lift them out of poverty. We have before us the unique opportunity to not only restore our place in the world but also to make a substantial contribution to the global imperative embedded at the heart and core of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that every girl and boy have the opportunity to grow up healthy and safe, no matter where they live.
Ms. Kathy Vandergrift, Chair, Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict, World Vision — Canada: World Vision Canada certainly appreciates this opportunity to discuss with you the importance of strengthening measures to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada. I want to be clear that we are speaking today as a delegation from World Vision. I know I am also shown on your agenda as potentially Chairperson of the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict. We would be happy to come and talk about that issue as well, but today we are here speaking about World Vision.
Canada has shown leadership in advocating for the rights of children in international assemblies, and we very much appreciate those initiatives, but in keeping with that, we would like today to speak to three main recommendations. First, we recommend that Canada develop and adopt legislation to give the CRC the force of national law in Canada, including appropriate accountability mechanisms.
Second, in addition to compliance within Canada, World Vision recommends that all aspects of Canada's international relations, including international assistance, diplomacy, trade and international financial policies be in compliance with the CRC. That is putting children's rights at the heart of our international policy.
Third, World Vision recommends that Canada take a leadership role in advocacy to strengthen international accountability mechanisms for the CRC as the most effective tool to achieve the objectives of ``A World Fit for Children.``
I would like to speak first to national legislation and give some highlights. I will be brief, as you have our written submission.
We believe that new legislation that would clearly give the CRC the force of law in Canada would be the most effective way to demonstrate a strong commitment to the rights of children, and ensure consistent implementation across all sectors and all jurisdictions.
We note that many other international treaties, such as trade agreements and some other human rights treaties, are enacted through parallel Canadian legislation. We think it is important that children's rights have the same status in this country. They are one of the most vulnerable groups. We note that in the case of the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada passed its own legislation. We would argue that the same should be done for the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We think it would also help to make Canada's case about coherence between what we do at home and what we advocate internationally. We argue in the submission that it is the way to comply with both ``A Canada Fit for Children'' and ``A World Fit for Children.``
We want to outline briefly with you the benefits of national legislation.
First, it would demonstrate our commitment to practice what we believe.
Second, the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes a holistic approach to human rights and, therefore, we would argue that it is one of the better tools to enshrine and improve the implementation of human rights in Canada.
Third, it would give clarity to some concepts such as the best interests of the child, and we will speak to how that concept intersects with the separated children issue, about which you heard before. It is important that we give clarity to that notion in Canada.
Fourth, legislation would reduce the potential for precedents to be set by court cases because that is very uneven. It is important that Parliament establish the law.
Fifth, we believe that a clear recognition of the rights of children could provide a healthy balancing factor in federal- provincial discussions. We noted that earlier you had discussion about children falling in between these jurisdictions, but sometimes the best interests of children get lost in those contests between federal and provincial governments. We think a strong statement about children's rights could assist with that. In that line, it would also contribute to more equitable treatment across the country.
Finally, accountability mechanisms would be taken seriously if they were enacted within a legal framework.
The concept of progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights as articulated in the CRC can provide a useful yardstick for measuring the fulfillment of children's rights in accordance with the availability of resources. We will not have time today go into that in detail but I suggest that the committee may wish to focus some consideration on this notion. In my experience, the concept of progressive realization often helps deal with some who are concerned about taking a rights-based approach, that it will lead to unrealistic expectations and so on. Unpacking that concept could be useful for this committee.
My colleague, Ms. Austin, will cite the separated children's policy as an example in the national policy area.
Moving quickly to international policy, as we mentioned, the new international policy framework, which we hope will come out soon, would do well to put human rights at the centre, including the rights of children. We think it is in keeping with the principle that in fact ``A World Fit for Children'' would be a world fit for all of us. A central role for child rights has implications for trade policy, but I would like to highlight two here for the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA.
Five years ago, CIDA adopted a child protection policy that worked within a child rights framework. It demonstrated the benefits of using a child rights approach, but it did so with only three select groups of children: working children, children affected by armed conflict and children subject to sexual exploitation. This strategy is under review, so your committee's recommendations with regard to child rights and CIDA would be timely. As well as renewing this strategy, we would argue it should be expanded into a more robust, comprehensive child rights approach.
I will give an example. A primary tool that CIDA uses to implement its policies is a country development framework for developing countries. In many of these countries, 40 to 50 per cent of the population is under 18. Yet, when we ask whether child rights are considered in this developing framework, often they are not. We ask ourselves, how can poverty reduction be effective if it does not consider the rights of 40 to 50 per cent of the population? We would like to see CIDA's approach to child rights extend into these country development frameworks to ensure that the situation of children in these countries is considered from the beginning.
Finally, strengthening accountability mechanisms is important at both the national and the international level. Within the framework of a national law, one could look at a variety of accountability mechanisms. One, for example, is child impact assessments of budgetary measures. You heard earlier about a commission. There could be a range of mechanisms used. We suggest that the experience of other countries could be helpful in this regard.
At the international level, the World Vision partnership has proposed that strengthening the human rights system should be a top priority for UN reform. We would include in that, particularly the rights of children.
This is really the only tool we have internationally to protect human interests. The results of the weak human rights system are obvious in the failure of the UN system, in spite of significant advocacy, to effectively protect children from the most egregious abuses in the context of long periods of armed conflict. Examples are the situation in northern Uganda, which has gone on for more than 10 years without serious address; the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where violations are well known, and the current situation in Darfur, which could have been prevented. In each case, warnings and information were available but few serious steps were actually taken to protect the security and other rights of children.
We welcome the proposed reforms in the UN High Level Panel as a first step, but they remain inadequate. We suggest that Canada support the recommendation that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have regular access to the Security Council, and we also suggest that top priority be given to the security and rights of children threatened by armed conflict. We have also suggested that Canada's own work on the security of children remain a high priority in our new international policy.
In addition to these recommended measures, however, we believe that steps should be taken toward the development of a complaints procedure for violations of the rights of children. My colleague, Ms. Austin, will address that particular mechanism in greater detail.
I would like to highlight international financial institutions, because we have heard about the importance of resources when looking at the rights of children. World Vision has undertaken some work to try to dialogue with the World Bank on what role it could play to help countries meet their own obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Our research in developing countries shows that taking a rights-based approach to education would mean that the dollars are actually spent much better. We think there are clear benefits to incorporating child rights even in areas such as the World Bank.
Finally, we say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the most important but underutilized tools we have for advancing the rights of children.
We urge this committee to continue its leadership role in this regard.
Sara Austin, Policy Analyst, Child Rights and HIV/AIDS, World Vision — Canada: I will speak briefly to a few of the points Ms. Vandergrift raised in her presentation and will elaborate more fully on our written submission.
The first is to elaborate on international policy and the impact children's rights and the CRC can have when it is implemented on the ground. I would like to share an example from one of the programs World Vision has supported for several years in India in the City of Bangalore. It is a program specifically focused on child labour and eliminating the worst forms of child labour. The program has taken an explicit child-rights-based approach. One of the most dynamic aspects of the program is the development of a child-led working children's union. It has provided a forum for children first to learn about their rights and then to become active in advocating on their own behalf. It helps to facilitate a process where children can advocate first with their employers and also with local and national legislators. Rather than taking a protectionist approach of just removing them from their work situations, children can play an active role in negotiating with the adults who have influence over their situation to try to bring about better working conditions. One of the positive outcomes is that children have been able to establish better working conditions and also have been able to have greater access to both formal as well as informal education.
I have only been able to touch on this program briefly. It is clear, however, that taking a very explicit approach to child rights as opposed to a more general child-welfare approach to child labour helps to empower these children and provide a more holistic approach to their situation.
The second issue I would like to address, which Ms. Vandergrift has mentioned, is the situation of separated children and the need for a comprehensive ``best interests'' approach. One issue concerning national policy which warrants further attention is the situation of separated children and the needs for a best interests approach that is consistent with the CRC. As our written submission highlights, World Vision Canada and other NGOs have repeatedly addressed this concern at both the national and international level. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has highlighted the issue of separated children as an issue of particular concern during Canada's last two appearances before the committee. Yet even still we have not seen any significant progress. In 1995, the committee noted with regret, ``that the principles of non-discrimination of the best interests of the child and of the respect for the views of the child, have not always been given adequate weight by administrative bodies dealing with the situation of refugee and immigrant children.''
In response to the aforementioned concerns, the Canadian government introduced amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to apply the best-interests principle as a criterion for determining the detention of minor children. While this was a progress of sorts, it was still a very narrow view, and was not in line with the norms laid out in the CRC, namely that the best interests of children must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.
In 2003, when Canada presented its subsequent periodic report to the CRC, the committee noted that, ``the best interests of the child is still not adequately defined and reflected in some legislation, court decisions and policies affecting certain children, especially those facing situations of custody and deportation.'' The committee noted with particular concern the failure of the government to adequately address issues of separated children that were brought to their attention in 1995, such as family reunification, deportation and deprivation of liberty. The committee went on to make five specific recommendations, including the need to adopt and implement a national policy on separated children, for children seeking asylum in Canada. Here we are two years later and none of these recommendations have been implemented. Given these concerns, we feel that a national law would provide greater clarity about the priority to be given to such core concepts as the best interests of the child and to help ensure the protection of the rights of separated children.
I will touch on one last point concerning the strengthening of accountability mechanisms. In particular, World Vision recommends that the Government of Canada support the development of a complaints procedure for violations on the rights of children. Such a procedure would help address serious violations that have not been resolved through domestic remedies which are not being properly addressed through the periodic reporting procedure to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. To quote the committee directly, they have stated that, ``for rights to have meaning effective remedies must be available to address violations. This requirement is implicit in the Convention and consistency referred to in the other six major international human rights treaties.'' Without a serious mechanism for children and advocates to appeal to, with a reasonable chance that the situation will be addressed, one can question the integrity of our current emphasis on teaching children their rights. While the ideal would be for the violations to be remedied at the local level, it is clear that domestic remedies often fail children or simply do not exist. The international tools of governance must take the rights of children more seriously or we risk offering children false hope.
World Vision recommends that this committee consider emerging research into ways to strengthen the implementation of the CRC through the development of a complaints procedure. Moreover, we urge you to consider supporting the development of a complaints procedure that is accessible to children in order that they can meaningfully participate in the defence of their own rights.
Senator Pearson: Thank you, both of you, for your presentations. It is very important to have the international perspective brought before us, and each of you has complemented the other's presentation. I thought Mr. Agnew, it is important perhaps to remind the senators, this committee, about the distinction between UNICEF Canada and UNICEF generally. There are two slightly different roles. Sometimes we may hold you accountable for things that you are not actually accountable for and vice versa.
Mr. Agnew: You would not be the first.
Senator Pearson: As a complement to that, many of us are concerned about the fact that — this is back to the international, what we should be doing – Canada's support for UNICEF as part of the UN has been stagnant for a number of years and perhaps you could just clarify that.
Mr. Agnew: Briefly given the interests of time, UNICEF Canada is a Canadian NGO, part of the NGO community. Here, we work as a fund-raising support to the international organization as well as an organization that does education and advocacy within Canada. While we certainly are very proud of the relationship with the international organization, it is a partnership, as it were; not necessarily something that we can deliver.
The core support of the Canadian government to UNICEF has been literally unchanged in a decade, and that has obviously had an impact on the kind of work that UNICEF can do at its heart. Like many donors, the Canadian government has been generous with its earmarked funds, but of course that has been highly responsive to emergency situations. Part of the reality of trying to achieve ultimately in the long run, the rights of children around the world, is that it is a long-term sustained effort and that does not go up and down with the cycles of emergencies. It requires the kind of rights-based programming that my friends from World Vision were talking about over a sustained period of time. That is where Canada's increased support would be very useful.
Senator Pearson: Ms. Vandergrift, I wanted to pick up on your comment, the rights-based approach, for example, in India, to clarify even more that the value of a rights-based approach is that it is holistic. Could you say a few more words about that? This is a clarification we need constantly. What is the difference between a welfare approach and rights-based approach?
Ms. Vandergrift: That is where we think that the rights-based approach adds real value because it puts the whole child in the centre, and then looks at all components and all factors that can impact that child's situation. It is not just addressing one need — food, water or some of those things — but it looks at the whole child and treats that child as an actor in the situation, not just as a passive recipient.
We have seen in numbers of examples — Ms. Austin has mentioned one and we can cite numerous others — where this approach has made a real difference in terms of both the role that young people take themselves in addressing and helping other children as well, and also bringing together the various factors.
It also leads us, as development agencies, to ask different questions when we are working. It leads us to ask who might impact that situation, what is the barrier to a child fulfilling their rights — and look at the full range of actors to bring about good programming. We will be honest and say that it is uneven in our own implementation; we are learning about that, but it is a very important factor.
In relation to CIDA, I will just give you one example because we want to see a more robust child rights approach. We spoke recently to CIDA's new agriculture strategy. The child protection unit, with merit, spoke to the issue of working children, but at the same time, did not speak to the issue of the right to food. What could be more at the centre of an agriculture strategy than the children's right to food? We argue for a very robust approach that looks at all the rights of children when CIDA is looking at its policies, not just the protection rights. Does that help make that clear?
Senator Pearson: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Austin: I just wanted to, and that was briefly to say another aspect that the convention brings to community- based programs is the way in which it highlights the duty bearers in the case of the child labour program. It highlights, specifically, the responsibilities of the government to not only have legislation in place, but to enforce it, and also the obligations of other parties, including the private sector. It brings children into an active role in the process, but it also places the primary responsibility on the duty bearers. I think that is unique to a rights-based approach.
Senator LeBreton: On the international commitments, Mr. Agnew, I think this is important. A lot of countries do not live up to the commitments, and there does not seem to be any great consequences when they do not. People do not seem to properly punish them when they do not, but you mentioned two countries that have agreed to their commitments. Have they lived up to them, and what two countries are they?
Mr. Agnew: The two countries I was referring to were the U.K. and France, both of whom have not lived up to the .7, but both of whom have laid out a calendar where they will achieve it at different times. You might know that the U.K, in particular, has been very aggressive in announcing not just a calendar to reach the .7, but has pushed the international financing facility forward, which I do not believe the Canadian government has supported, but other members of the G7 have. They have also moved ahead with aggressive debt-relief proposals as well — debt cancellation, not just relief.
There are just the two. Among the G7, to be very specific about it, France is the leader at .4. The next one is the U.K. at .34; Canada is at .24 – these are all OECD numbers. Unfortunately, two of the biggest economies — Japan and the U.S. — are nearly at the bottom of the list, along with Italy.
Senator LeBreton: To follow up with the United Kingdom, is there any mechanism, through UNICEF and the people at work in the United Kingdom, that pressure can be put on the United Kingdom to try to take the lead? Could you use a country that has a better record to shame the other ones?
Mr. Agnew: That is right — name and shame. I do know that at the G8 meeting — because, of course, Russia will be added in July — in Scotland, which will be hosted by Tony Blair, this will be a centrepiece of that meeting. It follows up the Kananaskis meeting, where there was an announcement by Canada of its commitment to Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD.
Obviously, the 8-per cent increase in the budget that we have seen, at least for the last two years, is a welcome change. However, where it would put Canada over the next few years, still has us, I think, less than halfway to that target. Unfortunately, and I say this as a very proud Canadian, we really are running on fumes on this subject. As long as we continue to try to punch above our weight without the substance behind it, and as long as we continue to get distracted by subjects like Disaster Area Response Team, DART, and amphibious vehicles and it becomes entirely a defence debate, then we really are not ever going to restore our place in the world.
Ms. Vandergrift: There are five countries that are over the .7; some are actually at 1 per cent. I think it is important for you to know that.
When we spoke to the finance committee on this issue, we drew particular attention to the situation of the Netherlands because their average per-family income is actually reasonably similar to Canada's. However, the point is that these countries have gone to .7 and beyond, and it has not damaged their economy, so there are some examples. They are not G7, but some countries have gone beyond the .7.
Senator LeBreton: The percentage of their GDP?
Ms. Vandergrift: That is correct; .7 per cent of their GDP.
Senator LeBreton: This is a question for you, Ms. Austin, on kind of a practical note because I think the whole issue of child labour is a horrific problem. You mentioned the example of World Vision in Bangalore, India, and empowering the child.
From a practical sense, how do you do that? You have these adults running these huge sweat shops. How do you get to the children? How do they get the strength to organize themselves and deal with this problem?
It seems to me that there would be a lot of resistance, and it would take a pretty brave group of children — or is it because of agencies like yours helping them? I do not know how you do it. I guess it is a practical question I am asking.
Ms. Austin: Speaking specifically to the example of the union in Bangalore, that is a child-initiated process. While we support the process, it is child-initiated; they are the ones who have taken ownership for it. Through our financial support, and also through the support of local staff, we have been able to help facilitate and where necessary — particularly when it comes to their advocacy with the local and national level officials and also at the international level — we have helped to provide support, but really it has been initiated by the children. We cannot take credit for that. However, practically speaking, it is a difficult situation, and one in which many children take significant risks to take part in these activities.
The way the labour union functions is that we provide a forum for them to meet. They invite their own speakers, people who do training for them, but they organize their own meetings and they plan and organize their own budget. However, it does take skilled staff; it takes staff with sensitization into how to facilitate and work with children so that adults do not dominate the process but provide support at the request of children, and know when to intervene if necessary.
Senator LeBreton: Have they suffered any consequences, the actual child labourers themselves?
Ms. Austin: Do you mean like a backlash?
Senator LeBreton: I saw a documentary one time about children who felt obligated because their families depended on them for their livelihood. If you have children trying to organize and be treated more fairly in one of these child labour sweatshops, are there not consequences? You talk about risks, but how do they overcome them?
Ms. Austin: That is where the important role of their advocacy work and their linkages with local level officials comes in, particularly with the police as well; that they have the back-up of the local police and the local labour officials so that they are not put in a position where they can take negative feedback from the employers themselves. A number of the children that I am speaking about are working in the informal economy and not in factories per se. However, it involves careful advocacy with the government officials and the police in particular, to provide them with support and protection.
Senator LeBreton: It would take a pretty brave group of children though — I cannot get my head around how they achieve a proper consequence.
Ms. Vandergrift: When we go into something like that, certainly you do look at the security of children. Even in our advocacy, for example, when children are in conflict situations, sometimes we cannot do things we would like to do otherwise because of the security risk to children. It is certainly a factor we have to take into consideration.
Senator Oliver: I have a question for each group.
I was very interested in what World Vision said about working with the World Bank to help various countries meet their international obligations under the convention. How far have you gone with that? What is the World Bank prepared to do?
My second question is for Mr. Agnew. I am aware of the two recommendations you made with respect to the rights of children becoming part of the international agenda and the point-seven formula. I am aware that you were a principal with Digital 4Sight where you directed a global research project investigating the impact of technologies on government and democracies. Could you tell us what lessons were learned from which we, as public policy makers, could learn something about what international groups might be able to do?
Ms. Vandergrift: I mentioned it because this is a tough arena. The World Bank initially said that human rights is not their business. We said that it is their business to help countries meet obligations that they have undertaken. The reason that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is so useful is because most countries have signed on to this convention, and it says very particular things about education, for example. There are a couple of articles relating to that.
We argued the point that just as you have a responsibility to help countries meet their financial obligation, there is an obligation to help them meet obligations they have undertaken, but particularly that their policies should not undermine progressive realization of the rights of children. In some cases, the policies of the World Bank have required countries, for example, to hire fewer teachers, so we have seen children move backwards. Progressive realization of the right to education says that you do not move backward in a country; you keep moving forward.
Senator Oliver: How far have you gone with them?
Ms. Vandergrift: I want to make my other argument.
We wanted to show them that it was to their benefit. The World Bank is interested in poverty reduction, so we were able to document that using a rights-based approach that looks at the relevance of education and the quality of education would actually help them achieve their goals in terms of effectiveness and poverty reduction.
How far have we gone? We have not transformed the World Bank, but I think the dialogue in terms of looking at child rights in their programming has certainly moved forward. I can leave you with the document that we used to engage with that dialogue, and we will continue it to also hold them accountable.
You cannot ask developing countries to meet their obligations if you do not ask the agencies that are providing the resources to do the same. That is the principle we wanted to demonstrate.
Mr. Agnew: To add a footnote, turning bankers into human rights advocates is not an overnight process, but it was interesting to attend a meeting just before the holidays that was co-sponsored by the World Bank and UNICEF on HIV/AIDS orphans. I think you can start to build the case bit by bit from the specifics, moving it, in a sense, from the old needs-based charity-based approach to development, to a rights-based approach with those kinds of very vivid, extraordinarily real and economy-affecting situations, be it education or HIV/AIDS.
Pulling from my previous life some work on the impact of technology on governance and democracy, part of what is exciting about that is the way youth interact with technology tools in ways that those of us of more advanced years do not. Be it by way of instant messaging, short messaging service on telephones or by some of the collaborative ways that some of the new technologies allow people to come together to try to solve problems, it can potentially — and I stress ``potentially`` — give real meaning to the child participation elements. It really does put tools, where they are available, right in the hands of some of the people who are least consulted, and least often able to have a voice in the councils of government.
Senator Oliver: How many of these developing countries would have technological tools like cell phones that children could utilize?
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. Speaking of the World Bank, it is a huge issue that it is a gap. Of course, the reality is that in at least a number of countries in the less-developed world there are technological leaps happening of which we are not aware in terms of the penetration of mobile telephony.
Senator Oliver: And wireless.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. The copper generation will not happen. It has gone right over that into the cell towers. There are great stories of the use of a single mobile telephone in an Indian village for a communications tool, or of a single computer in a region that allows people access to the outside world.
They can help, but fundamentally they are a tool, and that is ultimately my conclusion.
Senator Oliver: Does UNICEF have any documents on this that you could give to the clerk of our committee so we could do more homework on this as a way of engaging children around the world more in connection with the covenant and the rights?
Mr. Agnew: I am not sure if UNICEF does, but I could get my hands on some papers, and I will forward them to the clerk.
Ms. Vandergrift: I will tell you a wonderful story about the use of radio allowing young people to talk with each other about their rights. They use it to protect them from being recruited as child soldiers.
Senator Oliver: Can you give us examples?
Ms. Vandergrift: They tune into the radio, and discourse among young people as a protection mechanism. Radio is reasonably accessible even in more remote situations. There are examples of that in a number of countries and I can get you information on that.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: My question follows up on the one put by Senator Pearson. She alluded to UNICEF New York and to the international arm of UNICEF. It seems the international organization wants to withdraw from sex education programs. In my view, this would violate the rights of youth and children. What is UNICEF Canada's position on the matter?
[English]
Mr. Agnew: Which programs would we want to get out of in New York?
Senator Losier-Cool: ``Sexual reproduction'' is the term I believe they are using.
Mr. Agnew: We were never involved in that issue as some would define it, but of course we put a huge emphasis on maternal health and neonatal health in terms of the reproductive process, whether it is prevention education that we fund and promote on the HIV/AIDS issue or trying to ensure that there is as healthy a mother and as healthy a baby as possible in the birthing process.
Senator Losier-Cool: I understand that Action Canada for Population and Development, ACPD, would be pushing that issue on reproduction and development, but I thought that UNICEF would also be working on all the questions of maternity, infant mortality and reproduction.
Mr. Agnew: In terms of infant mortality, child survival, and a critical push on breast-feeding, the spectrum is absolutely there.
Senator Losier-Cool: Do I understand that UNICEF Canada will not support a position from UNICEF New York to withdraw from any issue on reproduction or sexual education?
Mr. Agnew: I do not know the example where we have withdrawn from that territory. Our policy is there.
Senator Losier-Cool: You have your policy. That was my question; if you have a policy.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. I can share it with you; there is no problem.
The Chairman: We have been able to hear General Roméo Dallaire again in our Foreign Affairs committee on our study in Africa. He made the point that you can look at poverty, you can look at HIV/AIDS and you can look at all these issues, but it has to be within the framework of equality. He makes the case that we have not looked at Africa in an equal way. We do not see them as equal. Also, raising child soldiers in the conflict; we do not obviously look at children and see their rights in the same way.
Do you believe that if we look at the convention and can get the point across that children are equal in status to adults and have those rights, as defined in the convention, that we will go a long way to solving some of the developmental problems; if we start looking at it as an equality issue as opposed to a welfare issue? As opposed to saying it is rights based, fundamentally getting across the point about the equality of children; that they have rights from the time they are born, and they are equal citizens.
Mr. Agnew: It is frightening. Ms. Vandergrift mentioned how many countries there are. Thinking of Africa in particular, where half the population is under 18, it is a terrifying prospect to think of the consequences if we continue to underfund those countries, and particularly the families that one meets when you go, their absolute desire to create, for their children, a world better than the one that, so far, has been delivered to them. No one can be more passionate and eloquent than Stephen Lewis on what is happening to Sub-Saharan Africa with the hollowing out of countries by HIV/AIDS. It is difficult for me to imagine, if I took off my UNICEF hat, how people could not see the connection between an investment in the future that children represent, and how those societies and countries will evolve. I know that the rights language turns some people off. That is the reality. People do not like an aggressive assertion of rights as some kind of academic exercise. You do not have to go far to see where the rights and needs are absolutely co-joined. Of course, the existence of the kind of poverty that we see, not just in Africa but around the world, affecting children is just one example of that.
Ms. Vandergrift: I work with General Dallaire and appreciate his passion when he speaks about the equality and treatment of children in Africa. I am reminded of the situation in Northern Uganda where there are the most egregious violations of children's rights, and it seems to be forgotten by much of the world. Canada has tried to do some things, but it is forgotten. Young persons there are saying to us, ``I wish there was oil in our country because maybe our issues would be addressed as well.'' It highlights that importance. If we believe that every child is of equal worth, then I think we begin to transform those policies, and look at the kinds of unequal treatment that results from that. I think it is an important movement.
I would just highlight again the benefit of the child-rights approach. I believe that without a rights-based approach we would not have gotten as far as we have with the child-soldiers issue because it was child rights that put children on the agenda of Security Council, and on the political as well as humanitarian agenda. Children affected by war used to be seen as the business of World Vision, UNICEF and humanitarian agencies. We said, no, these are people with rights, so they became part of the political agenda. We convinced the Security Council that threats to their security were international threats to security. I think a rights-based approach moved that issue forward, and certainly General Dallaire has been an important ally in that movement.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming this evening and sharing the international dimension to children's rights. I think it is important when we look at the convention that we look at our national obligations, but also our international obligations, and you have brought that dimension to us. Thank you for coming this evening. We are adjourned until next Monday.
The committee adjourned.