Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 13 - Evidence
MONTREAL, Monday, November 6, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is meeting today at 1:01 p.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regard to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. The mandate of our committee is to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regard to the rights and freedoms of children. We will begin our meeting with testimony from Dr. Gilles Julien, a social paediatrician and the president of the Fondation pour la promotion de la pédiatrie sociale and from Dr. Nicolas Steinmetz, director general.
Dr. Gilles Julien, Social Paediatrician and President, Fondation pour la promotion de la pédiatrie sociale: Madam Deputy Chairman it is truly is a privilege to be with you. Thank you so much for your invitation. I will not read the brief since you already have it. I prefer commenting on the brief and then moving on to questions.
I would like to point out that Dr. Steinmetz and myself were invited in our capacity as paediatricians. We are from a team composed of an administrative paediatrician and a clinical paediatrician to promote social paediatrics. Social paediatrics is really a community-based approach to paediatrics which is inspired by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What we originally decided to do is to work with children in partnership with the Convention.
Your document clearly illustrates the fact that the convention exists, that it was signed, in that it is perfect. In fact, when you read it, you basically find everything you need to set up a program which truly supports children in the community. It is complete. The convention is a source of inspiration for people like us who defend the rights of children when they are in school or in a hospital, when they do not have access to enough services in their community or to recreational opportunities, or when they need local protection. The convention is there to support us.
Generally speaking, when the convention is used that way, and we recently invoke it at the Tribunal: de quel droit on fait cela à un enfant? The convention states that children have the right to protection, to education, to go to a school which they are familiar with and which adapts to their need, and not vice versa. In our daily work, we can refer to the convention in almost any situation, which is inspiring, and which also makes our message also more powerful, which is very interesting.
We want people to understand that, yes, the convention exists. It might be a good idea to eventually have a commission which would raise awareness about the convention. It is clear that there is a societal problem, given the example of the resident in paediatrics who graduates in his field at university, and who does an internship without ever having heard of the convention. This is completely unacceptable. Most people just do not know that it exists.
It would therefore be interesting to have a commission to raise awareness about the convention, and which would eventually force governments to apply the convention principles in their legislation, and to make these principles the uppermost priority in children lives.
At the same time, they would need to be witnesses to make sure that the convention is indeed implemented in the communities. We believe that the social paediatrics projects which were developed in the Côtes-des-Neiges and Hochelaga neighbourhood are a good example of how the convention can be applied locally. In doing so, the convention becomes efficient and unavoidable.
This is the message we would like to send out today. Of course, we support your recommendations because the convention must be applied from the top down. Surely we can find ways to ensure that people in fact do apply the convention and also become more familiar with it.
We also need observers at the local level, particularly in poorer communities where we find the most vulnerable children. These kids do not have access to services which they need. Their basic rights are breached on a daily basis because they do not access to what they need to develop normally, because despite what we may think, this is lacking in a country like Canada.
There are many examples. I spent a morning in a primary school in which the school committee, the principal, the teaching staff and other school professionals tried to integrate our services to make them more accessible to children in need. We have been doing this for years in the way we approach social paediatrics.
Year after year, relentlessly, and particularly this year, which was very bad, there have been cutbacks, especially in poorer areas. In fact, cutbacks are happening everywhere and their effects are twice as bad in poorer areas. In wealthier schools, you might find one or two problem children per class, whereas that number can hit 15 or 20 in less privileged schools, and often more than half of these kids have a variety of problems. Budget cutbacks do not affect wealthier places the same way.
It seems that the cutbacks are happening across the board. In the last two years, we have observed dramatic consequences. In fact, what we were talking about this morning is that there are classes with 30 students and only a single teacher, and many of these students have problems. We were talking with Senator Dallaire a little earlier about multiethnic populations. I was at a completely multiethnic school, and the kids there had problems from the outset because they spoke a different language and had a different culture.
Parents want a lot, but for children it is often a cultural shock when they find themselves in a francophone school in Montreal and have to deal with a third or fourth language and a different code of behaviour. This situation requires a lot of energy on behalf of the adults, the teachers and school authorities.
Again, we have noticed that classes are growing but resources are decreasing. Problem children are sent away to special schools or put into special classes which are located away from their neighbourhood, which means that you lose control over these kids. It is dramatic.
There is a section in the convention which clearly states that children have the right to an education which meets their needs and their culture.
In this case, that section should apply without exception. This is a reality in school, but it also applies to child protection services, which work in silos. The systems in Quebec, and this probably applies to other provinces as well, are monolithic and generally operate in isolation.
So how does one even begin to consider the global protection of children if we only focus on their physical health and not issues of stability and identity? There are huge consequences when you remove a child from its family or its environment. The convention states that a child sense of identity is essential. We could give you more examples.
For us, there is no doubt that the convention is a gift from heaven. We can invoke it before the courts, before school authorities or in a hospital and say that the child was not well integrated, or it was turned down three times for an electroencephalogram, despite the fact that the child has convulsions and needs to be tested, just because the child has lice. This is something we see every day and it is unacceptable.
In summary, we firmly believe in the convention. We are pleased to be able to talk about it with you. We expect you to work hard, and to find ways to help us raise awareness about the convention and apply it. Of course, the greatest obstacle is poverty, because when you are poor, it is harder for you to uphold your rights. This is quite obvious, and often these rights are breached in very subtle ways.
Another major obstacle is that there are no people in the neighbourhoods working to ensure its application by constantly reminding adults taking care of children that there is a convention and that if they want to do things properly they must take into consideration all the articles of that convention.
Security must be fully integrated along with education and identity. The only way to do that is to take a community approach. An excellent example, to blow our own horn, is the social paediatrics approach that has been put forward for a number of years now and that we want to see adopted across Quebec and Canada.
I will conclude there and move on to your questions. My partner, Dr. Steinmetz, has no doubt something to add.
Dr. Nicolas Steinmetz, Doctor, and Executive Director of the Foundation of Social Paediatrics Promotion: Madam Deputy Chairman, first I want to thank you for meeting with us today. This is an exceptional opportunity for us to tell you about the problems that we are experiencing on the ground on a daily basis.
The convention's underlying principle really is encompassing, if it is read as it is meant to be, and if we look at the implications for our society in concrete terms, not only on legislation but on its enforcement and the involvement of people at all levels in our society.
I would like to provide you with some statistics to support what Dr. Julien said about the problems experienced in the area in which he works in Montreal: Over the past twenty years, the gap between the rich and poor has increased by 17 per cent. This is true under all governments, all political parties, and it is a trend that is moving in the wrong direction.
Over the past two years in Montreal, there has been a 12 per cent increase in a number of neglected children. There has been an increase of 43 per cent in the number of abandoned children. This important fact needs to be acknowledged. We must be careful when you talk about respecting the rights of children in other countries, because we are not setting the best example if we look at what is really happening.
We must remember that it truly does take a village to raise a child. The villages of yesterday have been replaced by a much more complex society that acts through legislation, regulations and government policies from various departments.
When we have to approach representatives of a department about funding for social paediatrics, we realize that we are talking with public servants who also work in silos. For example, if Dr. Julien wants to help children succeed in school, he must also work in cooperation with people from the department of education. However, the people in the department of education believe that child development falls under the department of health and that they have no role to play in this matter. It is difficult to make these people understand that, when it comes to things like human development, society as a whole is involved and that the way our government is organized does not reflect public needs but rather illustrates the need of government to change the way it does things, and it is not always the same thing.
People say that our health care system is open to everyone, but this is not true. Last month, the London School of Economics and Political Science published a study by Sarah Allen demonstrating that, particularly in Canada, those better off are better served than those who are not as well off, in terms of access to all health services.
If we were to conduct a study on schools, the result would probably the same. As Dr Julien just mentioned, resources to all schools have been cut. For those who can afford to pay for a caregiver, music lessons, a tutor to help their children with their homework, take them to the park or the museum, that's great. Those who cannot afford it suffer. Naturally the children suffer not only in terms of their development, but also in terms of their knowledge of the world, the development of their minds, their knowledge and the development in their identity. Identity is a very important issue. This is a pointed question when it comes to underprivileged children. They see themselves more as losers and not as winners.
Senator Jim Munson: Gentlemen, if I may, I will ask my question in English because asking it in French would be very problematic for me and the public.
[English]
Senator Munson: You said resources are being cut in disadvantaged areas. Do governments give any rationale why this would happen, at this age, in this province, in this country?
[Translation]
Dr. Julien: Yes. In fact, with regard to budget cuts, it is because they are suddenly imposed on everyone. I said that the impact of budget cuts is even more significant when those cuts are imposed on under-privileged neighbourhoods where there is already a great deal of suffering and where more investments are needed. No reason is ever given when you are on the ground.
Last year, two regions in eastern Montreal merged their schools. Without any consultations whatsoever, the decision was made to no longer offer special classes on one side of the neighbourhood and that all the classes would be offered at the far end of the Island. This means that, our kids who have major learning problems, developmental problems or adjustment problems, will now have to travel by bus, for 30 minutes to an hour, outside of their neighbourhood. We do a lot of work as a network around children. We are there to observe and as you saw on the diagrams, there are needs. We are working with all of that. We are trying to follow a plan.
However, if children leave the neighbourhood for the day and travel to a school outside their neighbourhood, there is nothing more we can do. Last year, most of our special classes were moved east, and we do not know why. In reality, we are being told that this is an effort to streamline services.
As Dr. Steinmetz said, this is completely undermining the neighbourhood's identity and the sense of belonging to the school. We know that belonging and roots are a reality that no longer needs to be proven. When someone is uprooted, and this applies to immigrants, refugees, as well as people in their own neighbourhood, that person loses his or her bearings. He or she no longer exists.
When children are having problems at school, at least they are in a school that knows them, that they like, where their friends are and where there are people to help them. But when these children are further uprooted, it is terrible. It seems that no one considers these factors when they make those infamous budget cuts.
This also applies to health care. It applies basically everywhere. However, in education, last year was quite dramatic. We visit the schools. We go to see the children in their classes. They feel as if they are still getting support. Putting down roots provides the motivation that forms the foundation of development.
When Youth Protection workers tell us: the child is being moved for his or her own good. Ultimately, the child is being moved and punished at the same time. The child is being uprooted. The child is losing his or her bearings. The child feels like he or she is being punished, abused or violated. It is unbelievable.
But no one ever tells us about those reasons. They only tell us about the need to save money, to streamline services, to do more with less and so on. No one is ever going to talk about children's rights. Because it really is about children's rights. I do not know if this really answers your question, and perhaps Dr. Steinmetz may want to add a comment, but those are not the reasons given on the ground.
[English]
Senator Munson: You said that in the poor areas you can find 20 children with special needs, whereas in other areas there are two with special needs. In other words, there seems to be more children in poorer areas with special needs.
When I was driving here today there was a news story on the radio of an abandoned baby, abandoned by her mother. You talked about a 43 per cent increase in child abandonment. I know these two questions are disjointed, but these numbers are startling, as far as I am concerned.
[Translation]
Dr. Julien: Statistics prove that poor regions, such as the one in which we work, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but there are others in Montreal, this is not exclusive to Hochelaga alone, the rates of physical disorders, including respiratory problems, are higher. The dropout rate and the school success rate among others are completely different.
Child protective services receive three to four times more calls in these areas than in other neighbourhoods. Much greater numbers of children are placed in care. The numbers are significantly different in all areas. The rate in such areas is exponential.
I often speak with people from various parts in Montreal and they do not believe that such extreme poverty exists there. Lack of awareness is another problem. We hear that one child out of four in Canada is living in poverty. What does living in poverty mean? It means living in an environment that offers fewer opportunities and more problems of all kinds, and more direct help is needed.
Now when there are budget cuts, the same issue always comes up; the cuts are the same across the board. Let us take, for instance, a classroom in the comparatively wealthy area of Outremont, there may be one or two students per class that have problems. In the same kind of class in Hochelaga, you will find that more than half of the class is having problems. The situation is not the same at all.
They have all kinds of problems. They have not slept all night; they are hungry, they have been victims of abuse or violence; they cannot sleep at night because there are too many people moving about in the house. They have learning disabilities; their development is slow because their genetic make-up is changing. There is a huge number of cases of neurological development problems in these areas, more than anywhere else. All these problems are exacerbated and those children do not have access to the same opportunities as others do. This is more or less what it means and it goes against every article of the Convention on the Rights of Child.
Dr. Steinmetz: I would like to follow up on that important point that Dr. Julien just made. People living in poverty undergo continuous stress, they are physically and financially insecure and they have health problems. The cumulative stress results in what we call in medical terms "the metabolism syndrome" in adults but even more in children.
The long term results of all this, and the long term can be a matter of months for children, are cases of stunted growth, atrophy of the hippocampus in the brain and of another structure of the brain called the amygdale. Strangely enough, it only occurs on the left side. The result is that these people cannot control their emotions and their violent impulses. In our society, most of those who commit violent acts, have lived through a childhood that was inadequate, depressing, violent and stressful.
Another point I would like to raise to follow up on what Dr. Julien just said: Children who grow up in poverty start out with a normal IQ at first, and the longer they live in poverty, the lower their IQ gets. Whereas children born in more normal or prosperous environments with a normal IQ will improve their IQ as they grow up. And if children from a wealthy environment have a lower IQ, their IQ will improve and become normal and even better.
When children are born in poverty and grow up in poverty, not only does this affect their intelligence, but it even affects the functioning of their brain. Is the damage permanent? Can this be changed? Currently, nobody knows. But the evidence is there. We must pay attention to it.
Therefore, keeping large numbers of our children in poverty is not only unfair to the children, but we are building a society that will have tremendous problems. Although children are a minority in our society, they nevertheless represent our future.
[English]
Senator Munson: On the question of children being abandoned, I found the figure of a 43 per cent increase, astronomical. It is hard to believe.
Dr. Steinmetz: For percentages, you always need to ask what is the base. It has increased from 43 cases to 58 cases in Montreal over two years, which is a lot.
Senator Munson: It is a lot, and what is the explanation?
Dr. Steinmetz: The explanation is a little bit of what we have just talked about.
Senator Poy: Dr. Julien, you mention applying the convention in medical care. Could you walk us through, say, one case, and how successful you can be? Say a child needs an MRI, or whatever medical care he or she needs. You mentioned, when you spoke, that a lot of your residents do not know what the convention is. What do you do? Do you start teaching them about the convention and what is the right of the child?
[Translation]
Dr. Julien: In fact, two years ago, a social pediatrics training network was created. Of course, training in social pediatrics is clearly based on the Convention. This is what our work is based on and students should be aware of this.
And the timing was right; all four Quebec universities with medical departments joined the network. Now, an internship in social pediatrics is mandatory for resident physicians in pediatrics at McGill and at the University of Montreal. We hope that in the near future it will be compulsory for all physicians including family doctors. With the limited means at our disposal, we should see to this.
Thus, we are off to a new start because physicians, at least, will be more aware of the Convention on the rights of the child and its implementation. We want to give more and more courses on the implementation of the Convention on the rights of the child in various environments. Here, we are dealing with medicine in general rather than hospital medicine. It can also apply to hospitals. On Thursday morning, I will be meeting the residents in neuropediatrics at the Montreal Children's Hospital, to tell them what to expect when treating underprivileged children.
Just now, I spoke of a child, a beautiful child whose frequent convulsions do not allow him to learn anything in school, this child needs medication, the medication needs to be adjusted and we need an electroencephalogram. It is not a complicated matter.
If we want to get a family from Hochelaga to go to the hospital for an electroencephalogram, it takes more than just telling them that the child needs an electroencephalogram. The family must feel secure and needs to be accompanied. We often have to send someone to accompany the family to make sure that they get there.
This is what we did three times for this child. The parents went to the hospital but the child was turned back because he had lice. That does not work.
We must teach hospitals to receive children in a better way and not to exclude them for trivial reasons such as lice which are endemic in our part of town, everyone has them. Now should the hospitals turn away all those children?
When Dr. Steinmetz began working for us, he said: "If that is how it is, we will bring the encephalogram device to Hochelaga to do the reading."
All this goes to say that as far as we are concerned, organizing a fourth visit is a difficult and complicated matter. The child is always penalized, because she is not learning anything. Moreover, with each convulsion, there is a bit more damage, and it will be hard to reverse that.
We have indeed made representations. The Fondation pour la promotion de pédiatrie sociale was created one year ago, precisely in order to promote this non-exclusive kind of practice that gives the community access to services as much as possible; we want the people at the top to come down to the community level. This means that hospital workers must be aware of what is going on in communities so that they can give a better reception to these children at the hospital, with adequate treatment and access to services even if they look distrustful, even if they are poorly dressed and even if they are sometimes unattractive because of the smell or some other factor. They often get turned away or criticized for such reasons.
I know many parents who do not want to go to the hospital emergency department because they are afraid that they might call Child protection. These parents feel that judgement has already been passed on them. Things like this happen regularly. Therefore, we are working on both sides of the problem.
We try to develop as many services as possible in the community because that is where the roots are, the identity of the child. At the same time, we try to convince the big systems. You saw it in the diagram; there are many systems that are set up by society to help children. They are all there, except there is no communication. Dr. Steinmetz spoke of this; they all work in silos.
Often, child welfare workers find it difficult to work with others. Hospitals believe that they are the best, and they do not like working with people in the communities. It is happening at every level.
Moreover, all these people who are supposed to be working together for the child are not speaking to one another. Therefore, something has to change. We believe that the social paediatrics projects are a good intermediary between the families and the disadvantaged children and the overall systems, to arrive at some kind of compromise so that these people will talk to each other, get to know each other and become aware of the fact that there are children's rights that must be respected here. That is what we are currently trying to do.
[English]
Senator Poy: Do you have a lot of volunteers in your foundation?
[Translation]
Dr. Julian: In fact we have two projects, one in Côte-des-Neiges called "The Childhood Preventive Services Centre" where we have five employees and some volunteers. In Hochelaga, it is approximately twice as big. This is a project that has existed for several years. There are a lot of volunteers, and a lot of offers from volunteers. It is not easy to manage volunteers because we really need consistency. A volunteer who comes once a year is not of much interest to us. We require a certain intensity from them in order to be able to assure the child's stability.
In fact, what we want from the volunteers is for them to help us accompany the children on their path and contribute to their success. It requires a certain reliability to achieve this. We have great offers for volunteer work. In Hochelaga, we have approximately 100, including 50 great friends, young people who individually accompany a child along the road, for over a year, two years even four years. It is very important.
On the other hand, we have a limited capacity. We are small organizations. And these two projects which should proliferate across Quebec and across Canada, must remain small neighbourhood organizations. If not, they will lose their ability to integrate things. But volunteer work, yes, absolutely.
Senator Dallaire: Gentlemen, if I may, I will ask you perhaps to take notes, because I am going to ask four questions. Sometimes, with the answers and the time it takes, all the questions are not answered. You may choose the questions you would like to respond to.
First question: the Foundation works with children from disadvantaged neighbourhoods in a region of Quebec. There is the school, the local community service centre, the family and the social worker. Could you explain to me specifically where do you fall into that group, and who your advocates are that can further your cause?
Second question: ultimately, who picks up the dropouts and the street children? Is there any methodology that has been created to deal with this very real element in our society?
Third question: the Criminal Code still allows parents to spank their children. Do you have an opinion on that subject?
And fourth, you were talking about human rights. About the general lack of awareness of the convention. We can see that there are shortcomings in the enforcement of human rights in the various social programs. Should there not be some kind of champion, or some kind of political entity perhaps with the mandate to ensure that the programs respect and meet the requirements of children's rights, both federal and provincial?
Dr. Julien: In fact, I will reply rather quickly. Perhaps Dr. Steinmetz could provide some clarification.
Our model is quite flexible, quite simple, and it is a model based on professionals. By that I mean that our teams are made up of the doctor, a social paediatrician with a team that normally consists of a social worker, a remedial teacher, teachers, and art therapists. Generally speaking, we consider the team minimal. And we are all professionals. We set up in a neighbourhood, as we did in Hochelaga and Côte-des-Neiges, with a view to putting in place services tailored to all of the children's needs that you see in the diagram, in other words, over all needs.
Our involvement is not just medical. Medicine is a part, but it is often a pretext. People start by bringing their children to us for a minor ailment, but that quickly leads to other needs, if we are attentive, and that it what we aim to be.
So we become a focal point in a neighbourhood that creates movement around the child. We then develop a network around that. Volunteers and, of course, people from the CLSCs are involved. But it is not always easy, as we confront one another. They often consider us as competitors. That has happened in the past with the CLSCs. But increasingly, with our credibility, the CLSC, the DYP, and the school system seek out our services, advice and the guidance.
They are one of our most precious collaborators. To such an extend, that they now call us to initiate movement around children. It is quite unique. So, we are really generating movement around the needs and rights of children. And it is incredibly efficient, because it is simple. Families can come, and they do not need a referral with forms in triplicate. They come, they ask for assistance. And that is very precious, because we are very close to them.
We truly believe in identity, but also in attachment. So we use the attachment theory to create the confidence that subsequently generates movement. That is who we are. That is what we would like other organizations to reproduce.
Street children have access to us, but we are focusing on the 0 to 12 age group, and on the 0 to 5 age group in Côte-des-Neiges. So we are using a model to prevent dropouts. Moreover, in Côte-des-Neiges, the objective of the Centre de services preventifs à l'enfance is to prepare children for school. In other words, we try to identify them before they start school, then we prepare them for school in terms of language, fine motor skills, socialization, as well as parental and school involvement. We do all of that before they start school.
Our objective is to have children who are fully equipped to start school. We are doing that more and more, and we are already seeing an impact when they start school. Teachers are telling us: "Oh! There are changes for one year to the next when you are involved. They begin school, and they are already stimulated. We know what they have."
Parents agree. They are already on side. They know the school, because there are workshops at the school during the summer, before the children start school at age 4. So it is a very interesting system. At the same time, a feeling of trust is created. Parents set up groups to help us. The movement is created, and parents get involved in the process. It is incredible, because in Côte-des-Neiges, the parents are of many different nationalities.
When we talk about the needs and the rights of children, everyone agrees. There are no transcultural issues at all. It is what everyone wants.
I am opposed to spanking. But that has unfortunately led adults to be somewhat disengaged from being strict with their children. We must be firm with children. Limits must be established and they must be clear. By putting an end to spanking, it is as if all of that has been removed, and that makes no sense. Children must not be spanked, but they need clear rules, and limits: you may do this; you may not do that. Parents are not even doing that. Moreover, often where people are better off anything goes, children are lost, because children need parameters, not spanking.
Fourth, yes, we need champions of children's rights at every level. We need them at both the federal and provincial level, and they need to be well identified: this particular person is the champion. But we also need them in the communities. So we need to spread this out to the community level or it will not work. We will just have paid lip service to the idea.
There has to be a process that works from top to bottom and bottom to top for children's rights. And I think that at the bottom, doctors should be at the forefront of this, given our credibility and the impact we can have. It is not because I want to advocate for doctors at any price, but why not use a credibility that exists even among the most disadvantaged groups.
In an area such as Hochelaga, I have always been able to go into homes because I am a doctor. I can knock on the door and say that I am Dr. Julien, and they let me in. They will not necessarily open the door to a social worker because that is too threatening. So we need to use that power, while working as a team with other specialists.
Dr. Steinmetz: With regard to spanking, we say that society must eliminate violence but it is okay at home. That is not right. Obviously, people with little income who live with a lot of stress will lose control and do things like that. But there is also an attitude that it is all right to hit a child. People still believe that newborns, for example, do not feel pain and that it is all right to circumcise baby boys without anaesthesia because it does not hurt them. That is not true. All the connections for pain are already there and work very well.
As for champions of children's rights, yes, it is something to think about. It would be too bad if we set up another bureaucracy that did not work. So it is more appropriate to think about how to educate people. We need to educate all those who have a role in society: doctors, nurses, social workers, school teachers, daycare workers, police officers and lawyers: everyone needs to know that this exists, can express it and knows that it needs to be followed, that it is important and applies everywhere.
Dr. Julien: I just wanted to add that I was in Prince Edward Island last week, where I was invited by the Commission des parents francophones du Canada which is an organization that is present across Canada and is highly motivated to defend children's interests. I presented a short slide show that we had developed on children's rights. They were very enthusiastic: everyone was taking notes and I heard them say "Oh! That particular right applies in our case and we will use it." People are more than happy to move ahead on this, on the condition that we drive the issue, more than act as champions, by providing this knowledge and supporting them in how to use it.
Senator Pépin: I would like to thank you for coming to meet with us because we know that you are champions of children's rights. If I recall correctly, you held a major rally last summer to raise funds for children.
You said that people who are involved do not talk to one another. Obviously, the CLSCs, families and doctors are managing to speak to one another. But if we look beyond that, at the municipal or even the provincial level, how do you think this can be organized so as to raise awareness? As you said, you have to call on three departments to obtain something and then budget cuts are imposed.
There is no one; there was not a kind of committee set up in which you could participate to outline your priorities and your operations. How could that be improved? There are so many obstacles?
Dr. Julien: I am not a very good organizer. What I have attempted to do in recent years is to create something at the local level. Now, we realize that it is working. In the beginning, I never imagined that it would go beyond the local level. My friend Dr. Steinmetz truly believed in the idea of social paediatrics at the time. As for me, I said: "Well no, it is local. It has to remain at the local level."
But the more we talked about it, the more people would say: "Oh! Good, that is what we must do". It was quite astonishing that my residents in paediatrics had never heard about the Convention. However, they would come and do their internship in social paediatrics and say: "That is what I have always wanted. That is why I went into medicine, to do something like that."
So it is reassuring. In the end, I think that it has to be a bottom up approach. But, when we try to go up, and we tried last Thursday, with some success with the Ministry of Health. We said: No, not just Health, we want Education, we want Family Services, we want Justice, we want Social Solidarity, Recreation. Everyone has to be there because what we are proposing is a grassroots societal project.
But we are encountering some major difficulties. It is true at the provincial level, and it is undoubtedly true at the federal level.
Senator Pépin: At the federal level, yes.
Dr. Julien: At the municipal level, it is even worse, because we do not know who to talk to. We never know who to talk to. But of course it would be good if we had a system defined as you mentioned, with a secretariat or a working group to help us.
Senator Pépin: That creates a network.
Dr. Julien: Yes, that creates a network that goes up to the provincial and the federal levels, and where we can also complain, a kind of rights commission where we can say: Look, it is not working. In such and such a sector, this is what is happening. It is not consistent with children's rights. What can you do to help us?
Of course it must be connected at the grassroots level. There are many community groups, but often, these groups do not talk to each other. That is quite a widespread phenomenon. They distrust one another. There are about 50 organizations for children and families in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Just linking them together is difficult. If one has something another does not, they are jealous.
Senator Pépin: They are unhappy.
Dr. Julien: In fact, what we need is a consensus around children at all levels. There is no consensus. Everyone is doing there own thing. Everyone is satisfied with their own thing. And that is not enough. And everyone has a clear conscience. They do not see the poor children. They do not know they exist, because it is not their business. There is no consensus surrounding children in Canada.
Dr. Steinmetz: Allow me to answer. I would add something I find important. When we talk about doing something in terms of children's rights, and Dr. Julien agrees with me, it is important not to get the courts involved. Because we see with the DYP that getting the courts involved in social family problems makes no sense, because someone is being blamed. There must be a sentence. Certain things must be done. And that is not appropriate given what we are talking about.
Senator Pépin: You also pointed out that there are very few people who know the Convention including paediatric students. I think that, as parliamentarians, we should make knowing the Convention a priority. This would draw the general public's attention to it.
Obviously we are talking about poverty and an increase in violence. I recently read about an increase in a number of street gangs. So there is a link between what you have told us and street gangs. Street gangs are primarily made up of teenagers. Do you think that there is a major link there?
Dr. Julien: Yes. It is clear to us what youth are attracted to street gangs. We see this happening. We are aware of it. We talk about it in schools and try to identify those who may fall prey. If we fail in this pursuit, these young people will surely be recruited. And that brings me to the root causes which include one's identity. How youth join street gangs for two major reasons: because they are facing identity issues and are unmotivated at school. These two things go hand in hand.
One's identity is all about a sense of belonging. And I am thinking about two street gangs here: One from Côte-des-Neiges and the other in Hochelaga. The problems in Côte-des-Neiges are largely attributable to trauma suffered during the migration process and other general background issues. Families often close in upon themselves. And yet these young people want to branch out and are often prevented from doing so by their families for a whole host of reasons associated with the migration process and past trauma.
Young people will then look somewhere else for their identity. It is obviously a good thing when this happens at school. And this is often the case because teachers are very attached to the children. Our small primary schools are particularly effective at mobilizing children, except when there is a problem.
If the child suffers from behavioural problems, which is often the case, they become violent and act out. Such a child is transferred to a special class, in a special school, outside his or her neighbourhood. And that comes back to what I was saying earlier. You then lose track of such children. The child no longer even has a sense of his local identity. The same holds true if he is relocated by the DYP. He is sent off to a family, no one knows where exactly. And often, host families live off the Island of Montreal. We lose track of such children. When it comes time to create their identity, what is the easiest track for these children? It is the gang on the street corner which says "Come join us, we like you. We will set you to work."
That is how things work. That is the first level. In the more underprivileged neighbourhoods like Hochelaga, given the additional family stresses these children face, they have an increasingly tough time of it, and this is what causes them to look outside this context. Inevitably, there are people around the primary school community who are ready to entice these children with drugs or what have you in an attempt to lure them away.
So there is suffering and a quest for an identity. If we are able to keep our children in our communities by providing as many resources as possible, this phenomenon will be less widespread and street gangs will not have as much appeal, that much is clear.
This is common knowledge, we know how things work. And we know what to look out for. But when a school turns around and says: We are sending this child to a special school, we cannot handle him anymore and do not have the right resources, well then that child is lost and we can be sure that he has been picked up by a gang. We could give you a list of names which I could bring tomorrow morning, if you like.
Senator Pépin: I am very glad you are present in the Côte-des-Neiges area.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: Senator Dallaire raised an issue around gender, and I wanted to know what you see in terms of the break-out between male and female children, who the parents are, and how this gender issue impacts the model of medicine that you use?
[Translation]
Dr. Julien: It seems apparent to me that girls manage better at school in this sense than boys do. There are more female teachers, so there are very few male models in our schools.
Senator Pépin: There are none left.
Dr. Julien: There are a few. It is quite surprising, as often, children with developmental, behavioural or learning difficulties suddenly find themselves in male-dominated classes with a male teacher, and they change.
This morning, I was at Lucille-Teasdale school, which is a case in point. The remedial teacher at that school is a man. There are in fact two male teachers and it makes a big difference. It is quite rare to have a school with male teachers; often times, schools only have female teachers; I am thinking for instance of another school in Hochelaga, where the principal is very much aware of the problem. She says: "We are at a loss where boys are concerned. And it is zero tolerance when it comes to violence."
You have to be careful with a zero tolerance policy because in the course of their development boys between the age of five and 12 like a bit of rough and tumble. We used to play cowboys and Indians; now it is a different game, but the same principle holds true. You have to be able to express some level of "normal" violence. This is the case with sport, and confrontation between human beings. However, in today's schools, boys cannot express themselves in this way.
There is another interesting example. I was talking to Dan Bigras recently, a well-known Quebec singer; as it turns out, we are working on a project together on this topic. He is a boxer and calls himself violent. He tells everybody: "I have a violent streak. I have to deal with this. And it has caused me a lot of trouble. However, since getting involved in boxing, I have had an outlet for it. I will always need to let it out somehow." I replied: "Look, I have young people who have exactly that same streak but they end up in trouble whenever they fight. They are put in special schools. They are taken out of their school, and excluded. Could you look after them?"
So, when it comes to gender, I think boys are at a disadvantage. Girls have more role models with whom they can identify. Boys no longer have anyone with whom they can identify, and that is creating a lot of problems. And we see this on a daily basis.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: Will there be a girls' boxing ring? There is in Toronto.
[Translation]
Dr. Julien: Yes, I have a girl I am also going to send to him who has that exact same need. Boys are probably not the only ones who have this need. At any rate, what you are saying is very interesting.
The Deputy Chairman: I apologize senators, but our time has run out.
[English]
Thank you very much, Dr. Julien and Dr. Steinmetz, for your wonderful presentation this afternoon.
Honourable senators, our next witness is Brent Parfitt, who is a member of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. You will remember that group is the one to which we report as a government on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.
We welcome you, Mr. Parfitt. We are delighted that you are a member of that UN committee, and we would like to hear from you this afternoon.
Brent Parfitt, Member, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Chairman and senators, for allowing me to speak this afternoon.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the fine work you have done. I have had the opportunity to read your November report, and I think you have canvassed the issues well, certainly that I am aware of, in Canada, and I commend you for the work. I also had the opportunity to review the list of individuals you have interviewed over the last few years, and you have touched almost all the bases. These names are familiar to me, both nationally and internationally, so I commend you for the work.
I also looked at the conclusions of your committee, and I am impressed with those conclusions. The rights-based approach to deal with children's issues, I think, is the way to go, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, of course, provides that approach for this vulnerable and unrepresented group in society.
Also, I note the reference to your holistic approach, and your use of the convention as a lens to look at legislation, regulation, policy and programs of Canada. I also commend your recommendations concerning an interdepartmental working group to report on the progress with respect to the implementation of the convention. We all know that document is a holistic one: it should not be parsed into individual sections, but looked at as a whole document.
You will note that many of the provisions in the convention appear to be in conflict from time to time. For instance, the best interest of the child is often put in contrast to the child's right to be heard and considered. Article 12 does not mean that a child's views will be the overruling factor. It merely means that a child's views will be considered in the best interest. It is important to look at this document in a holistic way.
I notice, also, that you have made provisions for a monitoring mechanism with respect to implementing and monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I know that former Senator Pearson recommended that a children's commissioner be established at the federal level to ensure that the convention was implemented uniformly across Canada.
I would like to talk about that issue because I think it is important, but one that has a number of practical problems. The practical problems are occasioned by virtue of the fact that we live in a federal state. The issue is even more complicated in that the majority of children's rights and programs are administered at a provincial rather than federal level. Therefore, a federal monitoring system is difficult, because we would need a provincial buy-in to such a mechanism for it to be effective.
We, at the committee have come up with general comments in 2002 on what an independent monitoring system would look like, and included in the provisions are that the committee or children's ombudsman, if you will, or a commissioner would monitor the implementation of the convention, would promote the convention, and would accept and investigate complaints by or on behalf of children.
This would provide that commissioner or children's ombudsman with practical information, objective information to bring before these international bodies such as our own that monitor and treat such.
Also, we have recommended that such a commissioner or ombudsman would report publicly on his or her findings, and that they would be independent and accountable to the parliament or the legislature.
With respect to the division of powers in our federal state, I can see great difficulty in creating a federal commissioner, but, nevertheless, I think there is much merit in it. I think it might be possible to construct such an office by having the provincial governments turn to the jurisdiction of such an organization.
This could be done through various mechanisms. One is by utilization of the spending power of the federal government, so that, as part of the funds that go to the various provincial governments, there would be an undertaking by those provincial governments to implement provisions of the UN convention.
That is but one way it could be accomplished. It requires a lot of thought and a lot of negotiation between federal and provincial officials, but I think it could be a powerful organization, and indeed support and implement the convention.
The last thing you mentioned in your conclusion was the issue of meaningful participation — you call it "youth participation," and on that we heartily agree. In fact, the committee recently held a meeting, a general day of discussion on youth participation. At least 35 youth attended, and about 100 nations, and we discussed what meaningful youth participation was like. Too often what we see, I am sure, is tokenism: that a number of children, for instance, are invited to a national conference to present "the youth perspective." I do not believe that is meaningful youth participation.
Meaningful youth participation is where children have a say or some role in actual decision-making. That may seem a little strange, but it is possible, and there are many examples both at the community school level, and indeed at the governmental level, provincial and federal. Youth parliaments are an example of how that youth voice can be heard at an official level.
We look forward to producing a general comments paper on youth participation that can serve as guidance to the federal and provincial governments.
I was asked to comment briefly on Canada's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I went through our report — our last report from 2003, our concluding observations — and I noted a few things that are still to be accomplished in Canada.
As you know, Canada has an excellent reputation internationally with respect to these UN conventions, and one reason Canada has this reputation is that not only does Canada ratify the convention, but it also attempts as best it can to implement the convention.
In Canada, we still have difficulties with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you know, some glaring problems need to be addressed. One is that we have been unable to domesticate this convention. We have signed it, we have ratified it, but we have not domesticated it — indeed, made it a law of our land. While I appreciate there are federal-provincial complications with that, I think it is still possible that Canada can give more priority to implementing this convention.
There are examples of that happening. The courts have been extremely proactive in the support of this convention. At least 10 Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made reference to not only the convention, but also the concluding observation of our treaty committee.
Bill C-2 is another good example of how provisions under the convention have been incorporated into federal legislation. Indeed, in Bill C-2, the preamble to the bill indicates that this bill is in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and respects that convention. I would like to see more examples of that in domestic legislation, both at the federal and provincial level, to show that acknowledgement and recognition. Indeed, in provincial legislation, I do not think there is a jurisdiction in Canada with respect to family relations matters that does not have some reference to the best interests of the child.
How that is defined is another problem. Nevertheless, there is recognition of that principle as being paramount. That is a problem in Canada.
As I mentioned before, one way that we can ensure better implementation of the convention is through the spending power of the federal government, not to interfere with the division of powers that are set down in our Constitution.
The other area where we have not succeeded is in the area of independent monitoring. Although there is reference to a number of provincial ombudsmen and children's advocates, and children's representatives — whatever you wish to call them — there is no federal organization to implement and ensure implementation of the convention.
Again, the committee has recommended that if there is no commission or a children's ombudsman, at least there should be more support for non-governmental organizations, NGOs, that do a lot of this work, ensuring the implementation of the convention, and monitoring Canada's progress in that regard.
Another glaring area, and one that I am deeply embarrassed about, is our treatment of aboriginal children. As you have heard from numerous witnesses to your committee, aboriginal children are over-represented in our child welfare systems and in our juvenile justice systems. In a country with surpluses of over $13 billion, I think this situation is inexcusable in this day and age, and a lot has to do with our federal system.
We have the federal Indian Act, and then we have provincial legislation that deals with child welfare issues, and the two do not seem to come together very well. Aboriginal children are still falling through the gaps, and there is no reason for that in this day and age. We have the wherewithal, and we have the funding to improve the condition of Aboriginal children in our country in education, health and child welfare issues.
Another issue that needs to be dealt with in Canada uniformly is refugee children. I think more and more we will find that refugee children end up on our shores, and right now those children are not treated in a uniform way. They are treated according to the local law of the province in which they come to. Sometimes that can be good, and sometimes it is not so good.
An example of good practice is in my own province of British Columbia, where the refugee children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from China, were treated as any other child that needed protection in British Columbia. Indeed, I suggest that is good practice. They are not incarcerated: they are treated as a child in need of care and protection by the state.
Another issue that you have heard about, that we have raised and certainly one the committee and Geneva is concerned about, is the sexual exploited and trafficked children. It is a huge problem area in all provinces, with the number of street children seemingly to increase. A number of those children are victims, of course, of domestic violence in the home, and sometimes in the community.
The other area that we are all aware of is the issue of corporal punishment. Even though we have had a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the issue of corporal punishment, section 43 of the Criminal Code still exists, even though read down to a certain extent by our Supreme Court. The committee has recommended the abolishment of that defence to an assault against a child. Although that view is not necessarily popular, it is a view that the committee suggests be dealt with, and section 43 amended accordingly.
I think of bills before you right now for consideration in this area. If Canada is not prepared to implement the recommendations, at least Canada should show some leadership in the area of proper parenting, an alternative to corporal punishment as far as discipline of children is concerned.
I think one area the Senate could support is parenting education, especially in the high school situation, where alternatives to corporal punishment are taught. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, most of us learn parenting skills from our parents, and that may be good or it may be bad.
If our parents exercised corporal punishment, in all likelihood, we may exercise the same form of disciplinary procedures. We should be taught, then, in school about alternatives to discipline, rather than the use of corporal punishment.
The other area that deserves Senate attention is the centres of excellence that have been established throughout our country. I think the centres have done a phenomenal job in raising awareness with respect to children's issues, and that the centres should continue to be supported by the government.
Now, I should tell you about a few initiatives of the committee in Geneva that may be of some assistance to you. We are preparing a general comments paper. I do not know if you are aware of general comments papers, but the committee will take certain articles of the convention, focus on those articles and explain hopefully in layman's language what they mean. We have done that in many areas. As I mentioned before, the issue of independent monitoring has been subject to a general comments paper.
We are working now on a comments paper on indigenous children, and that should be available over the next two years. The committee hires an expert writer, that writer writes a draft for us, the committee goes over that draft on numerous occasions, and then produces a general comment which guides state parties on how they can comply and implement that provision — one of those provisions under the convention.
I am pleased to also note that a subcommittee in Geneva of indigenous people have chosen a writer to assist us, and that writer is from my province, again. I had nothing to do with the decision-making, but her name is Margo Greenwood, who works with both provincial and federal governments on indigenous issues, and in particular on indigenous health care issues. We are pleased about that possibility.
We are also working on papers about children with disabilities, children in alternative care, youth participation. Our general day of discussion on youth participation will feed into that particular paper on youth participation.
The other area that you may be aware of is the publication of Paulo Pinheiro's UN study on violence against children. In that study, Mr. Pinheiro has made a number of recommendations with respect to how we deal with children who are a subject of violence. He makes a number of recommendations: his study is lengthy, but his recommendations I will briefly indicate.
He indicates that we should strengthen national and local commitment and action; we should prohibit all violence against children, including amending section 43 of the Criminal Code; we should prioritize prevention; we should promote non-violent values and awareness raising; we should enhance the capacity of all work with and for children; we should provide recovery and social reintegration services; we should ensure the participation of children; we should create accessible and child-friendly reporting systems and services; we should ensure accountability and end impunity against those who would violate children; we should address the gender dimension of violence against children; and we should develop and implement systemic national data collection and research of violence against children, and strengthen our international commitment.
Lastly, I want to bring up the fact that the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has commenced a study. She has recommended that a number of the treaty bodies be combined into one standing body to consider all the treaties.
The position of the children's rights committee is that we oppose that position, and we oppose it on the grounds that we believe, because children are particularly vulnerable and have no voice, that they should be heard independently. We see no benefits for children in combining all the treaty bodies into one standing body.
We appreciate that state parties sometimes have difficulties in complying with all the treaty provisions. For instance, in Canada we are subject to seven treaty bodies, and that is a lot of work for both federal and provincial employees. We could make this a lot easier if the treaty bodies, at the administrative level, came together and ensured no duplication, and some sort of scheduling so that every year a new treaty does not come up for consideration by the state parties.
There is agreement amongst the administrators of the treaty bodies that, indeed, some problems faced by state parties can be addressed at the administrative level, rather than bringing all treaty bodies under one standing committee.
Thank you very much for your attention, I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Parfitt.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome, Ms. Filiatreault. Ms. Filiatreault is the President of the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal.
Marilou Filiatreault, President, Conseil jeunesse de Montréal: Madam Deputy Chairman, thank you very much for your invitation. I was told that I can address you in the language of my choosing, so I will be speaking French.
As you stated, I am the President of the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal. I am very pleased to be here today representing our youth. I think that one of the best ways of providing a forum for young people, is to give them the opportunity to speak their minds, and, today is an example of that.
I should point out how happy we are with the quality of this report and the initiative behind it. We are very pleased to see that positive things are being done for children.
I will give you a short summary. I was told that I had five minutes, so I will not take up too much of your time.
Senator Pépin: You can take ten minutes.
Ms. Filiatreault: I want to present the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal, what we do and what we represent. To save time, I have highlighted just four major points that seemed related to the report.
The Conseil jeunesse de Montréal is an advisory body for the mayor of Montreal and the city's executive committee. It is the voice of young Montrealers at city hall. There are five volunteer members, of which I am the chair. These are not necessarily representatives of organizations but of young people themselves. Their social mission is to figure out what they can do for young Montrealers. These young people are between the ages of 16 and 30 and are studying and working. We are interested in the concerns of young people aged 12 to 30. So we are talking about children to some extent, and that is why we felt we wanted to be here today.
We work and give opinions. We also create events. But our principal mandate is to offer our opinions. So we have worked on nutrition and obesity as they relate to young people and street gangs. We have also worked on the issue of prostitution at the adult level.
We are thinking about the future of young people and we feel that it is important to invest. So we also have a sustainable development perspective. We have worked on transit, the green roof system, responsible use of water, physical activity and housing. There are many issues. I will give the clerk a small information kit that contains more details.
Our organization is young, since we are only in our fourth year now, but we are already quite well known and well established. This year we are working on the sense of belonging that young people feel for the City of Montreal and their particular areas. We will again be working on transit and alternative transportation this year because it is an issue that we are very concerned about. After all, there are ways other than the bus when we want to raise awareness among young people.
Specifically on the report, here are the four points that I wanted to raise. I will refer to my notes so that I represent the members properly and do not forget anything.
The CJM is particularly interested in the issues of education, recreation and cultural activities. As mentioned in the report, the CJM shares the committee's concern about financial barriers to postsecondary education that are faced by low-income students. Many of them have to balance work and study. Some of them will have to opt for working at some point because of the difficulty in balancing work and study.
I am speaking from experience, since I am also an employment counsellor for young people aged 13 to 35. I often see young people, young single mothers and young high school dropouts who decide to go back to school with all the responsibilities that that entails. It is difficult for them to do that, especially when they have little income. So that is one point brought out in the report that we found of great interest.
We also share the concern expressed by the committee for the need to conduct research to compensate for the lack of information on street kids, given that there are many young people in that situation. We need to gather more information to have a better picture of this. There are more and more young people on the street, but there are almost no precise figures available. Urban centres like Montreal are particularly affected by this very worrisome phenomenon, where young homeless people abound and where some of them are unfortunately children.
We are told that the main factors are poverty, ill-treatment and neglect by the families concerned. Having a more complete picture will make it possible to develop an adequate intervention strategy that is based on needs and, in particular, to work to reduce or eliminate the problem. So we certainly need strategies.
Our organization sometimes has to deal with this problem as well. In order to express opinions and offer solutions, we need a clear, well-documented picture. With that information, we will be better able to choose an approach and encourage organizations to get involved. So that was one aspect of the report that we found to be very important.
We also want to highlight the importance given in the report to children of various ethnic origins who require special attention given their vulnerability in the host country. The variable quality of health care and other services provided needs to be taken into account in making sure that all children are treated fairly. This is particularly relevant in the Montreal area, which is becoming increasingly multicultural.
In closing, I would like to mention our shared interest regarding the prostitution issue, which the CJM released an opinion on this year. Our opinion dealt with adult street prostitution, since we have to stick to subjects under municipal jurisdiction. But we are very aware that children are also concerned by prostitution and your efforts could complement ours.
As a council created by the City of Montreal, we naturally express opinions and make recommendations at the municipal level. Sometimes we would really like to go further, but I think that by talking with you and putting our interests together, we can have an impact on street prostitution as it relates to young people. We have interests in common and that is why, even if our opinions concern the local or municipal level, a number of the recommendations could be adapted to other levels as well.
So we will provide our opinions as well for consultation. If you look at what we have to say about street gangs and street prostitution, it may complement what you have in your study.
Those are the four points that I wanted to raise. Thank you very much for this invitation. The committee provides an ideal platform for young people to be heard. Young people are our future. The Conseil jeunesse de Montréal is a wonderful school for young people to learn how to become responsible citizens. It is by encouraging us to take our place and inviting us to speak that we will succeed.
[English]
Senator Munson: Either one of you can answer this question. Earlier, Dr. Julien talked about the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, he used the quote "as a gift from God," and God is not delivering, whoever God is these days, because resources are being cut. He talked about resources in Hochelaga. It seems as if he is fighting a war that he may be losing in the disadvantaged areas of Montreal but not because of his great commitment and courage.
Ms. Filiatreault, you talked about the work with street gangs and the youth, youth protection, and so on.
We always hear about the jurisdiction debate between provinces and the federal government — again, there are no borders: children are being hurt. You talked about youth parliaments, and so on. How do we go from this chat that we have had across the country with different groups about the rights of the child, and making sure we get on the page: how do we push it to the final frontier to make this damned thing work here in Montreal and across the rest of this country?
[Translation]
Ms. Filiatreault: I think that the Conseil jeunesse is a good platform for young people to be able to express themselves. Young people in Montreal do want to have their say. We are always told that there is not enough money. And there are jurisdictional battles. Montreal has no money, so you have to go to the federal government or the provincial government.
There is no lack of ideas. At the Conseil jeunesse, we are lucky because people really listen to us. I think that we also need to work within a continuum and collaborate with others. Everyone needs to sit down together and come up with a shared, long-term vision. I am also talking about continuity when it comes to projects. What often happens is that good ideas turn into successful projects that unfortunately only last for a year or two. When you work with young people, you have to develop a trust relationship. That takes time. Everyone needs to sit down together to make sure that projects are developed. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, but we need to make sure that the projects keep going.
As for where Montreal is in all this, the Conseil jeunesse is a good example, people listen to us. Of course, we always have to fight for things, since our concerns are not a priority.
I attended a meeting this morning, in fact, in one area of Montreal to meet with the elected officials and to tell them that youth issues are important and must not be forgotten in their work. And they said to me: "Marilou, we have streets to repair and infrastructure to fix." To use a young person's expression, I told them that youth issues are not "in" these days.
If we do not invest in youth, what will the future look like? It is all very well to invest in streets, but we also need to provide services for young people. I was just talking about the kind of services offered by the city for young people between the ages of 18 and 30. I am not sure that young people that age are going to be interested in long bowling courses. Or quilting. Or photography courses where everyone is over 40. Are they going to sign up for those things? Why not offer hip-hop courses? Ah, but that idea scares people. People from one neighbourhood told me that they have salsa and tango lessons given down by the water. I said that that was interesting and asked why they did not have hip-hop courses? They said that hip-hop, as every knows, comes with other problems.
But people need to stop being afraid of being afraid. We need to make people realize that a young guy who wears his cap side way and has baggy pants on is not necessarily a delinquent. But there is a lot of work to do to get that message across to adults. It is not just older people who are victims of ageism; young people are victims as well. I am an employment councillor, and employers often say: "Oh, but this person is young." We need to eliminate that barrier.
So a lot needs to be done to create awareness among politicians and in the public about the place of young people in society and the need to provide them with real services.
[English]
Senator Munson: Mr. Parfitt, do you agree that governments will not advertise something they have not implemented? If they were on the page, ratification is one thing, but if they are not implementing it, they do not have the big billboards, or the public service things out there. The commitment seems to be that small.
Mr. Parfitt: I think the issue raised, Senator Munson, has been the problem for a long time with a rights-based approach. There needs to be the political will or the political commitment to make it happen. Where does that come from, and how does it come?
I think we would have a lot of political commitment if we lowered the voting age to 12. All of a sudden, we might find politicians responding to this approach in a much more positive way. It is because kids are vulnerable, and they do not have those rights to vote and make decisions about their own lives, that we have the problem.
Your question is, though, how do you ensure that commitment happens? One thing you have recommended, of course, is the issue of a monitoring body that will put pressure on the government to report publicly on the fact that this convention is not being implemented. It has been ratified; there have been a lot of principle-based discussions, et cetera, and there has been a lot of buy-in at that level, but when it comes to actual dollars, we do not see that type of commitment.
How do we enforce it? The NGO groups need to be given more wherewithal to make these issues more political. I think advocacy organizations need to be sponsored, and they need to be given a forum in which to bring these issues up. As mentioned by my colleague, the youth need to be heard in a meaningful way, not only in a youth parliament that happens every year, but they need to be involved in community government. They need to have a position in community government where their voices are not only heard, but acted upon.
Those are some ways that we can make this happen, but it needs to start at a low level. There needs to be a commitment by society in general that this approach is a good thing. If you merely deal with the ministries of finance and treasury boards, you have a real problem, because those voices often are not heard. Priorities are decided, not on the basis of what is best for children, but on other criteria.
If we did our homework correctly, we might be able to show government that investment in children is a good financial investment as well, and a good economic investment because if we do not, we will pay for it threefold over.
When we talk in terms of prevention, we have often been unsuccessful — we have these matters we have to deal with now, usually at the tertiary end, we need to establish more juvenile detention facilities, and we need to take more children into care. Those ways to deal with a social issue are extremely expensive. We need to convince politicians to put money into prevention. They need to look at the issues of children through this lens of the convention. Politicians need to believe that by ratifying a convention, Canada has undertaken to implement those various provisions under the convention that affect children.
I think there needs to be that awareness-raising. Politicians at the federal, provincial and municipal levels need to understand what those articles mean, and they also need to be given good advice on how to implement them. There is a lot of good practice around, even in Canada. The problem is, it is fragmented and often not shared amongst the various agencies that should know about it.
Senator Munson: Perhaps the provincial and federal governments can learn lessons from the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal and from Dr. Julien, and maybe they can make them pay attention.
Senator Poy: Mr. Parfitt, you mentioned in your presentation that the convention has not been domesticated in Canada. After the report comes out on Canada, in your role as a member of the UN committee, what can you do in practical terms? What action can you take in cases of non-compliance?
Mr. Parfitt: That is a good question, and one that the committee is indeed struggling with. It is one of the issues that we brought before Louise Arbour as the High Commissioner. There is no provision with respect to how the committee deals with the report after the concluding observations have been made.
What we have recommended, and what has happened with some state parties, is they have invited both the chair and the rapporteur back to their country to go through the concluding observations, paragraph by paragraph.
I had the privilege of being rapporteur for Thailand about a year and a half ago, and shortly after we made a report, the chair and I received an invitation to attend with the Thai government and various agencies, NGOs included, to go through the report and discuss it.
At that time, they would ask us, "What do you mean by this, and how do we go about implementing these?" The recommendations are very general. They would say, "We want to tell you a bit more about the frustrations in our country, about the enormous amount of migration from other countries, and refugees and asylum seekers from other countries, and how frustrating this is for us to implement the convention."
We listened, we found some solutions, and we are able to share, as a result of our international experience, some good practice that is happening in other jurisdictions.
Likewise with respect, for instance, to the issue of independent monitoring, we have now seen how countries all over the world go about independently monitoring the convention. Taking into consideration their constitution, and whether the country is a federal country or a unitary country, we can advise them on things that we have seen that will allow them to implement those provisions.
However, I think it is a real problem. It is not addressed in the convention itself, but that is one thing we have recommended, and it has shown to be successful.
Senator Poy: Is that the same way you deal with Canada?
Mr. Parfitt: We have not been invited. I was not around at the time the report was made, and I understand our last concluding observations in 2003. I am not aware of any committee members being invited to Canada to discuss those recommendations.
However, they were invited to speak with your group. That is a positive step in the right direction, so at least you can understand from their perspective where Canada needs to improve.
Senator Poy: Ms. Filiatreault, your organization has been around for four years. How is it financed, and how many volunteers do you have?
I will follow up with another question because you did not have a lot of time for your presentation. Can you give us an example of, say, how you deal with one group of young people, or one single person? I want you to walk through so that we have a better understanding of exactly what you do.
[Translation]
Ms. Filiatreault: The Conseil jeunesse has been in existence for four years and is funding by the city. The City of Montreal provides us an annual operating budget, which allows us to have one full-time person, who is the coordinator, and a half-time secretary, as well as a bit of money to be able to provide formal opinions on issues and hire researchers on contract. The other members are 15 volunteers who put in time in the evening, on week-ends to work on subcommittees.
The idea is to create a place for ourselves among young people, but also to get to know the city. We work a lot in mentoring situations. I am fortunate; I have a mentor on city staff. That person helps me when I need to make presentations like this one or I need to understand the complex ways in which the city works. Being young, we do not know everything, but we really support the recommendation that we need to create space for young people while taking advantage of all the experience that exists.
So our approach is to work together. To answer the first question, then, we are entirely funded by the City. It is really the mayor of Montreal who decided that it was important to hear from young people and give them a voice in Montreal. It is his council, but we are apolitical.
I see people reacting, but we are not political, we are there for young people, to provide a voice for them. So we maintain our independence as far as what we say and think. Our approach is to make recommendations and you will never hear the Conseil jeunesse make demands. We always take a collaborative approach.
We are there to work in cooperation with the City and its services, and that goes both ways. So the mayor can mandate us to work on an issue. For example, he told us that there were few young people working for the municipality. He was concerned about renewal in the municipal work force. He said "You are young, so find me some solutions." So we proposed paid internships at the City for young immigrants and young disabled people.
This is an easier way to get a job with the city. It gives people a chance to know what the work is like and then to go from there. Since September 11, 2006, there have been 65 interns at the city, from different cultures, some of them with disabilities, all of them young. It is a new approach and the idea is to keep these people on.
To give you a concrete example, I am someone who works on the front lines with young people in a youth employment centre. My front line experience is basically my contribution to the city. We often get feedback from members as well. And I work with young people every day. It is a drop in service, so a young person may arrive with two garbage bags and tell me that he wants to find a job. When I ask why he is looking for work, he tells me that his mother has kicked him out. So then my first question is where does he plan to sleep that night.
That is just one example in the whole spectrum. We really need to take young people where they are, find services and refer them as best we can, in view of what we see. I think that that is our greatest success.
We also work at the pre-prevention level. I am responsible for a project called "Passage primaire/secondaire," which deals with the transition from elementary school to high school. We know that a lot of young people drop out of school. Do they drop out in the first year of high school? No, of course not. But if they fall behind a year, if they find it difficult to adapt to high school, they tend to drop out in Grade 10 if they have fallen behind.
So what does it mean to work at the pre-prevention level? It means that we work with students in Grade 6 to facilitate and demystify the transition to high school. That way, their marks do not go down in the first year of high school. If their marks stay high and they do not fall behind, they are unlikely to drop out. We have had great success with this over the past four years in Lachine. I meet with students in Grade 6 to demystify high school and answer all their questions. The greatest fear that Grade 6 students have about high school is that they will get lost in the halls. That might seems ridiculous to us, since we went through it such a long time ago.
That is an example of the work we do on the ground with young people. We refer them to services, we take them as they are and we work with them. And we do not take a short-term view. I may follow a young person for several years. The Grade 6 student will see me at high school, since I am also in the high school one day a week. This approach of accompanying youth is a specific example from my work, which may answer your question.
[English]
Senator Poy: Do you need to reapply for funding each year?
[Translation]
Ms. Filiatreault: For the Conseil jeunesse?
Senator Poy: Yes.
Ms. Filiatreault: No. We were created through a by-law and our salary is included in the city budget. So that is not a concern that we have every year. The good thing about the by-law is that there has to be a written response every time we provide an opinion. So the elected officials and staff are required to respond to all the opinions that we give. That is a good system, since people say to me: "Yes, it is all very well to have a youth council, but what does it really achieve? Are you just there as window dressing, because it is politically correct to have a youth council, but in reality no one listens to you?"
No, in the regulations, they really must have action plans on the opinions we issue. And of course, it is up to us to act as watch dogs over our opinions, but up until now, we have had great success. This has only been going on for four years, and the internships that I cited earlier, were a great achievement. There is a cultural policy and four recommendations made by youth are included verbatim in the cultural policy. So we are listened to at the municipal level. But we do not have to find money. It should be pointed out that that it is volunteers who give their time and it is really quite a lot of time. These are truly responsible citizens, but it is also a learning curve. Because I must admit that when young people arrive at the Conseil jeunesse, they think they are going to change the city drastically. The point is to teach them about city hall, explain that it is like heavy machinery and the gears turn slowly. But it also requires a listening ear from elected representatives.
The young people say "We want this." The recommendation was made is 2003, it passes in 2006, but it will have taken three years. It is successful, but it is slow. It is also up to us to make an effort on that front.
The more we get people involved, the more mentoring we do with youth, the more we will help them take their place, the better things will work out. It takes invitations like yours to make our voices heard. Moreover, I think that we have a lot to learn from these intergenerational encounters.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: I think having kids vote at 12 is brilliant. Start working on your provincial government to change the Municipalities Act.
I have two questions. One is about rights and conflict, and how do we balance them out in a free, fair and democratic society? My second question is around advocacy. There has been an indication recently that grants for the federal Status of Women Canada will not be allowed for advocacy work. Have either of you any indication that grants you receive for advocacy may be cut back?
Mr. Parfitt: The issue of balancing rights is a tough issue to deal with. Courts deal with it every day and social workers deal with it every day. There are always competing rights and responsibilities under any piece of legislation or, indeed, under treaties.
I think one has to remember to look at these documents in a holistic way: What is the damage we are trying to remedy as a result of this convention or this piece of legislation, and then work it back that way. It can be done.
With respect to a court proceeding, for instance — how about a family relations matter where custody and access are at issue? Under the convention, the child has a right to be heard and considered. The convention does not talk about the age limit on that. We have taken a position that if a child is capable of understanding what is going on, they should be given a voice, no matter how young. If they are too young, then at least some form of advocacy should be provided. That voice must to be listened to, but ultimately the courts working under the convention must consider the best interest of that child. Now, the best interest of the child may be something different than what the child wants.
The classic example of that, when I was involved in the ministry in British Columbia, for instance, is an operation for cancer. A young child would need a limb amputated, a doctor would ask for consent from the child, and the child would say "No, I do not want my limb amputated: I will be disabled for the rest of my life."
That young child would be 14 years of age. The state would often intervene and do the operation, saying that the child at age 19 would have a different view of the world.
In certain circumstances, we listen to the child and take those views into consideration, but those views will not necessarily rule the day. Those issues are difficult, and they require a degree of sophistication in balancing those interests.
[Translation]
Ms. Filiatreault: I do not think I have anything to add except to say that yes, perhaps voting could occur at age 12, but our objective is to have 18-year olds vote. The turnout rate for people between 18 and 30 is really low.
Senator Ruth: You would get more money though from your city councillors, if they were voters.
Ms. Filiatreault: Yes, but we are all working very hard to get 18 to 30-year olds to vote, to inform them. They are disillusioned about politics. They say: "In any event, what will this change, Marilou"? It is up to us to prove the opposite to them.
Perhaps you are familiar with the project called "Voters in training", which takes place in schools. Its purpose is to encourage a symbolic vote, with real elections and real candidates. In fact, it is a simulation. Be it a federal, provincial or municipal election, we tell them about all the candidates and there is a real vote. We try to raise their awareness. I think we have to start with the 18 to 30-year olds, before we move to the 12-year olds.
Senator Pépin: Unfortunately, since I only have about a minute and a half left, I will put my question to Ms. Filiatreault.
You said that you lacked information about street kids, and on complementary actions on prostitution. Since prostitution is on the increase among teenage girls, what kind of complementary action would you need? What is your greatest difficulty right now to deal with what you are lacking?
Ms. Filiatreault: Of course, we are limited to adult prostitution, that is people aged over 18.
Senator Pépin: But you are a youth group.
Ms. Filiatreault: We are a youth group, but the city has no jurisdiction over youth, or youth prostitution. Our area of jurisdiction is with regard to those over 18. We know full well that prostitution very rarely starts at 18. Of course what we recommend is to promote accompaniment of prostitutes in their dealings with the court and in their access to resources. It is all very well to have more flexible police intervention for young female prostitutes, young adults.
Senator Pépin: Between two consenting adults, that should be possible.
Ms. Filiatreault: That is right. But working on employability and housing. To get them out of that environment, it is no use intervening if we do not give them a job, because they will just go back on the street.
I work with street kids who are involved in prostitution. So the problem lies with employability and housing. But with regard to kids, as our recommendations could not focus on that, I think that if we were to combine adult and child prostitution, we could have a greater scope for action.
Senator Pépin: With the experience you have, do you think that the legislation should be amended with regard to what happens between two consenting adults? Should this be allowed or not? If you do not want to answer, please feel free.
Ms. Filiatreault: Between two adults, regardless of age?
Senator Pépin: I'm saying adults, of course, starting around age 20 or whatever. At 20 you are considered an adult; you have the right to vote at 18.
Ms. Filiatreault: Yes, we vote at 18.
Senator Pépin: Because right now, we take them, we find them guilty and we stick them in prison. We have police officers just to keep an eye on things, to see if a client seems to approach a prostitute, but sometimes they are over 20 years old. But you do not have to get into this if you do not want to.
Ms. Filiatreault: But I think that we have to look at the problem of prostitution as a global phenomenon. These are vulnerable people and there are many different problems notably on the consumer side. Does this stand in manner of a relationship between two consenting adults? It is hard to say. Because these are people who are grappling with difficult situations and I think that they need help.
Senator Pépin: If they had a job, they probably would not be in this situation.
Ms. Filiatreault: Jobs and housing as well.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Parfitt. Thank you very much, Ms. Filiatreault. Your presentations were very interesting.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Senators, we have two more groups of witnesses with us this afternoon. Janet Dench represents the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Claude Malette and Marian Shermarke represent PRAIDA. We will begin with Ms. Dench.
[Translation]
Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: Madam Deputy Chairman, thank you very much for your invitation. I am honoured to be here on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which is an umbrella organization. The CCR has approximately 170 member organizations across Canada and our mandate is to fight for the protection of refugees in Canada and worldwide for the settlement of refugees and immigrants in Canada.
[English]
The issue of the rights of children is an area of great interest to the Canadian Council for Refugees, and a couple of years ago we produced a report called, Impacts on Children of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I understand that report was distributed to members of this committee.
That report was published in November 2004, and at that time we wanted to take a look at what the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act meant for the rights of children.
I want to draw to your attention a number of issues in that report, and to urge the committee, when you study the rights of children, to consider the rights of children under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
One thing we were pleased to see in this act is a greater recognition of international human rights. A provision in the act says that the act must be applied in a manner that conforms with Canada's international human rights obligations. In addition, there are specific references to the best interests of the child in four places, in particular, in the act, and that is an important step forward.
Having said that, there are also concerns and limitations. In particular, in relation to the issue of the best interests of the child, which, of course, is absolutely central to ensuring that children's rights are recognized, we note that the rule about taking into consideration the best interests of the child does not apply to all areas of the act. It is highlighted only on four specific occasions and, in fact, government officials have used that to mean that in other occasions they are not required to take into consideration the best interests of the child.
Also the act, where it mentions "in the best interests," says only that they are to be taken into account, rather than saying they should be a primary consideration, as is required in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We have raised a number of issues in our report, and I do not have time to go over all of them, but I want to underline for you our major concerns around family reunification, which is something that, particularly in the form of family separation, affects many children in different circumstances.
In our report, we highlight a number of ways in which children are particularly penalized by problems of family separation. One relates to separated children, refugees who arrive in Canada on their own without their parents. Under the act, there is no provision to allow them to be reunited with their parents and siblings whereas, if an adult arrives, and they are recognized as a refugee, they can include their spouse and their children on their application for permanent residence, and that is the way they achieve family unification. But if it is a separated child, they cannot include their parents or siblings, and there is no other provision in the act that gives them that right for family reunification. That is a major concern.
There are also problems in relation to DNA testing, and how that testing can affect children. In many cases, it leads to delays in family unification, but in some particularly difficult situations children discover — or the parents discover — that the child that was assumed to be the biological child of the father, turns out not to be. This discovery is extraordinarily destructive in the life of a child.
We also want to highlight a problem in the regulations with what is called the excluded family member category, which was introduced in 2002 with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. This provision says that a family member who was not examined at the time that the sponsor came to Canada is not a family member. That means that the provision affects children. We have seen some cases where a child is found to be not a family member simply because that child was not examined by an immigration officer when the parent immigrated to Canada.
I also want to highlight a barrier in terms of fees for applying for permanent residence. This barrier also affects separated children who make their application here in Canada and are recognized as a refugee. Then, to gain permanent status they need to come up with $550, which is a lot of money for a child who is often in a situation of poverty in Canada. It seems extraordinary to us that Canada would say to a child that "Unless you come up with this money, you will live without a permanent status in Canada."
I am happy to talk about a number of other issues we raise in our report, but I want to conclude my opening remarks by expressing a concern with some of the arguments we have heard from the government in terms of justifying their policies. We have seen on different occasions how the government speaks about the need to protect the rights of children, and uses this as a rationale for, in fact, denying children rights.
As an example, I will talk about the issue of delays in family reunification. When a child is overseas and it takes a long time for the child to be reunited, the government says that we need to be careful before we reunite the child with their parents because of the risks of trafficking. This argument is used without any specific reference to a danger in a particular case of trafficking, but as a general kind of principle. We have heard that argument raised on a number of occasions over the years by the government. It seems perverse to advance an argument of the need to protect children, and then use that argument to justify what is clearly a violation of the rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I look forward to discussing these issues with you.
Claude Malette, Director, Programme régional d'accueil et d'intégration des demandeurs d'asile (PRAIDA): Madam Deputy Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity offered to us to present the work of PRAIDA and, more specifically, our interventions with a specific clientele, namely unaccompanied minors.
PRAIDA is a new direction, a new program, the Programme régional d'accueil et d'intégration des demandeurs d'asile [Regional Program for the Settlement and Integration of Asylum Seekers]. The organization has a regional territorial jurisdiction, working at the provincial level, and is part of the Centre des services sociaux et de santé or CSS de la Montagne, which includes three CLSCs, notably the CLSC Côte-des-Neiges, which is the one to which we have always been attached, in the past when PRAIDA was split into two services, that is the SARIMM the Service d'aide aux réfugiés et immigrants du Montréal métropolitain [Metropolitan Montreal Assistance Service for Refugees and Immigrants] and the Clinique santé accueil which was an autonomous health clinic.
Since June, we have merged both of these entities and of course, we are accountable to the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux within the CSS de la Montagne.
Our target clienteles are essentially asylum seekers, as well as persons with a defined migratory status, who end up in a vulnerable situation and who have complex needs, who often have no medical coverage, as well as persons who have problems with regularizing their status and who encounter difficulties in accessing social services.
This can refer to persons who have been turned down by the IRB; persons who are undergoing judicial review at the Federal Court, persons eligible for the free removal risk assessment program; persons who have applied for permanent residency for humanitarian grounds persons who have been refused but who fall under the moratorium country program; persons who have lost their permanent resident status; persons who wish to apply for refugee status but who have not yet gone to the Immigration department; persons who are subject to sponsorship breakdown or persons who have arrived before the end of the immigration process.
All these people with complex regularization situations fall under our mandate and we offer them health and social services as well as psychosocial services. We accompany them throughout their immigration process by offering them: health care services, with coverage by the federal interim health care program and social services, by providing them with information and accompanying them when they approach the main resources, notably for housing, education, but also government bodies with regard to the refugee claims process or the immigration process.
We proceed with an assessment of their medical, psychological and social needs. We refer them to various resources. We support them in their immigration process. We provide them with relevant information. There is also an important part of our program which is designated representation, which is part of an agreement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. It allows us to assist any person who is subject to IRB proceedings and who, because of their age, whether they are minor or because they are incapable of representing themselves because of their state of physical and mental health, are not in a position to understand the nature of the proceedings or be represented by their mother, father or legal guardian.
Within that framework, in addition to this agreement, we have other agreements with the Canada Border Services Agency, the IRB, and the CIC regarding designated representation service, with the ministère des Communautés culturelles for psychosocial assessments of applicants who are inadmissible to Canada and with the international social service, regarding applications for liaison between Canadian social service organizations and their counterparts worldwide.
In the information kit that we have distributed, you will find basic information about the services we offer and our clientele in the PRAIDA pamphlet. You will also find the summary annual report of the CSS de la Montagne as well as two exhaustive but highly relevant documents that describe PRAIDA's psychosocial services as they existed under the former SARIMM, but these are still highly relevant. There is also a document that reports on research done about the situation of unaccompanied minors.
With regard to designated representation and unaccompanied minors, I would like to point out that among the recommendations of the UN High Commissioner for refugees, which recommended the implementation of a mechanism enabling an adult to receive a mandate of parental authority for an unaccompanied minor seeking refugee status, there have been working groups that followed an interministerial committee and which consolidated an agreement in principle concerning the update and integration of interim guardianships for unaccompanied minors who are claiming refugee status.
This agreement is about to be approved by the appropriate authorities and targets the designation process for parental authority by delegation or by guardianship. Therefore, there will be the possibility of delegated parental authority which would be assumed by host families with the support and supervision of SARIMM among others.
This agreement was signed between PRAIDA, the Direction de la protection de la jeunesse and the Centre jeunesse de Montréal and targets delegated parental authority, either by third party guardianship or by the DPJ.
One can say this will be a historic moment for unaccompanied minors, since for many years now, attempts were made to establish the legal framework for delegated parental authority, be it by delegation or by guardianship. Over the coming weeks and months, it will probably be a done deal.
I would now like to give the floor to my colleague Marian Shermarke, who is our immigration counselor and who has been working with unaccompanied minors for many years now as a designated representative. She will explain our experience with this vulnerable clientele.
Marian Shermarke, representative, Programme régional d'accueil et d'intégration des demandeurs d'asile (PRAIDA): Madam Deputy Chairman, I will specifically discuss the work we do in the field, with the child refugees. Our work is in two parts: the first involves protection. When we talk about protection, it means all the work to be done to accompany a child, to ensure that the rights of children are respected, especially when it comes to determining their immigration status. To do this, we have a contract with the Immigration and Refugee Board to be present during hearings when there are unaccompanied minors.
This s formal agreement between the Immigration and Refugee Board and our PRAIDA service. We prepare the young people for their hearing, we accompany them during preparations with lawyers so that the lawyer can take into account the age of the child and his level of understanding.
At the hearing, we are present to see whether the questions put to the child can be understood by that child.
There is no doubt that the Immigration and Refugee Board took a step forward with these directions on minors who seek refugee status. However, what would be ideal to our mind would be that the board has a specialized panel regarding the problems of children. This is because intervention with children requires not only knowledge of the law, but knowledge of the different phases of child development, different ways of communicating with children and a broad range of expertise to solicit the testimony of children. To really facilitate things for these children, this expertise would have to be concentrated in a certain group of people.
This is what we would like to see in an ideal world, to facilitate things for these children who have never been before a court and who find themselves before one for the first time.
However, when it comes to Immigration and ensuring protection of a child's status, we have no clearly defined agreement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which is the other institution with which we deal, or with the Canada Border Services Agency. This really is a procedure that we are trying to introduce, without alerting them to the fact that our presence is essential to children to feel comfortable and so that we can explain why these children show some hesitation in answering questions.
The Canada Border Services Agency is brand new, so it is less developed in this approach with children than Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and I think that there is a great deal to be done there.
Now with regard to the intervention side of our work, this involves the entire matter of the child's social integration. I would like to divide into two parts this social integration intervention with child refugees.
We work with children that have been separated from their families, but we also work with some who are accompanied by their parents.
Let me start with that group. There needs to be some psychosocial accompaniment of these parents, because these people have been traumatized; they have just arrived in a completely foreign environment and they must interact with systems that they do not comprehend or simply don't know.
Therefore, our work is to accompany parents to increase their parental capacity. Nevertheless, certain difficulties arise and these are generally due to structural obstacles. What do I mean by that? It arises at various levels. From a financial standpoint, for example, it depends on the provinces. Often there are provinces where parents who are asylum seekers do not have access to family allowances.
There are other provinces where they do have access to family allowance benefits, in part. These are people who arrived in a new land, where they have to start from scratch, in terms of housing, clothing, et cetera. At the same time, these families are being asked to pay, as Janet Dench mentioned, fees for the processing of their claims, if they are accepted, of $550 per adult and $150 per child. They have no funds to pay this cost.
What often happens in these families is that the cost will be covered at the expense of the children who will not have proper nutrition, just that enough money can be set aside to meet the payment requirements.
This one issue is a problem. However, in Quebec, children who are separated fare better then those who are accompanied by their parents. The difference is that these processing fees, at least in Quebec, are taken care of by our institution, for those children who are separated.
So the difference is significant. Another way in which separated children may fare better then those who are with their parents is in the area of the detention of minors. Under the new Immigration Act, the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, fewer children who are separated are detained. So, we see that the act has led to improvements in that respect.
However, some children who are accompanied by their parents are being detained. Well, I doubt that detention is ideal for any child. I think that if you were to look to the Convention on the rights of the child, we would realize that we need to find other solutions for these single parent families that are being detained over identification papers and who are accompanied by their children.
I think there are several possible solutions. Conditions could be placed on these parents so that they attend the Immigration Office every time, rather than detaining them and their children, because it really is not an ideal environment for them. Children have to get up at 6:00 a.m., with their parents. The issue of feeding these children is always a problem, and we are often called upon to get involved with these children.
It goes without saying that children who are newcomers to this society cannot be separated from their parents either. Because if as a social service provider we get involved with these children it means that we are to detain their parents and separate the two, putting the children in foster care, which will be even more traumatic for them.
With regard to family reunification, I would also like to draw your attention to two issues. First of all, the point that Janet Dench already raised, with respect to separated children, who have no option for family reunification.
In the field, we do see children who unconsciously refuse to eat. In fact, they are in therapy for this with psychologists. They are guilt ridden for having left family members in critical conditions and they feel horribly guilty for living in comfort when their relatives are not.
On a daily basis, we see that it has an effect on their development. To counter that, we try to ride up a budget with these children so that they can send of at least $20 per month to found family members, in order to reduce their sense of guilt. It would be ideal for something to be done with respect to the family reunification needs of separated children seeking refugee status or refugee children separated from their families.
The other problem with family reunification has to do with parent refugees whose claims are allowed and who try to bring their children in under family reunification. The process overseas is unduly slow. In these cases, social services are unable to facilitate the integration of these people who have been accepted. Often, they suffer from terrible depression.
Especially for people whose children lived in areas of conflict, at war, where children are at risk. We believe there is also a solution for these children, who could come in under temporary permits. Their claim could be processed in Canada. So there are several alternatives we could consider, to expedite family reunification, especially for children who were in high risk regions.
Senator Pépin: I want to welcome all three of you. I must admit that when I read your report I was horrified to learn about what was happening to children. I think it just does not make any sense, be it for those who are separated from their parents or for those arriving with their parents.
I must admit that I was quite surprised to see that these things take place in Canada. First of all, the time lapse makes no sense, but then there is especially the issue of detaining children.
You referred to the slow pace of reunifications. Why do you believe it takes so long? It is unbelievable that it may take months, sometimes years before it happens. I thought we had an immigration system which worked relatively well, but when it comes to children I find that it is dreadful. It just does not make any sense whatsoever.
You say that the agency still has a great deal of work to do in terms of money, but especially when it comes to the slow pace of family reunification. Why do you believe that no temporary permits are being issued?
Ms. Shermarke: I think it is because we did not set up a system which ensures that child cases are a priority. That is the first point. And second, the embassies do not have enough resources to expedite the processing of family reunification files.
Senator Pépin: So, you believe that is where the slowness lies?
Ms. Shermarke: There are two things.
Senator Pépin: It is not in the system over here.
Ms. Shermarke: First of all, these children's claims are not considered a priority. Second, there are not enough resources provided. I can give you as an example the Nairobi office. Nairobi services all of Eastern Africa, which is really a conflict area and a war-torn region. So, it deals with a very high number of claims, whereas I believe there are only two or three immigration officers on site.
So, there is a reason for it. But I think it would be essential to create a mechanism to prioritize children's claims.
Janet may want to add something.
Ms. Dench: Yes it is also something we wonder about: how can this be? It should also be said that this is a question that the people in that situation wonder about, and it is often to the disadvantage of the person who is already in Canada. Because the refugee who is in Canada speaks to his spouse, because it is often a man speaking to his wife who is abroad with the kids in a difficult situation, the family members abroad say: How can it be that this is taking so long. It must be because you are not doing what you should be doing to get us over there. It is because you are not trying hard enough or because you do not want us there.
There are men who tell us: "My five says I have definitely found somebody else, because otherwise she would be here with me. So I am the one preventing it from happening."
And it is true that we do wonder: how can it be that Canada, a land of immigrants, which is good to refugees, with refugees that have been accepted, how can it be that it is taking two and sometimes three years in many cases to bring family members over. It is unbelievable.
As Marian just said, there is a problem with priorities. We understand that immigration officers are under enormous pressure. They are asked to deal more quickly with students, to process economic visa applications more quickly, and to proceed more quickly with family reunions. Everything becomes a priority and there are not enough officers to get the work done. This is an important point.
Another thing that is hard to understand is the fact that processing times can vary enormously from region to region. I have here the most recent figures, which are on the department's web site, these figures show how many months it takes to conclude most cases. We can see that the time taken varies a great deal depending on which visa office is processing the case. It is difficult to find an excuse for this, because normally, sufficient resources should be allocated so that the process takes the same time in every office. But that is not the case. The longest delays are certainly found in Asia and Africa.
A long time ago, we recommended that the department allow the refugee's family members to come to Canada right away so that the case is processed in Canada.
In our opinion, leaving them abroad is a waste of time for everyone. It is bad for families and it is bad for Canada. Because if these people arrive two or three years later, it often incurs social expenses, because families are broken, children are in poor health because they were living in refugee camps, some children have missed several years of school. Thus, when they come together finally in Canada, there is a host of problems.
This is not reasonable, even if we look at this from the point of view of the benefit to society. But we always found that the government is reluctant to bring people in on temporary papers. Their political orientation is always favorable to processing applications for permanent status abroad. More specifically, they raise questions about health and identity checkups. We think that these issues could be settled quite easily. First, with regards to health, thousands and thousands of people come to visit Canada each year. We have ways to determine whether or not there are health hazards, and we could surely proceed in the same way. If there is a specific health hazard, we give that person a checkup.
We understand that there can be identity issues. For instance, if someone comes to Canada and states that he has two children but a year later, once he is in, he says: "I forgot, but I had a third child." This could raise some questions. But if a person says that they have two children, when they arrive in Canada, generally, there will be two children.
If we look at how files were processed in the past, I think that we can see that the vast majority of permanent resident's applications for family members finally resulted in bringing those people to Canada. Thus, there is very little risk.
After all, these people will be coming to Canada. Therefore, why all the delays? Why not bring them directly here and finish processing their file in Canada?
Senator Pépin: You spoke of a special panel that has a way of dealing with children and accompanying them through the process?
Ms. Shermarke: No, I was actually thinking of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, and the way they process the files of minors. There are two points of view which are normally found side by side. According to one point of view, everyone who is working in an institution must be able to work with children.
According to another point of view, not everyone is suitable. Some people are naturally close to children. Thus, there are two points of view and it depends on which one an institution favors.
Currently, to my knowledge, public institutions are in favor of the point of view that everyone should be able to work with children. Moreover, neither the Immigration and Refugee Board nor the agency has a special panel or any officers who are really specialized and who have sought advanced training to prepare themselves for dealing with cases involving children or for questioning the children.
Senator Pépin: I am incline to follow your recommendation, especially after I heard the first group of physicians who told us today, in fact, that if we want to inspire trust in children, we obviously must have people who are able to deal with them.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I will interject here for just a moment. Some processes are being developed within our criminal courts specific to dealing with children, on the recognition that courts understand that they cannot interrogate a child in a courtroom in the same way they interrogate an adult. The family court system in Manitoba, for example, works that way. They go through a whole different process for children than for adults going through the same family court process.
Is that the kind of thing you suggest for the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, IRB, that there be a specialized treatment process for the way in which children are dealt with?
Ms. Shermarke: Absolutely.
Senator Poy: Ms. Dench, with the reputation that Canada has, I was absolutely horrified after reading your 2004 report. There is a lot of information there, but what I want to question is the DNA testing.
Page 15 of your report states:
Citizens of countries of the North, who are mostly white, rarely have to undergo DNA testing because they are able to provide documents. As a result, the cases of false paternity are not discovered. On the other hand, most of those asked to do DNA testing are people of colour.
Refugees want only to save their lives, and get out of the war zone — the last thing these people would think about is taking documents with them.
I wonder whether it is the problem of having the right documents, or it is racial discrimination. In areas, say in Asia, DNA testing is not very valid because in Chinese families there is a lot of adopting, so when there are small children among brothers and sisters, one has only boys, one has only girls, and they switch. It is a normal process so DNA testing will not work.
Do you want to comment on that?
Ms. Dench: I think that we see the difference in treatment, depending upon the country of origin of the person, and that treatment breaks down clearly along racial lines. However, it is not primarily racial in the sense that if somebody is of Chinese origin or African origin and they have papers from Europe because they are European citizens, then I have never heard of these people being asked for DNA testing.
What we see happening is people coming from countries where sometimes because of the conflict, a lot of records are destroyed or not available, and so it is not possible to obtain a birth certificate, or the birth certificates were not being issued because the person is born at a time when there is not a capacity to document.
The other thing we see routinely is that Canada imposes Canadian standards of documents. For example, I saw a case where a man who was Congolese had submitted the documents for his children, and the government rejected those documents and asked for DNA testing. Why? I guess the Congo does not have the same level of security features and the same formality that Canadian officials look for. Also, of course, it is true that it is easy to falsify documents.
What all of these things, in effect, mean is that the treatment for people from many parts of Africa and Asia is different from the treatment of people from Europe. As Canadians, we have to be concerned and cannot simply say, "We are applying the same standards to everybody," because the reality around the world is different and different realities must to be taken into consideration.
If we do not and we continue as we are, then we are applying, in effect, different standards to different peoples, because, as the report says, European families presumably enter all the time with non-biological children because they are not required to do the DNA testing that is required in some cases — not all — for Africans, Asians and others.
Senator Poy: A lot of cultures do not really issue birth certificates. They are born, they are in the countryside, or wherever, they are only part of that family. That does not work either.
Ms. Dench: Right, that is true also in terms of the issue of what is a member of the family. The Canadian law — and this is new in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act — specifically says that it is the biological child. What that can mean for children is that children are left without any family, whatsoever. One case we highlight in the report is a heartbreaking story of a child whose mother has died and the child is found after her death, but the father is not the same one.
Well, the child does not have any other family. This father may not be his biological father, but it is the only father he has, and the siblings are the only siblings he has in the world.
Senator Poy: That is right.
The Deputy Chairman: How many incidents have you ever had records of in which these families have rejected the children after they arrive in Canada?
Ms. Shermarke: As a matter of fact, because of the slowness in the family reunification, the longer family reunification takes, the more chances there are that when the family is reunified, the family dynamics will be a mess.
A lot of parents tell us that they have the feeling they are receiving strangers. The fact that there is a rejection is often related to the length of family reunification. However, it is not often, I must say.
Senator Munson: There are no television cameras here, but as a former reporter, I want to commend you on these examples in your reports because they bring home to all of us what exactly has gone on and is going on.
On page 7, you talk about a young Sudanese boy. He arrives in Canada, is accepted as a refugee, and yet his brother cannot come. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act it is impossible for him to come. There is no other family. Do you know the rationale behind this? What are the bureaucrats worried about here? I am sure they had direction from politicians, of course, but what is the worry? This is a no-brainer.
Ms. Dench: The law as it stands defines a family member as a spouse, partner or dependent child, so the way the family member is defined excludes the siblings or parents of a minor.
When we raise this issue with the government to say this definition discriminates against the children and is, of course, totally inhumane and contrary to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the answer that has been given is that it is necessary to do this. Otherwise, parents might be tempted to send their children to Canada so they could be accepted, and then they could follow their children on their application.
This example is another of what I mentioned in my opening remarks about the tendency to use the interests of the child as a way of justifying the children being deprived of their rights. We find disturbing this kind of attention to the rights of children.
To respond to this argument, specifically, it is hard to understand the argument in the sense that if the child is recognized as a refugee, the chances are that the parent would also be recognized as a refugee, because usually they come from the same circumstances. It is not often that children have completely separate claims of their own. Claims are usually based on the overall situation of the family.
In any case, even if that were the case, the government has not produced any evidence that we have seen to suggest that this is, in fact, something that is happening or might happen.
Finally, we do not see any room in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to say that children may be deprived of certain rights as a way of protecting the hypothetical rights of future children, who might be mistreated on the basis of this practice. That sort of a deterrent argument is not something that the convention permits. We do not see how you can penalize certain children based on such an argument.
Senator Munson: When there is a great deal of media attention, for example, the North Korean case you have here, and other stories I have covered in the past as a reporter, and the media jumps on the story, then people are in tears, "This cannot be Canada, why is a person in a church for two years?" and so on, and so forth. Then people walk away and this person is allowed to stay.
For every person who is allowed to stay, how many are kicked out: quietly told, "Sorry, you have to leave"? Is it, from your perspective, not acceptable?
Ms. Dench: I cannot give you numbers on that, but I think that there are many for every case. For a case to go to the media, there must be a willingness on the part of the family to go to the media, which often families do not want to do. People need to support them to do that, and often there is not that support. There may be people who want to protest noisily about what is happening to them, but they will not necessarily find the support among organizations, because not many organizations out there can offer that service to people.
I think on a daily basis, without any media paying attention, people are removed in circumstances that we would find violates the convention.
Senator Munson: I have a figure here, I guess, of the government-sponsored refugees, those who are sought out in refugee camps. The figure is under 30,000. Is that the number we receive in this country each year? Besides this, there are privately sponsored refugees, sponsored by church groups, and so on. The refugees we have in this country are never enough, but from your perspective, should the door be opened wider under different categories to allow refugees to come to this country? Do you believe this figure is obviously too low?
Ms. Dench: The government-assisted level is at 7,300 a year, and we would like to see it go higher. It has been higher in the past, so we can ask whether it is at the right level, or whether, in fact, Canada should do more.
In terms of privately sponsored refugees, what is particularly frustrating is that Canadian citizens and groups are willing to sponsor larger numbers, but because the government sets the levels low, those people are waiting in a backlog overseas. That seems to be a complete waste for everybody, because the willingness is there among sponsors, and it does not require large budgetary outlays from the government if those people arrive.
We are particularly seeking an increase in the privately sponsored refugee levels.
The Deputy Chairman: Before I thank you, I have a question that has been bothering me for years. It is not exactly related to this, but I know that you are involved, and that is the issue of the young person who comes as a young child to Canada. The parents may or may not ever take out citizenship. The child does not have citizenship taken out on his or her behalf.
The child then becomes engaged in our criminal justice system, and all of a sudden we decide, the child is now 18 years old, and we are going to deport this person. This individual has only been in Canada since the age of two.
If the individual becomes a criminal, it seems to me, anyway, that the individual has become a Canadian criminal, and not a Jamaican criminal, or a criminal from the United Kingdom. Is this only my concern, or are other people concerned about this issue, as well?
Ms. Dench: No, you are not alone. That is a big concern, and something that has been raised every time the legislation changes. Unfortunately in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the government closed off some of the possibilities for review, which means that if the crime is serious enough, the person does not have the right to be heard before the Immigration and Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which could say that on humanitarian grounds the deportation should be stayed. To us that is unacceptable, because, as you say, we need to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. A child who has come at a young age is a Canadian, in fact, whether they have the papers or not. It is not fair to the child, and one might also say it is not fair to the society to which they are returned if they are sent back and maybe do not speak the language and have no contacts there at all. It would not be particularly helpful or welcome here in Canada to have somebody who was a Canadian citizen, but who had been living outside Canada since the age of six months, and simply because they had committed a crime in another country.
Ms. Shermarke: Some of these kids have grown up here and who have committed crimes, maybe little or big, also have mental health problems. Unfortunately, we have a tendency as a society to undermine that and to focus only on the commitment of the crime. Often, they are sent back to societies that are in war.
With the mental health issues, the environment in which they are sent back to, and the fact that they might look like people of that environment, but they have nothing in common with them since they were raised in Canada, their life is at high risk. Unfortunately, we do not take these elements into consideration.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you for a wonderful panel that focused on the rights of children. I think those rights are not often heard.
Honourable senators, we have one very brave young man who has been sitting there all afternoon. His name is Nathaniel Mayer-Heft, and he is supposed to be amongst a panel of three, but he is the only one who has arrived. He has indicated that he would very much like to talk with you, and I would very much like to hear him. We are going to invite Nathaniel to come forward. Perhaps Tamira Cahana will join him shortly, but if she does not, one is as good as many, as far as I am concerned.
Senators, Nathaniel has listened to every single witness this afternoon. He is a student at Beutel High School. I would like to hear his thoughts on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and whether he was aware of the convention before deciding to come here today. I would like to know if he aware that he had all these rights, and does he feel that his rights are being properly administered and cared for in this country of ours.
Nathaniel Mayer-Heft, Beutel High School: Good afternoon. Like the chairman said, I have been here all day, and I would just like to comment on a few things. If there is one thing that I have heard from almost every speaker, it is that children are our future, and the best interests of the children should be taken into consideration. My question is: Are they being taken into enough consideration?
If you look at society today in Quebec, according to Bill 101, only students whose parents have completed their education in English may study in English. Now, is this in the students' best interests, or are we depriving the francophone community of an English education? I spent part of the summer in Prague, and I could use either English or Czech to communicate. When I came back to Montreal, there are certain places where I could only speak French. I just want to ask, is the children's best interest taken into consideration with this decision?
I feel that people in the francophone community that are not able to study in English are being deprived of it, because they cannot function in an anglophone community later on in life, and I am sure this closes many, many doors to them.
I like it that students are being able to be heard, like I am today. No, they should not be voting at age 12, but why not ask them for their opinions? Why not get students from the ages of 12 years to 17 years involved in politics. You know, to build interest, so that when they reach 18 years, they will vote. I think that involvement would increase the number of people who vote.
I just wanted to open it up for a round table discussion.
The Deputy Chairman: I am going to begin this time, and then I will let the other senators join in.
I spent 20 years of my life teaching high school students, and I think my students, Nathaniel — if I can call you that — would say I taught too much politics and not enough military history, since I was teaching mostly boys. However, I think that when I met them all for their twenty-fifth reunion last year, they all said they had always voted, that they knew that if they did not go to the polls, I would be there hammering in their minds that they had to get out and vote.
I think you are quite right, I think that we need to engage young persons much more actively in the political process, if we want to ensure that they are going to start to vote at 18 years of age. One of the ways we have to do that is to make politics relevant for them.
We talk about the fact that children are our future, we talk about the fact that children are our best resource. That is good political language; we use it all the time. However, when is the best interest of the child in conflict with what the child wants and what society may determine is in the child's best interest? We heard one example this afternoon of a 14-year-old boy who needs to have an amputation that could save his life. He does not want the amputation because a fourteen 14 year old cannot contemplate seeing himself living for the next 50 or 60 years without a leg. He just does not want to think about it. Yet, at 20 years of age, that boy might have an entirely different view. The boy will not live to be 20 years of age if he does not have the operation to amputate his leg and stop the cancer.
How do adults weigh, in your view, what is in the best interest of the child, considering the views of the child, but deciding that the view of the child is not, in essence, in the best interest of the child?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think the cancer example is extreme, very different from the one I brought up just now. I feel that is an issue of maturity, and that at 14 years of age a child should not be expected to make a life or death decision based on a whim that he has at 14 years. You know, this is something that should be decided by a parent or guardian, if any, or by society if deemed necessary. A child at 14 years cannot condemn himself to death because he does not want to live without a limb. As you said, at age 20 he may be thankful that he is alive; however, I do not think that society should force a 14-year-old boy to make a decision, whether or not he should live or die without an arm or leg. I would definitely think that an adult's opinion would be taken into higher consideration, and weigh a lot more than a child or youth's opinion, because the adult is more mature and knows the consequences. I would much rather listen to a doctor tell me what I should or should not do with myself, rather than a 14 year old boy. That is my opinion.
The Deputy Chairman: Let us deal with a case of child custody. A 14-year-old wants to live with his father and the mother wants him to live with her. Who should make the decision in that case? What is in the best interest of the child?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think that both the mother and the father should be examined to make sure that if one is not a suitable place for a child to grow up, then he should not be allowed to go into his or her custody. If the child wants to live with the father because the father only eats fast food and shows the kid how to dodge taxes, then I do not think that the child should live with him. However, if both environments are okay for the child to grow up in, and the child says that he does not want to go live with one particular parent, then I do not think he should be forced to do so. I think, if anything, he should be asked to, but in the end it is the child's decision whether or not he should live in one environment or the other. We do not want to ruin the child.
The Deputy Chairman: You listened to many immigration cases this afternoon, and you learned of children who are separated from their families, who either find themselves in Canada without parents, or find themselves in another country with their parents in Canada.
What are your views with respect to Canada's immigration policy that seems to cause those kinds of problems?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I heard about that boy who could not bring in his brother and it was ridiculous to me. That really hit home. I could not believe that there would be such a situation in which a child could come into a country, fleeing from a different country, as a refugee, seeking refuge in Canada, and that his brother, from the same country, in the same conditions, should not be allowed to. His brother is the only family he has, and the Canadian government should not split up these two brothers. I feel that however this happened, it should be fixed so that it cannot happen in the future. This case was among so many others that were mentioned, and are probably in this book — I have not read all of them — and I think changes have to be made, because it is ridiculous. I do not know how else to explain it.
Senator Poy: Nathaniel, I was very interested when you brought up the lack of language rights in Quebec. You said you were in Czech Republic and you spoke Czech and English.
I believe that the more languages a child learns the better it is for the child. I do not understand why, even outside of Quebec, I have heard so many parents say why should their children learn to speak French. They insist that their children do not need to learn the language.
I think it goes both ways. I will not go into the politics of Quebec. Would you say the majority of young people in Quebec would prefer to be bilingual? English is a very useful international language.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Well, again, referring to the case with the 14-year-old boy, this is one of the situations in which an adult should be consulted, because the child may not know all the benefits of being bilingual or, you know, a polyglot. If a francophone child would ever want to move to the United Kingdom from Quebec, it would be very hard for him, because he is not bilingual. However, an anglophone child from Quebec would not have that problem. He could move to either the United Kingdom or France, because anglophones are forced to be bilingual in Quebec. I think it is beneficial for the anglophones that the government is forcing them to learn French, but I think for the francophones, it puts them back. It is a handicap, and I think the Quebec government should definitely rethink its language policy.
Senator Poy: Many Quebecers go down to the U.S., especially Florida, where there are lots of them. They must know that they have to speak English, so I am thinking about the parents; would not the parents think it is necessary for them to be able to communicate in North America? I mean, never mind the rest of Canada, I am talking about the U.S. I just want to know what you think.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think it is necessary for them to learn English. I think that the parents should know all the benefits, and I think that to give their children every opportunity and to take their best interest, and to think about it, they should definitely consider teaching them both languages.
Senator Poy: The children are not learning both languages; right?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I do not see it happening, but I think it should. I think that Quebec should become bilingual or at least give francophones a choice whether or not they would like to study English, rather than choose for them. Yes, I think parents should know the benefits, and I think someone — anyone — I do not know who — should campaign for it.
Senator Poy: That goes back to the involvement of young people in politics. If young people became involved in politics, at least by the time they turned 18 years of age there would be more Quebecers in government positions. There is a general apathy concerning democratic rights, among young people in Canada.
Senator Munson: Nathaniel, you are a patient man; maybe you are going to be a politician. You sit here and listen all day.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: It is interesting.
Senator Munson: There are all kinds of questions to ask you because I grew up in Quebec for part of my life.
According to our laws, corporal punishment and reasonable force may be used to discipline a child. What are your views on corporal punishment? Do you think the use of corporal punishment should be eliminated?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I have strong views against corporal punishment. I feel that striking a child, regardless of the circumstance, is wrong on many levels. A child cannot be expected to know every detail, right from wrong, in every situation. I feel that an adult who strikes a child, no matter how hard, shows no respect for the child, and infringes on the child's human rights.
Who is to say that any adult, a teacher, for instance, can strike a child on a whim because he, you know, talked in class, or did not do his homework? It undermines the rights of the child; it humiliates the child, and especially a teacher, who is almost in no way connected to the child. A teacher should not be allowed to ever have that contact with the child.
Senator Munson: I think it is good for us to get it on the record, because that is one of our big issues in this convention.
I would like to talk about the incident at Dawson College. I have just gone over the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which I have in this little booklet. I keep reading and reading, and I am going to get it one of these days soon. If it were written in the same language as the Canadian Council on Refugees, it would be a lot better for an old reporter like me.
Article 14 states:
States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 15 states:
States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom to peaceful assembly.
We heard this afternoon that Canada has ratified but not implemented these articles. Would things have been different if the education system in this country provided forums for the youth to discuss their problems? How can we help the youth to understand what happened at Dawson College? How do we explain the events at Dawson College to a child—sometimes I hate that word — a young man or a young woman of 14 or 15 or 16 years of age? How do we help those young people to express their feelings after witnessing such a terrible, violent event?
I have covered enough demonstrations involving adults. I would just like to get your point of view on that, because it seems to me that children need to express thought, need to have freedom of association and that is contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I agree with you a 100 per cent. I am part of a youth group, and several days after the Dawson College incident we did get together, as some students were at Dawson at the time, and others — we all have ties in some way to what happened. We gave each member of the organization a chance to speak, if he or she wanted to.
I felt that was so important, because you do not hear enough from youth and children about what happens in the world. I feel that if we give youth a chance to express themselves, that there would be more understanding, and I think the number of these incidents would definitely decrease because of the understanding generated by students expressing themselves on the subject.
Since the Dawson incident, we have heard of other similar incidents such as the Pennsylvania high school incident and, you know, I feel that if students and youth were given the chance to express themselves, many of these tragedies could be averted.
Senator Munson: Yes, it gives me at least pause for thought here. In our report, this is an area where that freedom of expression and thought can be shared with parents and the general public.
The Deputy Chairman: Well, Tamira Cahana has joined us and we will let her catch her breath for a moment.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to continue on the Dawson shooter and the shooter from the École Polytechnique. Both these young men had once gone into training with the Canadian Army, and both were found to be unsuitable and were dismissed from the army.
Do you think the Canadian Army has a role to play in keeping a registry of people who go to the army and get kicked out? I wondered if you had any comments, why these things happen in Quebec, why at this age, and why men, and why hatred against women?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I feel that the Canadian army is in some small way responsible for what happened, because if someone is deemed unsuitable and is dismissed, there is probably a good reason, and a person like that should not be able to procure weapons. I think that the Canadian army and the Government of Canada should have a registry of people that are deemed unsuitable to own a gun. That information might have averted that tragedy.
As for the why at this age and why the hatred —
Senator Munson: Why Quebec?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Why Quebec? I do not feel that it is necessarily Quebec. You know, we saw it happen in Pennsylvania also and it happened in Columbine, way back.
The Deputy Chairman: Yes, and it happened in Alberta.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Right. I think it is more age, than location. At 18 years of age, people are at an impressionable age and problems can develop. These things are bad, but they happen.
Tamira Cahana, Beutel High School: I do not think age has anything to do with it at all, in fact. I think that it is just a general feeling of alienation that people are experiencing. I think age is, if anything, the most minimal factor.
Alienation is being bred in our society, people are constantly secluding themselves from one another because of the ideas that our society is breeding; you are not good enough, you are not anything, essentially. I do not think it is age. I think it is just the belief and just the words that people are speaking between one another.
Why it is happening in Quebec? There is no reason. There is no reason that it should be happening anywhere, but just because it is happened a few times in Quebec, I think is just —
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Coincidence.
Ms. Cahana: I would not even say coincidence; it has just been allowed to happen. There has not been enough said against it. There has not been enough education; I suppose that is the answer.
The Deputy Chairman: Tell me what you both think about bullying. I am sure you have seen it at various times in your school career, maybe you have been the victim, maybe you have not, maybe you have seen others who have been the victim. How prevalent is bullying and what can we do as a society to prevent it?
Ms. Cahana: It is highly prevalent.
Senator Munson: We heard testimony from all across the country. We came up with sort of some parental ideas, which were not any good. The idea was to get all of the groups together with the principal and see if they could work out the problem. We came to understand that bullying begins at home and soon finds its way onto the playground, and if you dare to get the groups together, the problem is worse the next day. It is a very tough problem.
Ms. Cahana: I think it goes back, again, to the sense of alienation that people are feeling. I think only a bully feels so alone, and is just searching for contact, and just searching for a sense of validity, and being important. To cure this problem, I think you just have to make children feel alive. I think that is the only cure. I think that is the cure for all these issues.
The Deputy Chairman: But, Tamira, the public perception in my era used to be that boys bullied and that girls did not. However, having had two daughters, I know that is not the case. I know that girls do bully. They do it less violently — less physically, I should say, than the boys, but they do just as much damage to the psyche and to the sense of alienation of the girls that they are bullying.
I mean, you can punch somebody in the face, or you can hip them into the locker — both of which I have seen boys do, I have not seen girls do — but I have seen girls make terrible comments and harass their fellow students about hair, clothes, behaviour, language; you name it.
How do we change that culture within a school system so that there is a zero tolerance policy for bullying? I have seen examples of male teachers who thought it was fun when the boys got into a fight. How do we change that attitude?
Ms. Cahana: I do not think it is to place a zero tolerance on it. I think identifying it so directly is creating a hyper-consciousness around this issue. I think the best thing is if it came from one student, in particular, who was just kind of overseeing what was happening in the schools; not a spy or anything, but just a student.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We used to call them overseers.
Ms. Cahana: Yes, just one student who had particular control in the school.
The Deputy Chairman: Nathaniel, what do you think?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I do not think it should be from a student. I agree with Tamira that it is not going to help to put in a zero tolerance policy, because you hear all the time there is a zero tolerance policy, but that it does nothing. To say it means nothing; to implement it is a lot harder. I think that when people say there is a zero tolerance policy, it is an empty threat, and that is how everyone sees it, people just see it as they are trying to fix it, but they never can.
I think it has to go back way earlier, and kids have to be educated properly. Bullying is seen from age six to age 18 or 19. It happens at every stage in education. When you get kids together, they are going to hit each other. I think bullying is different in boys and girls. I hear Tamira, on the female side, that bullying does, for girls, come more from a sense of alienation; however, for the most part, what I can see from the guys' perspective is that they do it because they can. You know? If a boy can bully, then a boy will bully.
I feel that if they were educated and spoken to at a young age, throughout the education — spoken to about why is bullying wrong, and get them involved, then there would be a lot less bullying.
Ms. Cahana: I just do not think that education helps so much, because, as you were saying, if they can, they will.
Senator Nancy Ruth: They do.
Ms. Cahana: They do. Yes, exactly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We have some in the Senate too. It does not stop at 18 years of age; I assure you.
Ms. Cahana: I just think it also has to do with the language that is allowed to be spoken. Language is so vital in just mental processing, that if the language that is being allowed to be spoken in the classrooms — I know in my classrooms people are always saying the most foul and grotesque things.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: And the teachers allow it.
Ms. Cahana: Yes.
Senator Poy: Oh, they allow it?
Ms. Cahana: They allow it. Even racist slurs are allowed. We go to private Jewish school, so I do not know, maybe that has something to do with it.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I cannot think it should be different, you know, in any other schools; it is not just private Jewish schools.
Ms. Cahana: No.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think if you were to ask the people you met in Edmonton and everywhere else in Canada, that you would get more or less the same thing. If you ask them "What is the language spoken in the classrooms," they will say, "Yes, we tell racist jokes, we joke around with our teacher, sometimes."
I do not feel that any rules have been implemented. I feel that students are allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and that is a problem because they can be very offensive and there is no one or nothing to stop it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am curious. Do you think there are more racist jokes than sexist jokes because you are in a Jewish school?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I would not say there is more or less of anything. If there is in certain classrooms — in other classrooms, I think it varies by age, I think it varies by, you know, who the kids are, but when push comes to shove, these jokes are being told, and they are being allowed, and they should not be.
I do not think that it has anything to do with ethnic and religious background, I think in the much more religious schools that there is probably less, but if you were to go to a public school, or a private Catholic school, I am sure you would hear almost exactly the same testimony.
Senator Nancy Ruth: The same jokes, but flipped.
Ms. Cahana: I agree that it does not have to do so much with just the fact that there are Jewish kids in a Jewish school, but when you are not exposed to other ideas and other mentalities, it is bound to happen. I think the whole segregation, you know, grouping of schools is a horrible thing. I think it is the worst experiment.
I think you were talking about sexism. I think that is huge. I see that everywhere. Women — and men also — are constantly being battered down within language, within physical contact. I think that is one of the biggest issues that I have.
I have to say that I am scared, even what is going to happen at the next level, because it is being allowed, and it is everywhere. I mean, of course, being a woman, I have more ideas towards the feminine side, but it is allowed in our society, and I am scared because I, as a woman, am completely vulnerable, and no one is protesting.
Senator Munson: Would this be the use of language within your age group? I was surprised the other day, hearing some words that were just used in my son's environment. He'd be just talking away, and I went "What was that?" "Oh, that is okay, everybody uses these words, it is..." — I said "No, they do not."
Ms. Cahana: But what is it — why is it —
Senator Munson: Well, I mean, referring to women. Certain words and things; it is so wrong. Is that what you are referring to?
Ms. Cahana: Yes.
Senator Munson: I mean the verbal abuse.
Ms. Cahana: The verbal abuse, the imagery, everything, and because everyone is using it, it is validated.
Senator Munson: Yes.
Ms. Cahana: That is the most grotesque part of it all.
Senator Munson: How do you change that? How do we, as a society, try to change that? You talked about the next level; the next level is university, close by, probably, right?
Ms. Cahana: Yes.
Senator Munson: Then it turns beyond your school, it turns beyond your city, beyond the province, and it just keeps going.
Ms. Cahana: I think it has to do with early identification. I am not sure.
Senator Munson: It is good to have that testimony. We have heard very interesting testimony from young people at a school in Edmonton, and they came from a different social stratum, if I can put it that way. These young people lived in single-parent homes and a pretty rough and tough environment. These youth talked about the same language and the bullying. They had similar comments and concerns.
It is, I think, important as a committee that we hear this when we are discussing the rights of the child and trying to have this document implemented by governments in our country.
Ms. Cahana: Yes.
Senator Munson: We need to understand the rights of the child.
The Deputy Chairman: Are we making kids grow up too soon? I look at five, and six year olds who are dressing in ways that 12, 13, and 14 year olds used to dress. I look at them engaged in activities that much older children used to be engaged in. I mean, what is wrong with playing? Have our children stopped playing?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I do not think that anyone is at fault for kids growing up too fast.
Senator Munson: I do.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: It is true that kids are maturing a lot faster, doing many things that you would not normally expect a seven year old and eight year old to do, but rather a 12 or 13 year old. However, I feel that it is these kids who see older kids doing it, and are trying to imitate them. I think that has something to do with the perception of what is cool, and what is not. I do not think that can be changed by a political party, but I think it has to be changed somehow, you know, if it is a problem.
Ms. Cahana: I do not think there is a solution for it; curiosity is everywhere. I think curiosity is what makes them children.
When it gets to be abusive, and when the children are identifying themselves with these qualities, when it stops being curiosity, then that becomes a problem. I do not know the solution to that problem.
The Deputy Chairman: Well, I have to say that I get pretty disturbed when I hear of 11- and 12-year-olds with webcams being persuaded to make films of themselves nude, which they then distribute on the Internet. I say what kind of a society are we living in? What kind of protection are we providing for children, that this kind of thing can go on?
Ms. Cahana: I suppose it is the imagery that is all around us, and it is our role models — their role models. I think the industry is breeding this behaviour.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You used the word "alienation" three or four times, and for me this is all part of the disintegration of community, the individual pornographer soliciting children, whatever issue. We talk about those two men who gunned down the various colleges here in Montreal.
Alienation is a terrible thing, the lack of community. Oh, God, have you got any answers? We do not, necessarily. I guess that is part of our struggle. When everything is so fractured, people with their iPods, people — you know, last night in Toronto I watched a man of, oh, I do not know, 25 years, skid on a streetcar track and go flat on his bicycle right across with all this traffic coming, and it was a little darker than this. He got up and he said "Oh, I am fine, I am fine. I am fine. No, it was nothing." Then he checked to see if his cell was okay. He did not want to have any interaction with me. I went out and stopped the traffic; no, no, he had to know that his machinery was okay. He could not admit that he was hurt. I mean, he went right across two sets of streetcar tracks, and skidded on a cement pavement. He was hurt. Sure he was hurt. He had to be in shock, but he could not encounter with me.
There is all of this evidence of alienation every day in the way we get on and off planes every week and sometimes we are in the mood to talk to the staff, sometimes we are not, and we do our stuff too. Our whole society, I think, is perhaps gone to pot on this word "alienation," and I was so impressed that you used that word.
Ms. Cahana: I think what you just said, which I thought was really interesting, was that he would not admit to himself that he was hurt.
Senator Poy: Is it not a guy thing?
The Deputy Chairman: Macho.
Senator Poy: Sounds very macho, yes.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think this goes back to the imagery that Tamira has talked about the entire time, and that guys need to be seen by other people as macho, as leaders, as people who are invincible.
I think that, again, it goes back to the imagery, and I cannot see a solution for it. I am not at all surprised, because I see this every day in school. Kids do get hurt, but then do not admit it to their friends for fear that they might be alienated because they are not macho, they will not be respected, and they will not be seen as cool.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Then it extends to the pornographer and the shooter, too. They do not want to be seen as vulnerable. They are invincible, look what they are just managed to accomplish.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How do you change it with all of today's music?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: A person who feels vulnerable can easily pick on a child, because that is easy, and they are little.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Or a woman.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: — impressionable — or a woman — sorry.
Senator Nancy Ruth: No, but they are both under —
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Right. A man —
Senator Nancy Ruth: The great white man.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: Men are generally stronger than women, so it is easier for a man to feel macho, to feel strong by roughing up a woman or a child. Yes, clearly Tamira wants to talk.
Ms. Cahana: I do not even think that the men have to be so macho these days; I think it is the women who want to be passive for the men. I think the most beautiful woman these days is the passive woman and they are allowing themselves to be vulnerable. The man does not need to be macho and in cases of abuse, the woman is permitting this behaviour.
The Deputy Chairman: I do not think that has changed very much. I have to say that, having taught men and women at your age, approximately grades 9 to Grade 12, it always absolutely blew my mind that these very bright girls would sit in class and zip their lips because they did not want to appear too bright.
I once said to one young lady, "I would like you a lot more if you would let me." And she said "What do you mean?" I said, "I know how bright you are, so why are you hiding it under a bushel?" "Oh," she said "None of the boys would like me if I was that bright."
Fortunately, she got over it; she grew out of that.
Senator Munson: Well, there are a whole lot more of them now getting over it, I will tell you.
The Deputy Chairman: That young woman became a very accomplished physician. There is a period in a young woman's life, certainly in the high school years, in which girls often feel that they have to defer to the boys in terms of intellectual capacity, and that they have to be the quiet little mouse in order that they do not shatter the boys' ego.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I just want to say something. I think she is one of the lucky ones, I think she is lucky that she did get over it.
You look at society, and there are women who have not gotten over it. That is a problem. This one student went through the phase, and that is why I disagree with how you said that each person goes through a period in life. I do not think that each person goes through a period, I think that a lot of people live their lives according to it, not, you know, a small little period, and then realize how ridiculous it is. You see adults doing the same thing.
Ms. Cahana: I think it has something to do with people feeling privileged, that they are so important, that they can do these things.
Senator Poy: Are you talking about the women?
Ms. Cahana: No, now I am talking about the men.
Senator Poy: I have friends who are extremely bright, and they are abused by their husbands. I asked them why they put up with it and they say that they have been trained to be a good wife. What does that mean? I never understood that. I questioned them on that, because they can stand up on their own, and they do not.
To make another comment on alienation, I think it is the disintegration of families — of an extended family. We used to have families who lived together, we have grandparents, and we have parents, and aunts and uncles. Everybody is scattered. Of course, there are more and more divorces, too. The disintegration of the family has brought about a lot of this alienation.
Would you like to comment on that?
Ms. Cahana: I would like to say something about the women who do not stand up for themselves. I think is it is more than just the fear that they are not a human being anymore, when they do not have someone with them, when they do not appear to be loved. That is what I assume.
Senator Poy: Yes, it is something I never understood. You do not want to be in love with a guy who abuses you, anyway. That is the way I feel. Right — when you do not need him!
The Deputy Chairman: Some people.
Ms. Cahana: That is the appearance of love.
Senator Poy: Yes, it is true. It is something I never understood.
The Deputy Chairman: I always thought my most important job as a teacher was not the history that I taught, but was the development of the self-image of the kids in my classrooms.
What kind of development are you experiencing? Do you have teachers who are genuinely concerned about what kind of a person Tamira Cahana is and what kind of a person Nathaniel Mayer-Heft is?
Ms. Cahana: I do not think so. I think there is a very defined boundary; they are there to teach me, I am there to listen. I do not think they want to evaluate us on a humanistic level. I think the teachers keep a separation because — I do not know, why do you think?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I think that it might cross their mind, but I feel that the school is very detached from its students. I think it is a problem, and I think that teachers should be closer to the students, should worry about their own students and what type of people they are going to become. After all, they are learning everything that they know from the schools and from the parents, and from all kinds of other influences.
If a teacher were to see a student going in the wrong direction, I feel that, in my school, for instance, not too much would happen to prevent it. I feel that the teachers just do not care. I do not feel like they are there to teach us, we are there to listen, I think we are there for them to teach us.
Most students do not go to school to learn, they go to school because they kind of have to, you have just got to get through it. Most students feel that they are not there for themselves; this is not going to affect them. "Who needs math" is something you hear every day. Teachers should be more aware of it and speak with their students and get to know the students.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Both of you have very strong values. Where did you learn your values? They may be different, but you both have them. Was it the synagogue? Was it at school? Was it your families? Was it from the gangs, or the music?
Mr. Mayer-Heft: My family is definitely an important factor for me. I do not feel I have learned so many of my values from school. I feel like I have developed them after seeing what happens in school. You know, seeing how detached people really are — teachers from students, that is. You know, and developing them on my own. You know, influences are everywhere. My friends influence me. My teachers, to some very small extent, influence me. My parents influence me. I take what I can from everyone. I am curious.
The Deputy Chairman: Obviously, because you sat here all afternoon.
Mr. Mayer-Heft: I want to see what everything has to offer, so I take from wherever I can; that is just the way I am.
Ms. Cahana: I just want to say one more thing about the schooling. It is a big issue for me. I think school has become quite anti-intellectual, if anything. I think we are not really there to learn as human beings; we are there to learn out of duty.
The Deputy Chairman: On that uplifting note, thank you both very much. I have to tell you what an absolute delight it was to have you both here this afternoon. We do not, as you can imagine, as parliamentarians, get a lot of time to speak with young people.
I am actually going to my daughter's school on Friday to do three classes for her, to talk about politics, and hopefully engage them a little bit more in the art of politics.
We could not have asked for two better young persons to be here today, and I thank you very much for that.
The committee adjourned.