Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 5 - Evidence - March 31, 2014
OTTAWA, Monday, March 31, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day, at 5:01 p.m., to study the international mechanisms toward improving cooperation in the settlement of cross-border family disputes, including Canada's actions to encourage universal adherence to and compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention, and to strengthen cooperation with non-Hague State Parties with the purpose of upholding children's best interests.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the seventh meeting of the Second Session of the Forty-first Parliament of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Our committee has been mandated by the Senate to examine issues related to human rights in Canada and abroad. My name is Salma Ataullahjan and, as deputy chair of the committee, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this meeting.
Before I continue, I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Seidman: Senator Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Unger: Betty Unger from Alberta.
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, at our meeting on December 2, 2013, the committee agreed to study international mechanisms to resolve cross-border family disputes. The goal of the study is toward improving cooperation in the settlement of cross-border family disputes, including Canada's action to encourage universal adherence to and compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention and to strengthen cooperation with the non- Hague State Parties with the purpose of upholding children's best interests.
The problem of international parental child abduction, while not new, has grown over the past few decades, with general increases in international travel, international relationships and rates of divorce and legal separation. In such cases, a child is removed from his or her home environment, referred to as the habitual residence, transported to another jurisdiction by one parent, and may or may not have any further contact with the parent left behind. Cases of international parental abduction can be particularly challenging for those involved. Depending on the circumstances in each case, the abduction can have grave social, psychological, even physical consequences for both the child and the left-behind parent. In addition, the differences in legal systems between states as well as the physical distances often involved make locating and returning internationally abducted children a difficult international legal problem.
To begin our hearings today, I welcome our first panel from Justice Canada, Laurie Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector; Marie Riendeau, Counsel, International Private Law Section; Sandra Zed Finless, Senior Counsel, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Legal Services.
Our second panel is from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: William Crosbie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Legal Branch, Chief Security Officer and Legal Adviser; Béatrice Maillé, Director General, Consular Policy Bureau; and Leslie Scanlon, Director General, Consular Operations Bureau.
Thank you for joining us today. I understand that you have some opening remarks to present, and then you will be available to answer questions.
Laurie Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector, Justice Canada: Thank you and good afternoon, Madam Deputy Chair and honourable members of the committee. I am Laurie Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law Sector at Justice Canada. I would like to begin by thanking honourable senators for giving us the opportunity to contribute to this important study on international mechanisms to improve cooperation in the settlement of cross-border family disputes.
[Translation]
Addressing the needs of children and their parents in the context of family disputes is an important area of Justice Canada's work, both domestically and internationally.
When families experience a separation or divorce, they must deal with important emotional, financial and legal issues. Ideally, parents are able to make arrangements for continuing to parent their children cooperatively. However, conflicts that precipitated the family breakdown, or new issues such as a possible move by one parent to another country, may make this very difficult.
The topic of the committee's study is therefore of great importance to a large number of Canadian families with ties in other countries, and of particular importance to the well-being of our most precious asset, our children.
[English]
In my opening remarks, I will touch briefly on the following: first, Canada's participation in the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, which is a global international organization whose objective is to develop international treaties to address cross-border issues in many areas of private law, including family law.
Second, I will also address the Minister of Justice's responsibilities as the federal central authority for the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, or the child abduction convention. The Minister of Justice has been responsible for Canada's participation in the Hague Conference on Private International Law since 1968. Since family law in Canada is shared between federal and provincial jurisdictions, Justice Canada's work at the Hague Conference is done in close collaboration with the provinces and territories.
[Translation]
Canada has been a party to the Child Abduction Convention since 1983. Justice officials are working with their provincial and territorial counterparts on the implications of the possible implementation in Canada of two other Hague family law conventions: the Convention on the Protection of Children and the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance.
[English]
These three Hague conventions address first, parental abduction; second, cross-border issues relating to parental responsibility, custody access and child protection; and, third, cross-border issues relating to child support.
I understand you have received an overview of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and of the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Canada played a leadership role within the Hague Conference in the development of all three conventions.
Since their adoption internationally, Justice officials, with their provincial and territorial counterparts, support the work of the Hague Conference by contributing expertise to ongoing work on them. For example, in the context of regular international meetings to review the operation of the conventions, which are commonly called special commission meetings, Justice officials have presented or promoted proposals to enhance their implementation and operation, and our experts have participated in the development of tools such as guides to good practice or practical handbooks.
[Translation]
In 2006, Canada proposed the use of a country profile form for the Child Abduction Convention to establish a ``one-stop shop'' of information on the relevant law and processes of each country. A Justice official then chaired the international working group that developed the form, which has been in use globally since 2011.
The Child Abduction Convention aims to protect children from the harmful effects of wrongful removals or wrongful retentions, more commonly referred to as parental abductions. It applies to children up to the age of 16 and, as of today — March 31, 2014 — it has 91 state parties.
[English]
The convention provides for a civil application procedure designed to bring about the prompt return of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained to their country of habitual residence. Such an application is decided by the court of the state to which the child has been removed or in which the child is being retained. When the conditions set out in the convention are met, subject to limited exceptions, the court must order the child's return to the country of habitual residence where any issues regarding custody or access, including the possible relocation of the parent and child to the other country, can be decided after a full consideration of the child's best interests.
The convention also allows for applications to facilitate the cross-border exercise of rights of access.
[Translation]
The convention establishes a network of cooperation among state parties through designated central authorities who support parents involved in this civil process. In Canada, provincial and territorial legislation gives effect to the convention. The provincial and territorial attorneys general and ministers of justice are the designated central authorities with case management responsibilities for both outgoing and incoming cases, in other words, children taken from or brought into a province or territory.
[English]
The Minister of Justice is the designated federal central authority for the convention. While the federal central authority does not have specific case management responsibilities, it does play a pivotal role in three areas: first, receiving applications or requests from foreign central authorities where the exact whereabouts of the child in Canada are not known; second, providing general information and assistance to the public and to other central authorities about the operation of the convention in Canada; and, third, coordinating national discussions on operational matters of Canadian interest relating to the convention.
The overview of the convention, which I understand was provided to the committee, contains more detailed information on the responsibilities of Canadian central authorities.
Honourable senators, some 30 years after its coming into force, the Child Abduction Convention remains an effective instrument for children and their families. This does not mean that outcomes always meet expectations. Sadly, in some cases they do not. Although it remains an effective tool, the operation of the convention does pose some challenges.
[Translation]
For Justice Canada, a pivotal issue is continuing to develop constructive ways of enhancing consistency in the interpretation and the operation of the convention, including through the promotion of good practices, as the primary means of improving compliance at the global level.
Justice officials take every opportunity to contribute to such efforts at all levels: domestically, bilaterally, regionally and globally. We would be happy to provide specific examples to you.
[English]
Another important reality is that in the majority of cases today, the taking parent is the child's primary caregiver. This was not the situation at the time the convention was adopted or in the years following its coming into force. While the convention applies in such cases as well, and rightly so, we must acknowledge the practical and legal challenges these cases pose for deciding courts and, more importantly, for children and their parents.
These situations and others highlight the increasing need to examine how the Convention on the Protection of Children could assist Canadian families, not only by reinforcing the operation of the child abduction convention but also by providing an additional tool to address broader cross-border issues regarding parental responsibility, custody, access and child protection. Justice officials continue to explore this option with their provincial and territorial counterparts.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, that concludes my opening remarks. I will leave the floor to my colleague from the Department of Foreign Affairs. We will be happy to answer your questions and to provide additional information for the purposes of the committee's study.
[English]
William Crosbie, Assistant Deputy Minister, Consular, Security and Legal Branch, Chief Security Officer and Legal Adviser, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Chair and honourable members of committee. I'm the assistant deputy minister responsible for Canada's consular services. I have with me Béatrice Maillé, Director General for Consular Policy and the lead for the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit; and Leslie Scanlon, Director General for Consular Operations.
Honourable senators, I thank the committee for the opportunity to brief you on how Canada is a leader in issues involving children and how our government's efforts prevent the incidence of international child abduction and contribute to the resolution of cases involving Canadian children.
[Translation]
In addition to the millions of Canadians that live here at home, there are also approximately 2.8 million Canadians living abroad, many of which also have families. Sadly, those family relationships sometimes break down. Canada's consular officials assist Canadians abroad at some of the most difficult times of their lives, including left-behind parents in situations of disputes involving children.
[English]
I will speak to the new Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit within our Consular Affairs Branch, provide an overview of statistical trends of consular services and wrongful removal cases, how we handle these kinds of cases from a consular experience, how we are promoting the 1980 Hague Convention and strengthening cooperation with non- signatory states to the 1980 Hague Convention through the Malta Process.
In November 2013, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Lynne Yelich, announced the establishment of the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit located within the Consular Affairs Branch. This unit consolidates specialized policy and case management resources to better respond to requests for consular assistance in situations involving cross-border family disputes, as such cases are complex and difficult to resolve.
The government has for the first time increased the number of specialized case officers that assist left-behind parents, and it has also enhanced our policy capacity by implementing dedicated analysts who deal solely with issues relating to children abroad. The unit is working with other government departments as well as provincial and territorial counterparts on joint efforts and issues involving abducted children.
With this unit, we have also been able to increase our outreach to Canadian organizations and individuals capable of providing expert advice and assistance to victims in a range of cases. The new unit also enhances the capacity of DFATD to liaise and cooperate more consistently with like-minded international partners, including the United States, Germany, Mexico, the United Kingdom and Australia, to move forward on common child protection initiatives relating to consular assistance. Through the creation of this unit, Canada is taking a leading role in finding new ways to prevent and assist with international child abduction, as well as emerging issues such as forced marriage.
What do the statistics tell us and what are the trends? Generally speaking, we are seeing an increasing number of requests for assistance, with an increase of nearly 40 per cent in wrongful removals from Canada and custody disputes between 2009 and 2013. These increases are similar to what our like-minded countries are also experiencing.
Most of the cases where assistance has been requested involve countries like the U.S., Mexico and the EU, where the 1980 Hague Convention is in force. Non-Hague countries with significant numbers of Canadian wrongful removal and retention requests include Lebanon; India; Morocco, which has recently indicated it will implement the convention; Algeria; Pakistan and China.
The 1980 Hague Convention will come into force with Japan on April 1, and this is as a result of the efforts of Canada and a number of other countries working together to persuade Japanese authorities that the Hague Convention is consistent with Japanese cultural practices and consistent with our legal regime.
[Translation]
The statistics I have just provided are indicative of the number of requests for consular assistance that have been received by the department. I should note that they do not represent a complete picture of all the incidences of wrongful removals and retention, since many are managed domestically and abroad by police and other authorities, or directly through provincial/territorial central authorities.
The provinces play a prominent role when it comes to abductions. The federal government assists the provincial authorities and parents by handling issues related to unlawful international abductions.
[English]
My Department of Justice colleagues have spoken about the details of the 1980 Hague Convention as a legal instrument and how the central authority's system works. However, I will explain the consular services we offer to parents, services that are usually called into play when things don't work out.
Effectively, our department gets involved in three areas: during the prevention phase, when a case involves a non- Hague country, and where there is a need for special assistance in Hague countries.
The paramount consideration of consular officials and the other authorities involved is the best interests of the child. Fundamentally, international wrongful removals and retentions of children are private legal disputes. International conventions and government services are able to provide the framework for handling such disputes, but it must be pursued by the parents through the available domestic legal systems of the countries concerned. The Government of Canada is involved in these cases because of their international nature, either through the provision of consular assistance and/or under the 1980 Hague Convention.
Consular officers can be called upon to provide assistance to parents seeking to prevent the wrongful removal of a child from Canada, especially to those countries with which Canada does not have a 1980 Hague Convention partnership.
In the absence of formal exit controls at Canada's borders and the fact that these are private legal disputes, consular officers generally provide a list of possible avenues for the parents so that they can make informed decisions with family law practitioners, such as adding the name of the child to Passport Canada's ``system lookout.''
The government has also created a guide for left-behind parents that helps them understand the processes and issues involved in searching for and seeking the return of their child from another country. It provides suggestions on how to reduce the risk of an international abduction.
[Translation]
Parents can also receive assistance over the phone and by email from case management officers. In the case of a wrongful removal involving a Hague state, parents are encouraged to consider, in consultation with their lawyer, whether the 1980 Hague Convention might be useful. Parents are also encouraged to work with lawyers, both in Canada and abroad, the local police and other supporting NGOs.
[English]
The publication and other information available on travel.gc.ca and at the department raise this issue as part of our regular outreach activities to Canadians on the range of consular issues.
Our government is highly engaged in the promotion of the 1980 Hague Convention abroad, through international advocacy and bilateral engagements. Our partner departments, Canadian representatives to the international Hague network of judges and other partners regularly offer their insights and experience and capacity-building opportunities to new signatories, as well as to those states with implementation limitations of the convention. We raise issues around wrongful removals bilaterally and multilaterally, whenever there are opportunities as part of our ongoing advocacy work.
Madam Chair and honourable senators, the 1980 Hague Convention is viewed as one of the most successful international family law treaties to be completed under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. That being said, difficulties arise in situations when such removals or retention involves a non-signatory state to the convention.
Canada has taken a lead role in building cooperation and dialogue through its active involvement in the Malta Process and assuming the role of co-chair of the working party on mediation. The Malta Process is a Hague Conference initiative, and it is the only international engagement between governmental and judicial officials representing both signatory and non-signatory states to the 1980 Hague Convention.
The Malta Process has resulted in three key meetings over the past decade or so. The Malta Process has also agreed on certain declarations with specific actions that require development to further improve interstate cooperation on international child abductions and family disputes. These declarations include the following actions: domestic review of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions by non-signatory states to make them familiar with the provisions in those conventions; mutual recognition of judicial decisions and orders and encouraging direct judicial communication in specific cases — when judges can talk to one another from different jurisdictions and different cultures, we find they can often agree; development of central contact points within governments and development of international family mediation services; and facilitating visa, travel and access issues for the left-behind parents.
On Canada's initiative, in April 2009 the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law authorized the establishment of a working party to promote the development of mediation structures to help resolve cross-border family disputes concerning custody of or contact with children where the 1980 Hague Convention does not apply. This is co-chaired by Canada and Pakistan. The working party is comprised of 14 members. Its signatory state members include the U.S., U.K., Australia, Morocco, South Africa, Germany and France. Non-signatory states include Egypt, Jordan, Senegal, Malaysia and India.
In closing, senators, ladies and gentlemen, addressing the issue of cross-border family disputes is a priority of consular services. This spans the continuum of awareness-raising while families are still intact, to suggesting steps to parents fearful of abduction, to assisting within our consular mandate after children have been wrongfully removed.
With the government's introduction of the new Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit, I hope the number of successful resolutions of these cases will increase. Thank you for your interest.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
Senator Seidman: If I might just ask you some general questions about numbers. For example, on average how many children are abducted and taken out of Canada by their parents every year and how many of those cases have been reported to the police or other authorities?
Mr. Crosbie: I will ask my colleague Ms. Maillé to respond to the specific question on the number of cases.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. These are children who are abducted and taken out of Canada.
Béatrice Maillé, Director General, Consular Policy Bureau, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: In terms of our statistics, as we indicated, we don't have a complete picture, but from a consular perspective, the cases that have been brought to our attention would have increased significantly, as Mr. Crosbie has said, between 2009 and 2013, from 50 reported to us in 2009 to 69 in 2013.
These are child abduction cases out of Canada. There could be other cases where we would have, for example, families that are dealing with custody disputes, and those would also be reported to us as, for example, 104 in 2009 to 187 in 2013. Depending on the particular situation of the family or the individual, we would have classified those in a different way.
Senator Seidman: What about children who are kidnapped and brought to Canada? Do you have numbers on that?
Ms. Maillé: Our statistics from the consular affairs side are for cases that we manage from a consular perspective, but I will invite my colleagues from Justice Canada to comment.
Sandra Zed Finless, Senior Counsel, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Legal Services, Justice Canada: Thank you for the question. My colleague spoke about the number of consular cases. Those are cases coming through the consular services.
With respect to the Hague Convention cases regarding the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the Government of Canada doesn't maintain comprehensive national statistics on the number of case applications into or out of Canada. However, in preparation for special commission international meetings, Justice Canada officials do compile the statistics gathered by our provincial and territorial central authorities on the application of the convention in their respective jurisdiction. This information is then sent to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference to support studies they do.
The most recent international study on child abduction convention applications is for the year 2008, and it was actually compiled for a study that was for the special commission in 2011. The committee may find it of interest to turn its attention to that study, a copy of which we can undertake to provide to you. In that study, there is a national report on Canada, which shows you an analysis of Canadian statistics on Hague Convention cases for the year 2008 and how they compare to global trends.
Now what that study indicates — which, again, is the last international comprehensive study that was done on Hague Convention cases — is that there was an overall decrease in the number of cases that Canadian central authorities were dealing with as compared to what they were dealing with in 2003.
The other thing that is interesting in that study is that Canada's performance in terms of its ability to return children quickly from Canada was faster than other countries, and also, Canada's overall rate of returning children on incoming applications that were sent to Canadian central authorities was higher than the global average.
In 2008, I think there were a total of 113 applications that were actually dealt with by Canadian central authorities that would include outgoing Hague Convention return applications and incoming Hague Convention return applications.
To give the committee a very general sense of the numbers of child abduction convention cases being dealt with by Canadian central authorities, the provincial and territorial central authorities have shared very general information about the number of cases in the years that followed that global study. This information shows that child abduction convention cases do fluctuate from year to year, but the general trend is showing slight annual increases.
Senator Seidman: You said that the performance by Canada in this report is shown to be faster and the rate of return is higher. Could you give us some numbers on that, please? I would appreciate it.
Ms. Zed Finless: I would have to undertake to table the actual study with the committee, which does set out the very specifics of the numbers.
I can give you some specific numbers now. I want to clarify that this study was actually done for Hague Convention applications for the year 2008. The overall rate of return in the return applications was 59 per cent as compared with the global overall return rate of 46 per cent. The time that it took a court to actually conclude their proceedings in a return application was also better than the global average.
In the year 2008, 59 per cent of the applications received by Canada ended with a return compared with the global rate of 46 per cent.
Senator Seidman: If you could forward that study to our committee clerk, that would be appreciated. And I appreciate that testimony; it put some perspective on what we're dealing in terms of prevalence of cases. Thank you.
If I might just ask a question about the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit, Mr. Crosbie, you mentioned outreach. Prevention and outreach as a component of that is pretty critical. This is clearly a special unit with huge value. Could you explain what you mean by outreach and how that would incorporate prevention? I would appreciate that.
Mr. Crosbie: Obviously, we get a lot of calls from parents who are just worried that their child may be abducted, so we try to counsel them, give them advice as to how they could prevent that from happening, which is the best solution to the problem.
One of the things that we have done is outreach in terms of talking to communities in major Canadian cities. Then, as I mentioned, we have a publication and we have a website, so we're trying to raise the profile of the services we have to offer so they can take action themselves.
Ms. Maillé: We're very happy to have the new capacity with the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit. It allows us to have case management officers who focus their activity per region, so they are capable of counselling parents from a regional perspective but also to have a separate unit on policy. By having the separate unit on policy, we can try to address or tackle some of the root causes of the issue and the challenges domestically and also internationally.
As Mr. Crosbie has said, with respect to domestically, it allows us to be prepared and give to our case managers in Ottawa but also abroad in our missions, to our consular officers, the tools on how to better counsel parents in the prevention of a potential situation. We also develop policy, check lists, tools and communication documents.
But it also allows us to interact with communities here in Canada to raise awareness on the type of challenges we see from a consular perspective. It also allows us to work internationally in partnership with our colleagues from Justice Canada, not only in countries that have already signed the convention to raise capacity in some cases, but also in countries that have yet to do so through the working party on the Malta Process, to also demystify what are the potential options, and certainly the working party on mediation, allowing alternatives and potential options, but also more broadly in the Malta Process to explain what the convention is and some of the tools.
Maybe our colleagues from Justice would want to comment on the work that we do in partnership.
Ms. Zed Finless: In terms of prevention, the Department of Justice is also involved with prevention. In fact, there is federal funding through something called the Supporting Families Initiative and that supports family justice services that are delivered directly by the provinces and territories to help those families address some of the legal issues that arise as a result of separation or divorce.
Some of these services are things like parent education programs and mediation. These do help minimize the conflict in families so that they can continue to work well despite the breakup. This would reduce, hopefully, the likelihood of an abduction.
Justice Canada has also produced a number of tools that help separating and divorcing parents agree on child- related issues. For example, there is a publication called Making Plans, which reminds parents who want to move away with their children that they will need to get the other parent to agree, or they will need to ask a judge for permission before moving. It explains that if one parent was to take or keep a child without the other parent's permission or a court order that would allow that, they might be committing a criminal act. There is a section in that guide that advises parents on what to do if a child is abducted or if they are concerned that their child may be abducted.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for your presentations and for your good work on all of this.
The Department of Justice gave us a document on the overview of the 1996 Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. Wow, that's a long one. But what I understand this does is establish common rules for states parties on issues concerning the care and protection of children. It's complementary and reinforces the Hague Abduction Convention, but you also say Canada has not ratified the convention and the analysis of its benefits is ongoing.
Why is that? That was 18 years ago. What's taking so long here to analyze all of this, and what's the problem? What's the holdup?
Marie Riendeau, Counsel, International Private Law Section, Justice Canada: This is a very important question you are raising, because the convention — we call it the child protection convention or the convention on the protection of children, which is much easier to remember than this very long title.
The matters that are covered by this convention are primarily of provincial responsibility. There are aspects of custody and access that would fall under federal responsibility in the context of a divorce, and so in working on the analysis of possible implementation in Canada, at the federal level we need to work very closely with our provincial counterparts.
This work is being done, but at the provincial level there are competing priorities, and there needs to be time for a number of different initiatives in developing international and domestic work in the area of family law. There is a lot going on in the provinces, and while we are working closely with our partners and are making progress, it is taking time to analyze given the very broad range of matters that are covered by the convention.
Senator Eggleton: Yes, but 18 years. Come on. That's not a very good answer.
Are there any parts that the provinces are objecting to? Are there any difficult issues that are hard to resolve, or is it just that they are not allocating the time?
Ms. Riendeau: Well, again, there are no specific areas of the convention that pose particular problems, per se. It's not one aspect or another.
The reality is, when we do work with the provinces — and we are working with the provinces on this — they are involved in a lot of other areas of reform, and this is one area, and there is no specific problem with this convention.
Senator Eggleton: All right. But 18 years, that's just not acceptable. I think we need to push that, Madam Chair.
Mr. Crosbie, in your submission, you talked about non-Hague countries with significant numbers of Canadian wrongful removal and retention requests, including Lebanon, India, Morocco, Algeria, Pakistan and China. Some of those are part of the Malta Process.
If those are countries with significant numbers of Canadians, what are we doing there to overcome the non-Hague status that they have? I got the impression from what you said later on that, by and large, we leave it up to the left- behind parents, I think they're called. Are we not providing just as much service, leadership and helping them to get their children back as if it was a Hague country? What is the difference?
Mr. Crosbie: If a country is a member of the Hague, there is a process that has been agreed by the two governments involved that facilitates resolution of these cases when parents apply through the central authorities. So it's a process that is well recognized by judicial and government systems, and governments are playing that supportive role by providing a framework in an area of private international law.
When it comes to countries that are not members of the Hague, there is no existing international convention agreed to between governments to help parents resolve those differences. There is no process through which judges can talk to one another to help resolve those differences, and there are no central authorities or a central contact point that a parent can appeal to.
The major problem with countries who are non-signatories, if you look at those countries, in some cases they have very different social, cultural, judicial and political systems from our own. Japan is a good case in point.
For a long time, the Japanese maintained that the obligations of the convention were inconsistent with their approach towards these family law and child custody matters. After a lot of work by justice colleagues, by ourselves and working closely with a group of other countries, we persuaded the Japanese that, in fact, the convention does not impose any Western cultural values in terms of the resolution of child custody matters. So as of tomorrow, the convention will come fully into force in Japan.
With respect to countries with legal systems influenced by Sharia, Muslim countries for the most part, there is a great lack of understanding of how the convention can be consistent with their approach towards child custody. But the more work we've done with many of these countries demonstrates that the one principle that all legal systems share with respect to child custody is working for the best interests of the child. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the convention on children, all of these instruments enshrine the best interests of the child as the key principle that needs to be enforced.
What we're trying to do with these countries that are not members of the Hague is to help them understand how the convention can actually work consistent with their legal systems, norms, cultures and practices. But I would have to say that in many of these countries they are poor and they don't have a well-developed family law system for domestic disputes, so it is going to take time to persuade them to join the convention. Working with our Justice colleagues and with other governments, we're trying to help them understand how they could join the convention in ways that will complement their own systems and help to build up their own family law institutions.
Senator Eggleton: I assume that's what the Malta Process is all about.
Mr. Crosbie: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: I got the impression that the Malta Process was at least putting some informal processes in place to dialogue, judges to judges, for example, to try to find some resolution of these issues if they don't join the Hague Convention, or maybe as an alternative system, bearing in mind that a lot of them are Islamic countries that are in fact taking into consideration a different kind of system that involves Sharia.
Mr. Crosbie: The Malta Process resulted in three large gatherings sponsored by the Maltese government — in 2004, 2006 and 2009. I attended, along with some Canadian judges and Justice officials. Over the years, the sense was that while these were important gatherings to build understanding, there were no practical means coming out of those large gatherings that would help parents deal with specific cases.
Mr. Justice Jacques Chamberland, who was with the Quebec Court of Appeal, was the one who proposed to set up a system that wouldn't be exactly the Hague system, because these countries don't appear to be willing to sign on to the convention, but would give parents the practical tools to resolve cases; where parents were willing to enter into mediation, make sure that a mediation service is available, one that the governments and the two countries concerned would agree meets our standards; and second, let's set up a central contact point within those governments so there is a place where parents can register and seek support. It mirrors to some extent the Hague Conventions, but very simply a central contact point and a mediation service.
Our goal has been to persuade these governments to set up those mediation services and a central contact point. We would like them to join the Hague Conventions, and we see this as a step in that direction. That's the purpose of the working party — to develop practical solutions that will help.
Senator Eggleton: That's an advantage you have. You're co-chairing that working party, so you have an opportunity to try to influence.
Mr. Crosbie: I co-chaired with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Jillani. He himself has been involved in a number of these cross-border child abduction cases.
I think it's important to bring judges, but also we have to have the officials from the governments involved so that they can work in support of building those institutions.
Senator Eggleton: I hope you meet with some success soon. I hope it doesn't take 18 years.
Mr. Crosbie: I hope so as well.
Senator Eggleton: Eighteen countries are part of the Hague Abduction Convention, but Canada doesn't accept them. Why is that? What is being done to resolve that, if anything? What do you do with those countries in terms of these issues? They are members of the Hague Convention. I didn't realize you could have countries join a Hague convention and some other countries could say they don't accept that. Can we have an understanding of that one?
Ms. Riendeau: Maybe I can provide you a bit of context to understand why there is a difference between states that are party and the convention that applies to all the states, and some states where we need to accept.
The convention has specific provisions that say that states that were members of the Hague Conference at the time the convention was adopted — that is, in 1980 — can sign and ratify the convention, and this convention will apply automatically between all states party to the convention.
The convention provides for a second group of states, those that were not members in 1980, and allows these states to nevertheless join the convention by way of accession, but specifically provides that the accession will only have effect between what we call the acceding state — this non-member state becoming a party to the convention is called the acceding state — and those states that will specifically declare acceptance of their accession.
Those rules were put in place at the time. More recent Hague Conventions do not have that type of approach, but in 1980 that's the agreement between the states, and that is to allow states to make sure that states that were not participating in the negotiation of the instrument, that they have in fact completed the obligations under the convention when they joined the convention.
That's the background, if you wish, of the difference between the two categories of states.
Back to your question about the 18 acceding states Canada has still not accepted, and a bit more context. Decisions on accessions are made by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It's a treaty law issue and it's their responsibility. However, because the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Hague Abduction Convention, the minister, through department officials, makes recommendations to the Department of Foreign Affairs on possible acceptance.
How, then, is the process undertaken when there is a new state acceding to the convention? As I explained, accepting a new accession or a new state is an important decision because it gives effect to the convention between Canada and this new state. Fact gathering is undertaken by Justice officials before recommendations can be made, and the fact- finding is there to make sure that the basic requirements set out in the convention have been met, that is, for those states that require implementing legislation to give effect to the convention in their state, making sure that they have passed such legislation and that the legislation is in fact brought into effect, brought into force.
The second requirement that we look to is whether this new state has a functioning central authority, a clearly designated central authority with contact people who could actually deal with the incoming and outgoing applications.
The other thing we turn to and consider is analyzing either the implementing legislation or administrative processes put in place in this new state, whether or not they appear to be consistent with the obligations under the convention. If we have a red flag, we will look into this a lot further.
From a justice perspective, when these basic conditions are met, our general approach is to favour acceptance. We review and collect the information through information provided on the Hague Conference website about the state and how it is implementing the convention. We also turn to our provincial and foreign central authorities for possible input. We also contact the state officials in the acceding state to seek clarification where we need more information. Where information is not readily available, we sometimes go through the foreign affairs ministry for assistance through diplomatic channels.
Depending on the situation, it can take several months and even several years before a decision is made. The most difficult situations are when we don't have the information. There are processes at the Hague Conference where states can provide information on their implementation of the convention, and some of these states do not provide that information. Also, in some instances we have difficulty getting a response to our inquiries.
So far, Canada has accepted 40 of these acceding states. There remain 18 states at different levels in the process, but we are actively pursuing this collection of information. We take as an approach not to retain an accession, to leave the issue open and continue to collect and interact with the new state, making sure that we will get to a point where we know that a well-functioning central authority has been put into place and the proper legislation is in place.
Senator Eggleton: I appreciate that description. Some of these countries have been on here for a decade or more, but, again, I look at the names of some of the countries and can understand that to some extent. Perhaps some of them are problematic in terms of making sure you get that kind of assurance.
The second part of my question was: Meanwhile, what do you do if children are abducted into those countries? How do we get them back? We talked a few minutes ago about the Malta Process and how it deals with the Islamic countries, but what about these countries? They're not all in that category, and, in fact, they are in the convention anyway.
Ms. Riendeau: I will then turn to my Foreign Affairs colleagues. As these countries are party to the convention but the convention does not apply between Canada and those particular states, the mechanisms under the convention would not apply.
Senator Eggleton: I understand that, but what does apply? What do you do to get the kids back?
Ms. Riendeau: The parents would then either undertake to attempt to have the child returned through the courts without the application —
Senator Eggleton: The courts in that country?
Ms. Riendeau: Of those countries. Or they turn to our colleagues.
Senator Eggleton: What assistance would we give them?
Leslie Scanlon, Director General, Consular Operations Bureau, Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada: Unfortunately, as you point out, there is no multilateral mechanism that can assist in those cases, and it is very much the domain of a private legal matter. That doesn't mean that the Government of Canada is not interested in the well- being of the child. So we would speak with the parent who was left behind to make sure they're doing what they can in terms of private law, and we would try to assist them with legal advice for the country where the child is living. We will be very concerned about the well-being of the child. There is a Canadian parent, and we will be looking to the local authorities in the country where the child is living to make sure that there are no well-being concerns.
We will continue to advise the parent on the publication that I think we referred to before, Enlèvement international d'enfants, what you do if your child is abducted to a foreign country. We will provide language to consular officials in the country where the child is residing in an attempt to have the abducting parent meet with consular officials from the Canadian government in the office located in the country where the child is living to point out to the other parent that there could be criminal consequences to that parent not returning the child to the country where the child has legal ability to live.
Should the taking parent decide to voluntarily engage and maybe return the child, Foreign Affairs will be very quick to facilitate travel, emergency documents —
Senator Eggleton: That's the kind of stuff I needed to know. You don't say to them, ``Sorry, we can't help you because they're not a member of the convention.'' You do help them in the way you just described.
Ms. Scanlon: You can imagine, in Consular, we're dealing with families who are going through the worst moments of their lives. These are huge for our officers, and we do engage with all families.
Senator Andreychuk: We are all struggling with the same issues. I can remember the days when we didn't have much consular service or a Hague Convention, so that tells my age. I think these are the steps in the right direction because families in crisis are the ones we're talking about. If the families are responding to each other — it's a marriage breakdown or what have you — and they still focus on the child's needs, I don't think you get involved. I don't think we would be studying it here.
But it is those cases where there is animosity of some sort between the two parties, and they whisk child away. It's one of the means now because we travel a lot. We intermarry a lot from other cultures, and that's where the situation erupts, I think. I'm pleased to hear that there's a new consular focus on assisting and that we're at least identifying the Hague Convention. Fifteen years ago, if I said ``Hague Convention,'' I don't think lawyers would know about it. They're getting to know it because of our international engagement.
What I'm interested in is: How do we reach enough families in Canada so that they understand before marriage, even if I may say, before the birth of the child, that this is the new concept? If you both stay in Canada, we have a lot of laws. They know the laws. They know court system. They have confidence in the court system. But that's not the reality of today. What else should we be doing at the front end, or is this a provincial responsibility you're going to tell me?
Mr. Crosbie: This is really a shared responsibility. Our Justice colleagues have their own avenues, their own contacts, their own ways in which they can influence what's happening within the provinces. Provincial authorities have the social welfare agencies, the family support units. In the absence of exit controls, the reality is that, from a federal government perspective, there's not much we can do until the problem appears.
We are trying to raise awareness of our travel.gc.ca site. Often, these are people who are travelling because families split up, and whether or not they're split up, they're still going on vacationing and moving around. To that extent, we get a lot of questions from parents who are concerned about the potential for an abduction.
Raising awareness is a job for all of us, I think.
Senator Andreychuk: If you're taking a child out of our jurisdiction — Canada — what can the parent who doesn't have custody of the child do, and what do they know about the other parent moving with the child? They've got parenting rights, and they have the child for the next two weeks on vacation. That parent takes the child overseas or down to the United States. We know there are letters that go, but they're not really binding letters. Is there anything? You say we don't have exit controls.
Ms. Maillé: Thank you for raising the question. One of the areas that Minister Yelich asked us to focus on with the new Vulnerable Children Consular Unit is to try to coordinate better on the prevention side. We are very pleased that, recently, we were able to launch an interdepartmental working group that is really looking at the different tools we currently have in our toolbox in terms of prevention and the ones that we will eventually be able to recommend to our minister and others in partnership so that we can improve our toolbox.
We certainly have already done some work through publication, for example, Travelling with Children, available on our website, that gives some indication to parents of things they should consider when they're travelling with children, including the letter of consent that you've referred to. I understand, having children and having travelled with them, that it's not a solution to all concerns, but it does, we hope, raise the opportunity to have a discussion within the family on what is about to happen. ``We are going to travel with the children, or I'm going to travel alone with the children.'' So it fosters a discussion and a dialogue that may help to eventually prevent cases.
There are also situations where there is a true abduction, per se, when one parent leaves the country with a child, hiding, so we don't know where they are. But there are also situations where there is approval or consent that the parent travel with a child, but then they won't want to return to Canada. Then we may have some information where the child is, if the other parent has not moved, but we may in some cases lose track of them as well for the left-behind parent.
They're all very difficult cases and we can talk about more of the details of the operations, but certainly we try, either through discussion with parents prior to the travel or once they come and consult with us about potential fears, to give them some tools on things they could look into.
For example, Passport Canada maintains a lookout list that allows some parents to indicate to Passport Canada not to issue a passport unless you come and consult with them, or there is a potential custody order. We certainly recommend that parents bring that to their attention. We also encourage them to keep another embassy informed if, for example, the other parent is a dual national, so there is a potential for them to inform the embassy of that country so they don't issue a document without having the proper documentation, for example.
Certainly they are all different recommendations or advice, but we hope that through the interdepartmental working group we will be in a position later on this year to make some more specific additional recommendations in that context.
Ms. Zed Finless: Just to flesh this out a little bit more, I think it's important to keep in mind that these are essentially private matters. These are private disputes or private relationships between people. Therefore, through whatever established mechanisms we can, for example, through the Canadian Bar Association, we do take every opportunity to be able to educate the parents through the bar associations because they generally will have contact with lawyers at some point in their dispute. The Department of Justice, for example, maintains an active liaison with the Canadian Bar Association and does regular training of the bar association.
We are also identifying opportunities when it's appropriate, such as when the National Judicial Institute comes to us to provide training initiatives to the judges. They are the ones who are defining the relationships between these parents to allow when they can travel and when they can take a child out of a country and under what conditions. The judges are then more cognizant of the things they may be able to do as part of custody orders or arrangements that they are going to pronounce upon from the bench for those parents.
Senator Andreychuk: Dual nationals seem to be one of the difficulties. Some countries take their duties to their citizens as seriously as we do and that often puts that child in jeopardy by leaning towards keeping the child in whatever culture they're in now as opposed to Canadian. Is it correct what I have read? Is there stress between the countries of dual nationals? I think of that case from England. Our researchers were kind enough to give us the case. The judge in England said the child may be habitually in Spain but her heart is in England. That was an interesting judgment on behalf of the court not really recognizing the Spanish order, really. It amounted to that.
Mr. Crosbie: Judges and courts make their decision based on the facts of the case. With the Hague Convention, of course, it does recognize the first concern is the best interests of the child. That can be applied or interpreted in different ways by a court. I think you're right about that in different cultural systems. For example, for Muslim countries, one of the arguments you sometimes get is the child can't be raised as a Muslim in a country like Canada. That's out of ignorance. They don't understand our society. They don't understand that you can be raised as a faithful Muslim or someone of any religious faith and be a Canadian. Part of breaking down that cultural misunderstanding is something we're trying to do through the working party, to understand that you can live in different ways in Canada and be totally respectful of religion. That really only comes about by helping judges and government officials to understand.
Ms. Riendeau: We alluded to that in the opening statement. I will not comment on that particular case, but that decision was in the context of the Hague Abduction Convention.
From a justice perspective, one of the main challenges in respect to the convention is to reach a more consistent interpretation and application of the convention globally. We have to take every opportunity to work toward that goal and we certainly do so by sharing best practices in the bilateral and multilateral work we do on the convention. Developing tools to help with a more consistent interpretation and application is certainly one key element in our view to make the convention more effective globally. We need to have that contact with other states through the meetings of special commissions on working groups and developing guides to good practice.
Currently there is a very important working group that has been established by the Hague Conference that is developing a guide to good practice on one of the pivotal provisions of the convention. I don't want to be too technical, but it is in regard to the ``grave risk of harm'' exception, which is an article in the convention that allows a court to say, ``I will not order the return of the child because if I do so it will pose a grave risk of harm for the child.'' That is a pivotal provision because it allows a court not to return a child. Canada promoted the establishment of a working group to develop this guide. We have a Canadian judge participating and a Canadian Justice official participating. Those are the types of initiatives I think that we need to focus on to reach that greater consistent and coherent application of the convention.
Senator Hubley: I would like to ask you a question on police involvement. I'm thinking that they may be the first responders to an abduction in that parents who may find themselves in this situation may turn to the police first to see what can be done.
Approximately 16 years ago, when the House of Commons Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development published its report on international child abductions, most police forces at that time did not have comprehensive operational policies on missing children. Entry of a parental abduction case in the Canadian Police Information Centre and reporting to the missing children's registry by police was voluntary that the time. In addition, witnesses before the committee said that it could take weeks for the police to act if they did at all.
Do you feel that this situation has been improved, that there has been more education and training of our police forces to know when there is an abduction case, how they are going to handle it and how then they move it forward so that it comes into your domain?
Ms. Zed Finless: Yes, I think that the situation has improved. The Department of Public Safety is actually best placed to answer the questions about police training.
I am able to tell you some specific examples of Justice Canada's efforts to contribute to police training concerning the investigation of missing children in the context of parental abduction. Since the house standing committee report, there have been certain initiatives involving improving police training initiatives that Justice Canada at least has been involved with. One such initiative involves the fact that in October 1998 the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice adopted a new parental child abduction charging guidelines. These guidelines were intended to improve the handling of parental child abduction cases. They replaced earlier guidelines and are advisory in nature, but they provide Crown attorneys and law enforcement agencies with the guidance as to the circumstances where parental child abduction charges might be appropriate.
In addition, funding has been provided by Justice Canada to produce training videos for police agencies in the context of parental child abduction. Also, a workshop was convened on parental child abduction that looked at the issue of the intersection of family law with the criminal justice system. In this workshop, an official from the National Missing Children Services participated as well as provincial justice officials and central authorities. They were able to discuss the overlap between the criminal aspects of abduction and the civil aspects of abduction. More recently, Justice Canada has also assisted in some police training involved in interpreting some of the Criminal Code provisions using the charging guidelines.
Of course, there is a Canadian police knowledge college workshop has recently developed a parental child abduction study, and we've also contributed to their materials. The activities of police have certainly been sensitized by some of our initiatives that we have been able to advance since that time.
Senator Unger: Your information has been very enlightening for me. In listening to your presentations I'm almost overwhelmed. There are so many organizations and people. You start with local police and go to lawyers, judges, provincial agencies, the RCMP, embassies, the Department of Justice, Interpol and DFATD. How does a parent keep track during this extremely long process? On average, how long does it take to recover a child?
Mr. Crosbie: We have to distinguish between the cases that involve Hague Convention signatory countries and governments because there is a process for parents, which Sandra can explain. For the consular cases, i.e. where it's not a Hague Convention case, then as was explained we have case management officers. There is one person they deal with, and we do all the shuttling around and talking to our mission on the ground and others. We work through the case management officer.
Ms. Scanlon: The case management officer keeps alive the relationship with the family or the left-behind parent. They send information in writing that follows up on the conversation they have verbally. They make suggestions for the left-behind parent, which they then forward in writing. There is a very active relationship between Foreign Affairs and the left-behind parent; and that's how we manage all those different parts.
Ms. Zed Finless: I would recognize that many players are involved. That just emphasizes the intense collaboration required in this area. We're very proud that we've been able to collaborate closely with the various stakeholders who are able to help parents.
The child abduction convention remedy speaks throughout about the need to undertake things quickly and expeditiously. In fact, a provision in the convention states that the judicial and the administrative authorities, when they have cases before them resulting from a Hague Convention application, they're supposed to act expeditiously in those proceedings. One of the provisions suggests six weeks as a time frame, after which the request can be made for a statement of the reasons for the delay.
There are practical realities and various issues that can cause delays. In Hague Convention cases, it could be the fact that the other state does not respond quickly enough or doesn't utilize the same mechanism that Canada might use to locate the children. It could be something as basic as the fact that they haven't put their up-to-date contact information at the international website where all the central authorities' coordinates are supposed to be listed.
We work very hard to ensure that the speed with which the Hague Convention is supposed to operate in fact does operate. We know that if a delay in the treatment of these cases will cause further problems for the child and for returning the child should a judge in the other country decide that that is the applicable remedy in the instance. We work collaboratively to ensure that the criminal aspects of abduction are well coordinated with the civil law aspects of abduction and that individual cases are looked at based on their individual circumstances as to the appropriate responses the parent may wish to pursue in a given set of facts.
Senator Unger: I have a follow-up question. I heard a couple of times that these are private matters. If I have a child that has gone missing, the issue will probably end up with my lawyer sooner rather than later. Do you coordinate back with the lawyer who then communicates to me, or how does that return of information proceed?
Ms. Scanlon: We generally deal with the client, not with the lawyer. The client is our primary person, but we're giving a lot of guidance to the client concerning what we can do. The client has to manage this, as you know, as a private legal matter with the support of colleagues elsewhere depending on the issue, whether it's Hague or non-Hague and what and where the abduction was.
Senator Ngo: I heard a lot of information and I have a simple question. What can a parent do if a child is in a country that does not recognize custody rights for whatever reason — religion, customs, traditions, et cetera?
Ms. Scanlon: The sad truth is that there is not much a parent can do if they go to a country where there is no recognition of the Hague, and the other parent may be a dual national. Once the child is in that other country, it's difficult for the Government of Canada to do very much about it.
We would approach the other parent, with the support of the parent left behind, to have a conversation to say to them that they may have an interest in having a relationship with Canada; they may want to come back. So we would be very persuasive to the extent we can be about the possible criminal consequences to keeping that child away from Canada.
We would recommend to the left-behind parent that they speak with local authorities and with the embassy of the country where the child is now living. They can share custody documents and all those things, but that's a private domain.
From the Government of Canada, it's fair to say our focus in that case would be the well-being of the child. We would attempt to make sure we got visits with the child. We have never dealt with a state that didn't have concerns focused on the well-being of the child, so even if that's the minimal thing we can accomplish, we would be forceful in ensuring that if there are issues, they are brought to the attention of the local authorities.
Senator Andreychuk: You say you have not found a country where the best interests of the child aren't their particular focus. If that's correct, and I have no evidence otherwise, then the problem is that we define ``best interests of the child'' differently in all these countries.
Ms. Scanlon: I'm talking about the well-being of the child such as whether there is any abuse. I'm not talking about whether we agree the child would be better raised in a foreign country or in Canada. I'm speaking specifically about well-being, health, education, medical access, and whether they are being fed properly. Those are the issues we could have some impact on, even if there is no other legal thing we can do.
Senator Ngo: If there are other religious grounds, what do you do? Just now you mentioned, on the religious ground, if the child is abducted to go to the other country, what can the parent do on that ground?
Mr. Crosbie: Again, we're talking about countries that are not members of the Hague, and in that case, it's partly working with the parents and working with the parent who has taken the children. It is also, as appropriate, making sure that judicial authorities in that country understand and that the parent is able to make the arguments that a child can be raised as a Muslim in Canada. It is to overcome that misunderstanding. Whatever your religious background, it can be recognized in the way the child is brought up in Canada.
The Deputy Chair: I will let Justice have the final word.
Ms. Riendeau: Regarding the question you were raising about what a parent can do if the child is in the other country, if we set aside the abduction convention, because the mechanism is explained in the documents that you have received — if that convention applies and is in force between the two countries, the mechanism would be to seek the prompt return of the child. If it is not in force, if the parent has a Canadian court order giving him rights or custody rights, they could try to get that order recognized by the court in the other country, or they could go to the court in that other country to attempt to get a custody order, allowing the parent to return to Canada. The difficulty there is that there are no assurances the Canadian order would be recognized in the other state.
Coming back to the Convention on the Protection of Children, that also covers issues of custody and access. If both countries were party to this convention, a Canadian order, if it were made at the time the child was habitually resident in Canada, it would make the recognition of this Canadian order in the other state all that much more — that would greatly facilitate that process.
So in the absence of the international framework that a convention can provide, we must recognize that it is quite difficult for a parent to have a Canadian order recognized or to obtain custody in a foreign country.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentation. As you can see, there is a lot of interest, and if we had more time, we would have many more questions for you.
I would like to welcome our next panel of witnesses: Amanda Pick, Executive Director of the Missing Children Society of Canada; Dick Chamney, Board President of International Social Service - Canada; Sylvie Lapointe, Director of Services for International Social Service - Canada; and Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children.
We will begin with Ms. Pick from the Missing Children Society of Canada. I understand that you have some opening remarks to present to us, and then you will be able to answer the committee's questions.
We're under a time constraint; we have to leave the room by 7:50 as there is another committee meeting to follow. Therefore, senators, I will ask you to be brief and I ask the witnesses to have brief answers. Thank you.
Amanda Pick, Executive Director, Missing Children Society of Canada: I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come and be a part of this conversation and dialogue today.
My organization, the Missing Children Society of Canada, has been serving children and families nationwide for 28 years now. How we do that is unique. We provide active support investigation. Historically, that was our primary program. Our team has always been former law enforcement officers, and they bring many years of skills and expertise when it comes to missing and abducted children's cases. They work in partnership with the law enforcement team nationwide, which holds that case file, and they are able to give focused effort.
Certainly, from the onset of a case, there is the opportunity for a family to receive a focused effort. Unfortunately, as time progresses, that same opportunity sometimes isn't there, so we are able to help to provide that focused attention.
We also have a family peer and support program, where we connect families with resources that are able to help them through this journey, specifically in the areas that they reside. We have created in the last couple of years and are just launching nationwide our search program, which is a model unseen to our country that literally takes technology and connects individual Canadians, corporate Canada, media and law enforcement in a rapid response network that we believe will help to work to prevent cases of child abduction in our country.
In our experience, certainly listening to the first part of the presentations today, our families are very much challenged with some of the things that you highlighted. Certainly, from the onset of an abduction case, as you can imagine, the family is trying to figure out where to turn. Their first connection is with law enforcement. Many times, those teams of law enforcement nationwide look at knowing what to do immediately. With the idea of parental abduction, instead of it being a domestic conflict case, they identify it as a criminal case and make steps and take actions towards that immediately; but that is not always the experience of families, so there can be a time lapse from when that step happens.
Once that family and law enforcement team understand that it is now an international parental abduction, navigating all of the resources and services that were spoken of today is an overwhelming challenge for many families, but not all families. Our experience, in partnership with Justice and Foreign Affairs and law enforcement nationwide, is that there is a collective response. However, that response still seems overwhelming to the families, as well as the journey through navigating how to access the resources, and then once the child has been located, how the Hague Convention will be upheld. Then if it is upheld, the execution of that order and then being able to actually have that child returned home with the family also provides many challenges for the family, including cost, travel and being able to have the right resources in place internationally to bring their child home.
So I would suggest that from our perspective, there is a team on the ground working with families right from when that child is abducted, looking to find the child before the Hague Convention can even come into play, so locating that child somewhere in the world. Once the child is located, we need to provide the families with more of a seamless process. It's encouraging hearing how we are taking steps towards that, but again, very challenging for the families that are going through the process.
We work directly with the law-enforcement teams to ensure that the families are being adequately supported, and that also seems to be a challenge. Certainly, our experience has been that not all law-enforcement teams have these cases come up on a regular basis, so it is encouraging to hear there is training in place for law enforcement nationwide that if they do have this case come up they will know immediately how to deal with it. Our biggest focus is to provide that seamless experience for the families so they can navigate through this incredibly difficult journey.
Dick Chamney, Board President, International Social Service — Canada: I would like to echo thanks for the opportunity to speak to this committee about the work of ISS Canada, and I appreciated being able to sit in on the first round of discussions. The clerk asked me if I had opening remarks to submit. I said actually I just took notes, and I will talk about what resonated with us rather than trying to make a more formal presentation.
I will start talking about myself. My name is Dick Chamney and I have been President of International Social Service Ð Canada since 2007. I'm in my last year on the board. I'm also serving on the international governing board of ISS. Our parent organization is based in Geneva. I am wrapping up my final term there as well after four years. This organization has exposed me to a lot of things I didn't know about until 2001 or 2002.
Sylvie Lapointe is our director of services. Our home office is in Ottawa. She is a 13-year veteran of International Social Service. She has a master's degree with honours in both French and English, and she's probably one of the top international social workers on the planet. She gets shy when I say that.
She has been very involved with our international body in terms of training new correspondents that we bring into the network and in the standards of social work that we try to uphold. She is involved with the professional advisory committee, which is the chiefs of staff of all the organizations in the world who give advice and information to the governing board on issues as to how they make decisions administratively; so she is a pretty busy person, and we have worked fairly well together for the last while, as long as I do what I'm told.
I'm pleased to be working with Sylvie and that both of us are here. She may have answers that I don't have. She is the expert in the field.
Some of the things that struck me even before we got here were issues that were raised in the invitation to come and the committee's approval to address this issue of international child abduction and some of the things that we might want to do about this growing issue.
Phrases that struck me were ``international mechanisms of cooperation.'' I liked that. Cross-border family dispute resolution; it's kind of the nature of our business. We do inter-country casework and have been doing it since 1924. Post-World War I, ISS was formed in response to the diaspora of people, particularly from Europe, who were forced out of their homelands because of war, and oftentimes not just separated from their country but from each other. That was the initiating factor for International Social Service, and we're celebrating our ninetieth year and ISS Canada is celebrating its thirty-fifth. We were incorporated here in 1979, so we're in celebration mode.
The issue of the Hague was particularly interesting. International Social Service, our parent organization, has an actual cooperation agreement with the Hague Conference in the enforcement and promotion of its various conventions dealing with children. That agreement was signed in 2012. We have a working relationship with the Hague, and maybe through that we would have some things to contribute to this initiative all by itself.
The best interests of children are primary. The driving engines of ISS, our international organization, are the Hague Conventions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other human rights conventions that have come into place over the last half century. Those are the meaningful end reference points to us in our work around the world; so this is important from that point of view as well.
The issue of whether child welfare is the jurisdiction of the feds or the provinces, and in fact in Canada child welfare and family service is the jurisdiction of the provinces, although they are supported through funding and other areas by the federal government.
ISS Canada works primarily with provincial authorities, ministries and their agencies throughout the provinces that deal with child welfare issues. Over 90 per cent of our casework is child welfare. We deal with every province and territory in the country. We take referrals from them.
The biggest ones we deal with are Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, and there we have service agreements with those ministries and service providers for handling cases whenever an international element comes up in a social worker's case on a desk in Canada. It can be something as simple as requiring record checks in another country or it can be something as critical as child abuse or child neglect or even abandonment of a child here or somewhere else.
This year we will do over 400 cases in Canada, and most of those referrals come from agencies or other sources in Canada. Attorneys general talk to us once in a while, but a few of them come from other countries around the world that are part of our network, and we can also link them into the appropriate places in Canada.
We're active in about 150 countries. We have correspondence or affiliate bureaus or branches in about 130 countries now. Many of them are countries that are not Hague signatories, and so we have some working tools on the ground in countries that don't come under that convention.
One of the most common responses we get when we talk to official people around the Hague is, ``Well, that other country is not a Hague signatory so there is not much we can do.'' The fact is we are a Hague signatory, and there are all kinds of things laid out for us to do under the convention, whether the other country is a signatory or not.
Something referred to this morning was that the parental abductions are the most common, and that is true with us as well. Only it isn't always a matter of one parent scooping up a child and going somewhere else in the world. Some parents are getting sophisticated in their plan for how to move child and family out of the country and then changing the rules of family law when they get to the other place.
The Hague Convention talks about not just child abduction and wrongful removal, it also talks about wrongful retention of a child in another country. We probably see that as much or more than other kinds of issues. Once the child is in another country, they are vulnerable to the law of the land and the culture and whoever is in charge culture- wise. We are making some progress in those areas.
One of the things that amazes me is that in Pakistan, India — and we've even done work in Syria — we have correspondents who know the culture, they know the law, and they know how to work in it with respect to that culture. They are very non-judgmental in their work. They do fine casework and reports for us. A correspondent in Pakistan just did a report for us which has turned a case around in favour of the parent trying to regain custody. It's still a long haul to get to the end of that.
I noticed a comment this morning from the deputy that one of the things we are trying to do is to help them, non- signatory countries, understand the benefits to them of the Hague Conventions. We lean more towards needing to understand more about them and their culture and how things work there, when that's where the action is, and we are very fortunate to have accredited caseworkers in many of those countries.
I heard over and over again the need for a sound collaborative approach, particularly with regard to provincial and federal jurisdictions. I think there's another need for a collaborative approach between government and non- government resources in the world. We are affiliated with a number of NGOs that are doing compatible work, and we're doing a lot more partnering than we used to. Some of our correspondents are now the International Red Crescent and Red Cross units in various countries, and that's working out quite well.
In terms of police involvement — Amanda raised this — police refer to us. Some police jurisdictions seem to be quite well-versed and understand their role in pressing charges in cases of abduction; others don't understand at all. From one jurisdiction to another, even municipal and municipal, there are huge gaps in understanding what role police can play.
I'm going to stop there. I certainly have other things to comment on and some questions of my own that my wife sent with me, if you don't mind.
Sylvie, do you want to add anything?
Sylvie Lapointe, Director of Services, International Social Service Ð Canada: No, that's fine.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to turn to Mr. Allen.
Ernie Allen, President and CEO, International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children: Madam Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you. I'm sorry I cannot be there in person.
I know that a mandate of your committee is to look at the work of the Hague Convention and also issues relating to non-Hague states. Our organization, the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, funded a global statistical survey in 2011 in the operation of the Hague Convention, which was conducted by our board member, Professor Nigel Lowe of the Cardiff Law School in the United Kingdom. The results were troubling. I think it should trouble your committee and it should trouble people globally.
First, there was a significant increase in Hague applications. The numbers are going up, up 44 per cent.
Second, there were fewer returns of children. The overall return rate was 46 per cent, down from 51 per cent five years earlier, and the Hague process is taking longer. As you heard in the earlier panel, the standard is 42 days or six weeks, yet the average time it took a court to order the return of a child was four times that, 166 days in 2008, compared to 125 days five years earlier and 107 days ten years before that.
Let me say that Canada fares very well in the analysis. Senator Unger asked in the previous panel about the time it takes to handle these cases. Canada's average time for getting a case to court was 54 days. That's not as good as the 14 days in the United Kingdom or 35 days in Australia, but it's better than the 72 days in Germany and the 207 days it takes in the United States.
Once a case is received, Canadian courts take 69 days to act, and that's contrasted with 48 days in the U.K., but 89 days in Germany and 106 days in the U.S. You've heard from many people that the key element in the Hague process is speed. The purpose of the convention is to achieve the speedy summary return of abducted children to their countries of habitual residence, where the courts in those countries make the determination as to proper custody. The longer it takes, the lower the likelihood of successful resolution. In fact, there's even an incentive to create delays, making it more likely that a court will find that the child has adapted, is settled and it's not in his or her best interests to be returned to their country of habitual residence.
In addition, there is probably no greater challenge in the Hague process than simply providing access to the other parent. Access applications are taking an average of 338 days, as opposed to 188 days for return. That is simply not acceptable.
There's a new challenge we're facing around the world in the Hague Convention, and that is the growing tendency of courts in return cases to effectively retry the issue of custody, in direct contravention of the underlying purpose of the Hague Convention. This was an issue in some recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights, and in one case the court held that the basic norms of human rights require (a) that courts must consider the best interests of both the child and the child's family; and (b) that a child should not be returned to its habitual residence, even if that is required by the Hague Convention, if it is not in its best interest to do so.
Obviously, this strikes at the very heart of the Hague Convention, and global policy-makers should be alert and aware.
My comments on non-Hague countries are similar to what you've heard earlier. Many have deeply held traditions that result in a more rigid concept of what's in the best interests of the child. That makes me skeptical about the likelihood of significant increases in the number of ratifying countries, particularly in the Islamic world. We are very encouraged by Morocco's ratification in 2010, and Turkey's earlier ratification. We hope others will follow. In the past year, three new countries have become signatories to the Hague — South Korea, Kazakhstan and Japan — bringing the total number to 91, still less than half of the nations on the planet.
In the Islamic world, the primary challenge is simply that courts do not approach child custody or family law issues from the same perspective as do western courts. There are different approaches on equality between men and women, and there are differences regarding non-discrimination. Thus, while bilateral agreements are far from panaceas, I believe they have value, particularly with regard to ensuring access for left-behind parents; and at a minimum, they establish a framework for communication between two countries and a process for expediting legal reviews.
Here again, Canada has been a leader in its use of bilateral consular agreements, and the premise is that it's in the interests of the child to have regular contact with both parents to ensure the right of access for the left-behind parent and to create advisory commissions to promote amicable solutions.
What is it that your committee and the Canadian Parliament should do? There are five key points.
One, I believe we need to reaffirm the Hague Convention and continue to work toward uniform, consistent, global application and reciprocity, and that means continuing to work to achieve greater numbers of new signatories.
Two, we need to do everything we can to increase the speed with which Hague cases are addressed and resolved.
Three, we need to address the lack of enforceability of some return and access orders. Even when we get orders from courts in certain countries, the child still doesn't come home.
Four, we need to address the lack of uniformity in the interpretation of the exceptions provided under Article 13 of the convention.
Five, regarding non-Hague countries, I believe we need to do more to create common ground, to dialog, to build on the Hague Conference's Malta Process, which brings together judges from the western world and Islamic judges to try to explore ways that we can better communicate with each other and find solutions to these cases.
I think Canada has been a world leader in the Hague process, and I think Canada can help influence many other countries to take this important step.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much for being here and for all of the things you do on this issue. I think Mr. Allen answered the question I was going to ask about what the government should be doing, what Canada should be doing.
What things are we doing right, and what things can we be doing better? You've given us a list of five, Mr. Allen, but I would like to ask the others who are here in the room with us for their thoughts on what the government is doing right and what the government could be doing better. If you see also that there's a problem vis-à-vis federal-provincial issues, I want to hear about that, too.
Mr. Chamney: I'll take a shot at that. On what they're doing right, I was particularly pleased to see Ministers MacKay and Yelich announce the establishment of the vulnerable children's unit in consular affairs. That sparked some new interest, and, in fact, we've had some opening round discussions with that unit in terms of how we can work together. Mr. Allen was very clear on this issue of speed. We have a case in Pakistan right now where we have a window of opportunity that's going to happen. It's going to open and close, and if we can't respond within it, we're going to be back where we started from.
It's critical. The involvement of NGOs and a more parallel and horizontal relationship between NGOs and government is really something that should be pursued from both sides. ISS Canada would be particularly interested in participating in that kind of discussion and planning.
As to the provincial-federal, sometimes we've been supported by the Government of Canada because of the international work we do, and when we're outside of Canada, we're talking about Canadians, not Albertans or Quebecers. But it has been bandied back and forth between the federal government and provinces many times that, ``No, no, that's their jurisdiction; they should be handling this. They do child welfare; we don't.'' That puts people who are trying to work with that issue in a bad place. Who should I be talking to, and why can we not just sit down together and figure out what we can do?
So there are jurisdictional issues that come up that I think are not necessary. When we boil it down to the best interests of children, we can eliminate a lot of that kind of discussion about whose job it is.
My wife did give me a question coming here. She said, ``How can a court in another country, in an Islamic country, make a decision about the future of a three year-old Canadian child without us saying something about it?'' Through our embassies and consulates and high commissions, at least, we need to be present in saying, ``We have an interest here,'' when these are before courts in other countries. We don't do that consistently. We used to. I think that needs to be reintroduced. I hope that's helpful.
Ms. Pick: Nicely put. I would echo the importance of bringing all of the key stakeholders to the table so that a family understands how they are able to navigate the system. I will provide an example of a family that we worked with. The father was Canadian. The child was Canadian. The mother was Romanian. The child was abducted and taken to Romania. The actual Hague order was quite straightforward. The Hague Convention was upheld and there was an order of execution to bring that child home. The process and the time for all of that, for that family, once the order of execution was upheld and the child was returned to Canada, was very lengthy. We know that from our work with the father and connecting him with continued resources in Romania.
We're fortunate; my team has been working on these cases, some of them for 15, 20 years, and has established a global network of connections that can assist in this process.
Just to give an idea of even the financial challenge, it was a $300,000 financial challenge to this family in order to actually bring that child home. Once the child was brought home, there was still quite an experience for that family. As an example, that child, when she was returned, needed medical attention, but she didn't have proper medical coverage and identification and there were all kinds of challenges in the entire experience for the family.
For us, that idea that the father, in this case, is supported through that whole process is something that is not tied directly to what you're looking at but is the experience of Canadian families and one that we would suggest is important to be looked at as well.
Senator Eggleton: You're saying that even those countries that have signed the Hague Convention are dragging their feet when it comes to implementing it. The Hague Convention comes under the jurisdiction of the Hague Conference, which has a permanent secretariat. Are they doing anything, to your knowledge, to try to make sure their countries come into line and implement the Hague Convention in a timely fashion? Do any of you want to take that?
Mr. Chamney: That's certainly a goal. I'll maybe defer to Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen: One of the things that the Hague Conference did was to develop good practice guides for all of the member states, basically laying out what they're supposed to do, how they're supposed to do it. The problem is that the Hague Conference does not have leverage to compel one country to act more rapidly or more effectively. It's still a voluntary process.
I thought Mr. Chamney's wife raised a really good question, and it's a key point I think you ought to think about. Countries need to be willing to exercise diplomatic and other leverage on countries that are being recalcitrant in these cases. I'm really enthusiastic that this hearing is being held before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights because it's not a narrow, legalistic problem. These are human rights issues. I think that, if countries are aggressive and if we develop better data and almost a scorecard on how countries are doing, there is international pressure that can be brought to make countries perform better under this convention.
Mr. Chamney: Maybe the answer to your question lies in part in the cooperation agreement our international body just signed with the Hague Conference. The first sentence says: ``For several decades, the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the International Social Service'' — our organization — ``have developed a close working relationship in the field of international family and child protection. . . .'' Then, it goes on to ask what that means. We have a cooperation agreement. What does that compel us or bind us both to try to do? I think it addresses some of your moving this agenda forward.
Senator Eggleton: This is a cooperation agreement between who?
Mr. Chamney: Between ISS, our parent organization, and the Hague Conference. I will leave a copy of this with the clerk.
Senator Eggleton: Let me ask all of you about one other thing here. I raised this earlier when the officials were here. It talks essentially about measures for the protection and care of children while they're in this situation in another country. It sounds complementary to the Hague Convention, which I think it was intended to be. Canada has not ratified it yet, which I find amazing because it's been 18 years. There appears to be some bureaucratic hang-up between the federal government and the provincial governments to get this together. I find that amazing. What do you think about this agreement? How important do you think this agreement is? Is it something we should be pressing them to get done or should we let it drag on for more years?
Mr. Chamney: I think it should be pressed. I thought that was one of the best questions of the early session: How does this not get ratified after 18 years? Implementation always seems to be the kicker.
Mr. Allen: I agree with you completely, senator. It is not only compatible and a valuable add-on to the Hague Child Abduction Convention, but also will enable some countries to be responsive in these cases that are not responsive under the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Only a small number of countries are signatories so we need to launch an aggressive global effort to increase the number of countries that are signatories to the child protection convention.
Senator Eggleton: Ms. Pick, I think you'll make it unanimous.
Ms. Pick: Absolutely.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Allen, I want to follow up with you on the issue of the European courts, which to me is the most troublesome. I think we understand the distance we have to go on cultural issues, developing systems and questioning judiciaries in much of the world as they are progressing and changing. However, Europe should be the staunchest group of countries supporting the Hague Convention. They are in creative interpretation, which has been bothering me because the cases that seem to fall out of the norm come from there. As you pointed out, it questions the essence of having a Hague convention — a retrial? So what do we do about that?
Mr. Allen: We try to advocate and reinforce the importance of the Hague Convention. There was a more recent case out of the European court of Human Rights, X and Others v. Latvia that backed off a little bit and allowed the child to be returned to the country of habitual residence, which was Australia. It is still a troubling line and complicating issues are part of it.
Part is the growing focus on the issue of domestic violence. No one is a stronger advocate for treating allegations of domestic violence than I am. However, for some it has become a strategy, and we need to look at these cases in the appropriate way. The whole purpose of the Hague Convention is conflicts of law. You can't just retry a case over and over from country to country.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you saying that this is a judicial issue or a political issue?
Mr. Allen: I think it's both. Primarily today it's a judicial issue. One thing we've attempted to do with European leaders in the aftermath of the first European Court of Human Rights decision, which was a Swiss case, is to reach out to the key policy makers and say: This is a time, from the policy level, for your countries to reaffirm your commitment to the Hague Abduction Convention. Obviously, no one wants to intrude into or interfere with judicial discretion with the appropriate processes of judges, but an overarching policy needs to be reaffirmed.
Senator Andreychuk: In terms of the non-Hague states, is the fundamental issue culture or is it the lack of an independent judiciary?
Mr. Allen: I would argue it's both. Obviously, in the Islamic world people tend to assume when we're talking about these kinds of international parental abduction occasions that it's overwhelmingly culture and religion. However, there have been long-standing problems with Japan, for example. We are gratified that Prime Minister Abe and the Japanese Parliament just ratified the convention. In the United States, there has never been a child returned to the United States by order of the Japanese court or government, although some children have been returned through negotiation and mediation. Even Hague signatory countries routinely do not do what their obligations are under the Hague Convention. This is a complex issue and with the trend to increased numbers, declining returns and increased time lines, it will be a more serious policy issue for the Canadian Parliament and policy-makers around the world.
Senator Andreychuk: I worked at the previous Human Rights Commission and now follow the Human Rights Council. When we do the country reviews, should it be a recommendation that they look at this issue of child abductions and that it be one of the milestones? I follow the council when they do the country reviews. They often have certain issues that they trigger. Should this be one of them on a consistent basis?
Mr. Allen: Yes, it should be. One of the severe problems we have in this area is that there really is no ongoing monitoring evaluation of how countries are doing. That's why we funded this one-time research at The Hague; but that's a snapshot. That pattern doesn't enable us to identify over a period of time which countries are doing what.
Senator Andreychuk: Ms. Pick, on the issue of missing children, in the cases that you deal with does the parent who had the child and custody come to you? Is that how you get them?
Ms. Pick: Yes. The cases we work on have been registered with law enforcement and then they will sometimes refer us directly to the family, or we'll work directly with law enforcement on behalf of helping them to navigate for the family.
Senator Andreychuk: Are these cases that already have a custody order in Canada or are they cases where the family is breaking up and the child is taken away?
Ms. Pick: The cases we work on are reflective of both. There is an order in place for custody of the child, and the child is abducted by the non-custodial parent or they're in the midst of that decision happening and one of the parents will make the decision to take the child prior to that agreement being in place.
Senator Unger: Mr. Allen, one of your recommendations is to improve judicial training. How might you go about that?
Mr. Allen: Well, it is time-consuming. One of the challenges that we have in the United States is that there are as many as 10,000 state judges who conceivably could handle a Hague case, whether they have any knowledge about or history of the convention. You contrast that with the United Kingdom where 17 judges hear such cases. The judges who hear those cases are knowledgeable specialists. The process moves quickly and there's greater efficiency. Countries like ours have federal systems. You can't designate only a handful of judges to hear the cases.
But there needs to be a commitment to continuing judicial training. One of the other areas where Canada and the U.K. have been leaders is in the concept of liaison judges, so that if a judge receives a case and doesn't know what to do with it or doesn't have history, he can reach out for help and learn about how to handle these cases. You have judges in Canada who are world leaders, such as Judge Chamberland in Quebec. Judge Diamond participated in meetings we have done here.
Canada is a leader, but judicial training is enormously important around the world, because there are a lot of judges who are saying, ``I'm a judge. I'm going to do what a judge does. I don't care what the convention says. I'm going to listen to the facts and do what's right.'' I understand that, but this convention will work if there is greater uniformity and greater consistency and the judges really know what they're dealing with.
Senator Hubley: Mr. Allen, I noted that you have ``what more can be done.'' Under that heading, you have about ten recommendations, which is very good, although you highlighted about five of those.
The very last one is ``we need to provide greater support for victims' families.'' I guess I have a concern. I would like to explore what my concern might be for the children involved in an abduction. What sort of support are they given and what sort of recognition is there of the trauma that they might have experienced through all this? How is that recognized? Is there a follow-up system in place for children who have been abducted? Is there a program to integrate them successfully back into a school program if they happen to be of that age? Are those needs identified as a responsibility of the parents, or are there other agencies that can step in and perhaps help out in that situation?
My last question would be: At any time, has a court ever assigned a lawyer to represent the interests of a child who has been abducted, to your knowledge?
Mr. Allen: Let me answer briefly. I think ISS is a great resource for these kinds of questions.
Victims' services are woefully lacking in most of the world. Ms. Pick made the point earlier about what these cases cost left-behind parents. These tend to be legal battles, and they often tend to be won by those who have the deepest pockets, the greatest number of resources and can be the most persistent. I hear all the time in parental abduction cases: ``The child is with a parent. How bad can it be?'' It can be pretty bad. These kids suffer significant harm — often not physical harm, but psychological harm.
The points you make about ensuring there are services to help with the reintegration and the return — in many of these cases, the children are taken when they are very young, and they are terrified to come home to the other parent, having been gone two, four or more years.
So victims need legal, social and psychological services, and in most of the world, that just isn't happening. It's an enormous challenge we have to be aware of.
Senator Hubley: In your experience, has a court ever assigned a lawyer to look after the interests of a child during this process, or is it all done through your victims' services?
Mr. Allen: For most of the world, my answer is ``probably no,'' but there are examples of what are called court- appointed special advocates or guardian ad litem in which the conflict —
One of the challenges here is that child custody in most of the world is an adversarial process. There is almost an incentive for one parent or the other to make allegations against the other one, whether true or not, in order to prevail in this battle.
The child is often ignored and missed in the process. So the idea of a court-appointed special advocate or a guardian ad litem to represent the child and the interests of a child is a fundamental protection of that child's human rights, and I think it's a great idea that ought to be promoted more aggressively worldwide.
Mr. Chamney: I would like to speak to that question as well. We've had cases where follow-up of a social evaluation of a situation — child and parent — was the case, so a range of those things. Those follow-ups to see how the family and child are doing and whether they are being rehabilitated, as well as being repatriated, are the efforts of our own organizations, not directed by a greater client like government.
The case that comes to mind is of two Chinese infants who were placed with grandparents back in China after the father shot the mother here. They were left with no other family, so kinship placements are something we're doing more of.
With respect to the follow-up work, Canada can't go into China and do work, but ISS Hong Kong, our sister organization, can and they do. They do some really incredible work. So they not only did the home assessment of whether the grandparents provided a good home for these kids, but they established there was already a relationship there and that they would do follow-up work after the placement to see how the kids were doing. It was one of the joy stories in terms of the final results.
We had that happen in Jamaica and other places where there will be trauma, and what will be done about it should be built into the whole plan. It happens to be the case that this agency does that kind of thing and others don't.
The Deputy Chair: Seeing no more questions, that brings us to the end of the meeting. I thank you witnesses for your answers and I thank honourable senators for your time.
(The committee adjourned.)