THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
First Session, Thirty-eighth Parliament, 2004-05
Hearings: OTTAWA, Monday, February 14, 2005, Issue No. 5, Third meeting on:
Examine and report upon Canadas obligations in regards to the
rights and freedoms of children.
|
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
The Honourable A. Raynell Andreychuk, Chair
The Honourable Landon Pearson, Deputy Chair
and
The Honourable Senators:
*Austin, P.C., (or Rompkey, P.C.), Carstairs, P.C., Ferretti Barth, *Kinsella, (or Stratton), Le Breton, Losier-Cool,
Oliver, Ppin, Poy
*Ex officio members
(Quorum 4)
Change in membership of the committee:
Pursuant to rule 85(4), membership of the committee was amended as follows:
The name of the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth was substituted for that of the Honourable Senator Chaput
(February 8, 2005).
WITNESSES:
Child Welfare League of Canada: Peter M. Dudding,
Executive Director.
CAMH Centre for Prevention Science: Claire Crooks,
Associate Director.
UNICEF Canada: David Agnew, President and CEO.
World Vision Canada: Kathy Vandergrift,
Chair, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict;
Sara Austin, Policy Analyst, Child Rights and HIV/AIDS.
Transcript
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Some of our senators are on their way and there is another committee that is
overlapping. They will all be able to read the record of today's proceedings.
We are resuming the examination and reporting on Canada's international obligations in regard to the rights
and freedoms of children. We are pleased to have before us today Mr. Peter Dudding from the Child Welfare League
of Canada and Dr. Claire Crooks, Associate Director of CAMH Centre for Prevention Science.
Mr. Peter M. Dudding, Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada: It is my pleasure to be with
you to provide evidence to this committee regarding Canada's efforts toward, and compliance in regard to, the
rights and freedoms of children and youth.
This is an important issue, which has not received sufficient attention, in our opinion.
Despite our best intentions as Canadians and as governments, we recognize that the rights and freedoms of
children and youth are being neglected, ignored and abused every day. Some of these violations are on an
individual or personal level. Many of these violations are at organizational and systematic levels, in which
governments and agencies of government are directly implicated. In my presentation today, I will provide brief
examples of some of these violations.
I am here representing the Child Welfare League of Canada. We are a national organization dedicated to
promoting the well-being and protection of all children and youth. We are especially concerned about vulnerable
children and youth, those who are abused, neglected and exploited. These children and youth, who experience
exclusion, poverty, rejection and racism, are not able to participate fully in the benefits and opportunities of
Canadian society. We have a particular interest in those children and youth involved in the child welfare, child
protection, youth justice and children's mental health systems. These children, in our experience, are highly
vulnerable.
Child and youth rights are a guiding belief of our organization. Our strategic plan states clearly that the
provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child must be enacted in Canada and abroad to
ensure that all children are protected and supported.
The 102 member organizations of the Child Welfare League of Canada are child and family service agencies,
provincial and national associations, universities, and federal, provincial and territorial governments. We have
members in all 13 provinces and territories. Together, our members serve over 500,000 families every year.
The Child Welfare League of Canada is a member of the International Forum on Child Welfare and the World
Health Organization's Violence Prevention Alliance. The CWLC is also one of the participating partners in the
Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare.
What are the issues before us? Today, I will pay particular attention to specific issues related to
vulnerable children and issues related to articles 19 and 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
although my recommendations will have a broader application impacting on the rights and freedoms of all Canadian
children and youth.
Although many child and family services are implemented by provinces, territories and municipal governments,
the federal government has a major role in funding legislation and policy that supports those services. The
federal government also has exclusive and direct responsibilities in such areas as youth justice, immigration
and Aboriginal services.
I will come back to that situation later.
I want to describe three case situations representative of examples of rights violations which occur daily.
The 17- year-old girl who has been severely beaten by her parent and has been thrown out of her home; in six
provinces and territories this young person is not considered as a child in need of protection, as the age of
protection is up to 16 years only. Although perhaps eligible for some form of income support through student
welfare assistance, if the young person is attending school, she is on her own in securing accommodation, care
and treatment.
The two-year- old refugee claimant with her mother from an African country who is denied an immigration
hearing on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds because she is HIV positive, and this is a
specifically-named exclusion. She is subsequently deported to her country of origin without adequate medical
care.
The 12-year-old boy who is severely autistic and relinquished by his parents as a child in need of protection
to a child welfare agency; the parents are unable to afford the specialized treatment required, and the child's
behaviour is so severe that he is a risk to his siblings, his parents and himself.
It is certainly fair to say that these are the sort of circumstances that come to the attention of child
welfare agencies every day in this country. The past decade has been a difficult and challenging one for
vulnerable children and youth. The services providing support for these young persons have faced enormous
difficulties keeping up with both the volume of demand and the nature and complexity of the problems.
The estimated number of children and youth entering the public foster care system has increased by more than
50 per cent in the past 10 years. Although it is extremely difficult to gather data on children in public care,
a problem I will return to, the CWLC estimates that approximately 40,000 children and youth were in care in
1996, and the number had grown to 66,000 by 2003. The trend is a barometer on the well-being of Canadian
children, youth and families, as well as an indicator about the nature of preventative social programs in this
country.
In 1998 the ``Canadian Incident Study (CIS) of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect'' conducted the first
national study to examine the incidents of reported child maltreatment and characteristics of children, youth
and families investigated by Canadian Child Welfare Services.
In brief, the CIS found that there were 136,000 estimated child maltreatment investigations, an annual
incidence rate of 21-and-a-half investigations per thousand children. To contextualize this, that is much lower
than the United States at 46 investigations per thousand, and higher than England at 18 per thousand children.
The single largest category was child neglect.
The CIS was conducted again in 2003 and we are expecting the data to be publicly released in 2005. We will
then be able to determine what the national trends of incidence are.
The published data from the complementary Ontario incidence studies shows there were 44,000 investigations in
1993, and the number increased to 66,000 in 1998. The early trend data from the 2003 study indicates that the
number of investigations has increased again dramatically. The major category from the 2003 data so far is
children witnessing family violence as the main group.
The number of Aboriginal children and youth in care has been disproportionate to the size of the population.
The numbers of Aboriginal children and youth coming into care has continued to increase. It is estimated by the
First Nations Child and Family Caring Society that the number actually exceeds the number of children cared for
at the zenith of the residential schools program. Clearly the issue of treatment of Aboriginal children, youth
and families in the context of their social and economic development requires specific attention from the
federal government.
The rate of child poverty in Canada is worsening, according to Campaign 2000, with 1,065,000 children in
poverty, and the rate of poverty up for the first time in six years to 15.6 per cent in 2004. In 2003, the
government of British Columbia passed legislation enabling children of 12 years to enter the paid labour force.
This legislation is not consistent with international standards that identify the age of 13 as the minimum age
for admission to employment.
At a broader level, in his authoritative analysis of the ``National Longitudinal Study on Children and
Youth,'' NLSCY, J. Douglas Willms of the University of New Brunswick has developed a vulnerability index,
providing a summary measure of vulnerability in childhood. The data indicates, based upon the 1994 NLSCY, that
28.6 per cent of Canadian children are considered vulnerable, displaying behavioural, emotional or psychological
disturbances which are sufficiently serious to warrant concern for their present functioning and future
developmental health. As Senator Landon Pearson notes in the introduction to the study, ``we know that many
children in this country are vulnerable and we are concerned that the number seems to be growing.'' There is no
comparative study based upon Read More ..cent NLSCY data to indicate what the trends are at present.
In 2003, the Law Commission of Canada published its report on the economic costs and consequences of child
abuse in Canada. The report indicated that, based upon 1998 CIS data, the annual cost to Canadian society is
$15.7 billion. It is important to note, by reflection, that this is significantly higher than the federal
government's total investment of $13 billion in the National Children's Agenda.
Finally, Canada has no national policy addressing the needs of separated children. Unaccompanied minors
requesting refugee status in Canada, although their numbers are currently small and there is a correction to be
made, estimated at 1,200 per year and not 2,000 per year, there are a number of important issues about this
population we need to be aware of. Their treatment varies considerably across Canada in matters such as
guardianship responsibility, provision of support services, housing, education and health. Their numbers are
growing every year, and Canada will likely continue to see this increase with the implementation of the new Safe
Third Country Agreement with the United States.
Interestingly, there is a high dropout rate between making a refugee application at a port of entry and
proceeding to make a request before the Immigration and Refugee Board. No one knows what is happening to these
young persons who ``disappear.'' The aforementioned 1,200 applications end up looking like 25 to 35 requests
before the immigration board, and nobody knows what has happened.
A related issue is the current moratorium that Canada has in effect on the admission of child and youth
refugees from abroad who have no family or next of kin; the orphans. In the past, Canada's humanitarian practice
has included the resettlement of a number of these children and youth who are most at risk, in cooperation with
the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
The CWLC was an intervenor in the Supreme Court challenge on the constitutionality of section 43 of the
Criminal Code. Our position argued that the use of physical punishment contravenes children's human rights as
articulated in the UN convention. The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of section 43
while limiting the scope of its exemptions was, in our judgment, an error. Rather than providing clarity and
effective protection to children against maltreatment the judgment has led to greater uncertainty and challenges
for the systems created to protect children from violence. The research evidence on this subject is clear on two
important aspects: In those countries that banned the use of physical punishment, rates of child maltreatment
have decreased. Further, children raised in homes that use alternative forms of non-physical discipline have
improved life outcomes. That is a matter of science.
There has been a growing concern in the last decade related to diminishing capacity of Canada's social
programs; spending reductions, lack of well-defined objectives and outcomes are all problems. The Canada
Assistance Plan was transformed into the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1995, and now into the Canada
Social Transfer as of April 1, 2004. This has not improved our ability to promote social determinants of health
and well-being for our children and youth. There is considerable ground to be made up in wisely investing in
social expenditures to improve the quality of life for children and youth. This is now our most critical
challenge.
What are the success stories? There is a spirit of renewal and opportunity in Canada to ensure that we invest
greater attention and resources on social programs to vulnerable children and youth. The development of ``A
Canada Fit for Children,'' Canada's National Plan of Action for Children, provides an excellent vision of what
is possible to achieve on behalf of our children.
The document is comprehensive and provides a good framework for considering what needs to be done. It is
important that the national action plan be supported with the development of goals which are time-bound and
measurable, supported with data, monitor progress and are based upon research evidence to promote the best
outcomes for our children. The federal government has initiated important investments in these areas, which
require further development and support and are consistent with national leadership in the development of our
children and youth.
The program, Canadian Looking After Children, CanLAC, has been supported by Social Development Canada. Its
purpose is to provide comprehensive assessment and planning for children and youth in public care. It is an
evidence- based child development approach to promoting good parenting to children who have faced exceptional
adversity. There are now seven provinces and territories involved, and Canada is part of a 15-country group
doing this important work.
CanLAC provides an opportunity to gather highly detailed information on this group of 66,000 children, and to
monitor their development over time. The ``Canadian Incident Study on Reported Child Abuse and Neglect'' is
funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada, PHAC. This critically important health surveillance and monitoring
program is done on a survey basis every five years. The initiative provides important basic information in
better understanding the extent and nature of child maltreatment in Canada. The opportunity to increase the
frequency of surveillance, improve reporting capability of organizations and expand linkage to provincial,
territorial and community information systems will assist in eliminating the child maltreatment.
The Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare, CECW, is one of the four research centres funded by the
health agency under its Centres of Excellence for Child Well-being Program. The centre is in its final year of
funding in 2005, and is applying for a further five-year renewal. The centre has provided leadership and
innovation for child welfare in Canada to develop a research to ``policy and practice'' agenda. This has been a
new development for Canadian child welfare, to link universities with community organizations, identify
evidence-based approaches and creating capacity for measuring outcomes. The Centre of Excellence for Child
Welfare has also created the First Nations research site in Manitoba. The pilot project has been very
successful, and planning for the further development and growth of the Centres of Excellence Program is going on
with the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005.
Let me now turn to, Read More ..ecifically, the federal role and responsibility. In our opinion, there is a vital
role for the federal government in promoting the enhanced development of vulnerable children and youth. We
recognize that Canada is one of the most highly decentralized federal states. The leadership role must be
exercised in partnership with the provinces and territories, and must engage municipal governments, civil
society organizations, citizens, and children and youth, as well as the private sector.
The federal government has two predominant instruments available to it, which in our view should be
strengthened and improved. The first role is that of providing political leadership on important questions
relating to children and youth. This political leadership role is the responsibility of all members of
Parliament, Senate and government. In addition, there were two specific leadership roles identified: Secretary
of State for Children and Youth, and Special Advisor on Children's Rights to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The Secretary of State position was eliminated entirely in July 2004. It is unclear why the role of Special
Advisor on Children's Rights is limited to the Department of Foreign Affairs and does not apply to all federal
departments, most notably Health, Social Development, Justice, Citizenship and Immigration, Indian and Northern
Affairs, Human Resources and Skills Development and Heritage. There is now no dedicated minister who directly
represents children and youth at the cabinet level. I will now go to the recommendations.
What are the recommendations? First, establish a child and youth secretariat within the Government of Canada,
a secretariat to do specific case advocacy and monitoring, coordinate activities and the policy development of
federal departments and agencies, and to provide secretariat support services to a Canada Fit for Children
Commission.
The second important one is to establish a ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission. The commission will be
comprised of children and youth, provincial and territorial governments, federal departments, civil society
organizations, and other Canadians representing citizens and academics. I will note one other thing about that:
The commission will have two commissioners, at least one of whom will be a youth.
The third recommendation is to review the roles, responsibilities and mandates, funding and support for the
political leadership roles pertaining to children and youth. Fourth, direct a broad public education campaign
promoting the use of positive non-physical discipline in parenting. Fifth, extend the protection against assault
found in the Criminal Code of Canada to all of its citizens, regardless of age. Sixth, increase federal funding
to support a wide variety of research- based initiatives for vulnerable children and youth. Seventh, develop
enhanced accountability requirements for the Canada Social Transfer regarding national objectives, monitoring,
reporting and outcomes, which are flexible and responsive. Eighth, request that the Law Commission of Canada
conduct a formal study of the application of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, CRC, to Canadian law,
including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and relevant provincial and territorial legislation. The
study will provide recommendations on how to integrate the CRC into Canadian law.
Ms. Claire Crooks, Associate Director, CAMH Centre for Prevention Science, Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health, CAMH: Mr. Dudding's remarks about groups of vulnerable youth in Canada is actually an excellent
backdrop for my presentation. It is about a specific group of vulnerable youth in Canada, namely those half
million Canadian children living with domestic violence and the aftermath of domestic violence, with a
particular focus on what happens to children when their parents separate or divorce.
I will briefly outline a misfit between the current general direction on Canadian divorce, and separation and
the needs of this special group of children. I will then propose three types of solutions that this country
requires to meet the promise of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for this group.
The articles of the convention most germane to this discussion are article 3.1, which deems the best
interests of children as a primary consideration in any decision making; article 3.2, which guarantees all
children protection, and articles 9.1 and 9.3, which protect a child's contact with parents except where factors
of abuse, neglect and best interests of the child indicate otherwise.
One of the complicated things about custody decisions in the context of domestic violence is that those three
articles are not always matched up in this area. This is an area where complex analysis and complex solutions
are required, and simple solutions will continue to be poorly thought out and administered.
I would like to start by highlighting some recent shifts in the way Canadians approach separation and
divorce. Consistent with the UN convention on the best interests of the child, and the child's right not to be
separated from parents, there has been a move towards collaborative law and Read More ..iendly solutions, Read More ..cus
for parents to work with mediators to settle custody issues outside of court and to prevent the emotional and
financial costs of a trial.
For many Canadian children these solutions have increased their ability to maintain relationships with both
of their parents following separation or divorce. Read More ..thers than ever are being awarded custody or joint
custody and are remaining actively involved in their children's life, post-separation. Again, for most Canadian
children whose parents are separating, these are wonderful initiatives and really increase their quality of life
afterwards.
The proposed amendments to the Divorce Act, which have never been enacted, are consistent with this move
towards collaborative solutions, and have actually moved away from the idea of custody to Read More .. a shared-
parenting-plan focus.
Although these directions are, by and large, positive for the majority of children whose parents are
separating, they fail to protect the best interests of children whose parents have a history of domestic
violence.
I will talk briefly about a whole other area of research and clinical awareness that has come forward over
the past 20 years, and that is the whole impact of domestic violence on children. Research has shown that
although there is a range of individual outcomes with respect to exposure to domestic violence, overall the
picture is a negative one. Children who witness one parent assaulting another, and the aftermath, have a range
of negative outcomes, including increased rates of symptomatology, for example, trauma, internalizing disorders
such as anxiety and depression, externalizing behaviour problems, sleep problems, problems in school, and
problems with relationships.
We have come to realize that many of these children fare as poorly as children who are being directly abused.
Recognition has dawned that these children are vulnerable, and they require and deserve protection, and indeed
are promised it under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Here you see a bit of a misfit arise. On one hand, divorce is moving toward friendly collaborative law and
mediation, and shared parenting. On the other hand, there is recognition in both research and clinical
communities of the devastation children face living in homes in which one parent is abusing the other, and these
two things have emerged separately.
Obviously there is a need to look at the intersection of these domains. What happens to children who live
with domestic violence when their parents separate? As things currently stand, a mother who leaves an abusive
partner to protect her eight-year-old daughter from ever again having to lock herself in the bathroom and call
911, may find herself in a joint-custody arrangement in which she has to mediate everyday parenting decisions
with her former abuser. Possibly, she is exposed to Read More ..rassment and violence every Wednesday night and
alternate weekends when she drops her daughter off. It is these children that I am arguing require Read More ..
protection if Canada is to meet its full obligation under the UN convention.
To understand why domestic violence is so relevant to custody decisions, it is important to look at two
fundamental myths about domestic violence and separation. The first myth is that domestic violence ends with
separation. The thinking here is: We know this family had abuse and violence but now the parents have split up
so why is this even germane? The reality is that in many cases, domestic violence does not end with separation.
To the contrary, it may be a signal to the perpetrator of the violence to escalate or increase attempts to
control or punish a partner who is trying to leave.
According to Statistics Canada data, one in four victims of domestic violence reported that the violence
became Read More ..vere after separation. Two in five reported that the violence actually started after separation.
The enforced contact between separated parents through access exchanges can present opportunities for ongoing
harassment and abuse.
Separation is also the most dangerous time for a woman who is leaving an abusive partner. Domestic violence
and homicides are inextricably linked, and national figures from the U.S. and Canada suggest that women are most
at risk of homicide when leaving a partner who has been abusive.
A number of domestic violence death review committees have emerged in the United States and one in Canada, in
Ontario, under the auspices of the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario. These committees review all domestic
homicides to try to look for lessons learned and ways to prevent future tragedies. It is incredible that in
almost every case reviewed, children are involved either as witnesses or at the very least by losing their
primary caregiver, and in some cases have been directly murdered as a form of domestic violence. In cases in
which there was no previous child abuse, children have been killed as a form of ultimate control over an adult
partner.
The second myth is that as long as children are not directly involved, they are not affected. There is still
the myth that someone can be a bad spouse and good parent. A number of lines of research show that it is simply
not true.
Children are affected in an ongoing manner in numerous ways. They may continue to be exposed to various forms
of violence and criminal harassment at access changeovers. They may live with a parent who is deathly afraid of
the other parent, and have that impact their emotional security. They may continue to be exposed to a
perpetrator of domestic violence who serves as a poor role model for healthy relationships. In addition, they
can be used as conduits for ongoing abuse. I have seen in clinical assessments that children are made to monitor
and report on the whereabouts of one parent to another parent. The emotional abuse of that is excruciating for
children who are put in the position of being a spy in one parent's home.
In addition, children exposed to domestic violence are vulnerable to being directly abused due to the high
overlap of these forms of maltreatment. A number of research studies show that the range of overlap is between
30 and 60 per cent, so if there is domestic violence occurring in a family, there is a 30- to 60-per cent chance
that the children are also being directly physically abused.
Finally, these vulnerable children may also be adversely affected by long, drawn-out involvement with the
legal system. Many perpetrators of domestic violence use ongoing litigation as a form of controlling and abusing
an ex- partner.
I have outlined briefly the ways in which our system does not protect these vulnerable children. Now I will
turn to the solutions. There are three types of solutions required: legislative changes, training and
collaborative resources.
Currently, New Zealand and half of the states in the United States have developed what is called a rebuttable
presumption against joint or sole custody for perpetrators of domestic violence. This simply means that a judge
will not award sole or joint custody to someone who is an identified perpetrator of domestic violence unless
there is compelling evidence to go against the rebuttable presumption. It shifts the onus to perpetrators to
show that children and their primary caregivers will be safe in any ensuing parenting plan.
While a rebuttable assumption may be a best-case scenario, at the very least Canada needs to adopt
legislation making domestic violence a mandated factor to consider in custody decisions. By making domestic
violence a rebuttable presumption or a factor that must be considered, we will eliminate some of the randomness
of the current situation.
Children's safety should not have to depend on whether their cases happen to have custody evaluators, judges
and lawyers that understand the complexities of domestic violence. As it is now, it is a bit of the luck of the
draw in terms of who gets assigned to a certain case.
One of the worries people have about adopting something like a rebuttable presumption is that in one
capacity, you are developing a silver bullet for custody disputes, and people worry about false allegations. I
remind the committee that evidence from our national survey suggests only a third of victims of domestic
violence actually report to the police, and all evidence suggests that domestic violence is under-reported, if
anything. Dr. Nicolas Bala of Queen's University has also done some research suggesting the number of genuine
false allegations is minuscule.
Without adequate training and planning, new laws are at best irrelevant and at worst, lead to negative
outcomes not consistent with the UN convention. A brief example is that the State of Minnesota adopted
legislation to include exposure to domestic violence as grounds for child protection.
Recognizing that children exposed to domestic violence can fare as poorly as children being abused, Minnesota
enacted a law saying that this is grounds for protection. Unfortunately, they did this without building the
system capacity to understand which children and which families should be funneled into the child protection
system.
The law was enacted. The number of children in care doubled. It totally overwhelmed the system and the law
had to be repealed, so what looks like a poor law may have been a law that was put in place without the system
capacity to be implemented properly.
There are excellent examples of good training this area. California requires 16 hours of domestic violence
training on an annual basis to be a custody evaluator; 12 hours in the classroom and 4 hours visiting services
for victims, perpetrators and children. In the U.S., the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
offers judges regular opportunities to enhance their skills in dealing with complex domestic violence cases. All
of these things need to happen at the same time because these cases are really complex, and without a complex
understanding, the solutions will not work.
Finally, in terms of collaborative resources, courts are only as effective as essential community services
that are provided. For children to have safe and continued relationships with the perpetrators of domestic
violence, supervised access centres, batterer programs that address both domestic violence and parenting and
counselling programs for children are critical. In the absence of these services, communities do their best to
manage but children pay the price.
Again, in my clinical work as a custody evaluator, I have seen well-meaning neighbours, family members or
church members step in to fill the gap when there is not adequate supervised access centres, but they are
without the training and information required. In some cases, family or church members are supervising a case
they do not even know what they are supervising for, and children and their primary caregivers are exposed to
further abuse.
In closing, the shift towards mediation, parent education, collaborative law, joint custody and co-parenting
arrangements has benefited many children. Unfortunately, this broad movement leaves half a million children who
have witnessed one parent assault the other in a very vulnerable position, particularly at time of separation
and afterward. When there is a history of domestic violence, there needs to be very different remedies that
recognize that children may be in a never-ending war zone.
All too often, the media portrays controversy about custody decisions as a battle between fathers' rights
groups and women's advocates. My message today is that custody decisions in the context of domestic violence are
not about mothers' rights or fathers' rights. They are about children's fundamental right to safety and
security, which is inextricably linked to the safety and security of their primary caregiver. This fundamental
right is one that is covered in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one that I hope the committee
will take into account when making the recommendations.
The Chairman: Mr. Dudding, you pointed out a number of areas and a number of issues, including the
Criminal Code, et cetera.
We are trying to study how international instruments, and particularly the Convention on the Rights of the
Child as a centrepiece, help us with children's rights in Canada. While the convention was signed and ratified,
there is no one single enabling piece of legislation that puts it into law. It is moral guidance in some cases,
and it is part of our law in other cases.
Do you believe that actually implementing Read More .. the convention in a legal way would give Read More ..eth to the
workers in the field who work with children, to the advocates and, therefore, to the children? Are we talking
about education and a change of cultural ideas and values in our society to strengthen children and their
rights? Is it a legalistic or a facilitating environment where you would put your emphasis?
Mr. Dudding: That is a very important question. My answer would be, I think it is probably both.
Certainly, when I consider, for example, a very basic kind of violation around this issue of 16-year-olds and
their need for protection, it is an issue that in my opinion begets a legalistic solution. However, we also know
that even in some jurisdictions, for example, where the law may provide to the age of 18 or 19, by and large,
the practice is still to say, no, go make your own arrangements somewhere because the reality is that the system
lacks either the training or the appropriate kind of resources to do what is right on behalf of those young
people.
That certainly leads me to the direction, in terms of ensuring that in order for any law or legal concept to
be realized, that we have to have in place the kind of right understanding, right attitudes, appropriate
training and resources to support those things.
The framework must be there. At the risk of going over previous testimony, I will say that the issue here is
one in terms of the question of how we embrace the CRC and give it life in this country is a challenge that we
need to face and move forward with, rather than simply shrug our shoulders and say, ``Well, that is the way it
is.``
Senator Oliver: I wish to thank you both for two very excellent presentations. I had a question for
each of you. First, on page 5, you talk about the role of the federal legislator. You ended up by saying that
there is no minister who is dedicated to the interests of children. However, earlier you talked about the fact
that in Canada in our federal system, the federal government has jurisdiction over certain matters, the
provinces over others and the municipalities over some. It takes a cooperation and coordination of all three to
bring a definitive answer to many of the concerns that you have raised.
The main thing you talk about is what really is required to political leadership. Can you tell us Read More ..out
what you mean by political leadership? The main thing people in the Senate do is we are public policy-makers.
Where and how does that relate to what you call political leadership? In what ways do you want us to lead,
knowing what our main job is? Are you saying just bring in Read More ..gislation? Is that what you meant by political
leadership or what was that definition?
Mr. Dudding: The definition of political leadership as I see it is that, in the first instance, to
have responsibility at a political level vested with some individuals is important. I suggest that two roles we
have had are the one of Secretary of State for Children and Youth and the other one in the special adviser's
role. That does not let anybody else off the hook, but to have those kinds of visible leadership roles within
government is important.
The second component, having thought about it, is that the importance of providing a framework is the notion
of the ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission; to have this kind of ongoing and focused discussion and provide
the monitoring and the accountability, if you will, about all matters related to children and youth, is again
another way of demonstrating that kind of leadership.
Senator Oliver: I suppose that having committees such as this in the Senate and a comparable one in
the House of Commons to monitor and deal with this on an ongoing basis might also be something that would
demonstrate that kind of leadership?
Mr. Dudding: Certainly, I agree with that.
Senator Oliver: I would like to go to the rebuttable presumption, if I could. It is an interesting
idea, but it all turns on evidence. To be Read More ..ecific, if the presumption can be rebutted, if there is enough
reason to overturn the presumption, and one of the presumptions is that the children will be safe, my question
is what kind of evidence would you need? If a father has been abusive, for instance, what kind of proof do you
need? When the father takes the stand and says, ``I am not going to do it any Read More ..' is that enough to rebut
the presumption? What is the evidence required to rebut it?
Ms. Crooks: That is an excellent question. You really have underscored the need for building system
capacity. You need judges and custody evaluators who can wrestle with really complex issues. The rebuttable
presumption might be appropriately overturned in light of the characteristics of the violence that occurred. For
example, if somebody pushed somebody at the time of separation, it was out of character, and it was a one-time
event. A perpetrator is taking responsibility. Those sorts of things might be taken into account. Someone
saying, ``No, I am not going to do it again,'' certainly is not particularly compelling.
The other piece is that you need a system where everybody is capable of doing ongoing risk assessment. As a
judge or custody evaluator, you need people who know the big risk factors for dangerousness. You need people to
know that when somebody walks through a probation or protection order, that is really serious business and needs
to be treated that way. If somebody was walking through a protection order, it does not really matter what they
say in court. That is a really serious red flag.
Senator Oliver: That is not going to be rebutted.
Ms. Crooks: No, and the system-wide capacity for these complex deliberations is not there right now.
What makes people nervous is when you rely on someone to say, ``No, I was abused.'' It becomes a he-said,
she-said situation. It requires competent assessors and judges to be able to implement this.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Dudding, when doing research on any major topic, the place you begin is with a
review of the literature. What have other people done in other jurisdictions and so on? In terms of political
leadership and having a cabinet minister in charge of the covenant, what have other jurisdictions done? What are
the ones that we should try to model after?
Mr. Dudding: I do not have an off-the-top answer to that. That is a very good question, senator. I
could only give you an impression that most jurisdictions will have an identifiable minister responsible for
these areas, but which and which titles I am not in a position to answer you right now.
Senator Pearson: Mr. Dudding, my first question is about your example of the 17-year-old who was
thrown out. I know that is an issue of concern for various child welfare workers and so on. Would you recommend
that we work hard towards a uniform age of 18 for compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child
which defines a child as every human being under the age of 18? If so, how do you think we could do it?
Mr. Dudding: I will answer the simple part of the question, which is, yes, the age of 18 is the age
that is set in the convention. We believe that is the appropriate age. That is the simple part.
The Read More ..mplex part of this is how we do it. We recognize that provincial governments have their own area
of jurisdiction in this area.
That is why my thinking is to rely upon the notion of a ``Canada Fit for Children'' commission that would
provide the forum for these kinds of issues to be tabled and discussed. Senator, relying upon morality, peer
pressure and that kind of accountability to move these things forward at a provincial level is not terribly
satisfactory, in my opinion. However, in recognition of our federal state, it is probably about as good as it
can be.
In respect of saying this about the age of 18, it also recognizes that we need to have the kind of
commensurate resources and services in place so that they are appropriate and will benefit those aged 17 and 18
years. Otherwise, we could do Read More ..rm.
I have experienced many instances where adolescent children were experiencing difficulties, and the local
child welfare agency became involved. There were no appropriate kinds of services in place on those occasions,
and the agency did Read More ..rm than good.
Senator Pearson: That point was raised by Dr. Crooks as well. We should be careful about legislation
and regulations unless we have the mechanisms in place to benefit those who are targeted by the laws. Naturally,
as co- chair of the custody and access committee, I was interested in your comments, which resonated a great
deal with some of the things we have heard across Canada on that particular issue. At our meeting in Stockholm,
where they have a presumption of joint custody, we were struck that they are doing some serious rethinking about
whether that has been in the best interest it of the child.
I will not ask you a question but I will thank you for your presentation instead. There is a growing
recognition of the issues in respect of children who witness violence. As a psychologist, you could perhaps
answer one question. Do you consider any lower age? In my view, all children, including the very youngest,
should be included. Have you any comment about the very young children who are being exposed to this?
Ms. Crooks: Senator, you have reminded me that I was to ask if I could distribute two papers. I
brought 25 copies of two articles. One is on legal and policy implications of legislative changes but they are
in English only.
The Chairman: Witnesses can testify in their language and you can provide us with the papers, which we
will have translated and distributed.
Ms. Crooks: You have raised an important issue: The question of whether children, if they are too
young to remember or to understand what happens, are affected by violence in the home or in the community. The
answer is, unequivocally, yes they are affected in some truly scary ways in the area of neurological
development. Compelling evidence is available on what happens to a baby's brain when it is constantly under
stress and not being soothed. From a developmental perspective, children of different ages are affected
differently but they are all affected. Another way in which the little ones are affected is in the area of
development of secure and safe attachments with adult caregivers. That is the primary job of an infant. Those
secure bonds form the basis for how they view the world, and how other relationships are developed. Attachment
for an infant is based on having its needs met. If an infant is exposed to a great deal of screaming and
yelling, it will become distressed and have difficulty sleeping, compounded by the lack of soothing and comfort
provided by the caregiver. Children do not have to remember an event to be affected by it.
Senator Carstairs: Obviously, your statistics are not exactly positive. I sometimes have difficulty
resolving whether the statistics are increasing because we are Read More ..owledgeable about the things that are done
to children, or whether they are actually increasing. We have Read More ..ildren in foster care today than we ever
had before; there is no question about that. Are they in foster care because 25 years ago they would have been
left with their families to their detriment, or are they in foster care because there are genuinely Read More ..
children in need of care? How do you resolve that?
Mr. Dudding: The answer to the question is yes because I think both situations are true. Certainly,
our attitudes and ideas about what constitutes risk or harm for children have changed and will continue to
change. In many respects, we understand that as good news. We have seen and recognized that there has been a
diminishment in the level of the social safety net in Canada. That reduction has harmed a great many people but,
of course, it disproportionately harms vulnerable people. That statement is also true. It is a matter of teasing
those things out but it also takes us to the conclusion in terms of where we are to be. The increasing number of
children coming into the public care system places on all of us the obligation to provide better care for them.
We did not increase the number of foster homes correspondingly to the number of children coming into care.
There is a disconnection between the trauma to the child's life, and our ability to do something better on
behalf of that child. That is also a concern.
Senator Carstairs: Dr. Crooks, I was interested in the quick analogy that you drew between families in
which there is domestic violence, and children who might be abused as a result. Have you done, or will you do,
any additional work with respect to that direct correlation? I am of the view that if there is domestic violence
in a family, it is highly unlikely that the children will escape that, especially if they get in the way, and it
is hard for children not to get in the way. Children have an innate ability to be there all the time.
Ms. Crooks: There are some important facts to know about that. Dr. Jeffrey Edleson, from the
University of Minnesota, has done some of the best work in this area of looking at the ways in which children
are involved, and how parents think they are involved parents are more likely to think the kids were asleep.
Dr. Edleson did a phone survey of children exposed to domestic violence, and found a whole range of ways that
children are involved. The overlap being 30 per cent to 60 per cent is based on a review of numerous studies and
on physical abuse. Many people, myself included, would argue that there is emotional maltreatment to children in
100 per cent of the cases where one parent is assaulting the other parent. Any of those statistics depend on
what has been reported and to whom. I am also involved in a group that has developed one of the first programs
for abusive fathers. It is a pilot project in a number of areas in Ontario and the U.S. We have found that these
fathers have been referred to the group typically by a Children's Aid Society for being abusive. In the context
of the group, it becomes apparent that it is Read More ..differentiated violence than that. When they relay an
incident, it becomes clear there is also a difference between who is recognized officially to have been
maltreating and what is going on in the families. These are all interconnected, of course.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: My question is for Mr. Dudding. Your recommendations to the committee are listed
on pages seven and eight of your presentation. I am not sure if you would like the committee to select one of
these eight recommendations in particular, because quite often, it is important to prioritize, so to speak. My
preferred recommendation is clearly the second one which calls for the establishment of a commission.
I would like you to explain to me the difference between a commission and a secretariat. As I understand it,
a secretariat could provide support services to the commission. I would opt for the establishment of a
commission because this entity would report to Parliament and would be supported in legislation. As such, the
commission would be subject to other Canadian laws and to the Official Languages Act. Young children in minority
situations in Canada would have the right to access the services of the commission.
This commission would have a mandate to examine all matters concerning children. Once it had done that, what
pressure would it be able to exert to bring about compliance?
[English]
Mr. Dudding: There are two parts to the question, so let me start by saying from my perspective
recommendation number two with regard to a commission is I would agree with the senator far Read More ..portant
as a means to provide the kind of visibility and significance that this issue presents to us all.
My sense in terms of recommendation number one around the secretariat is that it is really Read More ..usekeeping.
I do not want to diminish it from that perspective, but to enable the federal government and the departments of
the federal government to get their act together, as well as to do a specific job with regard to case advocacy
issues that are uniquely within the federal role. When one lines the two up, a commission is a far Read More ..
important legislative mandate than what the role of the secretariat would be envisaged as.
The second part of the question is the more difficult one. The work of the commission, by the way, if one
follows it according to this document, will have its work cut out for it at least until the year 2015. That is
probably far enough in advance to leave me comfortable. There will be work in 2016, I know.
Read More ..riously about that is a primary question that we all must struggle with, which is this issue in a
federal state around how is it that we bring a focus of responsibility here. There are no simple answers to that
question. As of Friday, in the discussions around the child care program, we can understand what the
complexities of these issues are.
The magic here is inviting and ensuring that the provinces and territories are at the table much as we have
done, and again not entirely successfully with the health care council, but they have been given a role at the
table with an ongoing mandate. To use that kind of model or approach with this commission, so that the pressure
that will be brought on other jurisdictions to come into compliance, will be there on an ongoing basis.
The other question in terms of the Read More ..gally oriented issues of compliance would certainly run to number
eight of our recommendations with regard to the role of the law commission. It will help us all from a legal
perspective in terms of looking at understanding the federal and provincial roles that may be brought legally
into compliance.
Senator Poy: This is for Ms. Crooks. Can you give me your thoughts on the Supreme Court's decision on
section 43 of the Criminal Code in relation to corporal punishment of children? What do you think of that
decision?
Ms. Crooks: I guess with respect to corporal punishment, there was a question earlier to Mr. Dudding
about whether the law needs to change, or is it the will of the people and programming that needs to change. I
think there is a clear cut role for law to set the standard with respect to corporal punishment. If you look
internationally, for example, Sweden, from the time that it made any corporal punishment outlawed, in the seven
years following there was not a single child's death as a result of maltreatment. To me, that is compelling
evidence right there. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Poy: Yes, so this is what you would suggest to our government?
Ms. Crooks: Yes. I do not think the Criminal Code says you cannot assault children unless they are the
ages of 2 and 16.
Senator Poy: It does not make sense.
Ms. Crooks: No, not particularly.
The Chairman: We thank both of you for coming and sharing information we have not heard before on the
state of children in Canada, and sharing your opinions and suggestions. We will take them into account, and we
will look forward to you filing the papers that you have indicated and any other materials.
We will move to our next panel without delay.
The Chairman: Thank you. We can reconvene now. We have Mr. Agnew, UNICEF Canada at the table and Ms.
Vandergrift, Chair, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, World Vision Canada, and Ms. Austin, Policy
Analyst, Child Rights and HIV/AIDS, World Vision Canada.
We are running a little late. I would ask you to have some introductory remarks, not necessarily in detail
from any briefs, but if you could hit the points that you think are most important to put on the record. Then we
would like to leave some time for questions.
Mr. David Agnew, President and CEO, UNICEF Canada: I would like to thank you not just for the
opportunity to address you but also for putting the spotlight on this too often neglected topic.
Knowing the panel before us and the other witnesses who spoke, you have had some wonderful expertise on child
rights; leading NGOs and advocacy groups. In Senator Pearson, you have the senior voice for children's rights in
the Government of Canada. You are well briefed on the domestic issues.
I wanted to touch on two issues. First, you have been exposed to the UN Study on Violence Against Children,
which we are delighted to be the secretariat for. I want to underline the importance of that. I believe it could
make a good contribution not just to engaging the public but also moving ahead on the critical issue of violence
against children.
The second issue is to give you a heads up, or alert you that next month UNICEF will release a report on the
levels and changes in child poverty rates in the OECD countries, including Canada, of course. Depending on which
year you start and finish, this report reports an extremely modest improvement in the Canadian rate, but
nonetheless, this bountiful nation of ours still allows, by our calculations, 15 per cent of our children to
live in poverty. That places us, amongst the 26 nations, 19th. When we talk about obligations under our
convention, I deposit those numbers with you, and point out that while the rights of children are not
denominated in dollars, it is difficult to believe that tolerating that level of persistent poverty is anything
but an example of the distance we have to go in this country to achieve the convention ideals and principles.
I want to focus on a different issue. Because I know you have been well briefed and will continue to be on
domestic issues, I want to focus on one element of Canada's obligations under the convention. That is the
contribution this country makes to building a world fit for children. The convention, and our embrace of it,
obliges us to take a much broader focus than simply the domestic one, as important as that is, and to make a
commitment to achieve the convention ideals and principles around the world. You will find that in article 4 of
the convention, but this country's embrace of the UN Millennium Development Goals, our place in the G7, and any
number of facts underscore why that is important.
I acknowledge Canada's important contributions on behalf of children around the world, starting with the
generous and growing support of UNICEF in the 158 countries and territories where we work. We place a strong and
welcome priority on our partnership with the Government of Canada, particularly with the Canadian International
Development Agency, CIDA. It is also important to recognize Canada's focus on war-affected children; its
dedicated efforts to fight micronutrient deficiencies; programs to immunize children by the millions; important
and timely investments in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; the Ottawa Convention Banning
Landmines; and the significant list of international statutes, conventions and protocols to which our country
has affixed its name. This is an impressive catalogue of commitments, but there is one area where Canada has
unfortunately and unacceptably failed to live up to obligations to the world's children. That is the promise
made 35 years ago to devote 0.7 per cent of our gross national income to development assistance.
Last fall, we released ``The State of the World's Children 2005,'' and laid out some raw numbers that are
reminders of the persistent chasm between the world's words and the world's actions, and the human consequences
of that gap. One out of every two children on this earth live in poverty; 20 children die each minute from a
preventable or treatable disease; 121 million six-to-eleven-year-olds are not in school and should be; there are
90 million severely malnourished girls and boys around the world; there are 15 million AIDS orphans around the
world, and legions of child soldiers and prostitutes it goes on. It adds up to 1 billion children being denied
the basic rights of childhood that any of us would wish for our own children.
You do not want to compare what we invest every year around the world in military spending and agricultural
subsidies. It is about $1.5 trillion. We spend less than 5 per cent of that on development, yet the payback is
enormous.
Children are at the heart of the Millennium Development Goals. There is not a hope in heaven that we will
meet those lifesaving and rights-enhancing goals unless we have substantial change, particularly when not one of
the seven richest countries in the world is close to 0.7, and only two of those seven have actually made a
stated commitment in a calendar to reach the 0.7.
I suggest, with great respect, that this committee, in its deliberations, take up the challenge: to vault
Canada from the bottom half of the OECD tables, where it now rests in terms of development assistance, and put
us on the fast track to meeting our longstanding commitments. While some would think that is probably a
delusional hope in this day and age to do that, I look at three separate things as evidence of some optimism.
The first is the absolutely extraordinary outpouring support from Canadians and the Canadian government for
the millions of victims of the tsunami most recently. It shows Canada does care.
We are on the eve of a release of an international policy review. I gather it is coming out shortly after the
budget. In the kind of leaking that goes on in advance of those events, we are seeing the reaffirmation of the
Prime Minister's statement that he desires us to restore our place in the world. We all know that restoring our
place in the world is not a cheap promise. It will, in fact, have a price tag.
Then, at the recent meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers, and this is a glass half full, half empty point of
view, five of the ministers came to that meeting with a debt relief plan. Although it is somewhat embarrassing
to be given five plans and no one could agree on one, at least they were there with debt relief on their minds,
and at least they agreed in principle that it ought to be done faster and in greater measure than it has been
done before.
I would ask you to consider two recommendations as part of your report. One is an explicit commitment by the
Canadian government to the realization of the rights of children, at the heart of its international agenda. It
is timely to do so, given the fact that we are on the eve of the Interim Progress Report, IPR. It would be a
welcome statement from this committee in its examination of Canada's obligations under the Convention on the
Rights of the Child that children must have the first call on available resources. That is plain and simple.
The second is a sustainable and firm commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent target. Obviously, the
increases announced in ODA in the last few years are welcome and certainly a good change from the cuts and the
stagnant budgets we saw through the 1990s. We do not have a plan to meet that 1970 commitment, and it is
important that we do so.
This is our fiftieth anniversary in Canada. We spent that 50 years not just working as best as we can to save
and improve the lives of children around the globe, but we have also been taking the pulse of Canadians in that
time. We believe the time is right to act on the deep and broad concern amongst Canadians for the world's
children, and our collective commitment to lift them out of poverty. We have before us the unique opportunity to
not only restore our place in the world but also to make a substantial contribution to the global imperative
embedded at the heart and core of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that every girl and boy
have the opportunity to grow up healthy and safe, no matter where they live.
Ms. Kathy Vandergrift, Chair, Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict, World Vision Canada:
World Vision Canada certainly appreciates this opportunity to discuss with you the importance of strengthening
measures to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada. I want to be clear that we are
speaking today as a delegation from World Vision. I know I am also shown on your agenda as potentially
Chairperson of the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict. We would be happy to come and talk about that
issue as well, but today we are here speaking about World Vision.
Canada has shown leadership in advocating for the rights of children in international assemblies, and we very
much appreciate those initiatives, but in keeping with that, we would like today to speak to three main
recommendations. First, we recommend that Canada develop and adopt legislation to give the CRC the force of
national law in Canada, including appropriate accountability mechanisms.
Second, in addition to compliance within Canada, World Vision recommends that all aspects of Canada's
international relations, including international assistance, diplomacy, trade and international financial
policies be in compliance with the CRC. That is putting children's rights at the heart of our international
policy.
Third, World Vision recommends that Canada take a leadership role in advocacy to strengthen international
accountability mechanisms for the CRC as the most effective tool to achieve the objectives of ``A World Fit for
Children.``
I would like to speak first to national legislation and give some highlights. I will be brief, as you have
our written submission.
We believe that new legislation that would clearly give the CRC the force of law in Canada would be the most
effective way to demonstrate a strong commitment to the rights of children, and ensure consistent implementation
across all sectors and all jurisdictions.
We note that many other international treaties, such as trade agreements and some other human rights
treaties, are enacted through parallel Canadian legislation. We think it is important that children's rights
have the same status in this country. They are one of the most vulnerable groups. We note that in the case of
the optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada passed its own legislation. We would
argue that the same should be done for the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We think it would also help to make Canada's case about coherence between what we do at home and what we
advocate internationally. We argue in the submission that it is the way to comply with both ``A Canada Fit for
Children'' and ``A World Fit for Children.``
We want to outline briefly with you the benefits of national legislation.
First, it would demonstrate our commitment to practice what we believe.
Second, the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes a holistic approach to human rights and, therefore,
we would argue that it is one of the better tools to enshrine and improve the implementation of human rights in
Canada.
Third, it would give clarity to some concepts such as the best interests of the child, and we will speak to
how that concept intersects with the separated children issue, about which you heard before. It is important
that we give clarity to that notion in Canada.
Fourth, legislation would reduce the potential for precedents to be set by court cases because that is very
uneven. It is important that Parliament establish the law.
Fifth, we believe that a clear recognition of the rights of children could provide a healthy balancing factor
in federal- provincial discussions. We noted that earlier you had discussion about children falling in between
these jurisdictions, but sometimes the best interests of children get lost in those contests between federal and
provincial governments. We think a strong statement about children's rights could assist with that. In that
line, it would also contribute to Read More ..uitable treatment across the country.
Finally, accountability mechanisms would be taken seriously if they were enacted within a legal framework.
The concept of progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights as articulated in the CRC can
provide a useful yardstick for measuring the fulfillment of children's rights in accordance with the
availability of resources. We will not have time today go into that in detail but I suggest that the committee
may wish to focus some consideration on this notion. In my experience, the concept of progressive realization
often helps deal with some who are concerned about taking a rights-based approach, that it will lead to
unrealistic expectations and so on. Unpacking that concept could be useful for this committee.
My colleague, Ms. Austin, will cite the separated children's policy as an example in the national policy
area.
Moving quickly to international policy, as we mentioned, the new international policy framework, which we
hope will come out soon, would do well to put human rights at the centre, including the rights of children. We
think it is in keeping with the principle that in fact ``A World Fit for Children'' would be a world fit for all
of us. A central role for child rights has implications for trade policy, but I would like to highlight two here
for the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA.
Five years ago, CIDA adopted a child protection policy that worked within a child rights framework. It
demonstrated the benefits of using a child rights approach, but it did so with only three select groups of
children: working children, children affected by armed conflict and children subject to sexual exploitation.
This strategy is under review, so your committee's recommendations with regard to child rights and CIDA would be
timely. As well as renewing this strategy, we would argue it should be expanded into a Read More ..bust,
comprehensive child rights approach.
I will give an example. A primary tool that CIDA uses to implement its policies is a country development
framework for developing countries. In many of these countries, 40 to 50 per cent of the population is under 18.
Yet, when we ask whether child rights are considered in this developing framework, often they are not. We ask
ourselves, how can poverty reduction be effective if it does not consider the rights of 40 to 50 per cent of the
population? We would like to see CIDA's approach to child rights extend into these country development
frameworks to ensure that the situation of children in these countries is considered from the beginning.
Finally, strengthening accountability mechanisms is important at both the national and the international
level. Within the framework of a national law, one could look at a variety of accountability mechanisms. One,
for example, is child impact assessments of budgetary measures. You heard earlier about a commission. There
could be a range of mechanisms used. We suggest that the experience of other countries could be helpful in this
regard.
At the international level, the World Vision partnership has proposed that strengthening the human rights
system should be a top priority for UN reform. We would include in that, particularly the rights of children.
This is really the only tool we have internationally to protect human interests. The results of the weak
human rights system are obvious in the failure of the UN system, in spite of significant advocacy, to
effectively protect children from the most egregious abuses in the context of long periods of armed conflict.
Examples are the situation in northern Uganda, which has gone on for more than 10 years without serious address;
the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where violations are well known, and the current
situation in Darfur, which could have been prevented. In each case, warnings and information were available but
few serious steps were actually taken to protect the security and other rights of children.
We welcome the proposed reforms in the UN High Level Panel as a first step, but they remain inadequate. We
suggest that Canada support the recommendation that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have regular
access to the Security Council, and we also suggest that top priority be given to the security and rights of
children threatened by armed conflict. We have also suggested that Canada's own work on the security of children
remain a high priority in our new international policy.
In addition to these recommended measures, however, we believe that steps should be taken toward the
development of a complaints procedure for violations of the rights of children. My colleague, Ms. Austin, will
address that particular mechanism in greater detail.
I would like to highlight international financial institutions, because we have heard about the importance of
resources when looking at the rights of children. World Vision has undertaken some work to try to dialogue with
the World Bank on what role it could play to help countries meet their own obligations under the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. Our research in developing countries shows that taking a rights-based approach to
education would mean that the dollars are actually spent much better. We think there are clear benefits to
incorporating child rights even in areas such as the World Bank.
Finally, we say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the most important but underutilized
tools we have for advancing the rights of children.
We urge this committee to continue its leadership role in this regard.
Sara Austin, Policy Analyst, Child Rights and HIV/AIDS, World Vision Canada: I will speak briefly to
a few of the points Ms. Vandergrift raised in her presentation and will elaborate Read More ..lly on our written
submission.
The first is to elaborate on international policy and the impact children's rights and the CRC can have when
it is implemented on the ground. I would like to share an example from one of the programs World Vision has
supported for several years in India in the City of Bangalore. It is a program specifically focused on child
labour and eliminating the worst forms of child labour. The program has taken an explicit child-rights-based
approach. One of the most dynamic aspects of the program is the development of a child-led working children's
union. It has provided a forum for children first to learn about their rights and then to become active in
advocating on their own behalf. It helps to facilitate a process where children can advocate first with their
employers and also with local and national legislators. Rather than taking a protectionist approach of just
removing them from their work situations, children can play an active role in negotiating with the adults who
have influence over their situation to try to bring about better working conditions. One of the positive
outcomes is that children have been able to establish better working conditions and also have been able to have
greater access to both formal as well as informal education.
I have only been able to touch on this program briefly. It is clear, however, that taking a very explicit
approach to child rights as opposed to a Read More ..neral child-welfare approach to child labour helps to empower
these children and provide a Read More ..listic approach to their situation.
The second issue I would like to address, which Ms. Vandergrift has mentioned, is the situation of separated
children and the need for a comprehensive ``best interests'' approach. One issue concerning national policy
which warrants further attention is the situation of separated children and the needs for a best interests
approach that is consistent with the CRC. As our written submission highlights, World Vision Canada and other
NGOs have repeatedly addressed this concern at both the national and international level. The Committee on the
Rights of the Child has highlighted the issue of separated children as an issue of particular concern during
Canada's last two appearances before the committee. Yet even still we have not seen any significant progress. In
1995, the committee noted with regret, ``that the principles of non-discrimination of the best interests of the
child and of the respect for the views of the child, have not always been given adequate weight by
administrative bodies dealing with the situation of refugee and immigrant children.''
In response to the aforementioned concerns, the Canadian government introduced amendments to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act to apply the best-interests principle as a criterion for determining the detention of
minor children. While this was a progress of sorts, it was still a very narrow view, and was not in line with
the norms laid out in the CRC, namely that the best interests of children must be a primary consideration in all
actions concerning children.
In 2003, when Canada presented its subsequent periodic report to the CRC, the committee noted that, ``the
best interests of the child is still not adequately defined and reflected in some legislation, court decisions
and policies affecting certain children, especially those facing situations of custody and deportation.'' The
committee noted with particular concern the failure of the government to adequately address issues of separated
children that were brought to their attention in 1995, such as family reunification, deportation and deprivation
of liberty. The committee went on to make five specific recommendations, including the need to adopt and
implement a national policy on separated children, for children seeking asylum in Canada. Here we are two years
later and none of these recommendations have been implemented. Given these concerns, we feel that a national law
would provide greater clarity about the priority to be given to such core concepts as the best interests of the
child and to help ensure the protection of the rights of separated children.
I will touch on one last point concerning the strengthening of accountability mechanisms. In particular,
World Vision recommends that the Government of Canada support the development of a complaints procedure for
violations on the rights of children. Such a procedure would help address serious violations that have not been
resolved through domestic remedies which are not being properly addressed through the periodic reporting
procedure to the Committee on the Rights of the Child. To quote the committee directly, they have stated that,
``for rights to have meaning effective remedies must be available to address violations. This requirement is
implicit in the Convention and consistency referred to in the other six major international human rights
treaties.'' Without a serious mechanism for children and advocates to appeal to, with a reasonable chance that
the situation will be addressed, one can question the integrity of our current emphasis on teaching children
their rights. While the ideal would be for the violations to be remedied at the local level, it is clear that
domestic remedies often fail children or simply do not exist. The international tools of governance must take
the rights of children Read More ..riously or we risk offering children false hope.
World Vision recommends that this committee consider emerging research into ways to strengthen the
implementation of the CRC through the development of a complaints procedure. More over, we urge you to consider
supporting the development of a complaints procedure that is accessible to children in order that they can
meaningfully participate in the defence of their own rights.
Senator Pearson: Thank you, both of you, for your presentations. It is very important to have the
international perspective brought before us, and each of you has complemented the other's presentation. I
thought Mr. Agnew, it is important perhaps to remind the senators, this committee, about the distinction between
UNICEF Canada and UNICEF generally. There are two slightly different roles. Sometimes we may hold you
accountable for things that you are not actually accountable for and vice versa.
Mr. Agnew: You would not be the first.
Senator Pearson: As a complement to that, many of us are concerned about the fact that this is back
to the international, what we should be doing Canada's support for UNICEF as part of the UN has been stagnant
for a number of years and perhaps you could just clarify that.
Mr. Agnew: Briefly given the interests of time, UNICEF Canada is a Canadian NGO, part of the NGO
community. Here, we work as a fund-raising support to the international organization as well as an organization
that does education and advocacy within Canada. While we certainly are very proud of the relationship with the
international organization, it is a partnership, as it were; not necessarily something that we can deliver.
The core support of the Canadian government to UNICEF has been literally unchanged in a decade, and that has
obviously had an impact on the kind of work that UNICEF can do at its heart. Like many donors, the Canadian
government has been generous with its earmarked funds, but of course that has been highly responsive to
emergency situations. Part of the reality of trying to achieve ultimately in the long run, the rights of
children around the world, is that it is a long-term sustained effort and that does not go up and down with the
cycles of emergencies. It requires the kind of rights-based programming that my friends from World Vision were
talking about over a sustained period of time. That is where Canada's increased support would be very useful.
Senator Pearson: Ms. Vandergrift, I wanted to pick up on your comment, the rights-based approach, for
example, in India, to clarify even Read More ..at the value of a rights-based approach is that it is holistic. Could
you say a few Read More ..rds about that? This is a clarification we need constantly. What is the difference between
a welfare approach and rights-based approach?
Ms. Vandergrift: That is where we think that the rights-based approach adds real value because it puts
the whole child in the centre, and then looks at all components and all factors that can impact that child's
situation. It is not just addressing one need food, water or some of those things but it looks at the whole
child and treats that child as an actor in the situation, not just as a passive recipient.
We have seen in numbers of examples Ms. Austin has mentioned one and we can cite numerous others where
this approach has made a real difference in terms of both the role that young people take themselves in
addressing and helping other children as well, and also bringing together the various factors.
It also leads us, as development agencies, to ask different questions when we are working. It leads us to ask
who might impact that situation, what is the barrier to a child fulfilling their rights and look at the full
range of actors to bring about good programming. We will be honest and say that it is uneven in our own
implementation; we are learning about that, but it is a very important factor.
In relation to CIDA, I will just give you one example because we want to see a Read More ..bust child rights
approach. We spoke recently to CIDA's new agriculture strategy. The child protection unit, with merit, spoke to
the issue of working children, but at the same time, did not speak to the issue of the right to food. What could
be Read More .. the centre of an agriculture strategy than the children's right to food? We argue for a very robust
approach that looks at all the rights of children when CIDA is looking at its policies, not just the protection
rights. Does that help make that clear?
Senator Pearson: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Austin: I just wanted to, and that was briefly to say another aspect that the convention brings to
community- based programs is the way in which it highlights the duty bearers in the case of the child labour
program. It highlights, specifically, the responsibilities of the government to not only have legislation in
place, but to enforce it, and also the obligations of other parties, including the private sector. It brings
children into an active role in the process, but it also places the primary responsibility on the duty bearers.
I think that is unique to a rights-based approach.
Senator LeBreton: On the international commitments, Mr. Agnew, I think this is important. A lot of
countries do not live up to the commitments, and there does not seem to be any great consequences when they do
not. People do not seem to properly punish them when they do not, but you mentioned two countries that have
agreed to their commitments. Have they lived up to them, and what two countries are they?
Mr. Agnew: The two countries I was referring to were the U.K. and France, both of whom have not lived
up to the .7, but both of whom have laid out a calendar where they will achieve it at different times. You might
know that the U.K, in particular, has been very aggressive in announcing not just a calendar to reach the .7,
but has pushed the international financing facility forward, which I do not believe the Canadian government has
supported, but other members of the G7 have. They have also moved ahead with aggressive debt-relief proposals as
well debt cancellation, not just relief.
There are just the two. Among the G7, to be very specific about it, France is the leader at .4. The next one
is the U.K. at .34; Canada is at .24 these are all OECD numbers. Unfortunately, two of the biggest economies
Japan and the U.S. are nearly at the bottom of the list, along with Italy.
Senator LeBreton: To follow up with the United Kingdom, is there any mechanism, through UNICEF and the
people at work in the United Kingdom, that pressure can be put on the United Kingdom to try to take the lead?
Could you use a country that has a better record to shame the other ones?
Mr. Agnew: That is right name and shame. I do know that at the G8 meeting because, of course,
Russia will be added in July in Scotland, which will be hosted by Tony Blair, this will be a centrepiece of
that meeting. It follows up the Kananaskis meeting, where there was an announcement by Canada of its commitment
to Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD.
Obviously, the 8-per cent increase in the budget that we have seen, at least for the last two years, is a
welcome change. However, where it would put Canada over the next few years, still has us, I think, less than
halfway to that target. Unfortunately, and I say this as a very proud Canadian, we really are running on fumes
on this subject. As long as we continue to try to punch above our weight without the substance behind it, and as
long as we continue to get distracted by subjects like Disaster Area Response Team, DART, and amphibious
vehicles and it becomes entirely a defence debate, then we really are not ever going to restore our place in the
world.
Ms. Vandergrift: There are five countries that are over the .7; some are actually at 1 per cent. I
think it is important for you to know that.
When we spoke to the finance committee on this issue, we drew particular attention to the situation of the
Netherlands because their average per-family income is actually reasonably similar to Canada's. However, the
point is that these countries have gone to .7 and beyond, and it has not damaged their economy, so there are
some examples. They are not G7, but some countries have gone beyond the .7.
Senator LeBreton: The percentage of their GDP?
Ms. Vandergrift: That is correct; .7 per cent of their GDP.
Senator LeBreton: This is a question for you, Ms. Austin, on kind of a practical note because I think
the whole issue of child labour is a horrific problem. You mentioned the example of World Vision in Bangalore,
India, and empowering the child.
From a practical sense, how do you do that? You have these adults running these huge sweat shops. How do you
get to the children? How do they get the strength to organize themselves and deal with this problem?
It seems to me that there would be a lot of resistance, and it would take a pretty brave group of children
or is it because of agencies like yours helping them? I do not know how you do it. I guess it is a practical
question I am asking.
Ms. Austin: Speaking specifically to the example of the union in Bangalore, that is a child-initiated
process. While we support the process, it is child-initiated; they are the ones who have taken ownership for it.
Through our financial support, and also through the support of local staff, we have been able to help facilitate
and where necessary particularly when it comes to their advocacy with the local and national level officials
and also at the international level we have helped to provide support, but really it has been initiated by the
children. We cannot take credit for that. However, practically speaking, it is a difficult situation, and one in
which many children take significant risks to take part in these activities.
The way the labour union functions is that we provide a forum for them to meet. They invite their own
speakers, people who do training for them, but they organize their own meetings and they plan and organize their
own budget. However, it does take skilled staff; it takes staff with sensitization into how to facilitate and
work with children so that adults do not dominate the process but provide support at the request of children,
and know when to intervene if necessary.
Senator LeBreton: Have they suffered any consequences, the actual child labourers themselves?
Ms. Austin: Do you mean like a backlash?
Senator LeBreton: I saw a documentary one time about children who felt obligated because their
families depended on them for their livelihood. If you have children trying to organize and be treated Read More ..
fairly in one of these child labour sweatshops, are there not consequences? You talk about risks, but how do
they overcome them?
Ms. Austin: That is where the important role of their advocacy work and their linkages with local
level officials comes in, particularly with the police as well; that they have the back-up of the local police
and the local labour officials so that they are not put in a position where they can take negative feedback from
the employers themselves. A number of the children that I am speaking about are working in the informal economy
and not in factories per se. However, it involves careful advocacy with the government officials and the police
in particular, to provide them with support and protection.
Senator LeBreton: It would take a pretty brave group of children though I cannot get my head around
how they achieve a proper consequence.
Ms. Vandergrift: When we go into something like that, certainly you do look at the security of
children. Even in our advocacy, for example, when children are in conflict situations, sometimes we cannot do
things we would like to do otherwise because of the security risk to children. It is certainly a factor we have
to take into consideration.
Senator Oliver: I have a question for each group.
I was very interested in what World Vision said about working with the World Bank to help various countries
meet their international obligations under the convention. How far have you gone with that? What is the World
Bank prepared to do?
My second question is for Mr. Agnew. I am aware of the two recommendations you made with respect to the
rights of children becoming part of the international agenda and the point-seven formula. I am aware that you
were a principal with Digital 4Sight where you directed a global research project investigating the impact of
technologies on government and democracies. Could you tell us what lessons were learned from which we, as public
policy makers, could learn something about what international groups might be able to do?
Ms. Vandergrift: I mentioned it because this is a tough arena. The World Bank initially said that
human rights is not their business. We said that it is their business to help countries meet obligations that
they have undertaken. The reason that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is so useful is because most
countries have signed on to this convention, and it says very particular things about education, for example.
There are a couple of articles relating to that.
We argued the point that just as you have a responsibility to help countries meet their financial obligation,
there is an obligation to help them meet obligations they have undertaken, but particularly that their policies
should not undermine progressive realization of the rights of children. In some cases, the policies of the World
Bank have required countries, for example, to hire fewer teachers, so we have seen children move backwards.
Progressive realization of the right to education says that you do not move backward in a country; you keep
moving forward.
Senator Oliver: How far have you gone with them?
Ms. Vandergrift: I want to make my other argument.
We wanted to show them that it was to their benefit. The World Bank is interested in poverty reduction, so we
were able to document that using a rights-based approach that looks at the relevance of education and the
quality of education would actually help them achieve their goals in terms of effectiveness and poverty
reduction.
How far have we gone? We have not transformed the World Bank, but I think the dialogue in terms of looking at
child rights in their programming has certainly moved forward. I can leave you with the document that we used to
engage with that dialogue, and we will continue it to also hold them accountable.
You cannot ask developing countries to meet their obligations if you do not ask the agencies that are
providing the resources to do the same. That is the principle we wanted to demonstrate.
Mr. Agnew: To add a footnote, turning bankers into human rights advocates is not an overnight process,
but it was interesting to attend a meeting just before the holidays that was co-sponsored by the World Bank and
UNICEF on HIV/AIDS orphans. I think you can start to build the case bit by bit from the specifics, moving it, in
a sense, from the old needs-based charity-based approach to development, to a rights-based approach with those
kinds of very vivid, extraordinarily real and economy-affecting situations, be it education or HIV/AIDS.
Pulling from my previous life some work on the impact of technology on governance and democracy, part of what
is exciting about that is the way youth interact with technology tools in ways that those of us of Read More ..vanced
years do not. Be it by way of instant messaging, short messaging service on telephones or by some of the
collaborative ways that some of the new technologies allow people to come together to try to solve problems, it
can potentially and I stress ``potentially`` give real meaning to the child participation elements. It
really does put tools, where they are available, right in the hands of some of the people who are least
consulted, and least often able to have a voice in the councils of government.
Senator Oliver: How many of these developing countries would have technological tools like cell phones
that children could utilize?
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. Speaking of the World Bank, it is a huge issue that it is a gap. Of course, the
reality is that in at least a number of countries in the less-developed world there are technological leaps
happening of which we are not aware in terms of the penetration of mobile telephony.
Senator Oliver: And wireless.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. The copper generation will not happen. It has gone right over that into the
cell towers. There are great stories of the use of a single mobile telephone in an Indian village for a
communications tool, or of a single computer in a region that allows people access to the outside world.
They can help, but fundamentally they are a tool, and that is ultimately my conclusion.
Senator Oliver: Does UNICEF have any documents on this that you could give to the clerk of our
committee so we could do Read More ..mework on this as a way of engaging children around the world Read More .. connection
with the covenant and the rights?
Mr. Agnew: I am not sure if UNICEF does, but I could get my hands on some papers, and I will forward
them to the clerk.
Ms. Vandergrift: I will tell you a wonderful story about the use of radio allowing young people to
talk with each other about their rights. They use it to protect them from being recruited as child soldiers.
Senator Oliver: Can you give us examples?
Ms. Vandergrift: They tune into the radio, and discourse among young people as a protection mechanism.
Radio is reasonably accessible even in Read More ..mote situations. There are examples of that in a number of
countries and I can get you information on that.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: My question follows up on the one put by Senator Pearson. She alluded to UNICEF
New York and to the international arm of UNICEF. It seems the international organization wants to withdraw from
sex education programs. In my view, this would violate the rights of youth and children. What is UNICEF Canada's
position on the matter?
[English]
Mr. Agnew: Which programs would we want to get out of in New York?
Senator Losier-Cool: ``Sexual reproduction'' is the term I believe they are using.
Mr. Agnew: We were never involved in that issue as some would define it, but of course we put a huge
emphasis on maternal health and neonatal health in terms of the reproductive process, whether it is prevention
education that we fund and promote on the HIV/AIDS issue or trying to ensure that there is as healthy a mother
and as healthy a baby as possible in the birthing process.
Senator Losier-Cool: I understand that Action Canada for Population and Development, ACPD, would be
pushing that issue on reproduction and development, but I thought that UNICEF would also be working on all the
questions of maternity, infant mortality and reproduction.
Mr. Agnew: In terms of infant mortality, child survival, and a critical push on breast-feeding, the
spectrum is absolutely there.
Senator Losier-Cool: Do I understand that UNICEF Canada will not support a position from UNICEF New
York to withdraw from any issue on reproduction or sexual education?
Mr. Agnew: I do not know the example where we have withdrawn from that territory. Our policy is there.
Senator Losier-Cool: You have your policy. That was my question; if you have a policy.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. I can share it with you; there is no problem.
The Chairman: We have been able to hear General Romo Dallaire again in our Foreign Affairs committee
on our study in Africa. He made the point that you can look at poverty, you can look at HIV/AIDS and you can
look at all these issues, but it has to be within the framework of equality. He makes the case that we have not
looked at Africa in an equal way. We do not see them as equal. Also, raising child soldiers in the conflict; we
do not obviously look at children and see their rights in the same way.
Do you believe that if we look at the convention and can get the point across that children are equal in
status to adults and have those rights, as defined in the convention, that we will go a long way to solving some
of the developmental problems; if we start looking at it as an equality issue as opposed to a welfare issue? As
opposed to saying it is rights based, fundamentally getting across the point about the equality of children;
that they have rights from the time they are born, and they are equal citizens.
Mr. Agnew: It is frightening. Ms. Vandergrift mentioned how many countries there are. Thinking of
Africa in particular, where half the population is under 18, it is a terrifying prospect to think of the
consequences if we continue to underfund those countries, and particularly the families that one meets when you
go, their absolute desire to create, for their children, a world better than the one that, so far, has been
delivered to them. No one can be Read More ..ssionate and eloquent than Stephen Lewis on what is happening to
Sub-Saharan Africa with the hollowing out of countries by HIV/AIDS. It is difficult for me to imagine, if I took
off my UNICEF hat, how people could not see the connection between an investment in the future that children
represent, and how those societies and countries will evolve. I know that the rights language turns some people
off. That is the reality. People do not like an aggressive assertion of rights as some kind of academic
exercise. You do not have to go far to see where the rights and needs are absolutely co-joined. Of course, the
existence of the kind of poverty that we see, not just in Africa but around the world, affecting children is
just one example of that.
Ms. Vandergrift: I work with General Dallaire and appreciate his passion when he speaks about the
equality and treatment of children in Africa. I am reminded of the situation in Northern Uganda where there are
the most egregious violations of children's rights, and it seems to be forgotten by much of the world. Canada
has tried to do some things, but it is forgotten. Young persons there are saying to us, ``I wish there was oil
in our country because maybe our issues would be addressed as well.'' It highlights that importance. If we
believe that every child is of equal worth, then I think we begin to transform those policies, and look at the
kinds of unequal treatment that results from that. I think it is an important movement.
I would just highlight again the benefit of the child-rights approach. I believe that without a rights-based
approach we would not have gotten as far as we have with the child-soldiers issue because it was child rights
that put children on the agenda of Security Council, and on the political as well as humanitarian agenda.
Children affected by war used to be seen as the business of World Vision, UNICEF and humanitarian agencies. We
said, no, these are people with rights, so they became part of the political agenda. We convinced the Security
Council that threats to their security were international threats to security. I think a rights-based approach
moved that issue forward, and certainly General Dallaire has been an important ally in that movement.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming this evening and sharing the international dimension to children's
rights. I think it is important when we look at the convention that we look at our national obligations, but
also our international obligations, and you have brought that dimension to us. Thank you for coming this
evening. We are adjourned until next Monday.
The committee adjourned.
UNREVISED EVIDENCE NON-RVIS
Mr. Peter M. Dudding,
Executive Director, Child Welfare League of Canada
Dr. Claire Crooks,
Associate Director, CAMH Centre for Prevention Science
Ms. Kathy Vandergrift,
World Vision ‑ Canada
Ms. Austin, World Vision ‑
Canada
Mr. David Agnew, UNICEF
Canada
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4 p.m. to
examine and report upon Canadas international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman)
in the Chair.
The Chairman: Some of our senators
are on their way and there is another committee that is overlapping. They will all be able to read the
record of todays proceedings.
We are resuming the examination and reporting on Canada's international
obligations in regard to the rights and freedoms of children. We are pleased to have before us today Mr.
Peter Dudding from the Child Welfare League of Canada and Dr. Claire Crooks, Associate Director of CAMH Centre
for Prevention Science.
Mr. Peter M. Dudding, Executive
Director, Child Welfare League of Canada: It is my pleasure to be with you
to provide evidence to this committee regarding Canada's efforts toward and compliance in regard to the rights
and freedoms of children and youth.
This is an important issue, which has not received sufficient attention, in
our opinion.
Despite our best intentions as Canadians and as governments, we recognize
that the rights and freedoms of children and youth are being neglected, ignored and abused every day. Some
of these violations are on an individual or personal level. Many of these violations are at organizational
and systematic levels, in which governments and agencies of government are directly implicated. In my
presentation today, I will provide brief examples of some of these violations.
I am here representing the Child Welfare League of Canada. We are a
national organization dedicated to promoting the well‑being and protection of all children and youth. We
are especially concerned about vulnerable children and youth, those who are abused, neglected and exploited.
These children and youth, who experience exclusion, poverty, rejection and racism, are not able to fully
participate in the benefits and opportunities of Canadian society. We have a particular interest in those
children and youth involved in the child welfare, child protection, youth justice and children's mental health
systems. These children, in our experience, are highly vulnerable.
Child and youth rights are a guiding belief of our organization. Our
strategic plan states clearly that the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
must be enacted in Canada and abroad to ensure that all children are protected and supported.
The 102 member organizations of the Child Welfare League of Canada are child
and family service agencies, provincial and national associations, universities, and federal, provincial and
territorial governments. We have members in all 13 provinces and territories. Together, our members
serve over 500,000 families every year.
The Child Welfare League of Canada is a member of the International Forum on
Child Welfare and the World
Health Organizations Violence Prevention Alliance. The CWLC is also one of
the participating partners in the Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. (Centre
of Excellence for Child Welfare)
What are the issues before us? Today, I will pay particular attention
to specific issues related to vulnerable children and issues related to articles 19 and 20 of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, although my recommendations will have a broader application impacting on the rights and
freedoms of all Canadian children and youth.
Although many child and family services are implemented by provinces,
territories and municipal governments, the federal government has a major role in funding legislation and policy
that supports those services. The federal government also has exclusive and direct responsibilities in
such areas as youth justice, immigration and Aboriginal services.
I will come back to that situation later.
I want to describe three case situations representative of examples of
rights violations which occur daily. The 17‑year‑old girl who has been severely beaten by her parent and
has now been thrown out of her home; in six provinces and territories this young person is not considered as a
child in need of protection, as the age of protection is up to 16 years only. Although perhaps eligible
for some form of income support through student welfare assistance, if the young person is attending school, she
is on her own in securing accommodation, care and treatment.
The two‑year‑ old refugee claimant with her mother from an African country
who is denied an immigration hearing on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds because she is HIV
positive, and this is a specifically‑named exclusion. She is subsequently deported to her country of
origin without adequate medical care.
The 12‑year‑old boy who is severely autistic and relinquished by his parents
as a child in need of protection to a child welfare agency; the parents are unable to afford the specialized
treatment required, and the child's behaviour is so severe that he is a risk to his siblings, his parents and
himself.
It is certainly fair to say that these are the sort of circumstances that
come to the attention of child welfare agencies every day in this country. The past decade has been a
difficult and challenging one for vulnerable children and youth. The services providing support for these
young persons have faced enormous difficulties keeping up with both the volume of demand and the nature and
complexity of the problems.
The estimated number of children and youth entering the public foster care
system has increased by more than 50 per cent in the past 10 years. Although it is extremely difficult to
gather data on children in public care, a problem I will return to, the CWLC estimates that approximately 40,000
children and youth were in care in 1996, and the number had grown to 66,000 by 2003. The trend is a
barometer on the well‑being of Canadian children, youth and families, as well as an indicator about the nature
of preventative social programs in this country.
In 1998 the Canadian Incident Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect
conducted the first national study to examine the incidents of reported child maltreatment and characteristics
of children, youth and families investigated by Canadian Child Welfare Services.
In brief, the CIS found that there were 136,000 estimated child maltreatment
investigations, an annual incidence rate of 21-and-a-half investigations per thousand children. To
contextualize this, that is much lower than the United States at 46 investigations per thousand, and higher than
England at 18 per thousand children. The single largest category was child neglect.
The CIS was conducted again in 2003 and we are expecting the data to be
publicly released in 2005. We will then be able to determine what the national trends of incidence are.
The published data from the complementary Ontario incidence studies shows
there were 44,000 investigations in 1993, and the number increased to 66,000 in 1998. The early trend data
from the 2003 study indicates that the number of investigations has increased again dramatically. The
major category from the 2003 data so far is children witnessing family violence as the main group.
The number of Aboriginal children and youth in care has been
disproportionate to the size of the population. The numbers of Aboriginal children and youth coming into
care has continued to increase. It is estimated by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society that
the number actually exceeds the number of children cared for at the zenith of the residential schools program.
Clearly the issue of treatment of Aboriginal children, youth and families in the context of their social and
economic development requires specific attention from the federal government.
The rate of child poverty in Canada is worsening, according to Campaign
2000, with 1,065,000 children in poverty, and the rate of poverty up for the first time in six years to 15.6 per
cent in 2004. In 2003, the government of British Columbia passed legislation enabling children of 12 years
to enter the paid labour force. This legislation is not consistent with international standards that
identify the age of 13 as the minimum age for admission to employment.
At a broader level, in his authoritative analysis of the national
longitudinal study Doug Williams of the University of New Brunswick has developed a vulnerability index,
providing a summary measure of vulnerability in childhood. The data indicates, based upon 1994 NLSCY, that
28.6 per cent of Canadian children are considered vulnerable, displaying behavioural, emotional or psychological
disturbances which are sufficiently serious to warrant concern for their present functioning and future
developmental health. As Senator Landon Pearson notes in the introduction to the study, "We know that many
children in this country are vulnerable, and we are concerned that the number seems to be growing." There
is no comparative study based upon Read More ..cent NLSCY data to indicate what the trends are at present.
In 2003, the Law Commission of Canada published its report on the economic
costs and consequences of child abuse in Canada. The report indicated that, based upon 1998 CIS data, that
the annual cost to Canadian society is $15.7 billion. It is important to note, by reflection, that this is
significantly higher than the federal government's total investment of $13 billion in the National Children's
Agenda.
Finally, Canada has no national policy addressing the needs of separated
children. Unaccompanied minors requesting refugee status in Canada, although their numbers are currently
small and there is a correction to be made, estimated at 1,200 per year and not 2,000 per year, there are a
number of important issues about this population we need to be aware of. Their treatment varies
considerably across Canada in matters such as guardianship responsibility, provision of support services,
housing, education and health. Their numbers are growing every year, and Canada will likely continue to
see this increase with the implementation of the new Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States.
Interestingly, there is a high dropout rate between making a refugee
application at a port of entry and proceeding to make a request before the immigration and refugee determination
board. No one knows what is happening to these young persons who disappear. The aforementioned 1,200
applications end up looking like 25 to 35 requests before the immigration board, and nobody knows what has
happened.
A related issue is the current moratorium that Canada has in effect on the
admission of child and youth refugees from abroad who have no family or next of kin; the orphans. In the
past Canada's humanitarian practice has included the resettlement of a number of these children and youth who
are most at risk, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees.
The CWLC was an intervenor in the Supreme Court challenge on the
constitutionality of section 41 of the Criminal Code. Our position argued that the use of physical
punishment contravenes children's human rights as articulated in the UN convention. The Supreme Court's decision
to uphold the constitutionality of 43 while limiting the scope of its exemptions was, in our judgment, an error.
Rather than providing clarity and effective protection to children against maltreatment the judgment has led to
greater uncertainty and challenges for the systems created to protect children from violence. The research
evidence on this subject is clear on two important aspects: In those countries that banned the use of
physical punishment, rates of child maltreatment have decreased. Further, children raised in homes that
use alternative forms of non‑physical discipline have improved life outcomes. That is a matter of science.
There has been a growing concern in the last decade related to diminishing
capacity of Canadas social programs; spending reductions, lack of well‑defined objectives and outcomes are all
problems. The Canada Assistance Plan was transformed into the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1995,
and now into the Canada Social Transfer as of April 1, 2004. This has not improved our ability to promote
social determinants of health and well‑being for our children and youth. There is considerable ground to
be made up in wisely investing in social expenditures to improve the quality of life for children and youth.
This is now our most critical challenge.
What are the success stories? There is a spirit of renewal and
opportunity in Canada to ensure that we invest greater attention and resources on social programs to vulnerable
children and youth. The development of a Canada fit for children, Canada's national action plan, provides
an excellent vision of what is possible to achieve on behalf of our children.
The document is comprehensive and provides a good framework for considering
what needs to be done. It is important that the national action plan be supported with the development of
goals which are time bound and measurable, supported with data, monitor progress and are based upon research
evidence to promote the best outcomes for our children. The federal government has initiated important
investments in these areas, which require further development and support and are consistent with national
leadership in the development of our children and youth.
The Canadian Looking After Children Program, has been supported by Social
Development Canada. Its purpose is to provide comprehensive assessment and planning for children and youth
in public care. It is an evidence‑based child development approach to promoting good parenting to children
who have faced exceptional adversity. There are now seven provinces and territories involved and Canada is
part of a 15‑country group doing this important work.
CanLAC provides an opportunity to gather highly detailed information on this
group of 66,000 children and monitor their development over time. The Canadian incident study on reported
child abuse and neglect is funded by the public health agency. This critically important health
surveillance and monitoring program is done on a survey basis every five years. The initiative provides
important basic information in better understanding the extent and nature of child maltreatment in Canada.
The opportunity to increase the frequency of surveillance, improve reporting capability of organizations and
expand linkage to provincial, territorial and community information systems will assist in eliminating the child
maltreatment.
The Canadian Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare is one of the four
research centres funded by the health agency under its Centres of Excellence for Child Well‑being Program. The
centre is in its final year of funding in 2005 and is applying for a further five‑year renewal. The centre
has provided leadership and innovation for child welfare in Canada to develop a researched policy and practice
agenda. This has been a new development for Canadian child welfare to link universities with community
organizations, identify evidence‑based approaches and creating capacity for measuring outcomes. The Centre
of Excellence for Child Welfare has also created the First Nations research site in Manitoba. The pilot
project has been very successful and planning for the further development of and growth of the Centres of
Excellence Program is going on with the public health agency in 2005.
Let me now turn to Read More ..ecifically the federal role and responsibility.
In our opinion, there is a vital role for the federal government in promoting the enhanced development of
vulnerable children and youth. We recognize that Canada is one of the most highly decentralized federal
states. The leadership role must be exercised in partnership with the provinces and territories, and
engage municipal governments, civil society organizations, citizens, children and youth, as well as the private
sector.
The federal government has two predominant instruments available to it,
which in our view should be strengthened and improved. The first role is that of providing political
leadership on important questions relating to children and youth. This political leadership role is the
responsibility of all members of Parliament, Senate and government. In addition, there were two specific
leadership roles identified: Secretary of State for Children and Youth, and Special Advisor on Children's
Rights to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary of State position was eliminated entirely in
July 2004. It is unclear why the role of special advisor on children's right is limited to foreign affairs
and does not apply to all federal departments, most notably health, social development, justice, citizenship and
immigration, Indian and northern affairs, human resources and skills development and heritage. There is
now no dedicated minister who directly represents children and youth at the cabinet level. I will now go
to the recommendations.
What are the recommendations? First, to establish a child and youth
secretariat within the Government of Canada, a secretariat to do specific case advocacy and monitoring,
coordinate activities and the policy development of federal departments and agencies, and to provide secretariat
support services to a Canada fit for children commission.
The second important one is to establish a Canada fit for children
commission. The commission will be comprised of children and youth provincial and territorial governments,
federal departments, civil society organizations, and other Canadians representing citizens and academics.
I will note one other thing about that: The commission will have two commissioners, at least one of whom
will be a youth.
The third recommendation is to review the roles, responsibilities and
mandates, funding and support for the political leadership roles pertaining to children and youth; fourth,
direct a broad public education campaign promoting the use of positive non‑physical discipline in parenting;
fifth, extend the protection against assault found in the Criminal Code of Canada to all of its citizens
regardless of age; sixth, increase federal funding to support a wide variety of research‑based initiatives for
vulnerable children and youth; seventh, develop enhanced accountability requirements for the Canada social
transfer regarding national objectives, monitoring reporting and outcomes, which are flexible and responsive;
eighth, request that the Law Commission of Canada conduct a formal study of the application of the UN Convention
of the Rights of the Child to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and relevant
provincial and territorial legislation. The study will provide recommendations on how to integrate the CRC
into Canadian law.
Dr. Claire Crooks, Associate Director,
CAMH Centre for Prevention Science: Mr. Dudding's remarks about groups
of vulnerable youth in Canada is actually an excellent backdrop for my presentation, which is about a specific
group of vulnerable youth in Canada, namely those half million Canadian children living with domestic violence
and the aftermath of domestic violence, with a particular focus on what happens to these children when their
parents separate or divorce.
I will briefly outline a misfit between the current general direction on
Canadian divorce and separation and the needs of this special group of children and propose three types of
solutions that this country requires to meet the promise of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for
this group.
The articles of the convention most germane to this discussion are 3.1,
which deems the best interests of children as a primary consideration in any decision making; 3.2, which
guarantees all children protection, and 9.1 and 9.3, which protect a child's contact with parents except where
factors of abuse, neglect and best interests of the child indicate otherwise.
One of the complicated things about this are those three articles are not
always matched up in this area, and this is an area where complex analysis and complex solutions are required
and simple solutions will continue to be poorly thought out and administered.
I would like to start by highlighting some recent shifts in the way
Canadians approach separation and divorce. Consistent with the UN convention on the best interests of the
child and the child's right not to be separated from parents, there has been a move towards collaborative law
and Read More ..iendly solutions, Read More ..cus for parents to work with mediators settle custody issues outside of
court to prevent the emotional and financial costs of a trial.
For many Canadian children these solutions have increased their ability to
maintain relationships with both of their parents following separation or divorce. Read More ..thers than ever
are being awarded custody or joint custody and are remaining actively involved in their children's life post
separation. Again, for most Canadian children whose parents are separating, these are wonderful
initiatives and really increase their quality of life afterwards.
The proposed amendments to the Divorce Act, which have never been enacted,
are consistent with this move towards collaborative solutions and have actually moved away from the idea of
custody to Read More .. a shared parenting plan focus.
Although these directions are by and large positive for the majority of
children whose parents are separating, they fail to protect the best interests of children whose parents have a
history of domestic violence.
I will talk briefly about a whole other area of research in clinical
awareness that has come forward over the past 20 years, and that is the whole impact of domestic violence on
children. Research has shown that although there is a range of individual outcomes with respect to
exposure to domestic violence, overall the picture is a negative one. Children who witness one parent
assaulting another, and the aftermath, have a range of negative outcomes, including increased rates of
symptomatology from trauma, internalizing disorders like anxiety and depression, externalizing behaviour
problems, sleep problems, problems in school, and problems with relationships.
We have come to realize that many of these children fare as poorly as
children who are being directly abused. Recognition has dawned that these children are vulnerable and they
require and deserve protection and indeed are promised it under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Here you see a bit of a misfit arise. On one hand, divorce is moving
toward friendly collaborative law and mediation and shared parenting. On the other hand, there is
recognition in both research and clinical communities of the devastation children face living in homes in which
one parent is abusing the other, and these two things have emerged separately.
Obviously there is a need to look at the intersection of these domains.
What happens to the thousands of children who live with domestic violence when their parents separate? As
things currently stand, a mother who leaves an abusive partner to protect her eight‑year‑old daughter from ever
again having to lock herself in the bathroom and call 911 may find herself in a joint custody arrangement in
which she has to mediate everyday parenting decisions with her former abuser and possibly being exposed to Read More ..
harassment and violence every Wednesday night and alternate weekends when she drops her daughter off. It
is these children that I am arguing require Read More ..otection if Canada is to meet its full obligation under the
UN convention.
To understand why domestic violence is so relevant to custody decisions, it
is important to look at two fundamental myths about domestic violence and separation. The first myth is
that domestic violence ends with separation. We know this family had abuse and violence but now the parents
have split up so why is this even germane? The reality is that in many cases, domestic violence does not
end with separation; to the contrary, it may be a signal to the perpetrator of the violence to escalate or
increase attempts to control or punish a partner who is trying to leave.
According to Statistics Canada data, one in four victims of domestic
violence reported that the violence became Read More ..vere after separation and two in five reported that the
violence actually started after separation. The enforced contact between separated parents through access
exchanges can present opportunities for ongoing harassment and abuse.
Separation is also the most dangerous time for a woman who is leaving an
abusive partner. Domestic violence and homicides are inextricably linked and national figures from the
U.S. and Canada suggest that women are most at risk of homicide when leaving a partner who has been abusive.
A number of domestic violence death review committees have emerged in the
United States and one in Canada, in Ontario, under the auspices of the office of the chief coroner. These
committees review all domestic homicides to try to look for lessons learned and ways to prevent future
tragedies. It is incredible that in almost every case reviewed, children are involved either as witnesses
or at the very least by losing their primary caregiver, and in some cases have been directly murdered as a form
of domestic violence. In cases in which there was no previous child abuse, children have been killed as a form
of ultimate control over an adult partner.
The second myth is that as long as children are not directly involved, they
are not affected. There is still the myth that someone can be a bad spouse and good parent. A number
of lines of research show that that is simply not true.
Children are affected in an ongoing manner in numerous ways. They may
continue to be exposed to various forms of violence and criminal harassment at access changeovers. They
may live with a parent who is deathly afraid of the other parent and have that impact their emotional security.
They may continue to be exposed to a perpetrator of domestic violence who serves as a poor role model for
healthy relationships. In addition, they can be used as conduits for ongoing abuse. I have seen in
clinical assessments that children are made to monitor and report on the whereabouts of one parent to another
parent, and the emotional abuse of that is excruciating for children who are put in the position of being a spy
in one parent's home.
In addition, children exposed to domestic violence are vulnerable to being
directly abused due to the high overlap of these forms of maltreatment. A number of research studies show
that the range of overlap is between 30 and 60 per cent, so if there is domestic violence occurring in a family,
there is a 30 to 60 per cent chance that the children are also being directly physically abused.
Finally, these vulnerable children may also be aversely affected by long,
drawn‑out involvement with the legal system. Many perpetrators of domestic violence use ongoing litigation
as a form of controlling and abusing an ex‑partner.
I have outlined briefly the ways in which our system does not protect these
vulnerable children. Now I will turn to the solutions. There are three types of solutions required:
Legislative changes, training and collaborative resources.
Currently, New Zealand and half of the states in the United States have
developed what is called a rebuttable presumption against joint or sole custody for perpetrators of domestic
violence. This simply means that is a judge will not award sole or joint custody to someone who is an
identified perpetrator of domestic violence unless there is compelling evidence to go against the rebuttable
presumption. It shifts the onus to perpetrators to show that children and their primary caregivers will be
safe in any ensuing parenting plan.
While a rebuttable assumption may be a best-case scenario, at the very least
Canada needs to adopt legislation making domestic violence a mandated factor to consider in custody decisions.
By making domestic violence a rebuttable presumption or a factor that must be considered, we will eliminate some
of the randomness of the current situation.
Children's safety should not have to depend on whether their cases happen to
have custody evaluators, judges and lawyers that understand the complexities of domestic violence. As it
is now, it is a bit of luck of the draw in terms of who gets assigned to a certain case.
One of the worries people have about adopting something like a rebuttable
presumption is that in one capacity, you are developing a silver bullet for custody disputes and people worry
about false allegations. I remind the committee that evidence from our national survey suggests only a
third of victims of domestic violence actually report to the police, and all evidence suggests that domestic
violence is under‑reported, if anything. Nick Bala of Queen's University has also done some research
suggesting the number of genuine false allegations is minuscule.
Without adequate training and planning, new laws are at best irrelevant and
at worst lead to negative outcomes not consistent with the UN convention. A brief example is that the
State of Minnesota adopted legislation to include exposure to domestic violence as grounds for child protection.
Recognizing that children exposed to domestic violence can fare as poorly as
children being abused, Minnesota enacted a law saying that this is grounds for protection. Unfortunately,
they did this without building the system capacity to understand which children and which families should be
funneled into the child protection system.
The law was enacted. The number of children in care doubled. It
totally overwhelmed the system and the law had to be repealed, so what looks like a poor law may have been a law
that was put in place without the system capacity to be implemented properly.
There are some excellent examples of good training this area.
California requires 16 hours of domestic violence training on an annual violence to be a custody evaluator, 12
hours in the classroom and four visiting services for victims, perpetrators and children. In the U.S., the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges offers judges regular opportunities to enhance their skills
in dealing with complex domestic violence cases. All of these things need to happen at the same time
because these cases are really complex, and without a complex understanding, the solutions will not work.
Finally, in terms of collaborative resources, courts are only as effective
as essential community services that are provided. For children to have safe and continued relationships
with the perpetrators of domestic violence, supervised access centres, batterer programs that address both
domestic violence and parenting and counselling programs for children are critical. In the absence of
these services, communities do their best to manage but children pay the price.
Again, in my clinical work as a custody evaluator, I have seen well-meaning
neighbours, family members or church members step in to fill the gap when there is not adequate supervised
access centres, but they are without the training and information required, and in some cases, family or church
members are supervising a case they do not even know what they are supervising for, and children and their
primary caregivers are exposed to further abuse.
In closing, the shift towards mediation, parent education, collaborative
law, joint custody and co‑parenting arrangements has benefited many children. Unfortunately, this broad
movement leaves half a million children who have witnessed one parent assault the other in a very vulnerable
position, particularly at time of separation and afterward. When there is a history of domestic violence,
there needs to be very different remedies that recognize that children may be in a never‑ending war zone.
All too often, the media portrays controversy about custody decisions as a
battle between fathers' rights groups and women's advocates. My message today is that custody decisions in
the context of domestic violence are not about mothers' rights or fathers' rights. They are about
children's fundamental right to safety and security, which is inextricably linked to the safety and security of
their primary caregiver. This fundamental right is one that is covered in the UN convention on the rights
of the child and one that I hope the committee will take into account when making the recommendations.
The Chairman: Mr. Dudding, you
pointed out a number of areas and a number of issues, including the Criminal Code, et cetera.
We are trying to study how international instruments and particularly the
Convention on the Rights of the Child as a centrepiece help us with children's rights in Canada. While the
convention was signed and ratified, there is no one single enabling piece of legislation that puts it into law.
Therefore, it is moral guidance in some cases and it is part of our law in some other cases.
Do you believe that actually implementing Read More .. the convention in a legal
way would give Read More ..eth to the workers in the field who work with children, to the advocates and, therefore,
for the children? Are we talking about education and a change of cultural ideas and values in our society
to strengthen children and their rights? Is it a legalistic or a facilitating environment where you would
put your emphasis?
Mr. Dudding: That is a very important
question. My answer would be I think it is probably both. Certainly, when I consider, for example, a
very basic kind of violation around this issue of 16 year‑olds and their need for protection is an issue that in
my opinion begets a legalistic solution. However, we also know that even in some jurisdictions, for
example, where the law may provide to the age of 18 or 19, that by and large practice is still to say, no, go
make your own arrangements somewhere because the reality is that the system lacks either the training or the
appropriate kind of resources to do what is right on behalf of those young people.
That certainly leads me to the direction in terms of ensuring that in order
for any law or legal concept to be realized, that we have to for sure have in place the kind of right
understanding, right attitudes, appropriate training and resources to support those things.
The framework must be there. At the risk of going over previous
testimony, I will say that the issue here is one in terms of the question of how we embrace the CRC and give it
life in this country is a challenge that we need to face and move forward with rather than just simply shrug our
shoulders and say, "Well, that is the way it is."
Senator Oliver: Thank you, I wish to
thank you both for two very excellent presentations. I had a question for each of you. First, on
page 5, you talk about the role of the federal legislator. You ended up by saying that there is no
minister who is dedicated to the interests of children, but earlier you were talking about the fact that in
Canada in our federal system the federal government has jurisdiction over certain matters, the provinces do over
others and the municipalities do over some. It takes a co‑operation and co‑ordination of all three to
bring a definitive answer to many of the concerns that you have raised.
The main thing you talk about is that what really is required to political
leadership. Can you tell us Read More ..out what you mean by political leadership? The main thing people
in the Senate do is we are public policy makers. Where and how does that relate to what you call political
leadership? In what ways do you want us to lead, knowing what our main job is? Are you saying just
bring in Read More ..gislation, is that what you meant by political leadership or what was that definition?
Mr. Dudding: The definition of
political leadership as I see it is that, in the first instance, to have responsibility at a political level
vested with some individuals is important. I suggest that two roles that we have had are the one of
Secretary of State for Children and Youth and the other one in the special adviser's role. That does not
let anybody else off the hook, but to have those kinds of visible leadership roles within government is
important.
The second component, having thought about it, is that the importance of
providing a framework is the notion of the Canada Fit for Children Commission, to have this kind of ongoing and
focused discussion and provide the monitoring and the accountability, if you will, about all matters related to
children and youth, is again another way of demonstrating that kind of leadership.
Senator Oliver: I suppose that having
committees such as this in the Senate and a comparable one in the House of Commons to monitor and deal with this
on an ongoing basis might also be something that would demonstrate that kind of leadership?
Mr. Dudding: Certainly, I would agree
with that.
Senator Oliver: I would like to go to
the rebuttable presumption, if I could. It is an interesting idea, but it all turns on evidence. To
be Read More ..ecific, if the presumption can be rebutted, if there is enough reason to overturn the presumption and
one of the presumptions is if the children will be safe, my question is what kind of evidence would you need?
If a father has been abusive, for instance, what kind of proof do you need? When the father takes the
stand and says, "I am not going to do it any Read More ..quot; Is that going to be enough to rebut the presumption,
and what is the evidence that is required to rebut it?
Ms. Crooks: That is an excellent
question. You really have underscored the need. You are building system capacity. You need
judges who can wrestle with really complex issues and custody evaluators. Rebuttable presumption might be
appropriate where it may be even characteristics of the violence that occurred. Somebody pushing somebody
at the time of separation is out of character, it is a one‑time event. A perpetrator is taking
responsibility. Those sorts of things might be taken into account. Someone saying, "No, I am not
going to do it again," certainly is not particularly compelling.
The other piece is that you need a system where everybody is capable of
doing ongoing risk assessment. As a judge or custody evaluator, you need people to know what are the big
risk factors for dangerousness. You need people to know that when somebody walks through a probation or
protection order that is really serious business and needs to be treated that way. If somebody was walking
through a protection order, it does not really matter what they say in court. That is a really serious red
flag.
Senator Oliver: That is not going to
be rebutted.
Ms. Crooks: No, and the capacity is
not there right now. What makes people nervous is when you rely on someone to say, "No, I was abused," it
becomes a he‑said, she‑said situation. It requires competent assessors and judges to be able to implement
this.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Dudding, when
doing research on any major topic, the place you begin is with a review of the literature. What have other
people done in other jurisdictions and so on? In terms of political leadership and having a cabinet
minister in charge of the covenant, what have other jurisdictions done? What are the ones that we should
try to model?
Mr. Dudding: I do not have an
off‑the‑top answer to that. That is a very good question, senator. I could only give you an
impression that most jurisdictions will have an identifiable minister responsible for these areas, but which and
which titles I am not in a position to answer you right now.
Senator Pearson: Mr. Dudding, my
first question is about your example of the 17‑year‑old who was thrown out. I know that is an issue of
concern for various child welfare workers and so on. Would you recommend that we work hard towards a
uniform age of 18 for compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which defines a child as every
human being under the age of 18? If so, how do you think we could do it?
Mr. Dudding: I will answer the simple
part of the question, which is, yes, the age of 18 is the age that is set in the convention. We believe
that is the appropriate age. That is the simple part.
The Read More ..mplex part of this is how we do it. We recognize that
provincial governments have their own area of jurisdiction in this area.
That is why my thinking is to rely upon the notion of a
Canada‑fit‑for‑children commission that would provide the forum for these kinds of issues to be tabled and
discussed. Senator, relying upon morality, peer pressure and that kind of accountability to move these things
forward at a provincial level is not terribly satisfactory in my opinion. However, in recognition of our federal
state, it is probably about as good as it can be.
In respect of saying this about the age of 18, it also recognizes that we
need to have the kind of commensurate resources and services in place so that they are appropriate and will
benefit those aged 17 and 18 years. Otherwise, we could do Read More ..rm.
I have experienced many instances where adolescent children were
experiencing difficulties and the local child welfare agency became involved. There were not appropriate
kind of services in place on those occasions and the agency did Read More ..rm than good.
Senator Pearson: That point was
raised by Dr. Crooks as well. We should be careful about legislation and regulations unless we have
the mechanisms in place to benefit those who are targeted by the laws. Naturally, as co‑chair of the
custody and access committee, I was interested in your comments, which resonated a great deal with some of the
things we have heard across Canada on that particular issue. At our meeting in Stockholm, where they have
a presumption of joint custody, we were struck that they are doing some serious rethinking about whether that
has been in the best interest it of the child.
I will not ask you a question but I will thank you for your presentation
instead. There is a growing recognition of the issues in respect of children who witness violence.
As a psychologist, you could perhaps answer one question. Do you consider any lower age? In my view,
all children, including the very youngest, should be included. Have you any comment about the very young
children who are being exposed to this?
Ms. Crooks: Senator, you have
reminded me that I was to ask if I could distribute two papers. I brought 25 copies of two articles.
One is on legal and policy implications of legislative changes but they are in English only.
The Chairman: Witnesses can testify
in their language and you can provide us with the papers, which we will have translated and distributed.
Ms. Crooks: You have raised an
important issue: The question of whether children, if they are too young to remember or to understand what
happens, are affected by violence in the home or in the community. The answer is, unequivocally, yes they
are affected in some truly scary ways in the area of neuro development. Compelling evidence is available
on what happens to a baby's brain when it is constantly under stress and not being soothed. From a
developmental perspective, children of different ages are affected differently but they are all affected.
Another way in which the little ones are affected is in the area of development of secure and safe attachments
with adult caregivers. That is the primary job of an infant. Those secure bonds form the basis for how
they view the world and how other relationships are developed. Attachment for an infant is based on having its
needs met. If an infant is exposed to a great deal of screaming and yelling, it will become distressed and have
difficulty sleeping, compounded by the lack of soothing and comfort provided by the caregiver. Children do
not have to remember an event to be affected by it.
Senator Carstairs: Obviously, your
statistics aren't exactly positive. I sometimes have difficulty resolving whether the statistics are
increasing because we are Read More ..owledgeable about the things that are done to children or whether they are
actually increasing. We have Read More ..ildren in foster care today than we ever had before; there is no
question about that. Are they in foster care because 25 years ago they would have been left with their
families to their detriment or are they in foster care because there are genuinely Read More ..ildren in need of
care? How do you resolve that?
Mr. Dudding: The answer to the
question is yes because I think both situations are true. Certainly, our attitudes and ideas about what
constitutes risk or harm for children have changed and will continue to change. In many respects, we
understand that as good news. We have seen and recognized that there has been a diminishment in the level
of the social safety net in Canada. That reduction has harmed a great many people but, of course, it
disproportionately harms vulnerable people. That statement is also true. It is a matter of teasing
those things out but it also takes us to the conclusion in terms of where we are to be. The increasing
number of children coming into the public care system places on all of us the obligation to provide better care
for them.
We did not increase the number of foster homes correspondingly to the number
of children coming into care. There is a disconnection between the trauma to the child's life and our
ability to do something better on behalf of that child. That is also a concern.
Senator Carstairs: Dr. Crooks,
I was interested in the quick analogy that you drew between families in which there is domestic violence and
children who might be abused as a result. Have you done, or will you do, any additional work with respect to
that direct correlation? I am of the view that if there is domestic violence in a family, it is highly
unlikely that the children will escape that, especially if they get in the way, and it is hard for children not
to get in the way. Children have an innate ability to be there all the time.
Ms. Crooks: There are some important
facts to know about that. Dr. Jeffrey Edleson,
from the University of Minnesota, has done some of the best work in this area of looking at the ways in
which children are involved and how parents think they are involved ‑‑ parents are more likely to think the kids
were asleep. Dr. Edleson did a phone survey of children exposed to domestic violence and found a
whole range of ways that children are involved. The overlap being 30 per cent to 60 per cent is based on a
review of numerous studies and on physical abuse. Many people, myself included, would argue that there is
emotional maltreatment if one parent is assaulting the other parent. Any of those statistics depend on what has
been reported and to whom. I am also involved in a group that has developed one of the first programs for
abusive fathers. It is a pilot project in a number of areas in Ontario and the U.S. We have found
that these fathers have been referred to the group typically by a childrens' aid society for being abusive.
In the context of the group, it becomes apparent that it is Read More ..differentiated violence than that. When
they relay an incident, it becomes clear there is also a difference between who is recognized officially to have
been maltreating and what is going on in the families, and these are all interconnected, of course.
Le snateur Losier-Cool :
Ma question sadresse monsieur Dudding. Aux pages sept et huit de votre prsentation on retrouve les
recommandations au comit. Je ne sais pas si vous prfriez que le comit choisisse une de ces huit
recommandations, parce que bien souvent il faut se crer une priorit, si je
puis dire. La recommandation que je prfre est certainement celle au numro deux, qui mentionne la cration
dune commission.
Je voudrais que vous me dmontriez la diffrence entre la commission et le
secrtariat. Daprs ma lecture de la recommandation, le secrtariat pourrait alimenter la commission, lui
fournir des services. Je prfrerais la cration dune commission parce que celle-ci rpondrait au Parlement et
serait appuye par une lgislation. Et tant appuye par la lgislation, la commission serait soumise aux autres
lois du Canada et la Loi sur les langues officielles. Les jeunes enfants en situation minoritaire au Canada
auraient droit aux commissions.
Le mandat de cette commission serait dexaminer tous les sujets concernant
les enfants. Quand vous aurez examin tous ces sujets, quels seraient les moyens de pression que la commission
pourrait avoir?
Mr. Dudding: There are two parts of
the question, so let me start by saying from my perspective Recommendation No. 2 with regard to a commission
is I would agree with the senator far Read More ..portant as a means to provide the kind of visibility and
significance that this issue presents to us all.
My sense in terms of Recommendation No. 1 around the secretariat is that it
is really Read More ..usekeeping. I do not want to diminish it from that perspective, but to enable the federal
government and the departments of the federal government to get their act together, as well as, to do a specific
job with regard to case advocacy issues that are uniquely within the federal role. For sure, when one
lines the two up, a commission is a far Read More ..portant legislative mandate than what the role of the secretariat
would be envisaged as.
The second part of the question is the more difficult one. The work of
the commission, by the way, is that one follows it according to this document, it will have its work cut out for
it at least until the year 2015 and that is probability far enough in advance to leave me comfortable.
There will be work in 2016, I know.
Read More ..riously about that is a primary question that we all must struggle
with which is this issue in a federal state around how is it that we bring a focus of responsibility here.
There are no simple answers to that question. As of Friday, in the discussions around the child care
program, we can understand what the complexities of these issues are.
The magic here is inviting and ensuring that the provinces and territories
are at the table as much as we have done and again not entirely successfully with the health care council,
but they have been given a role at the table with an on going mandate. To use that kind of model or
approach with this commission, so what the pressure that will be brought on other jurisdictions to come into
compliance, will be there on an on going basis.
The other question in terms of the Read More ..gally oriented issues of
compliance would certainly run to No. 8 of our recommendations with regard to the role of the law commission and
it helping us all from a legal perspective in terms of looking at understanding the federal and provincial
roles that may be brought legally into compliance.
Senator Poy: This is for Ms. Crooks.
Can you give me your thoughts on the Supreme Court's decision on section 43 of the Criminal Code in relation to
corporal punishment of children? What do you think of that decision?
Ms. Crooks: That is a quick question?
I guess with respect to corporal punishment, the question earlier to Mr. Dudding is that the law needs to change
or is it the will of the people in programming that needs to change. I think, there is a clear cut role
for law to set the standard. If you look internationally for example, Sweden, from the time that he made
any corporal punishment outlawed, in the year following there was not a single child's death as a result of
maltreatment. To me, that is compelling evidence right there. I do not know if that answers your
question.
Senator Poy: Yes, so this is what you
would suggest to our government?
Ms. Crooks: Yes. I do not think
the Criminal Code says you cannot assault children unless they are the ages of 2 and 16.
Senator Poy: It does not make sense.
Ms. Crooks: No, not particularly.
The Chairman: We thank both of you
for coming and sharing information we have not heard before on the state of children in Canada and sharing your
opinions and suggestions. We will take them into account and we will look forward to you filing the papers
that you have indicated and any other materials.
We will move to our next panel without delay.
The Chairman: Thank you. We can
reconvene now. We have Mr. Agnew, UNICEF Canada at the table and Ms. Vandergrift, Chair Working
Group on Children and Armed Conflict, World Vision Canada, and Ms. Austin, Policy Analyst, Child Rights &
HIV/AIDS.
We are running a little late. I would ask you to have some
introductory remarks, not necessarily in detail from any briefs, but if you could hit the points that you think
are most important to put on the record and then we would like to leave some time for questions.
Mr. David Agnew, UNICEF Canada:
I would like to thank you for not just the opportunity to address you but also for putting the spotlight on this
too often neglected topic.
Knowing the panel before us and the other witnesses who spoke, you have had
some wonderful expertise on child rights, leading NGOs and advocacy groups. In Senator Pearson, you have
the senior voice for children's rights in the Government of Canada. You are well briefed on the domestic
issues.
I wanted to touch on two issues. First, you have been exposed to the
UN Study on Violence, which we are delighted to be the secretariat for, and I want to underline the importance
of that. I believe it could make a good contribution not just to engaging the public but also moving ahead
on the critical issue of violence against children.
The second issue is to give you a heads up or alert you that next month
UNICEF will be releasing a report on the levels and changes in child poverty rates in the OECD countries,
including Canada, of course. Depending on which year your start and finish, this report reports an
extremely modest improvement in the Canadian rate, but nonetheless, this bountiful nation of ours still allows,
by our calculations, 15 per cent of our children to live in poverty. That places us, amongst the 26
nations, nineteenth. When we talk about obligations under our convention, I just deposit those numbers
with you and point out that while the rights of children are not denominated in dollars, it is difficult to
believe that tolerating that level of persistent poverty is anything but an example of the distance we have to
go in this country to achieve the convention ideals and principles.
I want to focus on a different issue. Because I know you have been
well briefed and will continue to be so on domestic issues, I want to focus on one element of Canada's
obligations under the convention, and that is the contribution this country makes to building a world fit for
children. The convention, and our embrace of it, obliges us to take a much broader focus than simply the
domestic one, as important as that is, and to make a commitment to achieve the convention ideals and principles
around the world. You will find that in article 4 of the convention, but this country's embrace of the
millennium development goals, our place in the G7, and any number of facts underscore why that is important.
I acknowledge Canada's important contributions on behalf of children around
the world, starting with the generous and growing support of UNICEF in the 158 countries and territories where
we work. We place a strong and welcome priority on our partnership with the Government of Canada,
particularly with CIDA. It is also important to recognize Canada's focus on war‑affected children or its
dedicated efforts to fight micronutrient deficiencies, to immunization of children by the millions, important
and timely investments in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the Ottawa Convention on Land Mines,
the significant list of international statutes, conventions and protocols to which our country has affixed its
name. This is an impressive catalogue of commitments, but there is one area where Canada has unfortunately
and unacceptably failed to live up to obligations to the world's children, and that is the promise made 35 years
ago to devote 0.7 per cent of our gross national income to development assistance.
Last fall, we released our state of the world's children for 2005 and laid
out some raw numbers that are reminders of the persistent chasm between the world's words and the world's
actions and the human consequences of that gap. One out of every two children on this earth live in
poverty, 20 children die each minute from a preventable or treatable disease, 121 million six to eleven year
olds are not in school and should be, and there are 90 million severely malnourished girls and boys around the
world, 15 million AIDS orphans around the world, legions of child soldiers and prostitutes ‑‑ it goes on.
It adds up to 1 billion children being denied the basic rights of childhood that any of us would wish for our
own children.
You do not want to compare what we invest every year around the world in
military spending and agricultural subsidies. It is about $1.5 trillion. We spend less than 5 per
cent of that on development, yet the payback is enormous.
Children are at the heart of the NDGs. There is not a hope in heaven
that we will meet those lifesaving and rights‑enhancing goals unless we have substantial change,
particularly when not one of the seven richest countries in the world is close to 0.7, and only two of those
seven have actually made a stated commitment in a calendar to reach the 0.7.
I will suggest, with great respect, that this committee, in its
deliberations, take up the challenge: To vault Canada from the bottom half of the OECD tables, where it
now rests in terms of development assistance, and put us on the fast track to meeting our longstanding
commitments. While some would think that is probably a delusional hope in this day and age to do that, I
look at three separate things as evidence of some optimism.
The first is the absolutely extraordinary outpouring support from Canadians
and the Canadian government for the millions of victims of the tsunami most recently. It shows Canada does
care.
We are on the eve of a release of an international policy review. I
gather it is coming out shortly after the budget. In the kind of leaking that goes on in advance of those
events, we are seeing the reaffirmation of the Prime Minister's statement that he desires us to restore our
place in the world. We all know that know that restoring our place in the world is not a cheap promise.
It will, in fact, have a price tag.
Then, at the recent meeting of the G7 Finance Ministers, and this is a glass
half full half empty point of view, the fact is that five of them came to that meeting with a debt relief plan.
Although it is somewhat embarrassing to be given five plans and no one could agree on one, at least they were
there with debt relief on their minds, and at least they agreed in principle that it ought to be done faster and
in greater measure than it has before.
There are two recommendations that I would ask you to consider as part of
your report: One is an explicit commitment by the Canadian government to the realization of the rights of
children at the heart of its international agenda. It is timely to do so, given the fact that we are on
the eve of the IPR, and it would be a welcome statement from this committee in its examination Canada's Canadian
obligations under the convention on the rights of the child that children must have the first call on available
resources. That is plain and simple.
The second is a sustainable and firm commitment to achieving the 0.7 per
cent target. Obviously, the increases announce in ODA in the last few years are welcome and certainly a
good change from the cuts and the stagnant budgets we saw through the 1990s. We do not have a plan to meet
that 1970 commitment, and it is important that we do so.
This is our fiftieth anniversary in Canada. We spent that 50 years not
just working as best as we can to save and improve the lives of children around the globe, but we have also been
taking the pulse of Canadians in that time, and we believe the time is right to act on the deep and broad
concern amongst Canadians for the world's children and our collective commitment to lift them out of poverty.
We have before us the unique opportunity to not only restore our place in the world but also to make a
substantial contribution to the global imperative embedded at the heart and the core of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child to ensure that every girl and boy have the opportunity to grow up healthy and safe, no
matter where they live.
Ms.
Kathy Vandergrift, World Vision ‑ Canada: World Vision Canada certainly
appreciates this opportunity to discuss with you the importance of strengthening measures to implement the
Convention on the Rights of the Child in Canada. I want to be clear that we are speaking today as a
delegation from World Vision. I know I am also shown on your agenda as potentially chairperson of
the working group on children in armed conflict. We would be happy to come and talk about that issue as
well, but today we are here speaking about World Vision.
Canada has shown leadership in advocating for the rights of children in
international assemblies, and we very much appreciate those initiatives, but in keeping with that, we would like
today to speak to three main recommendations. First, we recommend that Canada develop and adopt
legislation to give the CRC the force of national law in Canada, including appropriate accountability
mechanisms.
Second, in addition to compliance within Canada, World Vision recommends
that all aspects of Canada's international relations, including international assistance, diplomacy, trade and
international financial policies be in compliance with the CRC. That is putting children's rights at the
heart of our international policy.
Third, World Vision recommends that Canada take a leadership role in
advocacy to strengthen international accountability mechanisms for the CRC as the most effective tool to achieve
the objectives of A World Fit for Children.
I would like to speak first to national legislation and give some
highlights. I will be brief, as you have our written submission.
We believe that new legislation that would clearly give the CRC the force of
law in Canada would be the most effective way to demonstrate a strong commitment to the rights of children and
ensure consistent implementation across all sectors and all jurisdictions.
We note that many other international treaties, such as trade agreements and
some other human rights treaties, are enacted through parallel Canadian legislation. We think it is
important that children's rights have the same status in this country. They are one of the most vulnerable
groups. We note that in the case of the
optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada passed its own legislation. We
would argue that the same should be done for the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We think it would also help to make Canada's case about coherence between
what we do at home and what we advocate internationally and we argue in the submission that it is the way to
comply with both A Canada Fit for Children and A World Fit for Children.
We want to outline briefly with you the benefits of national legislation.
First, it would demonstrate our commitment to practice what we believe.
Second, the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes a holistic approach
to human rights and, therefore, we would argue that it is one of the better tools to enshrine and improve the
implementation of human rights in Canada.
Third, it would give clarity to some concepts such as the best interests of
the child, and we will speak to how that concept intersects with the separated children issue, about which you
heard before. It is important that we give clarity to that notion in Canada.
Fourth, legislation would reduce the potential for precedents to be set by
court cases because that is very uneven. It is important that Parliament establish the law.
Fifth, we believe that a clear recognition of the rights of children could
provide a healthy balancing factor in federal‑provincial discussions. We noted that earlier you had
discussion about children falling in between these jurisdictions, but sometimes the best interests of children
get lost in those contests between federal and provincial governments. We think a strong statement about
children's rights could assist with that. In that line, it would also contribute to Read More ..uitable
treatment across the country.
Finally, accountability mechanisms would be taken seriously if they were
enacted within a legal framework.
The concept of progressive realization of economic, social and cultural
rights as articulated in the CRC can provide a useful yardstick for measuring the fulfillment of children's
rights in accordance with the availability of resources. We will not have time today go into that in
detail but I would suggest that the committee may wish to focus some consideration on this notion because, in my
experience, the concept of progressive realization often helps deal with some who are concerned about taking a
rights‑based approach, that it will lead to unrealistic expectations and so on. Unpacking that concept
could be useful for this committee.
My colleague, Ms. Austin, will cite the separated children's policy as an
example in the national policy area.
Moving quickly to international policy, as we mentioned, the new
international policy framework, which we hope will come out soon, would do well to put human rights at the
centre, including the rights of children. We think it is in keeping with the principle that in fact A
World Fit for Children would be a world fit for all of us. A central role for child rights has
implications for trade policy, but I would like to highlight two here for CIDA, Canada's international
development agency.
Five years ago, CIDA adopted a child protection policy that worked within a
child rights framework. It demonstrated the benefits of using a child rights approach, but it did so with
only three select groups of children: working children, children affected by armed conflict and children
subject to sexual exploitation. This strategy is under review, so your committee's recommendations with
regard to child rights and CIDA would be timely. As well as renewing this strategy, we would argue it
should be expanded into a Read More ..bust, comprehensive child rights approach.
I will give an example. A primary tool that CIDA is using to implement
its policies is a country development framework for developing countries. In many of these countries, 40
to 50 per cent of the population is under 18. Yet, when we ask whether child rights are considered in this
developing framework, often they are not. We ask ourselves, how can poverty reduction be effective if it
does not consider the rights of 40 to 50 per cent of the population? We would like to see CIDA's approach
to child rights extend into these country development frameworks to ensure that the situation of children in
these countries is considered from the beginning.
Finally, strengthening accountability mechanisms is important at both the
national and the international level. Within the framework of a national law, one could look at a variety
of accountability mechanisms. One, for example, is child impact assessments of budgetary measures.
You heard earlier about a commission. There could be a range of mechanisms used. We would suggest
that the experience of other countries could be helpful in this regard.
At the international level, the World Vision partnership has proposed that
strengthening the human rights system should be a top priority for UN reform. We would include in that
particularly the rights of children.
This is really the only tool we have internationally to protect human
interests. The results of the weak human rights system are obvious in the failure of the UN system, in
spite of significant advocacy, to effectively protect children from the most egregious abuses in the context of
long periods of armed conflict, such as the situation in northern Uganda, which has gone on for more than 10
years without serious address, the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where violations are well
known, and the current situation in Darfur, which could have been prevented. In each case, warnings and
information were available but few serious steps were actually taken to protect the security and other rights of
children.
We welcome the proposed reforms in the UN high level panel as a first step,
but they remain inadequate. We suggest that Canada support the recommendation that the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights have regular access to the Security Council and suggest that top priority be given
to the security and rights of children threatened by armed conflict. We have also suggested that Canada's
own work on the security of children remain a high priority in our new international policy.
In addition to these recommended measures, however, we believe that steps
should be taken toward the development of a complaints procedure for violations of the rights of children.
My colleague Ms. Austin will address that particular mechanism in greater detail.
I would like to highlight international financial institutions, because we
have heard about the importance of resources when looking at the rights of children. World Vision has
undertaken some work to try to dialogue with the World Bank on what role it could play to help countries meet
their own obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Our research in developing
countries shows that taking a rights‑based approach to education would mean that the dollars are actually spent
much better. We think there are clear benefits to incorporating child rights even in areas such as the
World Bank.
Finally, we would say that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is one
of the most important but underutilized tools we have for advancing the rights of children.
We would urge this committee to continue its leadership role in this regard.
Ms. Austin:
I will speak briefly to a few of the points Ms. Vandergrift raised in her presentation but
will elaborate Read More ..lly on our written submission.
The first is to elaborate on the un-international policy and the impact
children's rights and the CRC can have when it is implemented on the ground. I would like to share an
example from one of the programs World Vision has supported for several years in India in the City of Bangalore.
It is a program specifically focused on child labour and eliminating the worst forms of child labour. The
program has taken explicit child rights‑based approach to the program. One of the most dynamic aspects of
the program is the development of a child‑led working children's union. It has provided a forum for
children first to learn about their rights then to become active in advocating on their own behalf. It
helps to facilitate a process where children can advocate first with their employers and also with local and
national legislators. Rather than just being removed from their work situations children can actually
begin negotiating with the adults who have influence over their situation to try to bring about better working
conditions. One of the positive outcomes is that children have been able to establish better working
conditions and also have been able to have greater access to both formal as well as informal education.
I have only been able to touch on this program quite briefly. It is
quite clear that take taking a very explicit approach to child rights as opposed to a Read More ..neral child welfare
approach to child labour helps to empower these children and provide a Read More ..listic approach to their
situation.
The second issue I would like to address which Ms. Vandergrift has mentioned
is the situation of separated children and the need for a best interests approach. One issue concerning
national policy which warrants further attention is the situation of separated children and the needs for a best
interests approach that is consistent with the CRC. As our written submission highlights, World Vision
Canada and other NGOs have repeatedly addressed this concern at both the national and international level.
The Committee on the Rights of the
Child has highlighted the issue of separated children as an issue of particular concern during Canada's last
two appearances before the committee. Yet even still we have not seen any significant progress. In
1995, the committee noted with regret that the principles of non‑discrimination of the best interests of the
child and of the respect for the views of the child have not always been given adequate weight by administrative
bodies dealing with the situation of refugee and immigrant children.
In response to the aforementioned concerns the Canadian government
introduced amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to apply the best interests principle as a
criterion for determining the detention of minor children. While this was a progress of sorts, it was
still a very narrow view and was not in line with the norms laid out in the CRC, namely that the best interests
of children must be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.
Thus in 2003, when Canada presented its subsequent periodic report to the
CRC the committee noted that the best interests of the child is still not adequately defined and reflected in
some legislation, court decisions and policies affecting certain children especially those facing situations of
custody and deportation. The committee noted with particular concern the failure of the government to
adequately address issues of separated children that were brought to their attention in 1995, such as family
reunification, deportation and deprivation of liberty. The committee went on to make five specific
recommendations, including the need to adopt and implement a national policy on separated children, of children
seeking asylum in Canada. Yet here we are two years later and none of these recommendations have been
implemented. Given these concerns, we feel that a national law would provide greater clarity about the
priority to be given to such core concepts as the best interests of the child and to help ensure the protection
of the rights of separated children.
I will touch on one last point concerning the strengthening of
accountability mechanisms. In particular, World Vision recommends that the Government of Canada support
the development of a complaints procedure for violations on the rights of children. Such a procedure would
help address serious violations that have not been resolved through domestic remedies which are not being
properly addressed through the periodic reporting procedure to the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
To quote the committee directly they have stated that for rights to have meaning effective remedies must be
available to address violations. This requirement is implicit in the Convention and consistency referred
to in the other six major international human rights treaties. Without a serious mechanism for children
and advocates to appeal to, with a reasonable chance that the situation will be addressed, one can question the
integrity of our current emphasis on teaching children their rights. While the ideal would be for the
violations to be remedied at the local level, it is clear that domestic remedies often fail children or simply
do not exist. The international tools of governance must take the rights of children Read More ..riously or we
risk offering children false hope.
World Vision recommends that this committee consider emerging research into
ways to strengthen the implementation of the CRC through the development of a complaints procedure.
More over we urge you to consider supporting the development of a complaints procedure that is accessible to
children in order that they can meaningfully participate in the defence of their own rights.
Senator Pearson: Thank you, both of
you for your presentations. It is very important to have the international perspective brought before us
in ways, and each of you has complemented the other's presentation. I thought Mr. Agnew, it is important
perhaps to remind the senators, this committee, about the distinction between UNICEF Canada and UNICEF
generally. There are two slightly different roles. Sometimes we may hold you accountable for things
that you are not actually accountable for and vice versa.
Ms. Austin: You wouldn't be the
first.
Senator Pearson: As a complement to
that, many of us are concerned about the fact that the Canada's ‑‑ this is back to the international, what we
should be doing ‑‑ Canada's support for UNICEF as part of the UN has been stagnant for a number of years and
perhaps you could just clarify that.
New Speaker: Briefly given the
interests of time, UNICEF Canada is a Canadian NGO, part of the NGO community. Here, we work as a
fund‑raising support to the international organization as well as an organization that does education and
advocacy within Canada. While we certainly are very proud of the relationship with the international
organization, it is a partnership as it were, not necessarily something that we can deliver.
The core support of the Canadian government to UNICEF has been literally
unchanged in a decade and that is obviously had an impact on the kind of work that UNICEF can do at its heart.
Like many donors, the Canadian government has been generous with its earmarked funds, but of course that has
been highly responsive to emergency situations. Part of the reality of trying to achieve ultimately in the
long run, the rights of children around the world, that is a long‑term sustained effort and that does not go up
and down with the cycles of emergencies, but in fact requires the kind of rights‑based programming that my
friends from World Vision were talking about over a sustained period of time. That is where Canada's
increased support would be very useful.
Senator Pearson: Ms.
Vandergrift, I wanted to pick up on your comment the rights based approach, for example, in India to clarify
even Read More ..e value of a rights based approach is that it is holistic. Could you say a few Read More ..rds
about that, this is a clarification we need constantly, what is the difference between a welfare approach and
rights based approach?
Ms. Vandergrift: That is where he we
think that the rights based approach adds real value because it puts the whole child in the centre and then
looks at all components and all the factors that can impact that child's situation. It isn't just
addressing one need food, water or some of those things, but it looks at the whole child and treats that child
as an actor in the situation, not just as a passive recipient.
We have seen in numbers of examples Ms. Austin has mentioned one and we
can cite numerous ones where this approach has made a real difference in terms of both the role that young
people take themselves in addressing and helping other children as well, and also bringing together the various
factors.
It also leads us, as development agencies, to ask different questions when
we are working. It leads us to ask who might impact that situation, what is the barrier to the child
fulfilling its rights and look at the full range of actors to bring about good programming. We will be
honest and say that is uneven in our own implementation; we are learning about that, but it is a very important
factor.
In relation to CIDA, I will just give you one example because we want to see
a Read More ..bust child rights approach. We spoke recently to CIDA's new agriculture strategy. The child
protection unit, with merit, spoke to the issue of working children, but at the same time, did not speak to the
issue of the right to food. What could be Read More .. the centre of an agriculture strategy than the
children's right to food? Therefore, we would argue for a very robust approach that looks at all the
rights of children when CIDA is looking at its policies, not just the protection rights. Does that help
make that clear?
Senator Pearson: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Austin: I just wanted to add one
point, and that was briefly to say another added aspect that the convention brings to community‑based programs
is the way in which it highlights the duty bearers in the case of the child labour program. It highlights,
specifically, the responsibilities of the government to not only have legislation in place, but to enforce it,
and also the obligations of other parties, including the private sector. It brings children into an active
role in the process, but it also places the primary responsibility on the duty bearers. I think that is
quite unique to a rights‑based approach.
Senator LeBreton: On the
international commitments, Mr. Agnew, I think this is very important. A lot of countries do not live up to
the commitments, and there does not seem to be any great consequences when they do not. People do not seem
to properly punish them when they do not, but you mentioned two countries that have agreed to their commitments.
Have they lived up to them, and what two countries are they?
Mr. Agnew: The two countries I was
referring to were the U.K. and France, both of whom have not lived up to the .7, but both of whom have laid out
a calendar where they will achieve it on different times. You might know that the U.K, in particular, has
been very aggressive in announcing not just a calendar to reach the .7, but has pushed the international
financing facility forward, which I don't believe the Canadian government has supported, but other members of
the G 7 have. They have also moved ahead with aggressive debt relief proposals as well debt
cancellation, not just relief.
So there are just the two. Among the G 7, to be very specific about
it, France is the leader at .4. The next one would be the U.K. at .34; Canada is at .24 ‑‑ these are all
OECD numbers. Unfortunately, two of the biggest economies Japan and the U.S. are nearly at the bottom
of the list, along with Italy.
Senator LeBreton: Just to follow up
with the United Kingdom, is there any mechanism, through UNICEF and the people at work in the United Kingdom,
that pressure can be put on the United Kingdom to try to take the lead? Could you use a country that has a
better record to shame the other ones?
Mr. Agnew: That is right name and
shame. I do know that at the G 8 meeting because, of course, Russia will be added in July in Scotland,
which will be hosted by Tony Blair, this will be a centrepiece of that meeting. It follows up the
Kananaskis meeting, where there was an announcement by Canada of its commitment to Africa and NAPAD.
Obviously, the 8 per cent increase in the budget that we have seen, at least
for the last two years, is a welcome change. However, where it would put Canada over the next few years,
still has us, I think, less than halfway to that target. Unfortunately, and I say this as a very proud
Canadian, we really are running on fumes on this subject. As long as we continue to try to punch above our
weight without the substance behind it, and as long as we continue to get distracted by subjects like DART and
amphibious vehicles and it becomes entirely a defence debate, then we really are not ever going to restore our
place in the world.
Ms. Vandergrift: There are five
countries that are over the .7; some are actually at 1 per cent. I think it is important for you to know
that.
When we spoke to the Finance Committee on this issue, we drew particular
attention to the situation of the Netherlands because their average per family income is actually reasonably
similar to Canada's. However, the point is these countries have gone to .7 and beyond, and it has not
damaged their economy, so there are some examples. They are not G 7, but some countries have gone beyond
the .7.
Senator LeBreton: The percentage of
their GDP.
Ms. Vandergrift: That is correct; .7
per cent of their GDP.
Senator LeBreton: This is a question
for you, Ms. Austin, on kind of a practical because I think the whole issue of child labour is a horrific
problem. You mentioned the example of World Vision in Bangledor, India, and
empowering the child.
From a practical sense, how do you do that? You have these adults
running these huge sweat shops. How do you get to the children? How do they get the strength to
organize themselves and deal with this problem?
It seems to me that there would be a lot of resistance, and it would take a
pretty brave group of children or is it because of agencies like yours helping them? I do not know how
you do it. I guess it is a practical question I am asking.
Ms. Austin: Speaking specifically to
the example of the union in Bangledor, that is a child‑initiated process. While we support the process, it
is child‑initiated; they are the ones who have taken the ownership for it. Through our financial support, and
also through the support of local staff, we have been able to help facilitate and where necessary particularly
when it comes to their advocacy with the local and national level officials and also at the international level
we have helped to provide support, but really it has been initiated by the children. We cannot take
credit for that; but practically speaking, it is a difficult one and one in which many children take significant
risks to take part in these activities.
The way the labour union functions is we provide a space and they come and
meet in it. They invite their own speakers, people who do training for them; but they organize their own
meetings and they plan and organize their own budget. However, it does take skilled workers; it takes
staff that have sensitization into how to facilitate and work with children so that adults do not dominate the
process, but provide support at the request of children and intervene where they feel it is necessary.
Senator LeBreton: Have they suffered
any consequences, the actual child labourers themselves?
Ms. Austin: Do you mean like a
backlash?
Senator LeBreton: I saw a documentary
one time about children who felt so obligated because their families depended on them for their livelihood.
If you have children trying to organize and be treated Read More ..irly in one of these child labour sweatshops, are
there not consequences? You talk about risks, but how do they overcome them?
Ms. Austin: That is where the
important role of their work and their linkages with local level officials, particularly with the police as
well, that they have the back‑up of the local police and the local labour officials so that they are not put in
a position where they can take negative feedback from the employers themselves. I should say that quite a
number of the children that I am speaking about are working in the informal economy and not in factories per se.
However, it does really involve careful advocacy with the government officials and the police in particular, to
provide them with support and protection.
Senator LeBreton: It would take a
pretty brave group of children though I cannot get my head around how they achieve a proper consequence.
Ms. Vandergrift: When we go into
something like that, certainly you do look at the security of children. Even in our advocacy, for example,
when children are in conflict situations, sometimes we cannot do things we would like to do otherwise because of
the security risk to children. It is certainly a factor we have to take into consideration.
Senator Oliver: I have a question for
each group.
I was very interested in what World Vision said about working with the World
Bank to help various countries meet their international obligations under the convention. How far have you
gone with that? What is the World Bank prepared to do?
My second question is for Mr. Agnew. I am aware of the two
recommendations you made with respect to the rights of children becoming part of the international agenda and
the point-seven formula. I am aware that you were a principal with Digital 4Sight where you directed
a global research project investigating the impact of technologies on government and democracies. Could
you tell us what lessons were learned from that from which we as public policy makers could learn something
about what international groups might be able to do?
Ms. Vandergrift: I mentioned it
because this is a tough arena. The World Bank initially said that human rights is not their business.
We said that it is their business to help countries meet obligations that they have undertaken. The reason
that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is so useful is because most countries have signed on to this
convention, and it says very particular things about education, for example. There are a couple of
articles relating to that.
We argued the point, that just as you have a responsibility to help
countries meet their financial obligation, there is an obligation to help them meet obligations they have
undertaken, but particularly that their policies should not undermine progressive realization of the rights of
children. In some cases, the policies of the World Bank have required countries, for example, to hire
fewer teachers, so we have seen children move backwards. Progressive realization of the right to education
says that you do not move backward in a country; you keep moving forward.
Senator Oliver: How far have you gone
with them?
Ms. Vandergrift: I want to make my
other argument.
We wanted to show them that it was to their benefit. The World Bank is
interested in poverty reduction, so we were able to document that using a rights‑based approach that looks at
the relevance of education and the quality of education would actually help them achieve their goals in terms of
effectiveness and poverty reduction.
How far have we gone? We have not transformed the World Bank, but I
think the dialogue in terms of looking at child rights in their programming has certainly moved forward. I
can leave you with the document that we used to engage with that dialogue and we will continue it to also hold
them accountable.
You cannot ask developing countries to meet their obligations if you do not
ask the agencies that are providing the resources to do the same. That is the principle we wanted to
demonstrate.
Mr. Agnew: To add a footnote, turning
bankers into human rights advocates is not an overnight process, but it was interesting to attend a meeting just
before the holidays that was co‑sponsored by the World Bank and UNICEF on HIV/AIDS orphans. I think you
can start to build the case bit by bit from the specifics, moving it, in a sense, from the old needs‑based
charity‑based approach to development to a rights‑based approach with those kinds of very vivid and
extraordinarily real and economy affecting situations that we have, be it education or HIV/AIDS.
Pulling from my previous life some work on the impact of technology on
governance and democracy, part of what is exciting about that is the way youth interact with technology tools in
ways that those of us of Read More ..vanced years do not. Be it by way of instant messaging, short messaging
service on telephones or by some of the collaborative ways that some of the new technologies allow people to
come together to try to solve problems, it can potentially ‑‑ and I stress "potentially" ‑‑ give real meaning to
the child participation elements. It really does give tools, where they are available, right in the hands
of some of the people who are least consulted, least often able to have a voice in the councils of government.
Senator Oliver: How many of these
developing countries would have technological tools like cell phones that children could utilize?
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. Speaking
of the World Bank, it is a huge issue that that is a gap. Of course, the reality is that in at least a
number of countries in the less‑developed world there are technological leaps happening of which we are not
aware in terms of the penetration of mobile telephony.
Senator Oliver: And wireless.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. The
copper generation will not happen. It has gone right over that into the cell towers. There are great
stories of the use of a single mobile telephone in an Indian village for a communications tool, or of a single
computer in a region that allows people access to the outside world.
They can help, but fundamentally they are a tool, and that is ultimately my
conclusion.
Senator Oliver: Does UNICEF have any
documents on this that you could give to the clerk of our committee so we could do Read More ..mework on this as a
way of engaging children around the world Read More .. connection with the covenant and the rights?
Mr. Agnew: I am not sure if UNICEF
does, but I could get my hands on some papers, and I will forward them to the clerk.
Ms. Vandergrift: I will tell you a
wonderful story about the use of radio allowing young people to talk with each other about their rights.
They use it to protect them from being recruited as child soldiers.
Senator Oliver: Can you give us
examples?
Ms. Vandergrift: They tune into the
radio, and discourse among young people is a protection mechanism. Radio is reasonably accessible even in
some Read More ..mote situations. There are examples of that in a number of countries and I can get you
information on that.
Le snateur Losier-Cool : Ma question fait
suite la question du snateur Pearson. Elle a parl de UNICEF New York et UNICEF du monde. UNICEF du
monde, veut se retirer du dossier de lducation sexuelle. Cela, mon avis, va contre les droits des jeunes et
des enfants. Est-ce que UNICEF Canada a une position ce sujet?
Mr. Agnew: Which programs would we
want to get out of in New York?
Senator Losier-Cool: "Sexual
reproduction" is the term I believe they are using.
Mr. Agnew: We were never in that
issue as some would define it, but of course we put a huge emphasis on maternal health and neonatal health in
terms of the reproductive process, whether it is prevention education that we fund and promote on the HIV/AIDS
issue or trying to ensure that there is as healthy a mother and healthy a baby as possible in the birthing
process.
Senator Losier-Cool: I understand
that ACPBD would be pushing that issue on reproduction and development, but I thought that UNICEF would also be
working on all the questions of maternity, infant mortality and reproduction.
Mr. Agnew: In terms of infant
mortality, child survival, and a critical push on breast‑feeding, the spectrum is absolutely there.
Senator Losier-Cool: Do I understand
that UNICEF Canada will not support a position from UNICEF New York to withdraw from any issue on reproduction
or sexual education?
Mr. Agnew: I do not know the example
where we have withdrawn from that territory. Our policy is there.
Senator Losier-Cool: You have your
policy. That was my question, if you have a policy.
Mr. Agnew: Absolutely. I can
share it with you, there is no problem.
The Chairman: We have been able to
hear General D'Allaire again in our Foreign Affairs committee on our study in Africa. He made the point
that you can look at poverty, you can look at HIV/AIDS and you can look at all these issues, but it has to be
within the framework of equality. He makes the case that we have not looked at Africa in an equal way.
We do not see them as equal. Also, raising child soldiers in the conflict, that we do not obviously look
at children and see their rights in the same way.
Do you believe that if we look at the convention and can get the point
across that children are equal in status to adults and have those rights, as defined in the convention, that we
will go a long way to solving some of the developmental problems if we start looking at it as an equality issue
as opposed to a welfare issue? As opposed to saying it is rights based, to fundamentally getting across
the point the equality of children; that they have rights from the time they are born and they are equal
citizens.
Mr. Agnew: It is frightening.
Ms. Vandergrift mentioned how many countries there are. Thinking of Africa in particular, where half the
population is under eighteen, and it is a terrifying prospect to think if we continue to underfund those
countries, and particularly the families that one meets when you go, their absolute desire to create, for their
children, a world better than the one that, so far, has been delivered to them. It is frightening to think
of the consequences of that. No one can be Read More ..ssionate and eloquent than Stephen Lewis on what is
happening to sub‑Saharan Africa with the hollowing out of countries by HIV/AIDS. It is difficult for me to
imagine, if I took off my UNICEF hat, how people could not see the connection between an investment in the
future that children represent and how those societies and those countries will evolve. I know that the
rights language turns some people off, that is the reality, and people do not like an aggressive assertion of
rights as some kind of academic exercise. You do not have to go far to see where the rights and needs are
absolutely co-joined. Of course, the existence of the kind of poverty that we see, not just in Africa but
around the world, affecting children is just one example of that.
Ms. Vandergrift: I work with General
D'Allaire and appreciate his passion when he speaks about the equality and treatment of children in Africa.
I am reminded of the situation in Northern Uganda where there are the most egregious violations of children's
rights, and it seems to be forgotten by much of the world. Canada has tried to do some things, but it is
forgotten. Young persons there are saying to us, "I wish there was oil in our country because maybe our
issues would be addressed as well". It highlights that importance. If we do believe that every child
is of equal worth, then I think we do begin to transform those policies and begin to look at the kinds of
unequal treatment that results from that. I think it is an important movement.
I would just highlight again the benefit of the child-rights approach.
I believe that without a rights‑based approach we would not have gotten as far as we have with the
child‑soldiers issue because it was child rights that put children on the agenda of Security Council and on the
political agenda as well as on the humanitarian agenda. Children affected by war used to be seen as the
business of World Vision, UNICEF, humanitarian agencies. We said, no, these are people with rights.
So they became part of the political agenda and we convinced the Security Council that threats to their security
were international threats to security. I think a rights‑based approach moved that issue forward, and
certainly General D'Allaire has been an important ally in that movement.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming
this evening and sharing the international dimension to children's rights. I think it is important when we
look at the convention that we look at our national obligations, but also our international obligations, and you
have brought that dimension to us. Thank you for coming this evening. We are adjourned until next
Monday.
The committee adjourned.
|