SHUR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 20, 1997

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.)): I call to order the Sub-Committee on Human Rights and International Development, which is a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

This afternoon I'm pleased to welcome three guests, two from the Department of Justice and one from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Gar Pardy is with consular operations at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Denis Kratchanov is counsel, public law policy, at the justice department, and Sandra Zed Finless is from the justice department's legal services and is with a legal services unit in the foreign affairs department.

Welcome. We usually start off with a presentation of approximately ten minutes and then we go to questions. I understand that Denis would like to begin.

Mr. Denis Kratchanov (Counsel, Public Law Policy, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm in the public law policy section, as you mentioned, and this section in the Department of Justice is responsible for all affairs of private international law, which includes The Hague convention on child abduction. In my comments to you I will speak about this convention.

[Translation]

I will begin by giving you a little background. In the 1970s, there was an increase in the number of violations of transborder custody orders, and it was very difficult, sometimes even impossible, to get custody rights respected abroad. In addition, governments were reluctant to co-operate to solve transborder abductions.

In 1976, at Canada's instigation, the Hague Conference on Private International Law decided to draft a Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

[English]

The result of these efforts was the conclusion in 1980 of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It has been in force in Canada since 1983, and 48 states are now party to it. It is the most successful of all The Hague conventions.

The convention is based on the principle that the interests of children are met by ensuring their prompt return to the state of “habitual residence”. The convention is not concerned with the merits of competing custody claims. It simply deals with the issue of jurisdiction regarding those claims.

To foster co-operation between states, the convention provides for the creation of central authorities responsible for the application of the convention in each country where the convention is in force.

In Canada there is one central authority at the federal level and one central authority in each of the provinces and territories. My colleague Sandra Zed Finless will be discussing the role of the federal central authority in a few moments.

The basis for requesting the return of a child is that the child has been taken or retained from his or her country of “habitual residence”.

This concept is determined by facts, not by law, and is different from the concept of “domicile”. The practice of states that are parties to the convention is to establish the habitual residence according to the child's “life centre of gravity”. Under the convention, decisions regarding the custody of a child should be made regardless of his or her birthplace and citizenship.

[Translation]

Some conditions must be in place in order for a Canadian parent to be able to make an application under the Convention. Of course, the Convention must apply in the country to which the child was abducted; the child must be under 16; there must have been a transfer or a non-return of the child considered unlawful under Canadian law; and less than one year must have elapsed between the time of the abduction and the time the application is made.

The application may be presented either to the central authority of the province in which the child's habitual residence was located, or to the central authority of the country in which the child was abducted, or directly to the judicial or administrative authorities of that country.

Some exceptions, which have always been interpreted in a restrictive manner, make it possible to override the requirement to return the child to the country of his or her habitual residence. One of the exceptions occurs in cases where returning the child would expose him or her to a serious danger of physical or psychological harm. Another exception occurs in cases where the child is opposed to returning and is mature enough to have his or her opinion considered. Another exception occurs when the parent who filed the application acquiesces in the transfer or non-return. And finally, there is the case where returning the child would violate the fundamental rights of the government required to protect human rights or basic freedoms.

• 1540

[English]

To promote the convention and ensure its smooth application, The Hague Conference on Private International Law organizes periodic meetings to review the operations of the convention. There have been three such meetings so far, the last one held last March. At the last meeting over 48 states were represented, many of which had not yet ratified or acceded to the convention. Many other international organizations and associations were also represented.

I'll now pass the microphone to my colleague.

Ms. Sandra Zed Finless (Justice Legal Services, Foreign Affairs, Department of Justice): I'm a legal counsel with the Department of Justice assigned to a legal services unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In this capacity I provide advice to foreign affairs on a wide range of legal matters. I also wear the hat as a federal representative for The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

While policy responsibility for the convention rests with my colleague Mr. Kratchanov, operational responsibility for The Hague convention rests with the legal services unit to which I am assigned.

I've been personally involved with The Hague convention file for approximately a year and a half. In practical terms the role of the federal central authority is carried out by one lawyer spending approximately 25% of the time on The Hague convention matters.

Situating the federal central authority with the justice legal services unit at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was likely no coincidence. It was strategically located where it would be one step closer to the services of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is often called upon by the provinces and territories and by parents, generally, in child abduction matters.

I will describe today the role that my office plays as a federal central authority for this convention. As my colleague Mr. Kratchanov has already mentioned, the central authority is the main vehicle created by the convention through which co-operation is exercised. Each jurisdiction within Canada has appointed a contact person to represent the attorney general for that province or territory.

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the federal central authority does not deal directly with applications under The Hague convention. These are dealt with by the representatives in each of the provinces and territories of Canada on behalf of applicants whose children have been removed from or to those jurisdictions. The main reason for this is the fact that it is the provinces and territories that have jurisdiction in child custody matters. Each province and territory has its own procedures for dealing with outgoing and incoming requests under the convention.

It is also useful to point out that applications under the convention do not have to be made through a central authority in Canada. An applicant can apply directly to a foreign central authority or directly to a foreign court.

The role of my office, simply put, is to assist the provinces and territories and central authorities in other contracting states on cases as requested. We also assist the public at large by providing general information about the convention and referring them to the various other helpful players in the field of child abduction.

Formally speaking, what flows from the convention itself is the duty for central authorities to co-operate with each other, to promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective states, to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of the convention. Particulars of those duties are set out in article 7 of the convention. This is the blueprint against which all central authorities operate.

I will not recite the several obligations set out in article 7. I understand you may have those before you. It will be obvious, however, on reviewing the breadth of duties that are set out there, that they go well beyond the expertise of one office, one branch of government, or indeed one nation. Their very nature necessitates integral links with a web of players such as child welfare agencies and law enforcement officials. They in fact make the various players in the child abduction arena absolutely dependent on one another.

I will now characterize for you, with some practical examples, the kinds of assistance we are asked to give.

Several times already over the course of my year-and-a-half involvement with this convention, I have been asked by provincial central authorities to attempt to intervene informally to facilitate the following kinds of situations: arranging to have an embassy abroad hand deliver an application where there was difficulty in transmitting it; gathering information on why a time delay might be occurring for an applicant who was seeking legal aid in a foreign country; helping central authorities in finalizing passport arrangements for children who are being properly returned under the convention; compiling lists of lawyers in foreign countries for Canadian applicants; arranging conference calls between provincial central authorities and officials in the geographic branches of Foreign Affairs who can provide invaluable perspectives on how things generally operate in a particular country; and on an even more concrete level, when requested to get involved and in a proper case, writing letters as the federal central authority to lend our voice to a provincial or territorial central authority, for example, where it is felt that obligations under the convention are clearly not being respected or to assist them in getting information where responses are not forthcoming.

• 1545

It happens often enough that an application will arrive on my desk from a foreign central authority with little or no indication where that child or the alleged abductor might be within Canada. I immediately transmit the case into the network of the Missing Children Registry, who launch a search. At the same time, I notify provincial and territorial central authorities within Canada and prod the requesting authority for additional clues as to the child's whereabouts. It is the constant feeding of information back and forth and the co-operative context within which we operate that helps to find kids.

Our office also forms an important focal point from, and through which, information can be shared and common problems can be tackled. In this regard, on a couple of occasions we have organized meetings amongst our own domestic players in the area of child abduction, primarily the Canadian central authorities. However, often representatives from other co-operative partners in the area of child abduction are invited to attend, for example, officials from Foreign Affairs and the RCMP.

My office is also attempting to do as much education about the convention as possible. With limited resources our efforts here are directed and focused to gain maximum bang for our buck. For example, we provide any input to anyone publishing information about the convention when requested to do so. This includes, for example, private publishers who are attempting useful dissemination of public information about the convention, researchers who are working in the area and lawyers involved in drafting materials for use in bar admission courses across Canada.

We also maintain a master binder of information on The Hague convention. It contains important documents such as the up-to-date list of countries that are party to the convention and other important information sent to us by The Hague permanent bureau, such as contact names, addresses, and telephone and fax numbers for each central authority.

We are called upon daily to share this information with the public at large and the entire network of players involved with child abduction. We communicate regularly with the provinces and territories on new acceding countries and on surveys that we receive from other central authorities seeking information on how things work in Canada.

Our office also collects and collates information on behalf of Canada for special commissions that are held in The Hague every four to five years to review the operation of the convention, the most recent of which was held in March of this year, which Mr. Kratchanov just referred to.

In conclusion, let me say that the co-operative efforts that have occurred to date have been successful ones on behalf of children. The fact of The Hague convention even existing is clear evidence that international co-operation exists. While many challenges do present themselves in operating the convention, they are not all insurmountable ones. Open and frank dialogue and co-operation amongst the various authorities to move us forward on this front.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Pardy.

Mr. Gar Pardy (Consular Operations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to come over.

I'm in charge of a group of people in Foreign Affairs called the consular services, and “consular” is nothing more than a fancy word for trying to provide assistance to Canadians when they are overseas and they encounter some difficulty. You pick up the newspaper every morning and you see essentially the agenda of our work, whether somebody is arrested or there is a storm, or whether somebody gets killed in Egypt or whether it's El Salvador. Basically, we are the group of people who deal with all of these problems.

• 1550

What has increasingly been our experience—and I think this reflects the interest of the committee—is the fact that problems associated with children have increasingly become a daily part of our agenda. Those problems are not merely ones of a disgruntled parent or disaffected parent deciding they can take their child overseas illegally and disappear from view. A whole series of problems associated with children play themselves out in the international arena.

Before I come to the issue of abduction, I just want to make sure you understand that there is a context for problems such as abduction. Many families in Canada, because children in one way or another may have some difficulty in school or in the community, decide to ship the child off to relatives in Ghana or Pakistan; they feel it would do them some good to be on a farm in Punjab. More often than not it doesn't work, and those children show up on the doorsteps of our offices overseas.

We have right now about 250 offices, so our international network is a very extensive one. There's hardly a country out there now where we don't have an office to provide these services.

The second set of issues that we have associated with children.... If you will remember the newspapers of about two months ago, a situation played itself out where a young woman from Ottawa married into Bangladesh with tragic circumstances. She was quite young. Those kinds of issues also play out in our daily work.

The third set of course is what the subject matter of this committee is all about, and that deals with child abductions to a foreign country. But I would also caution you that child abduction in itself is one category of cases in this area. The second category is cases we just label as international child custody cases. There is a distinction between the two, and it's very important that the committee understand that there is a distinction between the two.

We did prepare this booklet about two years ago, which is a best-seller, because a lot of people in Canada are affected by all of this. It's our best effort. It's a collective effort involving the RCMP, the Department of Justice, and us to provide parents in Canada with about as much information as possible so they can read and understand the issues involved.

In so far as child abduction cases are concerned, we are the office of last resort. When everything fails and nothing works for the parents, most of these cases end up with us. By the time they get to us.... If one parent decides they're going to take their own child and disappear into another country, you can understand the level of bitterness and disaffection that's involved in the minds of parents who resort to that sort of activity. So the opportunity to effect some measure of response to these cases is extremely limited. It doesn't mean we don't try, but our success rate is very limited, and we will be the first to admit that.

It's not because there is a lack of action; the problem is that the cases have become so embittered that there is no possibility. The easiest way to deal with these cases is if you can get the parents themselves to agree that it would make sense for them to sort out these problems. That works in a limited number of cases, but in many other cases it does not work.

You've just heard about The Hague convention, which right now is the only multilateral international instrument out there that provides assistance in this area. As was mentioned as well, only 47 countries are signatories to that convention; I think that's the current total. That, on average, is about three countries per year signing on to that treaty.

The problem we have with the treaty is that many countries around the world do not feel the treaty provides an answer, because of their own domestic laws, their own customs, their own religion, and things of that nature. Many countries do not feel they can sign on to the treaty.

In answer to that in part, we have also decided that perhaps we should try for some bilateral treaties that would help us. When Mr. Axworthy was in Egypt last week, he signed the first of those bilateral treaties on our behalf. That one was with Egypt. We are also negotiating with Lebanon right now for a similar kind of treaty.

As for The Hague convention itself, one of our duties overseas is to go in on a regular basis and try to convince other countries to sign on to this treaty. It is frustrating work. When I started this about four years ago, we had 42 countries signed on. In four years we've had five additional countries do this.

• 1555

This is not unique to Canada. Many countries that are signatories to The Hague convention go out on a regular basis to try to convince other countries to sign on.

I was in China recently negotiating another type of treaty with them. I have tried on numerous occasions to get China to sign on to a treaty, because we see the potential for many of these cases in China. We only have one right now, but given the nature of a number of people who have come to Canada, we're going to have others. Hong Kong, in a separate way, signed on to the treaty just recently, which is a unique feature in all of this. But in our view one needs to look at it in a total way.

What happens internationally is the final result. You really have to start back in Canada and look at this as a process, because prevention of these kinds of cases is absolutely essential. Preventing a disaffected parent from taking a child overseas—if you can stop that in Canada, that is the only way to go.

Second, if somebody decides they're going to leave Canada with a child, can you put in place some measures that will make this more difficult for them than is the case right now?

Third, if they do go overseas and it's to a Hague convention country, then we possibly can do something in that context, but if it's to a non-Hague country we have great difficulty dealing with those cases.

We can leave it there for the time being.

The Chair: Thank you. I think we have lots of questions for you, but it's Mr. Martin's turn first.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente.

Thank you all for coming to the committee today.

Since there are a lot of questions I'll get right to the questions.

We all know that The Hague conventions and other conventions are nice on paper, but they lack effective mechanisms for enforcement. How effective has the convention been between countries that were signatories, between Canada and non-signatory countries, and between Canada and the United States? I don't know whether the United States has signed on to this, although I know they have not signed on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Second, why haven't they signed on to the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Third, how effective are the authorities in other countries in dealing with our authorities in trying to get the children back?

Finally, you mentioned prevention. Do you have any suggestions on how we can prevent these tragedies from occurring domestically?

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: The U.S. has signed the convention, although many years after Canada did. As to why the U.S. has not signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that's not something I would try to venture an opinion on.

Coming back to one of the statements in your opening question, The Hague convention does have legally enforceable mechanisms for the return of a child. In that respect maybe it's quite different from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which doesn't have these sorts of binding mechanisms.

So The Hague convention has clear obligations, once you're a contracting state, to return a child. How effective has it been in returning children to Canada? I think it's been very effective. It hasn't been perfect, obviously, and for a number of reasons. It often depends on the courts or the administrative systems of the other countries to enforce the convention properly in those countries. There are many different legal traditions, social traditions and cultural traditions that make the application of the convention differ from one country to another.

With regard to the countries where there are the most abductions of Canadian children, which would be the United States, U.K., France, Australia and Germany, I think the convention is working very well for the most part. With other countries that may not have the same legal structure as we have, or countries such as Bosnia, which is a contracting state but which obviously has had bigger problems to deal with, it's been more difficult to get children back. Overall, although I don't have numbers on how many children have been returned, many certainly have been returned because the convention exists.

• 1600

Mr. Gar Pardy: To add to that briefly, the numbers are there and I think the Department of Justice can provide the committee with statistics.

For every child who is returned—and let me tell you the tragedy that is associated with these kinds of cases. Here you measure the success in individual children. I think it's very important for the committee to remember that.

I think there's a misunderstanding. The Hague convention applies only when both countries are signatory. For any country that is not a signatory, there is absolutely no coverage as far as The Hague convention is concerned.

The other point to be made on the Convention on the Rights of the Child is that it is largely oratory in the sense that it sets up a series of standards that countries or signatories to it promise to adhere to in terms of the treatment of children within their jurisdiction. While there is a reporting mechanism to the United Nations itself, there is no enforcement mechanism in that sense.

Our problem is those countries that are outside it, and this is where the growth in new cases is right now. It is those countries that have decided not to sign the convention for a variety of what one could regard as legitimate reasons. In effect, we need to look at mechanisms to deal with those cases.

The Hague in itself is a highly successful instrument for every case it deals with. You work with countries very closely. Some countries are better than others in performance, but again one works closely with them and hopes that over time this will become a better instrument of application in signatory countries. More important, we hope we can spread the adherence to this treaty around the world.

Mr. Keith Martin: Do you have some suggestions on prevention?

Mr. Gar Pardy: For prevention in Canada, you start with the family—I'm sorry, there's nothing else one can do—and with the community in which that family exists. We have problems in dealing with child abductions between provinces in Canada, so it's almost at the community level that one needs to work.

One can see signs in the parents themselves. The signs are in the parent who loses the child, and it's a question of getting information to parents. We get numerous requests for this booklet, and we try to provide parents with the signs of whether a child is going to be abducted. Then the ability of the police to assist in those areas is extremely important.

I think when the members of the RCMP come over and talk to you next week, they will talk to you about their efforts to reach down to the local police force and get them involved in these kinds of cases. Other community workers are clearly there to provide assistance as well.

As for people who are determined to take children out of Canada and are prepared to invest the money, I don't think there is any mechanism to prevent them from doing so right now. There are no exit controls from Canada.

You've driven through the Detroit tunnel. Hundreds of thousands of people go through there. We work with the airlines very carefully in profiling or looking at people travelling alone with kids. We get some knocked off in that way in the sense that the airlines say this doesn't look right and come back to us.

For many people who are dual nationals—and this will get into the area of passport controls—certainly we work very closely with the passport office here in trying to make sure that these people do not get Canadians passports, but in many instances they have access to the passports of another country. They can get them, because dual nationals is a feature of many of these cases. We don't have any control there.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Debien.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): I would like to welcome our witnesses to the committee. I have four brief questions.

The first is about the bilateral agreement with Egypt, to which you referred. If I understood you correctly, you mentioned that a bilateral treaty had been signed with Egypt.

The day before yesterday, November 18, the Bloc Québécois asked Mr. Axworthy in the House, since he was returning from Egypt, whether he had discussed Ms. Robitaille's case, among others, and if he had entered into an agreement on the recognition of Canadian court judgements. In his answer, the Minister did not say whether he had entered into an agreement. All he said was that he made representations to President Moubarak, and that the president had promised to review the case immediately, and so on, so as to demonstrate a positive attitude.

I would like to know whether the Minister is aware that a bilateral agreement has been signed. That is not clear.

• 1605

I come now to my second question. We know that in Canada child abduction is a criminal offence. We also know that in other countries it is not. In some cases, the matter comes under civil law; in others it does not. I would like to know why—because I'm sure there are some reasons—some countries refuse to follow the example of Canada and other countries and make child abduction a criminal offence.

What is the difference between a convention that has been ratified and one that has been exceeded or adhered to? There's a slight difference there, but I cannot find it explained anywhere in our documents.

Finally, we were given a sheet of statistics, and I would like to know what it means. There's a reference to the number of requests to return that were received and sent. I don't know whether this is an excerpt from the third meeting of the special committee that was held from March 17 to 21, 1997, which lists the main requested or requesting countries and the requests to return received and sent, with the number of children.

I will give you this sheet, because, looking at it, I had trouble understanding what the numbers meant.

That is all for the time being.

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: As an observation, I would suggest—and I don't think you would take this the wrong way—that you probably know question period is not the most effective way to transmit information.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: The Minister should be informed.

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes, and he will probably beat me over the head for saying that.

But no, Mr. Axworthy signed the agreement with Egypt when he was there with Mr. Moussa, the Egyptian foreign minister. Mr. Axworthy is fully familiar, and he knows that something was missed here in terms of the conveyance of information.

It is very important to realize that this is not an agreement in the way that The Hague convention is an agreement that imposes legal obligations on the signatory countries. Because we cannot get people to sign The Hague convention, we try the next best thing. What we've tried to do here is get an agreement in which Egypt has said to us and we have said to Egypt that we will try to assist each other in resolving these cases in some measure. The agreement sets up a binational committee that will discuss these cases. It was signed last week, and we are going to Egypt right now to have the first meeting. We have about ten or fifteen cases in Egypt, and we want to get over there to set up some set of procedures to see if we can effectively deal with these cases.

The tragic case of Madame Robitaille is clearly there, and the minister raised that case with the foreign minister and with the president. As you know, we have done this before, and that will be the very first case we will be discussing when that binational committee meets. We are hoping we can have the first meeting before Christmas. As you know, the Egyptian government is preoccupied with a number of other issues on its agenda right now. We're not quite sure, but we are pushing for that meeting before Christmas.

We talk to Madame Robitaille every two or three days, and it is tragic. We've met with the kids and have brought presents and everything else to the kids, but the issue there is that we cannot convince—and the Egyptian government has also tried this—the father to be co-operative here.

In part, that leads into your second question—

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: You won't forget Ms. Tremblay's case, because there is her case as well.

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: Oh, the Tremblay case. No, exactly. As I said, there are ten to fifteen. I apologize if I don't remember all of them. I have with me Jean-Marc Lesage, who, on a daily basis, deals with all of these cases here. There is nothing more tragic here in terms of these cases, and I can well assure you that we don't forget any of them.

For the benefit of other members of the committee who may not be familiar with the case, the Tag el Din case—which is what we label the case, although it's Madame Robitaille here—involves five children who were taken from Canada three years ago by the father. The father is in Alexandria, and we have tried everything in the book.

This leads into your second question about the criminalization of this act in Canada. We have criminalized it. It's a fairly recent addition to the Canadian Criminal Code. I think it's section 282, and that's a fairly recent addition. Previous to that addition to the Criminal Code this was not a criminal act in Canada either. The question here is how fast are countries changing in this regard?

• 1610

We would suggest to you that criminalization itself does not in effect do anything new, or sometimes does not assist in resolving the case. You're trying to see if you can get the children back to Canada. That's the ultimate measure of success here.

We encourage parents in many instances to ensure that charges are laid against the abducting parent. We use the fact that charges have been laid as a form of pressure against the parent overseas, because in many instances crown prosecutors are quite willing to use the existence of the criminal charges as a bargaining point to try to encourage the father—in most cases these are abductions by fathers, although mothers do it with increasing frequency as well—to get the children back to Canada. We have succeeded in a number of cases by doing it that way. Many countries, for a whole variety of religious, social, legal problems, have not criminalized this act. But again, I would refer you to the fact that this is a recent thing in Canada as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: I will answer your second question, and then a third question.

At the meeting of the special commission in the Hague in March, there was an in-depth discussion of making child abduction by parents a criminal offence. From the discussion, it was clear that some countries, such as Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Italy, which are not third world countries or so different from our own, thought that it should not be criminalized. They thought that criminalizing child abduction by parents could in the long run create a poor family situation and that it was preferable to settle matters of this type under the civil law, not the criminal law. It was thought that the child should be able to maintain a relationship with both parents, regardless of what had happened. That was the position put forward by these countries.

Obviously, Canada has taken a slightly different position since that time. I should perhaps add that more and more countries are taking the same route as Canada. At the time of the special commission meeting, a number of countries, including Ireland, Australia and South Africa, said that they were about to make child abduction by parents a criminal offence, or were considering doing so. They would be joining the ranks of countries such as Denmark, the United States, France, Israel, Germany and the United Kingdom, which have already passed legislation similar to Canada's.

You third question was about the distinction between ratification or accession. That is quite a technical point. There is a difference. When a country ratifies the Convention, it automatically applies between that country and Canada, without Canada having to accept the country. And when a country accedes or adheres to the Convention, in order for it to apply between that country and Canada, Canada must accept it and provide proof of its acceptance in the Hague.

I come now to the reason for this difference. The fact is that only countries that were members of the Hague Conference in 1980, when the Convention was signed, can ratify the Convention. At the time it was thought that the countries present knew each other, that their legal systems were acceptable and that they could ratify the Convention without having to be accepted. The reason why other countries are treated differently is that the Convention does not apply in one direction only, but rather in both directions.

In other words, once the Convention is in effect between a country and Canada, not only can we get back our children who were taken to the country in question, but Canada must also send back to that country the children from there that were abducted and brought here. That is one way of monitoring where children will be sent.

That said, Canada has never refused to allow a new country to accede to the Convention.

Ms. Maud Debien: Thank you. And what about the statistical data I was mentioning?

• 1615

[English]

Ms. Sandra Zed Finless: I guess that's me.

First I should state, very frankly, we have no accurate national data on the number of cases under The Hague convention. There are a couple of reasons for that. I'll get to the chart in a moment to explain a little about what it does show you.

The datum on the chart provides estimates only of the total number of requests under The Hague convention that are being dealt with by provinces and territories across Canada. There could be other Hague convention cases that do not go through central authorities.

You may recall we mentioned in our opening remarks that you do not have to go through a central authority to file a Hague convention application. An applicant can go directly, so we have no mechanism for collating data about cases not coming through the central authorities.

The provinces and territories collect their own statistics according to their own formats. At the special commission that was held in March there was acknowledgement of a need to find a consistent way to have countries report the data and the statistics on the number of cases.

To look specifically at the chart—I guess everybody has the chart in front of them—for 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996, in the first column it shows the total number of requests for access to every provincial and territorial central authority in Canada. That means in 1993-94, 34 requests for access were handled by the provincial or territorial central authorities across Canada.

As for the number of requests for return during that same period, 168 requests for return were handled. That could mean incoming or outgoing requests. If a foreign central authority came to Canada and said a child was abducted to our country and requested that the child be returned, that would be an incoming request to Canada. An outgoing request is where a provincial or territorial central authority goes to the foreign authority and says it is filing an application on behalf of an applicant in its jurisdiction who has alleged that an abduction has occurred to their jurisdiction.

The data are not perfect. They give a bit of a picture of the level of activity going on in the central authorities. That's all.

To address the last column, the main requesting or requested countries, these are just estimates given to us by the provincial and central authorities of who the main countries are that are coming and asking them for returns of children or access to children and who the main countries are that the provinces and territories of Canada are going to to ask for the return of children or access to children.

The Chair: You say you don't know the numbers. Does not everyone eventually end up going centrally to the federal jurisdiction?

Ms. Sandra Zed Finless: People generally will go through the provincial or central authority. They will go through the province because they can get a lot of assistance that way on the requirements of the convention, how to fill out applications, and this type of thing, but legally under the convention there's no requirement to do that. I could go to the central authority, and the central authority could in fact decide they're not going to take my case because they don't think it's a good case where the convention applies. I may decide to apply directly to the foreign court or to a foreign central authority. There's nothing prohibiting me from doing that. Therefore, I as the federal central authority trying to collect data, for example, would not know about a person like me who went out and privately took my own application. There would be no government collection of that datum, if you know what I mean.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to ask three very simple questions, simply because they're troubling to me.

First, what is a haven state and what states are considered haven states?

• 1620

Second, on the issue of the bilateral treaty, why would Egypt sign a bilateral treaty rather than the convention? What are the advantages or disadvantages to going that route rather than the other? Why would Canada want to take bilateral routes rather than using influence and fora like APEC or the Commonwealth, or wherever, to get the ratification or the sign-ons rather than individually doing bilateral treaties?

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: On the first one, the haven state, I guess what is meant by that is a state to which people flock because they're not going to get prosecuted or it will not be ordered that the child be returned. I'm not aware of any particular state where abducting parents would go because they feel more secure in that state than—

Ms. Jean Augustine: There are none?

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: From the cases I've seen, usually abducting parents are likely to go to a country where they have some connections or family, whether that state is a signatory to the Hague convention or not. The fact that some parents might go on purpose to a state that is not a signatory might happen, but I'm not aware of any one state that is known to be a safe harbour for abducting parents.

Mr. Gar Pardy: I would concur in that. I'm not aware of any state. In just about every country where we have more than one or two cases, it largely relates to the fact of the family ties that are there for the abducting parent, and that is the main reason for that state being selected when an abducting parent shows up there.

Again, it's quite different from when you have haven states that are related to extradition, where a criminal is trying to escape jurisdiction. There are some states that will not permit extradition with certain countries, and people look at it and they go to those states. That does not operate in this area at all, that I'm aware of.

With regard to why Egypt and Canada agreed to sign a bilateral treaty was that it's absolutely evident that Egypt is not going to sign The Hague convention under any circumstances. Many countries around the world make decisions with regard to whether or not they're going to sign an international agreement. Canada has refused to sign certain international agreements for a variety of reasons.

In the case of The Hague convention, and I'm not being critical here, by and large, when it was negotiated I don't think it was sufficiently sensitive to the concerns of many countries around the world that have social and religious systems that are different from the countries, say, in the North Atlantic region. When you look at the 47 countries that are signatories, it's spreading a little bit, but by and large the overwhelming number of those states are ones that one could regard as sort of North Atlantic states. There are exceptions, and the list is growing. But we felt that, in these circumstances, Egypt was not going to sign, and we were looking for a second mechanism to try to keep these cases in the forefront as far as Egypt was concerned.

The difference for Egypt between this treaty and The Hague convention is that our treaty carries, if you like, no enforcement mechanism in terms of a parent in Canada who has a custody order granted by a Canadian court. The treaty we have does not provide a mechanism where that court order from Canada is going to be enforced in Egypt. This is a mechanism to try through administrative means to get the return of children to Canada from Egypt—and vice-versa, because we have cases where parents in Egypt have abducted children to Canada, and by the same token, we've dealt with one or two of those cases already.

The Chair: Then, in the reverse situation, would the Canadian government be asked to return these children to Egypt in spite of the fact that we haven't...?

Mr. Gar Pardy: No, we're under no obligation to do so. What we do is try to facilitate, in effect, the kind of contacts that can take place. We have one case in particular right now, in Winnipeg, I think, and in that case I think in the end it was successful in bringing the parents together. The parents came to their own agreement on all of this. In the end, this is the way a lot of these cases are resolved.

• 1625

The Chair: I just wanted to clarify one thing, Take Canada's role in Egypt, say. I understand that part of the problem with Egypt would be Muslim law, which would not give the mother any rights.

Mr. Gar Pardy: No, that's not true. The mother has a lot of rights.

The Chair: I'm sorry, that was poor. But basically the husband's family has ownership of these children in terms of religious law.

If my child were abducted to a situation like that, if I was able to get my children away from the home and get them into the Canadian embassy, would the Canadian embassy help me at that point?

Mr. Gar Pardy: Oh yes, we'll help you before that point. I think it's very important that you understand one of the basic principles of shariah law, which is religious law. The mother, in the case of male children, has complete authority until the age of seven. For girl children, I think the age is nine in some countries and eleven in others. In that sense, there is a period there in which Muslim law, shariah law, in effect recognizes the rights of the mother. Those are exclusive rights. In that sense, then, at certain ages control is reversed, going to the father.

In terms of parents going out and making arrangements on their own for a child, private arrangements if you like, we have facilitated the return of many children in those circumstances.

The issue is that you don't bring them to the Canadian embassy, because the Canadian embassy is where everybody looks for them. You make arrangements to make sure they don't come to the Canadian embassy. In effect, you can go on from there. That has happened in a number of cases.

The Chair: Okay, but you are saying that our embassy would help to facilitate this kind of thing.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I was also asking about using our influence for things like the Francophonie, APEC, the Commonwealth, etc.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Then one small thing—don't laugh, anybody—when we say “child”, how do we define the age? Is it up to age 11, 12, or 13?

Mr. Gar Pardy: Can I answer as far as the cases we deal with are concerned? We normally deal with the age of majority as far as Ontario law is concerned. That provides a certain basis or context here for us. That's what we use in terms of directions.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Is that age 16 or 18?

Mr. Gar Pardy: It depends.

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: Under the convention, it's 16.

Mr. Gar Pardy: It's 16, yes.

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: The convention applies only to children under the age of 16.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes, but in some other countries, 18 is the age of majority. We've had many instances in which we waited for the child to be the age of majority in that country to bring that child back to Canada at that point.

We just had a case in which I think the child was overseas for nine years. We knew where the child was. Then we assisted that child as soon as she was 18, and we brought her back to Canada. That was a case in the Ottawa area as well.

The other issue you might want to look at is the issue of whether or not the child can give informed consent with regard to what might be regarded as an abduction. We've had cases where, under our law, these have been looked at as abductions, but the child is of an age where they believe they do not want to come back to Canada. You're talking about children who increasingly are about 10, 11, or 12, or in that age period. In effect, there is almost increasingly a recognition that children themselves can give their own views with regard to what they want to have happen to them.

Just recently, we had a case in the Middle East whereby we put the mother in direct contact with the child. The child was 11 years old, and this was done surreptitiously. The child told the mother that she did not want to come back to Canada, and the mother accepted that.

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: There was another part to Ms. Augustine's question, which was the influence we can have with other countries through multilateral organizations like the Francophonie or the Commonwealth. In fact, we have used those fora at least in informal ways to promote the convention when ministers of justice of the Commonwealth or Francophonie have met. I know there was a meeting in Egypt of the justice ministers this fall, I think.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes.

• 1630

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: One of the issues we were asked to prepared briefings on for the justice people who attended was just that. I know it has been done in the past at Commonwealth meetings. It is being discussed at those gatherings, even if it's not on the official agenda of those meetings.

When I was in The Hague last March for the special commission, there were many countries that attended the special commission that are not contracting states, and I personally raised it with them. The Canadian delegation was sitting next to the Chinese delegation, so that gave me an opportunity to ask them directly. There were people from Morocco there who participated in the special commission, and frankly they gave me a more positive response than I was expecting, not saying a flat no, that they weren't going to sign it ever. They said well, maybe one day.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): That's a very cultural answer.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Just following up on that, the minister of justice for China is in town next week, and this issue is on the agenda both for your minister to discuss with him and for our minister as well. This is a constant element on the agendas for those kinds of meetings.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I do not mean to underestimate the importance of the legal aspects of this extremely important matter. However, the last comments touch on the cultural or religious aspect, and that is precisely what I wanted to ask about.

I am pleased to see that you emphasized this aspect. It is very clear to all those who are familiar with this type of case that religious or cultural aspects, which I would even describe as religious-cultural aspects, are of key importance in many cases. I don't know what the percentage would be, but I think it would be quite high.

I'd like to ask you two questions. First of all, to what extent can we bring certain countries to review the Hague Convention in relation to their own social climate or religion, particularly with respect to Islam?

My second question may perhaps be easier for us to consider and more important. Let me take a fairly concrete though hypothetical case. Let us assume that a Moslem father leaves with his children for a distant country, not necessarily one where Islam is the state religion and the mother who is not a Moslem remains in Canada. Do you think that in this kind of case it would be possible, and have you given any thought to such a possibility, to involve the religious authorities in each of the countries, linking the civil and religious aspect, with the religious authorities playing an important role in the mediation between the two parents and the two governments? Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: I'll be absolutely frank. I don't think there is a chance in any reasonable timeframe to have a country that is predominantly Muslim sign The Hague convention in the way that it is right now. That is a reality that is out there, and it's not for a lack of trying, in terms of convincing them.

Our own approach right now is to look at a country where there is a significant Muslim element, if you like, and to try to get one of those countries to come into The Hague process. We have a number of countries in mind that we're specifically working on, and I don't want to name them because to do so...and I'm quite willing to talk to you about those countries.

Do you mean to use it as an example or to develop a comfort level for some countries here with regard to this issue? Again, I keep emphasizing, every day of our....

We're not the only country that's doing this, by the way. The Australians do this, the Brits do this, the French do this, the Americans do this on a regular basis. We go in and try to improve the comfort level for countries with regard to this treaty, because at the end of the day everybody realizes that a multilateral convention is absolutely essential to deal with this issue. That's a given.

But with 47 countries, and there are what—193 members at the United Nations right now?—we're talking not much more than a little over 20%. That is the reality.

• 1635

In terms of the other issue that's going on, you talked about using religious authorities. We have done so, and it has not been successful.

We use religious authorities within a particular community in Canada and we have gone to them and asked them to approach their community back in the other country. A dialogue has been established, but we've not had success so far in terms of having a child returned through those kinds of offices. There is no mechanism out there that we're not willing to try in terms of these things.

We did have a case about two months ago in Malaysia where a mother abducted a child from Canada back to Malaysia. The Canadian father went into the Malaysian courts and the Malaysian courts gave him custody and gave him permission to bring the child back to Canada. We supported him every step of the way in that process.

There's some hope out there, but again it's not enough.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If I may, Madam Chair, I'd like to comment on what the witness has just said.

I have something to say about the religious authorities in the different countries. You say that you've made great efforts but having worked a great deal in this field before coming here to Ottawa, I think that there is enormous work to be done and that we can achieve something if we build a relationship of trust between the protagonists. But this kind of relationship is something that is built up gradually over the years. We cannot just give up. Even if you are not successful for the time being, that does not prevent you from achieving something a few years from now if you have developed a relationship of trust and friendship with these people. It may seem naive, but it is extremely important for these groups. I know from experience what I'm talking about.

As far as the Hague is concerned, and this is a matter that goes beyond the mandate of our committee, I had an example that struck me as very important yesterday in the House. This example relates to section 93 of the Canadian Constitution concerning Quebec. When the time comes to get rid of something that no longer works for the people concerned, one can get rid of it very quickly.

In the case of section 93, I would never have thought, and I come from Quebec, that it could be done away with so quickly and with so little bloodshed, so to speak.

There is also the example of the Berlin Wall. People never thought that it could fall until the moment when it actually did.

The way I see the Hague Convention is that work has to be done on this cultural and religious aspect. The Convention was signed by Western countries with a Christian background and I think we have to enlarge the group to countries with other religious traditions so that the Convention is more widely used and accessible. The fact that it is not working at the present time does not mean that it will never work. We have to remain hopeful that someday it will work.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, Mr. Pardy; on the contrary, the idea is to give you more space, so to speak. Thank you.

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: I'd like to point out that some progress has been made. I already mentioned Morocco. Last year, a new convention on parental responsibility was negotiated in The Hague. This convention has not yet come into effect but Morocco took part in the negotiating process and on its conclusion signed the convention, which is a first. And the convention on parental responsibility in its present form does make room for Islamic legal concepts. So in this respect, efforts are already being made.

However, the fact that Morocco has signed a convention does not mean it will necessarily become a contracting State to this convention when it comes into effect. But we see it is possible to make progress. We hope that this will also be possible for the Convention on International Child Abduction.

• 1640

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: I would just like to comment. I agree with everything that the member just said. I would look for an opportunity perhaps beyond the ambit of this committee to talk to you about the kind of contacts that obviously you have out there. I fully agree with you that we have to exploit those kinds of contacts, and we have to use them a lot more for these cases.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Mills has been waiting patiently, and at the risk of using a corny expression, this is somewhat his baby.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I hope the baby stays in Canada.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Certainly, there are so many questions that you raised and we've all gone around these. One of the things that really alarms me is the numbers that are out there, many of whom don't come to you. It seems like it's almost a daily occurrence now.

Last night at about 7 p.m. I had a call from a mother who was extremely upset. Her husband had just called her from the Philippines to say he would not be returning with their children. That had to be a pretty shocking phone call. Of course, she had reacted because of a newspaper article that she'd seen where we were talking about the concern about these children. This was in Alberta.

That happens so often that I'm just shocked by the number there must be out there and by the number of MPs from all sides of the House who have come to talk to me and have said this is a huge issue. It makes me think this is something we really should be concerned about.

Following up from Ms. Augustine's comments about using APEC or the Francophonie, how many countries haven't signed on that we give CIDA aid to? We do talk about the stick and negotiating. Is that a realistic possibility?

You also talk about The Hague convention not being designed in another age and another time. It seems to me the obvious answer is to fix The Hague convention and perhaps that should be where we put our emphasis. Whatever is wrong, let's try to fix it.

There are ways to put pressure on. I think of APEC. I know they are mainly economic, but it would seem to me that there would be some reasons...I've talked to the Chinese ambassador, for example, and he's extremely interested in the ability of Canadians to adopt Chinese children.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: To adopt girls?

Mr. Bob Mills: I haven't talked to him about the sex of the adoptions.

So there is that kind of communication open to us. I'm not certain we're using all of the levers that we might be able to use.

It's a huge problem. Can we fix The Hague convention? Can we use our aid money to help us get some more leverage?

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: First, can we fix The Hague convention? At a meeting of the special commission that was held last March not one country raised the possibility of amending it or changing it. Obviously, it's something we could propose and we'd have no power to make sure that it happens.

Before going out on that road we should have a clear idea of what it is we need to fix in order to bring those countries in. We haven't heard much from these countries that there's anything we could change that would still result in a convention that's acceptable, where we could get our children back.

At least for the moment I don't think there's much possibility of the convention being changed.

It's possible, but I don't think it's very likely to happen any time soon.

• 1645

On the other issue, I have no involvement in The Hague programs that Canada has for those countries, but under The Hague convention, countries have a responsibility to set up a central authority and make sure it functions properly. I don't think forcing a country to do something it doesn't really want to do is necessarily the best way to produce the result we want to see happening.

The central authority, in some of The Hague countries.... I mentioned Bosnia previously. Even if it wants to have a central authority that can act within Bosnia, there are very practical problems that prevent it from doing that. If the authorities of the country in question have no intention of complying, then on paper the convention could be there, but that doesn't mean the children would be coming back.

That would be my comment on that.

The Chair: I would think one of the things you'd have to worry about too is that when you're rewriting The Hague to suit all parties and all needs, it may get pretty watered down.

Mr. Bob Mills: It's just not acceptable to say we can't do anything. We shouldn't be prepared to throw in the towel at this point. We have to look at every single possibility and keep always in mind the best interest of the child. In some cases I'm sure they're better off where they are, but that's for the courts to decide, not us. Once the court has decided the child is better off, it's incumbent upon us to try to find a way, and I'm sure that's the purpose of this whole exercise.

The Chair: Do you have other questions?

Mr. Bob Mills: No, that's fine, thank you.

The Chair: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to return to the subject of the Hague Convention since I have the feeling that there may be other groups elsewhere in the world who have their own reasons to want to review the Convention. I wonder whether this committee, and perhaps we could discuss this later, should not make a recommendation to the Minister on the position of the Government of Canada with respect with the review of The Hague Convention, not only in relation to children's needs but generally speaking to make it more acceptable to countries that do not share our culture and religion.

I don't think that we should consider that convention as something rigid and immutable. Just as for the Canadian Constitution, we can make recommendations and hope that one day changes will be made. We can only hope that each additional drop of water will cause the river to swell.

This discussion relates mainly to children but also involves other matters. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Certainly we can make a recommendation like that.

[Translation]

Ms. Debien.

Ms. Maud Debien: I'd like to say something in reply to Ms. Folco's remarks about reopening various international conventions, including the Convention on Children's Rights and Hague Convention.

I think that you were a member of the Committee on Child Labour last year, Madam Chair. I am sure you remember we heard a great deal of testimony from various organizations throughout Canada telling us not to touch, particularly at the present time, the different conventions and to avoid reopening them. At the time, it was mainly the U.N. Convention on Human Rights that was of concern to us.

Every one were unanimous in pointing out, Ms. Folco, that because of the present conservative climate in the world, reopening conventions would only expose us to the risk of failure. Almost all the international organizations we heard from in the committee systematically recommended that we avoid touching these conventions, that we make no recommendations and by no means ask to have the conventions reopened.

• 1650

Reference was made to Islamic countries, and not only Islamic countries. We must keep in mind that religious fundamentalism is becoming increasingly widespread, and that is why it is very risky to ask for the reopening of conventions at the present time on the basis of religion, customs or social reasons. I think it would have the effect of lowering the level. So we have to be very careful when we make this kind of recommendation.

[English]

The Chair: I thank you for bringing up the aspect of fundamentalism, because that's actually what we are talking about, not any specific religious group.

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: Exactly.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pardy, you had something to add.

Mr. Gar Pardy: I wanted to get back to Mr. Mills' point about the use of the stick as an instrument to try to move countries along. That issue is always out there, but for the kind of work we're involved in here, the moment you threaten countries that are reluctant to act, in a general sense, the moment you start using a stick, you have lost that country almost completely.

No country is going to change issues that are fundamental to its own personality in terms of the family and religion. The fact is they may get a few million dollars in Canadian aid. What it will do is, while we may apply that with a case today, the next morning we have to go in on another case and start trying to bring that country along to give us some assistance.

Quite frankly, we have enough successes working with the countries, in terms of the assistance they provide us, that it gives us encouragement. We're not turned off at all; you just keep going. It's just a question of getting the right situation, the right environment, and you can do something for the cases—though not enough, I agree with you.

The one issue out there that the committee might want to consider in some way is that in most instances—and I'm talking about non-Hague countries here now—the affected parent has the right to go into the legal system of that other country. The example I gave a few minutes ago of Malaysia is there. It is a very expensive process for parents to do so. Whether or not some assistance can be provided....

I think Aggie Casselman from International Social Service may be on your list of people to talk to for next week. Ms. Casselman has been talking about this in the past: assistance to parents so they can go into foreign courts. And it's not infrequent that foreign courts will make the right decision and see that the return of the child takes place.

The Chair: Also, on using foreign aid as a stick, we would certainly save CIDA a lot of money if we were to take away foreign aid from all countries that didn't have the same human values as we have. In fact that may be the solution to our entire economy.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Madame Debien, do you have anything to add?

[Translation]

Ms. Maud Debien: You have taken the words from my mouth, Madam Chair. To follow up on Mr. Mills' proposal relating to CIDA, I think that tied aid, particularly in such cases involving children- -and this would also apply to the matter of child labour we examined last year—would certainly be the main instrument obliging these countries to at least sign bilateral agreements and recognize decisions under the Convention.

I have just one last question. When you talked about the bilateral agreement signed by Canada and Egypt, I gathered that this dealt with the creation of a committee. It had nothing to do with the recognition of Canadian court decisions. Did it?

[English]

Mr. Gar Pardy: Absolutely correct, yes.

The Chair: I just have one very short question, a scenario. I notice on here that India, for example, has not signed on to The Hague convention, and yet I believe we have an extradition agreement with India.

Mr. Gar Pardy: Yes.

The Chair: So in lieu of using The Hague convention, since this is a criminal charge in Canada, could a parent use the extradition agreement that we have, using the fact that the criminal activity had been committed here in Canada, to get the father and the child back to the country?

Mr. Gar Pardy: There's a section in the manual you might want to look at that deals with this, but there is a principle of what they refer to as “common criminality” in both countries in order for an extradition to take place.

The Chair: Oh, I see.

• 1655

Mr. Gar Pardy: Whether or not...and this becomes one of the issues that are involved here. India is an unusual country because of its cultural and religious make-up, and it's a country that we have not given up on by any means in terms of trying to convince them to sign on to The Hague convention.

You mention other very sensitive treaties that we have negotiated with India. The relationship is a good one, and it's one of those countries we would hope to see as a signatory.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there other questions?

Mr. Denis Kratchanov: We have another Justice expert on extradition that might have a few comments, and that is Mr. Bill Corbett.

The Chair: Would you identify yourself, please.

Mr. William H. Corbett (Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Section, Criminal Law Branch, Department of Justice): Yes. My name is Bill Corbett, and I'm with the criminal law branch of the Department of Justice. We do the extradition work for the minister—for Canada, in effect—including cases of parental child abduction.

I'd make two points about extradition generally. It doesn't ensure the return of the children. It's not designed to get the children back; it's designed to bring back the abductors.

The Chair: Surely they'd be evidence, though. Wouldn't they? Wouldn't they be the evidence?

Mr. William Corbett: The reality is that it tends to work. As soon as you've made a request for extradition, the children are often close behind.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. William Corbett: It tends to work, but it's not designed to bring children back.

It requires criminal charges to have been investigated and laid by the police, and the attorney general of the province to be prepared to pursue parental child abduction. We've had 20 files in the last 4 years, of which it looks to me as if about 17 of them were real.

The busiest work is with the United States. We do extradite from the United States for child abduction, and we do extradite to the United States for child abduction. It tends to be regular; there are several cases a year. It's something that's pursued with vigour.

It really is designed to have its deterrent effect on child abductions, but it doesn't necessarily bring back the children. Many countries won't extradite their own nationals. European countries won't extradite their own nationals. They kick out foreigners and call it extradition.

The effective relationships are with the U.K., Australia and the United States, the good working relationships. But many people do abduct people to the United States; it seems to be the place to go.

The Chair: This has been extremely—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Can I ask a question?

The Chair: A very quick one, because our time is up.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.

Mr. Corbett, you have just told us about countries such as Canada that recognize the dual citizenship of people born abroad and who are citizens of Italy, France or another country. Could this matter be reviewed in the context of the agreement that exists between Canada and the other country? Could Canada reach an agreement with that other country to impose conditions that would apply to the dual citizenship?

I don't know if that was clear, but I thought of that while I was listening to you. Dual citizenship could apply as long as the foreign country recognized that the nationals must return to Canada to appear.

In the past, when dual citizenship was granted, the problem of child abductions didn't really exist. Or at least it wasn't as serious. So I was wondering if a condition couldn't be added. Do you think that is possible?

[English]

Mr. William Corbett: In extradition, the principle is generally extradite or prosecute. Countries that won't extradite because of nationality will prosecute, usually—the French, the Germans, the Italians. In some countries, it's right in the constitution that you can't extradite a national, so if they recognize the nationality, that's it.

Our own experience with these countries is that they really don't prosecute with any vigour, frankly. They don't have an interest in the case, but they are very vigorous in protecting their nationality in extradition circumstances. The Americans have had some luck with other countries, but we haven't. I think the Italians have allowed extradition of Italians, for certain offences, to the United States, but certainly not for child abduction. It's a difficult area.

• 1700

Mr. Gar Pardy: Just picking up on the comment on dual nationality, it is a major issue in many of our cases in this regard. Most countries that are involved do not recognize dual nationality, and this is one of the issues that are out there. India, for example, really has very stringent laws and tries to enforce those laws against dual nationality, but the reality is that you cannot enforce those laws in any effective way.

Even the United States tried to prohibit dual nationality up until 1990, and in 1990 it decided to change its laws because it couldn't be enforced. Whether you want to attach some prohibitions with regard to the Canadian.... As you know, Canada didn't recognize dual citizenship until 1977. That's when we changed our law to permit dual nationality. But it is an issue out there, literally. I would say in probably 80% of the abduction cases, there is probably an element of dual nationality involved and it's very significant.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'll speak to those gentlemen in private.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much for coming. It was extremely interesting. As you can see, we have a lot more questions, and perhaps Ms. Folco can discuss these with you later. Once again, thank you.

This meeting is adjourned.