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]

Wednesday, February 4, 1998

• 1540

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.)): I'll bring the meeting to order.

You'll have to excuse us for being a few minutes late, but tributes are being paid in the House to some recently deceased members. All parties are participating in them. People are slowly trying to get out of the House once the tributes are done. I would expect that Madam Beaumier, along with one or two other members, will be along in the not-too-distant future.

To get it under way, we'll start with the witnesses. We have Marlene Dalley, researcher on missing and exploited children. She's on secondment from the RCMP to the Solicitor General of Canada's office.

Ms. Dalley, would you start your presentation, please.

Ms. Marlene Dalley (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

I am pleased to be invited to speak to this committee about this sensitive issue. I believe that no parent has a right to deprive the other parent of the joy of watching their children grow and mature. As you may be aware, I and two colleagues completed the first research studies on parental abduction. I believe you have been given copies of these reports, and I do hope they have been useful in developing a profile of an abductor and pointing out some enforcement concerns.

Given the short timeframe of this presentation, I will not repeat what I've already written, but I will try to be introspective and present suggestions for considerations.

• 1545

Over the past decade I have witnessed many positive changes, and yet there is more to be done.

It is important to note that until everyone gets on-side and works together, agencies will continue to have problems searching, locating, recovering, returning, and enforcing the law.

The right mechanisms are in place, but it is a question of making the system work more effectively. To be effective, every effort must be made by law enforcement agencies to engage immediately the services of the Missing Children Registry. This is optional at the present time. Police may initiate an investigation without contacting the registry. Also, time varies as to when the registry will be consulted and when the child is entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre system.

The loss of investigative time and the lack of appropriate connections, i.e., border alerts and coordinated investigative efforts, may account for the difference between detaining the person in this country and searching for the abductor in another country. If the abductor's plans go smoothly, he or she can be out of the country with the child in a matter of hours.

International abductions in particular involve accomplices such as family members and friends, because the child is usually transported over long distances. The abduction is planned and the exit process secretive and speedy.

To cite an example, I participated in an investigation of a case in which the abductor was a businessman travelling to Iran. The father gave the baby to his friend in Toronto to take home to his Iranian family. Fortunately, the man became suspect of police authorities in Italy on an overnight hotel stay. After extradition papers were in order in Canada, the man was arrested, the baby was placed in protective services, and the mother was flown to Italy to pick up the child using the registry's travel program. This success story required the Our Missing Children program partners and searching agencies to work diligently around the clock to extradite the abductor and return the child to Canada.

This type of coordination was possible because everything fell into place in a timely manner. This is not the case for all investigations. Therefore, I must emphasize that the first step to stop parental abductors from leaving the country is being nationally coordinated. Even though currently there are many mechanisms in place, the coordination potential and the amount of information exchange involving all partners have not been fully realized.

From an enforcement perspective, a few suggestions are presented to the committee with the view of strengthening this coordination: more police education on the seriousness of this crime; the study and development of national police training standards; the study and development of national operational investigative policies and procedures; the development of child-parent reunification policies and procedures for police; the designation of an investigator in each police department with specialized training on missing children investigations; and the development of a check-list or booklet for searching parents to help police investigate the case and to serve the purpose of keeping the searching parent informed and involved in the investigation. Police have been criticized in several research studies for not keeping the parent informed, which is very, very frustrating.

• 1550

Another suggestion is the scheduling of regular problem-solving, round table discussions involving all partners. The evaluation of the Brighter Futures Community Action Program for Children pointed out that there is a need for more information exchange.

We also suggest hosting a national-international informative conference on child abduction. It has been a decade since Canada looked at this situation from a conference standpoint. Other countries can learn from Canada.

As well, we need a feasibility study to address the pros and cons of developing and implementing a national custody register. In 1994 this came to the family law committee, and there was some discussion about the register implementation; however, there were concerns about housing it and the cost.

In the parental abduction example I just cited, the person transporting the baby was arrested and returned to Canada. The baby was young, and with the exception of being absent a few days from home the infant's health and well-being were not affected.

This is not the situation when an infant or child has been absent from the parent for months or years. The reunification can be very traumatic. As expressed by social service and searching agencies to this committee, it would be in the best interest of the child if some mediation could be conducted in the country before extraditing the parent. However, mediation must be timely, as any contact by the social service representative may force the abducting parent to flee once again. Extradition and mediation guidelines must be very carefully crafted.

I will also reinforce the testimony made by other witnesses; that is, the searching parent needs financial assistance to pay the legal fees in the country where the child is located. This is an issue of pressing concern.

During the past several meetings this committee has witnessed the heart-wrenching, traumatic stories of parents. To help the parent and the child make the transition after the abduction, reunification guidelines for police and searching agencies, as well as resources to help families to find appropriate counselling and joint support groups, are necessary. Searching agencies play this role presently, but much more could be done and their work could be more effective. I once encountered a group of women called Support for Grandmothers of Parentally Abducted Children. This title illustrated that trauma goes far beyond the immediate family.

With regard to the Hague convention, many countries are signatories. Some countries have well articulated mechanisms, whereas other countries have shaky ones. Canada must be instrumental in helping signatories develop or enhance their mechanisms to process the Hague convention agreement. If it takes too long to process the Hague, especially lapses approaching one year, the parent's chances of returning the child to Canada are lessened.

Finally, I want to emphasize that the data on parental abduction in Canada are weak and inconsistent. There is no clear picture of the nature and scope of the problem. I would therefore would suggest that independent researchers conduct in-depth case file analyses; that independent researchers conduct analyses on the registry files to gather more information on parental abduction cases, both nationally and internationally; and that research be conducted to develop a case management model, which might provide a framework for developing training and operational standards.

In summary, over the past decade many positive changes have taken place and yet there are many problems surfacing that need revisiting. I believe that is why you are here. I will review a few of the major areas that I have expressed in this presentation: extradition policy guidelines; mediation services for families before extradition; financial legal aid for searching parents; reunification guidelines for law enforcement and searching agencies; resource booklets and pamphlets for parents to keep them involved in the investigation; assistance to other countries in establishing the mechanisms for processing the Hague convention agreement; and further analysis and compilation of national data.

• 1555

Thank you for inviting me to express my opinion.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you, Ms. Dalley.

I'll go on to the next witness, Julian Fantino, Chief of Police in London, Ontario.

Chief Julian Fantino (Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the world increasingly taking on the attributes of a global village, marked by frequent moves by individuals and families amongst different nations and even continents, the problem of dealing with situations involving custody of children becomes ever more troublesome.

This subcommittee has heard horror stories from first-hand participants who have had their children wrongfully taken from them and transported to some distant land and then have been forced to deal with their own heartache while coping with layers of bureaucratic morass and inertia. Of course the key, as has been stated by many of the people who have preceded me, is to take steps to prevent this situation, a child being removed from Canada, from happening in the first place. We should focus in that area.

I've been asked to address the role of the police in dealing with these extrajurisdictional claims. Specifically, the committee wishes to hear from me as to whether or not Canadian police forces have operational policies in place regarding parental abductions, particularly in taking statements from parents, as well as my thoughts on both how policing in this area could be strengthened and preventive measures. Therefore, I will deal these areas in the order in which the questions have been posed.

On the matter of policies, we have informally surveyed some of the major police departments across Canada in order to determine whether or not policies and/or procedures are in place for the purpose of dealing with parental abductions.

In the case of the London police, for instance, I can tell you that there is no formal policy enshrined in our policy and procedures with respect to this issue. In the near future this item will in fact be addressed within a comprehensive missing persons policy. In the meantime, criminal investigators do have in place a protocol for these types of investigations.

If a court order exists, which is jurisdictionally binding, we may act under the authority of that order. In any event, if there is a perceived danger to the child, we may apprehend under the provisions of provincial legislation and turn that child over to the Children's Aid Society. If no order exists, we must look at the danger to the child, including the circumstances under which the child was taken. Is there knowledge and consent on the part of the complaining parent?

For example, if the mother moves to Alberta from Ontario with the children and the father has turned the children over to her while knowing that this was her intention, we may not subsequently intervene if the father complains. If the child is physically in another jurisdiction within Canada and a complaint is brought to our attention, we will urge the parent to petition for an order to be sought for filing in the other province. In any grey areas, and wherever we believe there has been an unlawful parental abduction, we will consult with the local crown attorney. If the child has been taken without a custody order in place, we require the consent of the Attorney General to proceed with criminal charges as prescribed in the Criminal Code, subsection 283(2).

The Vancouver Police Department has a section in their regulations and procedures manual that mandates their officers to consult with crown counsel prior to completing the investigation, making arrests, removing children or laying charges in cases involving abduction of children by a parent or guardian.

If it is not possible to contact the crown prior to taking action, they are to take appropriate action and immediately thereafter contact crown counsel. The policy outlines examples of where action would be appropriate and where it would not. For example, it would not be appropriate for the police to act where a party leaves a dangerous or an imminently dangerous place with a child, whether or not there is a necessity to protect that child from harm or where there are conflicting court orders in place regarding custody. And that's quite a dilemma, all these different situations that prevail.

• 1600

The Edmonton Police Service sets out in part three of their policy and procedures manual the process to follow in cases of parentally abducted children. In situations involving internationally abducted children, police involvement will always be upon the request of the Department of the Attorney General, family and youth branch. The Edmonton police will be provided with all relevant information, names, addresses and so forth and will be requested to assist to locate. If the child is to be taken into protective custody, again the Attorney General's Department will provide the needed written order.

In Saskatoon, the Saskatoon police indicate in their policy manual that the Police Reference Manual for Cases of Child Abduction and Runaway Youth shall be used as a guideline for investigating these incidents. It goes on to say that where there is no custody order in effect, the Criminal Code requires the consent of the Attorney General, or counsel instructed by him, prior to charges being laid for this offence.

The Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Service spells out an abduction policy that deals with both parental and non-parental abduction situations. Although the policy deals more extensively with non-parental abductions, reference is made, as in Saskatoon, to the Police Reference Manual for Cases of Child Abduction and Runaway Youth and the International Child Abduction Manual, Department of Foreign Affairs, 1996 issue.

The Winnipeg Police Department has no set policy in this area. They refer to their provincial child welfare legislation supplemented by consultation with the local crown attorney.

Durham Regional Police have nothing specifically dealing with parental abductions in their policy manual, nor do the Waterloo Regional Police. Metropolitan Toronto Police advise that they treat parental abductions as they would any other investigation.

In summary, although police forces across Canada do not uniformly encode a parental abduction policy in their manuals, all surveyed appeared to be on the same page in terms of how these matters are in fact investigated. We could find no conflicting messages from the various centres contacted.

On the issue of statements, neither the London police nor any other of the police services surveyed have in place set policies and procedures dealing with the taking of statements from parents. However, statement taking is an integral part of police training from the time a member becomes a recruit and we are mindful of the sensitivities involved in this type of investigation.

Criminal investigation division members are sent on a regular basis to advanced courses in statement taking offered through the Ontario and Canadian police colleges. However, I wish to qualify that by saying that training is not always as complete as we would wish it to be—or up to date.

I was asked to proffer a number of suggestions with respect to this particular issue.

It must be borne in mind that a preliminary mandate of the police is the preservation of public peace and public safety. Therefore, if a child is taken by a parent without a custody order being in place and the child is not in demonstrable danger, the police are in a tenuous position in terms of assisting.

Our investigators would look at all of the circumstances of the taking of the child and would in any event require the endorsement of the crown attorney as the agent of the Attorney General to lay criminal charges. Therefore, in terms of general education and awareness, those involved in legislative change should be cognizant of the fact that the job of the police is made considerably more difficult in the absence of a court order defining the custody and access rights of both parents.

In Ontario, the Children's Law Reform Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter XII, subsection 37, gives Family Court the power to order the surrender of passports where the court is satisfied upon reasonable and probable grounds that a person prohibited by court order or separation agreement from removing a child from Ontario proposes to remove the child from Ontario.

Subsection 37(2) provides that a court may impose the same conditions in cases where, upon application, the court is satisfied that a person entitled to have access to a child proposes to remove the child from Ontario and is not likely to return the child. It is the experience of our criminal investigation division members that this is the most critical time in these matters. If something untoward is going to happen, this is when it would likely take place.

• 1605

One London family law practitioner who was interviewed during the research phase of this investigation has indicated that she has used this provision quite effectively on several occasions over the last few years. This is of assistance to police since it clearly defines the rights and obligations of the parties in the form of formal court orders. Ontario is not the only Canadian jurisdiction to adopt such legislation.

According to child custody law in Canada, the legislatures in British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon have granted power to a court to impose conditions on a custody or access order, directing a parent not to unlawfully remove that child from the jurisdiction; or directing a parent who is removing the child from the jurisdiction to exercise access rights to return the child to the province. Such orders may only be obtained where there is reasonable and probable grounds for believing the parent will unlawfully remove that child from the province, or will fail to return that child according to the custody or access orders.

Where there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing that a person will wrongfully remove the child from the jurisdiction, or will wrongly fail to return a child to a jurisdiction following an access visit or a vacation, the court may order the subject parent or other parent to transfer or identify property to a trustee, to post a bond, or to deliver up his or her passport with the child's passport or other documents as well. I would suggest this subcommittee urge the provinces that have not yet passed such legislation to do so. This speaks directly to the issue of preventing abductions before they occur.

It is also clear that the Canadian border is quite porous. As Sergeant John Oliver of the RCMP Missing Children's Registry pointed out in his presentation to this subcommittee in November, there are currently no exit controls in Canada. The time has come for the federal government to consider legislation to tighten up in this particular area.

The federal government should continue to negotiate with other nations that are not signatories to the Hague Convention to bring them into the fold. It seems clear that the most substantial problems arise when dealing with those who have not ratified the Hague Convention. There must be an increasing international awareness in the world. It is such a smaller place now than it has ever been in the past that coordination amongst nations will be essential in securing the best interests of children everywhere.

In the final analysis, as long as there are nations that continue to provide sanctuary to parents who have wrongfully and illegally removed their children from Canada against the wishes of a particular person's partner, the problem of extracting the children will in fact remain. I would suggest that this is an area in which the federal government should continue to address these issues.

On the issue of the seizure of passports, I think it would also profit the intended outcome here, which is the protection of children. In any given circumstance when such orders are made, whether or not a passport exists, External Affairs must be notified in the event that the person seeks to replace a passport, or otherwise applies for a new one in the initial application.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you, Chief. There are some good points in there.

I'll move on to the next speaker, Michael Hutton, director general of the passport office at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Mr. Michael Hutton (Director General, Passport Office, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Affairs): I'd like to thank members for their invitation to the Passport Office to appear before the subcommittee to address an issue of real importance to Canadians, namely the prevention of child abduction.

At the outset, I want to assure members that the Passport Office has always played an active role in the efforts of the Canadian government to increase safeguards aimed at preventing children from being taken outside Canada in contravention of a parent's right to custody of or access to his or her child. First, I would like to tell you more about the Passport Office, its mandate and its expertise. I'll then proceed by explaining how the prevention of child abduction has become a key element of our policy.

• 1610

I will do this first by providing you with an overview of the historical evolution of the way passport services are delivered to minors under the age of 16, and second, by giving you statistical data that will illustrate the magnitude of our challenge in dealing with children.

[Translation]

The Passport Office is the service within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade mandate by Cabinet to administer matters related to the issuance of Canadian passports and to develop policies for the implementation of a professional, safe, effective and consistent system for the issuance of passports to Canadians. We were mandated by Cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs through the Canadian Passport Order. It should be noted that the Passport Office had authority not only to issue passports, but also to refuse to issue and revoke passports already issued, for the various reasons specified in the Order.

On the operational level, the Passport Office comprises 28 service points in the same number of Canadian cities, in addition to our headquarters in Hull.

In 1996-97, approximately 1.3 million passports were issued. Eighty-five percent of applications were processed at our service points in Canada. Approximately 13%, or 150,000 applications, including some 30,000 from the United States, were received by mail sent directly to our national headquarters. Two percent of applications, that is 65,000, were received by Canadian missions in countries other than the United States.

Despite the large distances between our passport application processing centres, I would assure the members of the subcommittee that our Directorate responsible for security, policy and entitlement has a specialized group for processing applications involving complex legal custody questions. In fact, if an officer at any of those locations has doubts about the eligibility of a parent to apply for a passport for a child, our policy is clear: the officer must communicate with national headquarters in Hull, where a decision to issue or not to issue a passport for the child will be taken.

As mentioned earlier, protecting the interests of children is a significant focus of concern for the Passport Office. The fact that there have been changes to the regulations governing the way the Passport Office fulfils its mandate clearly shows the importance we place on the protection of children. The first Canadian Passport Order was made in 1973. At that time there were no specific provisions governing the issuance of passports to children, or even for cases where parents were divorced or separated. Such cases came under the general rule that a passport may be issued on the basis of citizenship and to the parent with legal custody of the child.

The authority of the Passport Office to verify custody rights was based on in-house guidelines. The fact that the Order did not refer to rights of parents in the case of divorce or separation can be easily explained, since at that time the break-up of a marriage or of an unmarried couple was still somewhat unusual.

The Order made specific reference to children only as regards the inclusion of their names in their parents' passport. Only a parent with legal custody of a child could have the child's name included in his or her passport. The same provision gave the Passport Office authority to require that a parent justify his or her right of custody over the child before the name of the latter could be included in the parent's passport.

• 1615

In 1981, amendments were made to the Order. As beforehand, the rule remained that only a parent with legal custody of a child may apply for a passport. However, provisions applying specifically to situations where parents are divorced or separated were added to the Order. Furthermore, the Order recognized that in certain cases, legal custody may have been removed from both parents and given to a provincial child protection authority. It should be noted that the consent of the other parent with custody rights is also required.

The Order also tacitly recognizes that each of the parents parties to a divorce or separation may retain their right of custody. I'm referring here to joint custody orders under which both parents retain right of custody of a child, notwithstanding the fact that the child normally lives with only one of them. The new aspect here is that since 1981 the Order has explicitly granted protection to a divorced or separated parent when the divorce decree or the separation agreement gives him or her specific access rights, regardless of whether the parent has or has not retained the right of custody.

It should be noted that this realization of the need to protect parents' access and custody rights came about at the same time as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was concluded and implemented in Canada, that is during the period of 1980-1983.

[English]

The significant role played by the Passport Office in the prevention of child abduction is also illustrated by the number of passport services performed in respect of children.

I would like to present the members with some statistical data on the number of passport applications that relates to children. Although these statistics constitute a rough estimate, they will give you a better understanding of the importance of passports in preventing child abduction. The statistics relate to the period 1990 to 1995.

To better appreciate these numbers it is important to remember that two types of passport services are performed in respect of children. A passport is either issued directly to a child, or the name of the child is included in the passport of one of the custodial parents. In both cases, though, the application must be filled out by a custodial parent or, in the case of a passport to be issued to a child in ward of a provincial children's aid society, by the legal guardian.

About 9% of the approximately 1.3 million passports delivered every year are issued to children, and 7% of the passports issued to adults contain the name of one or more children. In other words, each year the Passport Office issues passports to about 12,000 children, and includes the names of children in the passports of 9,000 parents. Taking into account the fact that passports are generally issued for a five-year period, one can estimate there are actually in circulation about 60,000 passports in children's names and 45,000 passports where parents have the name of one of their children included in the passport.

The Passport Office plays an active role with other interested groups whose mandate is to enhance the protection our society offers to children. Let me give some examples.

First is education. In all of our offices, posters of the Missing Children's Registry of the RCMP as well as the pamphlet of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “International Child Abductions: A Manual for Parents” are displayed.

As recently as June last year, officers of both the Passport Office and the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade met to find ways to better monitor and assess passport applications made in respect of children. As a consequence of the meeting, a series of four measures to enhance child protection was implemented.

• 1620

First, the two organizations ensure that all public counters of the Passport Office are regularly supplied in sufficient numbers with the manual for parents, as mentioned above.

Second, the Passport Office does not apply its service standard of a five-day turnaround to process passport applications when children are involved.

Third, upon receiving a verbal request from a parent who fears the abduction of his or her child, the name of the other parent and the child will be immediately added to the passport control list, even though there is no application being processed at the time of the request. A written confirmation will be asked after the prevention measures are in place.

Fourth, parents who are deprived of their custodial or access rights by courts orders that are not final, such an interim order in divorce proceedings or a separation order that can be appealed, will still be informed of the fact that an application for passport services is being made in respect of their children. That allows them to seek whatever judicial remedies they deem fit.

[Translation]

As the members of the subcommittee will appreciate the policies of the Passport Office already contain many preventive mechanisms to ensure the security of children.

I would like to thank you for inviting me here and giving me the opportunity to provide you with this information.

[English]

I am accompanied today by senior officers of the Passport Office directly involved with the clearance of passport requests made in respect of children. Mr. Neville Wells is manager for enforcement and security and Mr. John Milchak is manager for case management and foreign operations. These two sections are part of the security, policy and entitlement directorate.

Both Mr. Wells and Mr. Milchak were directly involved in the policy process that led to the 1997 amendments to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act—then known as Bill C-41, now chapter 1 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997—that gave the Passport Office the authority to suspend passports of parents in arrears of alimony payments.

[Translation]

Sitting next to me is Mr. Evans Girard, Legal Counsel for the Passport Office at the Department of Justice.

[English]

We welcome any questions you may have.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you, Mr. Hutton.

I'll go on to Mr. Brian Grant, acting director general of the enforcement branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Mr. Brian Grant (Acting Director General, Enforcement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very happy Citizenship and Immigration has been asked to appear before your committee today to discuss this very important issue.

As the acting director general of enforcement, I am particularly proud of the role our officers have played in helping to make the Our Missing Children program partnership such a success. Our officers on the front line come face to face with a variety of situations as they carry out their day-to-day activities. Many of these situations are extremely positive. As an immigration official, I can tell you there is no more satisfying feeling that welcoming a newcomer to our country or seeing the members of a family receive their citizenship. The look of pride and satisfaction on their faces is something you do not forget.

But there is another side to the story. Every day our officers come face to face with the more unpleasant side of life in the 1990s. They deal with criminals, at times vicious and truly disturbed individuals, and sadly, they must also deal with those who abduct children. Each situation demands special expertise and judgment on the part of our officers as well as the ability to exercise compassion and understanding.

This is certainly the case when children are involved. Children are the most vulnerable members of our society. In many respects, I think you can judge a community by the way it treats its children, by the way it protects its children. In a perfect world, none of us would have to appear before you today. We wouldn't need programs like Our Missing Children and we would not need to be vigilant against predators and criminals.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has been asked to appear in front of your committee in order to discuss its involvement with missing and abducted children, particularly in its contribution to Our Missing Children. It was suggested that we deal with the following three subjects: the role of our national coordinator for the Our Missing Children program; measures currently in place at land borders and airports to prevent child abduction; and suggested recommendations on how the committee could assist CIC and the other partners in preventing the abduction of children.

In order to explain the role played by our national coordinator for the Our Missing Children program, I should explain what the Our Missing Children program is, for us.

• 1625

Protection of children crossing our borders is not new. For example, in 1986, as Sergeant John Oliver explained during his appearance in front of this committee, the RCMP began a register of missing children and Customs Canada began a missing children program. Although the CIC, Citizenship and Immigration, did not have a specific program, protection of children has always been part of our mandate.

In 1991 the RCMP Missing Children's Registry and Canada Customs' International Project Return joined forces to deal with the problem of abducted and runaway children, and two years later, in 1993, CIC joined the program.

In 1995 this joint forces operation was relabelled the Our Missing Children program, and one year later, in 1996, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade became the fourth member of the program.

Each department performs a specific function. At the borders the immigration officers and the customs inspectors work in cooperation, using profiles, indicators and lookout notices to intercept and recover children who are missing or who have been abducted.

Our objective is a common one: to intercept and recover missing and abducted children crossing international borders.

The program is managed from the RCMP headquarters by full-time RCMP and customs staff. For CIC a program specialist serves part-time as a national program coordinator within our department. Our coordinator provides functional guidance to regional coordinators within Citizenship and Immigration, drafts procedures for front-line staff on how to deal with situations involving missing or abducted children, provides training material and assistance, and attends national and international conferences on children-related issues. Our coordinator is also supported by a network of regional coordinators who ensure that the program runs smoothly throughout our regions in Canada and overseas.

Our Missing Children program partners work together on a number of issues. Every year they hold a workshop or conference. In 1997 the conference was held in Halifax and was happily hosted by Citizenship and Immigration. Over 100 participants and guest speakers attended the three-day conference, and Senator Landon Pearson was our keynote speaker.

When a visitor arrives at the Canadian border, customs officials ask a routine series of questions. Sometimes this takes a few seconds, sometimes longer. What they're doing is they're looking for specific things, nervous individuals, people whose stories don't seem to make sense, people who are carrying too much or too little luggage for the purpose of their supposed trip. If there is suspicion on the part of the officer that someone may be hiding something, then officials will refer that person to secondary examination. In the case of Canadian citizens and permanent residents, those people are referred to customs secondary for follow-up questioning. In the case of visitors, they are referred to immigration secondary and are questioned further by immigration officers.

At that point immigration officers will conduct their own interviews in an attempt to ascertain the situation. The stories are checked out, and again this can take a few minutes or longer. However, we believe it should take as long as necessary to get to the facts, particularly when children are involved. In situations involving possible runaways, parents are contacted to determine if permission has been given for the travel to Canada. In situations of possible parental abduction, the absent parent may also be contacted by our officers.

A series of abduction profiles and lookouts are provided to staff at the borders to facilitate their jobs. If it turns out that the child is in danger or at risk, then the RCMP and other enforcement agencies and child protection agencies are contacted.

Our officers are currently receiving special training on how to deal with situations involving missing and abducted children. This training includes an overview of the types of missing children, indicators for possible situations of missing and abducted children, procedures to follow in confirmed cases, and how to interview a child. We have also invited our American colleagues to attend these training sessions. We have distributed a tip sheet to parents and guardians which provides information on what documentation they should carry when they travel with children.

• 1640

As a result of the vigilance of border personnel, we have succeeded in recovering 102 children in 1997 and more than 640 children since the program began more than 10 years ago.

One of these recoveries occurred recently at Lacolle, Quebec, at our border crossing point there. On March 23, 1996, a man travelling with a four-year-old boy and using a Belgian passport was intercepted at Lacolle by alert border officers. The man had failed to return the child after his court-ordered one-day visit with the boy in Belgium. Travelling with aliases for both the boy and himself, the man had travelled to the United States and then had tried to cross the border into Canada with the intention of staying here.

After questioning the man, the immigration officer became suspicious. For instance, the man was unable to answer basic questions about his destination, his itinerary or his supposed home country of Belgium. The man also acted nervous and seemed rather unclear on where he was going and who he was supposed to be visiting. As is often the case with child abductors, the man was travelling alone with the young child and had more baggage than would seem necessary for the length of his claimed visit to Canada.

The RCMP contacted the Belgian embassy and discovered that the Belgian passport had been reported stolen. It did not take long for officials to find out that the boy was reported missing, not in Belgium, but in Germany.

At this point the man was taken into custody, where he admitted to abducting the boy, and the boy's mother was promptly notified, much to her relief. The man was deported to the United States, where the authorities there dealt with it.

You have asked us to make recommendations on ways in which your committee could help us prevent the abduction of children. I'm not sure if our recommendations are within the scope and the mandate of your committee, but I'm sure you'll tell me. Let me share a couple of ideas with you.

Increasing public awareness can make the job of the men and women at the border easier. One of the big problems our officers frequently encounter is overly defensive parents or guardians. I suppose this is understandable. When a stranger, even a government official, starts to question your relationship to your child, the natural tendency of most parents is to become defensive and even angry. A great deal of frustration could be avoided, though, and a great deal of time could be saved if people knew what to expect when they come to a border and if they would realize that we are doing this work for their own good. If people are aware of this program, I think they will be aware of our responsibility to look out for the safety of children.

The second idea is to encourage the transportation industry to become more vigilant. The transportation industry, particularly airlines, could be encouraged to begin their own version of Our Missing Children program and offer training to their staff on how to recognize possible situations involving missing and abducted children.

In this regard, we are working now with our officers who are stationed abroad and are putting together a program so that as part of their regular work they will work with airlines. We will include the aspect of abducted children and missing children in the work they do with airlines so that they can alert airlines to the sorts of things they should be looking for. We've also contacted United States immigration and the State Department to assist us in dealing with flights to the United States.

Also, you could encourage countries who have not adhered to the Hague Convention to do so. Several people have already mentioned that so I won't elaborate.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of the abduction of children from Canada, as discussed by Sergeant Oliver and as mentioned by Chief Fantino. It is true that Canada does not have exit controls, and frankly, with a land border of 3,000 miles and in excess of 120 million people crossing the land border every year, and with the significance of cross-border commerce, given our current technological capacity I don't believe it's realistic to think of putting in exit controls at the Canadian border.

However, to say this is not to abdicate any responsibility or to throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do. I think there are a number of things we can do and are doing in this regard that may in fact be a more tactical response than trying to control people as they leave the country.

• 1635

Our minister, with the Attorney General of the United States, has recently announced that the two countries will be working on elaborating a vision for the border that lies between us, and looking much more at the continent of North America and how we share concerns for threats to our security. As part of that, we're looking at ways we can cooperate overseas and on the perimeter of the continent of the two countries, and how we can cooperate within North America to ensure that people smugglers do not profit and bring people into our countries.

I would suggest we look more at the external border and at the airports, where you have more control because people have to present documents to pass through. We should look at the seaports and perhaps the southern border of the United States.

The second thing we have done and are encouraging other countries to do is to alert and encourage immigration authorities from like-minded countries to add concern for abducted children to the work they do. They're already aware of this. We meet informally with most European countries as well as the United States and Australia on a regular basis. We have tried to put together a project to track illegal migration and particularly the work of organized smugglers.

One of the aspects we've been looking at is how we can track what is being done in the movement of children across international borders, to see what sort of strategic response we can put in place. We have already begun this and will redouble our efforts with our allies in Europe, North America and Australia to ensure we are all vigilant for children who are passing across the borders.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you, Mr. Grant. I'll go on to Mr. Mark Connolly from Revenue Canada. He's the director of program development contraband and intelligence services, customs and trade and administration branch.

Mr. Mark Connolly (Director, Program Development Contraband and Intelligence Services, Customs and Trade and Administration Branch, Department of National Revenue): Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

Today I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee on this very important issue of international child abductions. At the request of the committee, I would like to focus my presentation on the role of Revenue Canada in the Our Missing Children program and preventative measures for child abductions at land borders and airports.

Customs officers are always on the alert for children in distress resulting from either abduction by a stranger or abduction by the non-custodial parent, and for runaways or abandoned kids, also known as throwaways.

The Revenue Canada program to recover missing or abducted children was initiated by customs officers in the early 1980s. This program operated using volunteer officers and started basically as local initiatives. Given the success of the local initiatives, a national program was implemented in 1986 to coordinate activities and assist port staff in the recovery of missing and abducted children. This national program was named the Canada Customs Missing Children's Program.

A training course was developed and by 1987, 3,600 officers had been trained and were on full alert. This in itself was a significant undertaking, as at that time no other border agency had a program of this type.

A national coordinator was appointed to administer and direct the program from customs headquarters and to provide guidance to the regional coordinators appointed in each region. Techniques were developed for interviewing children. An incident report was formatted to document all of our recoveries, and an intelligence database on missing children was created. Profiles and indicators were also developed to target abductors and runaways.

At the 1990 World Summit for Children held at United Nations headquarters in New York, leaders of 71 countries met to consider ways of assuring a better future for our children. The summit participants prepared a program aimed at improving the quality of life of children throughout the world, focusing on the rights of the world's children. The leaders called for a renewed focus, a call that Canada fully supported. They also agreed to prepare national action plans to put the declaration's aims into effect.

A program called Brighter Futures: Investing in Canada's Children was the response of the Government of Canada. It defined priorities and charted our course by directing federal initiatives to protect children from the threats to their well-being. As we have already had a program in place, the Revenue Canada Customs Missing Children's Program became a priority of our department. The program was renamed Project Return, and partnerships were developed with other government departments and non-profit missing children organizations.

• 1640

As the program gained momentum, the assistance of Revenue Canada Customs was actively sought by the U.S. law enforcement community in general, as well as enforcement clearing-houses throughout the United States. In 1991, Revenue Canada Customs and the RCMP co-located their respective programs. Later, they joined forces with Citizenship and Immigration and Foreign Affairs and International Trade to form a partnership under the Our Missing Children program.

Although each department has its own function—as you have heard from the other witnesses—the four departments operate as one unit. The objective is to locate and return children to their proper guardian. Because of the tremendous benefits that are clearly evident with Project Return and with the Our Missing Children program, and its success rate of hundreds of recovered children, we continue to promote the concept of Project Return with foreign custom services. Our goal is to make the return of children an accepted element of the protection role of all customs agencies.

The delegates at the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in January 1993, and members of the Caribbean Customs Law Enforcement Council in February 1993, endorsed Project Return. As well, the World Customs Organization, representing the customs administrations of 177 countries, recommended to the membership that the issue of missing children be an element of the protection role of all customs agencies within the limit of their competence. This program enables us to share information on missing children, such as indicators, profiles, trends and developments; to issue lookouts and alerts; to intercept missing children; and to refer the case to appropriate agency for follow-up action in accordance with the Hague Convention.

Project Return headquarters is staffed 24 hours a day to provide assistance to officers or agencies requiring information or other assistance. Lookouts on missing children received from agencies worldwide are issued from headquarters at an average rate of 35 per week, and our officers have been successful in preventing the abductions of children from countries such as France and Japan. Since the inception of Project Return, 214 abducted children have been recovered by customs and immigration officers. Children abducted from France, Greece, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Thailand, Chile, New Zealand, and many other countries, have also been recovered at our borders. In addition, over 400 runaways and abandoned children have been located.

An international Project Return training video has been produced in English, French and Spanish. The video continues to be made available to any law enforcement agency requesting copies for training purposes. I brought a copy of it for the committee today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): How much longer is your presentation?

Mr. Mark Connolly: About two minutes.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Perfect.

Mr. Mark Connolly: The media has been a tremendous help and has played a large part in publicizing the success of Project Return. For instance, travellers are now becoming aware that they should carry identification and custody orders when applicable for children in their company.

A subcommittee consisting of United States and Canadian officials responsible for maintaining border services has been established to examine the existing system to ensure its efficiency and ability to provide a prompt response to children abducted from Canada and heading for the United States.

We train law enforcement agencies and other agencies such as airline personnel in techniques for the detection of child abductors or abducted children. Workshops have been presented to foreign customs services and police officers in Ireland, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, as well as to United States Customs, U.S. Immigration, the FBI and other police forces.

Customs officers work closely with their local youth services bureau in the event that a child's safety is at risk. Customs officers regularly hold fingerprint clinics, attend schools and give lectures to the public on missing children and child safety issues.

As previously mentioned by my Immigration colleague, a flyer advising the proper type of identification to be carried by children has been produced jointly between Revenue Canada Customs and Citizenship and Immigration, with over one million copies issued to the travelling public. Brochures produced by International Project Return and Missing Children Registry are distributed at the borders advising travellers of our program and what to do if a child goes missing.

• 1645

Major ports of entry in Canada are equipped with the Canadian Police Information Centre system and have access to National Crime Information Centre system terminals for prompt retrieval of information on U.S. and Canadian missing children. Officers are provided with lists of who to contact in situations when children recovered.

Customs ports are also equipped with kits that are used for the amusement of children who must spend extra time at the ports either through recoveries or verification of their travel status. Government telephone lines are available to runaways or to abandoned children who want to contact their parents or youth organizations.

International Project Return continues to receive the full support of Revenue Canada and our unions. Our officers have always shown their diligence at the borders, and as well, continue to exhibit enthusiasm in the promotion of our program.

As a recent example, two customs officers in the Kootenay Valley in British Columbia undertook the task of promoting Our Missing Children through the upcoming 1998 Can-Am Police and Fire Games, which involves over 5,000 participants from Canada and the United States. This event features a torch relay from the border, crossing south of Vancouver through to Regina, and will give public exposure to the plight of missing children and the efforts of Canada Customs and other law enforcement officers across North America.

New legislation, Bill C-18, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Criminal Code, which was introduced recently, will give customs officers more powers to react in abduction situations. Of course, the responsibility for the well-being and the return of missing children to their legal custodian does not fall solely on Customs, but our actions supplement existing international police cooperation with a strong customs program.

In conclusion, we support the work of the committee and the recommendation of our Immigration colleague to increase public awareness, to encourage the transportation industries to become vigilant, and to encourage countries who have not adhered to the Hague Convention to do so. We will continue to promote programs that support the recovery of missing children, as missing children are everyone's responsibility—governments, the courts, law enforcement, community agencies and the public.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you, Mr. Connolly.

As you can see, with the bells ringing, we have to go to the House. We've been called for a vote in about six or seven minutes.

I'd put a question to the committee first, and certainly to the witnesses afterwards: Are you satisfied with having the testimony on the record, or would you prefer to reconvene for a Q and A session afterwards? We don't know how long the vote is going to take. That's the only difficulty with it.

I think we'll have to accept simply having it on the transcript, or read into the records. Thank you very much for coming forward today.

As well, could we get some phone numbers? If we do have questions, we'll have an opportunity to write them down as we meet again, and the clerk or research can get in touch with you and get answers to those said questions.

A witness: Perfect.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): That was my suggestion.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Bonwick): Thank you.