Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your time is up.

Ms. Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have two very quick questions.

To go back to this registry you have, do you know if there are repeat travellers who register? Do you have people who see this as a legitimate service, in that every time they travel now it's kind of a natural mechanism for them to connect with?

[Lillian Thomsen]

We do have repeat customers. Also, last year we made it easier for people. It used to be a paper-based system, but now people can register online as of last year. We did have some teething problems with the software because it didn't work on all platforms, but now it seems to work more smoothly.

Yes, we do have a lot of repeat customers. Once people do it, they become repeat customers, yes. It's a good thing.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I have a follow-up question to that. As parliamentarians, we often have people who come into our constituency offices asking us about passports or where they can get a passport application. Would it be helpful to you in the services you provide to have people register? Would it be something that, as parliamentarians, we should encourage people to participate in?

[Lillian Thomsen]

We have in the past—we did one last year—held joint briefings with parliamentary staffers on both the consular and the passport program. We're always willing and open to do that, because it enables us to provide our publications and it enables us to reach out directly to constituency offices through the parliamentary staffers. We have done it in the past and we certainly stand ready to do it in the future. It's good outreach for us.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you. I'll take advantage of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Lunney.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Leckey, you said there are about 15,000 personnel in Canada, and 56 MIOs serve in about 39 different countries.

There were 95,000 improperly documented passengers since the inception of the MIO program?

[Geoffrey Leckey]

Since 1989-90 there have been 97,000.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Can you explain how your MIOs, who it seems are trying to cover a broad range of territory, interact with foreign officials? What authorities do our officials have abroad?

[Geoffrey Leckey]

They're stationed abroad to enforce and assist in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The writ of the IRPA doesn't run in foreign countries, so it doesn't automatically give them any authorization. They rely upon cooperation with the foreign governments and developing contacts. They rely on MOUs and what we call SMUs--statements of mutual understanding--with foreign countries on the subjects on which we exchange information with them and for what purpose.

We are of, course, closer overseas to our key partners, who tend to be the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. The exact cooperation mechanisms differ from country to country. I always like to say that every MIO does a different job. It depends entirely on local conditions and what's going on in the region.

We share information with our allies, and to a certain extent with the host country governments. In areas such as trend analysis we help one another understand what's going on locally--if some groups are more likely to seek migration in the near future than others, and for what reasons. We share information on changes to visa and passport requirements in the local country. That's the level of intelligence we collect and share overseas.

With our closer partners we also share such things as rules and algorithms for measuring risk, based on data collected on travellers abroad. Wherever there's an MIO abroad there are likely to be equivalent officers. The U.K., for example, calls them airline liaison officers. There are likely to be equivalent officers from the U.S., the U.K., the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia. So they are an automatic network. As soon as you are an MIO posted abroad, you're part of this network. They help one another logistically. If one of them can't get to the airport one night, another one might, and vice-versa.

I could also speak about the role MIOs play in removals to foreign countries. Whenever an individual is detained in Canada under a warrant and needs to be removed to a foreign country, someone has to make sure the travel document is issued that will enable him to travel back to the country he came from and that arrangements are in order with the local authorities for him to be received appropriately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Leckey.

Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

When a Canadian child is held in a foreign country by one of its parents without the consent of the other parent, who is also Canadian, and the country is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, do the provisions of the Convention apply, or does the Minister of Foreign Affairs have to use his discretion under section 10, which allows for a determination of whether it is necessary to repatriate a Canadian citizen who is detained in a foreign country?

[Lillian Thomsen]

At present there are about 650 child abduction cases, as my colleague mentioned.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I wasn't talking about child abduction.

[Lillian Thomsen]

These are children who are in another country because they were taken there by one of the parents.

However, if the other parent stayed here, in Canada, and wants the child to be returned home to them, their primary tool is the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Unfortunately, only 75 countries have signed it to date.

For children, as my colleague said, our team, which has grown in recent months, deals with each situation, because they are all different. As well, we are trying to make a more comprehensive effort. This involves three aspects.

The first consists of making major efforts to encourage countries that have not signed the Convention to do so. At present, we are making a lot of effort to persuade Japan, which accounts for about 50 cases. To date, Japan has not been interested, but now, with the change of government, we are thinking that Japanese policy might change. The first aspect is therefore to encourage countries that can sign the Convention to do so.

The second aspect is this. Some countries that have signed the Convention don't have the resources to meet their obligations under the Convention. In some cases, we provide technical assistance so they can honour their obligations.

The third aspect is the most difficult. These are countries that, for domestic and legal reasons, cannot or will not sign the Convention. A majority of those countries are Islamic countries, where Islamic law is the national law. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction involves a process called the Malta Process, which is being used to establish a dialogue with the Islamic countries.

More recently, about six months ago, a small group was created with half the countries signatories to the Convention and the other half Islamic countries. There are six countries. Canada chairs the working group of signatory countries and Pakistan chairs the working group of Islamic countries. They have met by conference call to try to identify mediation methods that could be recognized by both jurisdictions and could solve these kinds of problems. The work has only just begun. As well, not just government experts, but non-governmental experts like Louise Filion of Montreal, who is a leading expert in this area of mediation, are being consulted. There is also Justice Jacques Chamberland of the Quebec Superior Court, who is our specialist on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.

Essentially, this is "macro level" work, because this kind of work has to be done to deal with principles and find ways of solving cases.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please be very quick, Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

In the interim, could the Minister use his discretion to bring the children home?

[Lillian Thomsen]

When a family is in another country and the parents are not divorced, the issue is under the jurisdiction of the other country. In that case, it is in the other country's legal system.

I am going to explain my colleague to explain this for you in more detail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Be very quick.

[Patricia Fortier]

I just want to emphasize what Ms. Thomsen has said.

Under the Hague convention to which we are signatories, we have agreed that we will resolve these cases in the jurisdiction in which the child is living and has grown up. We do not have the authority to repatriate children where there is no agreement and no divorce. The laws of the land in each country are the laws of the land. As Ms. Thomsen has suggested, we manage within that rather ambiguous border between the two legal systems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You mentioned--and I wanted to stay on Madame Lalonde's question--that we have to operate under the jurisdiction in which the child is living and has grown up. That may not be the same. It may be the case that the child has grown up here in Canada, is a month or two in another country, and is there. That's where the child is right now. If children have spent six years here in Canada and six weeks in the other country, but that's where they are now, is that the jurisdiction that...?

[Patricia Fortier]

Each case of a child or custody is obviously unique. Sometimes it's complicated by the fact that they're dual nationals. Again, we get into an issue of whether the child who is living in the country is seen by that country as its citizen and whether the other nationality is recognized.

I'd hesitate to comment specifically on any case, because certainly our experience in dealing with children's cases is that they take a long time to resolve. We know that here in Canada divorce and custody cases are extremely difficult and can take a long time. There are sometimes extraneous factors. I think if you look at international custody and sometimes at abduction cases, you can multiply the factor of that difficulty by ten, at least.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Leckey, you gave some numbers in your talk. There were some 95,000 improperly documented passengers prior to their arrival in Canada. Would the MIOs who intercepted them be some of your partner groups from other countries? Are these people who are intercepted before they board planes? What is that process of intercepting the 95,000?

Canadians are very concerned about fraud and what has happened. What percentage of those would have been fraudulent cases of documents, Canadian documents? You're saying that you intercepted these people. Were they intercepted in the foreign countries by your partner MIOs?