Manitoba Hansard — 20 May 1997 (Sitting subpe7, 36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-subpe7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Chairperson Mr. Peter Dyck Constituency of Pembina :··'� .. �·.lJ �� ..... •t Vol. XLVII No.7- 3 p.m., Tuesday, May 20, 1997

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMJAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, l-Ion. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, l-Ion.

MJHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, l-Ion. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob I in-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springtield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Portage Ia Prairie Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C.

P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. PC . P.C. N.D.P.

11 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Tuesday, May 20, 1997 TIME-3 p.m. LOCATION -Winn ipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina) ATTENDANCE-S Members of the Committee present: Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Kowalski, Martindale, Mr. Tweed APPEARING: Ms. Diane McGifford, ML A for Osbo rne WITNESSES: Mr. Reid Hartry, Past Chairperso n, Manitob a Co alition on Children's Rights Ms. Louise Malenfant, Family Advocate of Parents Helping Parents Mr. Lu is Co elho, Pr esident, CUPE Local 215 3 Mr.

Corbin Shangreaux, Southern Manitob a First Nations Child and Family Services Agencies Ms. Glor y Lister, Southern Manitoba First Nations Child and Family Services Agencies MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: The review of the sectio ns of The Child and Family Services Act pertaining to the Office of the Children's Advoc ate. *** Mr. Chair person: Goo d afternoo n. Will the sub committee of the Standing Co mmittee on Privileges and Election s please come to or der.

This afternoon , the su bcom mittee will be resu ming co nsideration of the review of the sections of The Child and Family Services Act pertaining to the Office of the Children's Advoc ate. The su bcomm ittee will be ho lding hearings in Winnip eg this afternoo n and on the afternoo n of May 21, commencing at 3 p.m., and on the evening of May 20, starting at 7:30 p.m. We have had a number of perso ns registered to sp eak. I will no w read aloud the names of the perso ns who will be presenting this afternoo n.

This is the list: Reid Hartry, Louise Malenfant and To ny Barreira, Eva Temchuk , Lu is Coelho, and the last presenter will be announced when that perso n arrives . I should indicate to the public that it has already been agreed by the su bcomm ittee that no additio nal registrations will be accepted. In addition, I wo uld like to remind thos e presenters wishin g to hand ou t written copies of their briefs to the subcom mittee that 15 co pies are required.

If assistance in making the requir ed number of co pies is needed, please contact either the Chamber Branch perso nnel, located at the table at the rear of the room or the Clerk Assistant, and the co pies will be made for yo u. Fo r the benefit of members, I shou ld po int ou t that the su bcomm ittee has established a time limit on presentations and for questio ns to be addressed to pres enters . The time limit for each presentation is 20 minutes with a maximum of 10 minutes for questions to be addressed to each presenter.

At this po int in time, I wo uld like to introd uce the members of the su bcom mittee, and I may as well start with the gentleman who just walked in, Mr. Helwer, he is the ML A for Gimli. Now I will go to the far side here to Mr. Ko walski, the ML A for The Maples; and then Mr. Martindale, the ML A for Bu rrow s; and just coming in right now is Mr. Tweed, the MLA for Turtle Mo untain. My name is Peter George Dyck, and I am the MLA for Pembina. Sorry, Ms. McGifford is here as well, jo ining us this afternoon, and she is the MLA for Osbo rne. So thank yo u very much.

I just want to thank yo u so much for co ming this afternoon and taking time to give us your presentation.

11 8 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OB A May 20, 1997 We trus t that you will feel co mfor table as yo u present and us e the po dium there. I will call on ou r first presenter at this time. Mr. Reid Hartry, please. Mr. Reid Hartry (Past Chairperson, Manit oba Coalition on Children's Rights): Thank yo u very mu ch, Mr. Chairman and ho nourable su bcomm ittee members. I wo uld like to introd uce myself prior to my presentation, and the ro le I played as past chairperso n of the Manitob a Coalition on Children's Rights.

We are a very grassroot s or ganization which has advocated for yo ung peop le in Manitob a and basically been involved at the national level with the Canadian Coalitio n wo rking in issues that we believe are in the best interests of yo ung people and their families across Canada and Manitob a.

Our co alition is in kind of a state of hiatus , as a lot of grassroots or ganizations are, trying to facilitate getting peop le to gether to do those thi ngs, but because we made a su bmiss ion when the first legislation was looked at for the current Advocate, I felt as past chair that we needed to present something in relation to where we have come from then and some of the things that we have observed in ou r co ntext with the Advocate's office ov er the last number of years . So with that introdu ctio n, I will give the presentation.

I wo uld like to thank yo u for this op po rtunity to sp eak regard the review of the Children's Advoc ate legis latio n, and the current pos ition as it exists in Manito ba. We are here as the pr ovi nce und ertakes a public review of the

section s of the child welfare act pert aining to the Office of the Children's Advoc ate. I am here representing the Manitob a Co alition on Children's Rights. We are a grou p which made a similar presentation to the government of the day prior to the current Advocate legislation becomin g law. When the pos ition was first discussed, we offered a number of opini on s about what we felt the Advo cate's ro le shou ld include. We are here again to day to offer some of those again, along with some new ideas about ho w we might move further with this pos ition within Manitob a. I am here as the past chairperso n of the Manitoba Coalition on Children's Rights or ganization. *

(1510) We as a grou p have not been terribly active over the last number of month s. However, because we made a stron g initial representation, I felt that we needed to respo nd at this time. Our group has members from across Manitoba, yo uth, adults and individuals in yo uth- serving or ganizatio ns. We are at best described as a truly grassroots advocacy group which uses the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child for its guiding princi ples, in tum us ing it to challenge issues that impact on the children to challenge and sp eak to issues that impact on the children and yo uth of Manitoba.

As the co mmittee is aware, bo th Manitob a and Canada have ratified the UN co nventio n. Its articles sp eak to many of the issues and rights we as advocates believe all of ou r youth have the right to enjoy. It is for that reaso n that th is past year I felt we had to present ou r pos ition again at this public forum. First I wo uld like to begin with a co mpliment to the government for two things. The first is its establishment of the current Advo cate's office, and the current review of that office and the legislatio n which go verns it.

We believe, as we did befor e, that the Advoc ate's ro le shou ld be expanded and its repor ting mechanism changed, as we believe we need to find ways to expand. As well we believe we need to find ways to ho pefully expand the staff available to investig ate and ho pefully help ensu re co mpliance to changes suggested and recommended by su ch an office. Another po int I wo uld like to make is to give a strong vo te of co nfidence to ou r invo lvement with Mr. Gov ereau ov er the last number of years in the ro le as Advo cate within the prov ince.

We have seen the Advocate wo rk for children and yo uth under his legislated respon sibility as well as at times sp eaking on ot her issues impacting on yo uth and families in Manitoba. I think it could always be st ronger, and on e of the things that limits that is the legislation, because we do not have the ability to sp eak to all the other yo ung peo ple in ou r provin ce ot her than thos e under the jurisdiction of the child welfare act and/o r have been involved with the child welfare act. I personally believe he and his staff have provided an excellent service to the pr ov ince.

We had the pleasure of wo rking with Mr. Govereau to gether when ou r or ganizatio n received a small funding allotment from the federal go vernment. The purp os e of that was to hire a staff. All of ou r peop le are vo luntary, but we did hire a staff to expand

May 20, 1997 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 11 9 knowledge about the convention across Manitoba. We held hearings in Po rtage Ia Pr airie, Dauphin and other jurisdictions. A lot of the programs that tend to be available are what I would call perimeter programs, and we really felt that we wanted this to be truly available to all Manitobans. So we tried to do that. Mr. Govereau attended those meetings, passing on information of his office as well as some things that we jointly believe that children and families and young people have a right to within our prov ince.

So that was a very positive experience for us. More specifically, at this time I would like to discuss a number of issues. Pr ior to the presentation, I reviewed information from our first presentation and current information about other advocates' offices in Canada. The one area I believe we need to explore here is the Advocate's reporting mechanism to the government of the day.

This perhaps needs to be looked at as himself or that person, he/she being an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly so that there is that ability not to, basically, potentially bite the hand that feeds you or be involved in that type of situation. To truly have an independent position and an independent vision of that Advoc ate, I believe that type of situation needs to be looked at.

The other options that are mentioned in other documentations are all- party commit tees that are made up of members from all of the parties involved in the House of the day, but some way where that neutrality and that independence is seen very clearly. That is not to say that there have been difficulties before, but really what I am saying is that to truly be an independent office that type of reporting mechanism as seen in most jurisdictions is what we need to look at. The next area is the responsibility of the Advocate's office.

Our present Advocate's legislation deals with young people who do or have received service under the power of the child welfare act. I believe personally as a professional social worker that very much limits the service available to some of the people I work with.

There are children within other systems that have been impacted on, including child welfare, day care, certainly ju stice, education, which is the system I come from, and other parts, and I do believe that we need to have the opportunity for people that we interact with, that we are lucky enough to work with, to have an opportunity to question what we do. As professional social workers we do not have a professional association that holds us accountable, and I truly believe that we need to be held accountable for our behaviour.

I think sometimes that the Advo cate could play that role, in certain cases if there is the ability, at least, to channel and help a young person who feels that their rights have not been truly given a fair view, to have that ability to advocate on behalf of that child. Also within my profession all sorts of people have claimed to be social workers, and at times couns ellors have made wrong decisions. Our clients deserve the right to challenge this when this occurs.

I guess that is, if anything-I truly believe that I should be held accountable for my behaviour, and we have the possibility of major impact on young people , families and the people that we work with. There needs to be some way to have that person feel they have a right to look for some redress if they feel that it has not been fairly looked at. So that is one role I could see perhaps an Advocate playing in a stronger way. The last point of discussion that I would like to look at is the current legislation and its ability to ensure compliance of changes.

In looking at some of the legislation I looked at, there was that ability to ensure compliance of suggested changes as a result of investigations. In the way that I read the legislation, at least in my humble opin ion, there does not appear to be that poss ibility in the current legislation. Pe rhaps the development of an office similar to the Ombu dsman for children would be something that would deal with some of that, because we do need that possibility of challenging it and working toward some solutions if an issue is identified as needing work.

In literature in govern ment documents I have read, another issue that is coming very strongly to the fore is the move toward community involvement and volunteerism. This is appropri ate at times, but it can negatively impact our youth at times as well. A lot of the people that I have had the pleas ure of working with, some of them are very skilled. Others are still working on their own issues, and there can also be the possibility of that impacting negatively with the families and youth that they serve, and there needs to be, again, a neutral, unbiased party which could perhaps look at those issues.

120 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OBA May 20, 1997 Again, using the UN Co nventio n and its articles as a guide to service delivery for yo uth in Manitob a, I believe very stron gly in that document ation. Manitoba was on e of the signator ies of it. It speaks to a lot of the issues impacting yo ung peop le, and I think it is something that if all provin ces in Canada ratified it, we wo uld perhaps see in more case law, but as it has not happened as yet, we are not doing that.

With a provin cial move to ward a broader Child Advocate's office and perhaps a child om budsman, along with at the national level a children's rights co mmissioner, all this wo uld help to ensure that po liticians, po licymakers and practitioners together take children and their rights and interests serio usly. I have been very lucky to be appo inted to a federal bo dy recently, and on e of the things that we talk about in dealing with the abor iginal and Metis yo uth that I am lucky enough to represent is that we need so mebody to advocate for all children at the national level and for things impacting them.

We submit that the Advoc ate's office needs to be mo re of a stand-alone office, and as mentioned earlier, acting as an independent office of the Legislative Assembly perhaps. I reviewed docume ntation, as I mentioned earlier, on a number of different advocates' offices from across Canada, and I do believe that there is a po ssibility of facilitating this type of change fairly easily within our prov ince if it was so mething that was deemed as impor tant and necessary. In looking at the areas of funding to effect changes to the Advo cate's office, so me suggestio ns will be discussed.

When we were or iginally introduced to the Child and Youth Secretariat, it was explained to us that if on e of ou r departments was not perhaps making effective use of reso urces, that we co uld look at rechannelling tho se reso urces to somewhere else, that that might be something that the Child and Yo uth Secretariat co uld look at because ou r budgets for services to yo ung peop le are fairly majo r across the board, but perhaps they need to be mo ved to where they are best needed, and I wo nder whether we might be able to take a look at the po ssibility of funding po sitions for a stron ger office with that type of examination of the way we each prov ide service to the people we are meant to serve.

I think that, again, ho lds us accountable for doing what we say we are doing, and I guess I am a strong believer in accountability and making sure we do what we shou ld do. *

(1520) Another thing that might be po ssible is, I was fortunate enough to be invo lved with the pr ovin cial government Employee Assistance Prog ram for a perio d of time when I wo rked for the Department of Justice.

One of the things that I did in that po sition is I was seco nded from Justice for a perio d of three years to prov ide that servi•�. and I still wo nder whether certainly in wo rking within the educatio n system, within the Seven Oaks unit, as I do no w, of Child Gu idance, there is an awful lot of skilled and talented peo ple who have wo nderful advocacy skills all thro ugh ou r system, and that is ju st the Child Gui dance Clinic.

There are peo ple all thro ugh the system who might be able to offer this type of experience on a long-t erm secondment that wo uld be goo d bo th for the individual as well as the or ganization. I do not think you could do it for a short period of time because yo u really need to be able to give that op po rtunity to grow and for yo u to learn from that experience. The provin ce wo uld also be we ll served to have an office which truly wo uld be a prov incial service. Th at might mean offices ou tside of Winnip eg and staff to meet the cultural diversity of ou r prov ince.

As I mentio ned, I am Me tis by heritage, and, certainly, I believe this is approp riate for all of our abor iginal co mmuni ties, but we also need to be sensitive to the varied mosaic of our prov ince. We are lucky eno ugh to have all sorts of peop le jo ining us in Manito ba, and I think there needs to be that sensitivity within any type of service prov ided to the pe op le of Manitoba. In co nclusion, we applaud the go vernment co mmitment to review this impor tant office and the legislation that governs its day-t o- day activities.

As well, we wish to challenge yo u as a co mmittee and the go vernment of the day to hear ou r co mments and address them thro ugh changes to the current legislatio n and the ro le and respon sibility of the Advoc ate's po s1tton. We must appreciate that the rights and interests of ou r yo uth must be No . I. Rights are not a scary thing. With them come respon sibilities and, with that, healthy and respon sible adults.

May 20, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MA NIT OBA 121 I thank yo u very much. Mr. Cha irperson : Thank yo u, Mr . Hartry, for giving us yo ur repo rt and for the insights that yo u have into this department. I will start with ques tio ns now, first, Mr . Martindale, and then I will go ov er to Mr . Ko walski. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Thank yo u, Mr . Hartry, for yo ur presentation. I am sorry to hear that the Manitoba Co alition on Children's Rights is temporarily not meeting. I think there is a need for advocacy groups in the co mmunity, not just within the government.

I have some short questio ns which may elicit short answers to begin with, so just for clarification, you believe that the Children's Advocate sho uld repo rt to the Legislative Assembly rather than to the minister. Mr. Cha irperson: Just for clarification, I am sorry, I om itted this befor e. Fo r Hansard, we have a question and answer, so I will identify you, and then I will go back again, so, please, Mr . Hartry, if yo u wo uld give us yo ur respo nse. Mr. Hartry: Yes, that is what I do believe. Mr.

Martindale: And the main reason for that wo uld be that yo u believe the Advoc ate wo uld then be more independent from government? Mr. Hartry: More independent and truly able to speak to all issues witho ut any fear of, yo u know , reprisal or reproach. Mr. Martindale: And yo u believe that the Children's Advocate legislation should be expanded, so that he or she co uld examine complaints emanating from children in any go vernment department, no t just Child and Family Services? Mr. Hartry: Yes, I do.

Certainly within my ow n system, a number of parents and yo ung peop le have approached me because of the impact of things like zero to lerance within schoo ls with no plan for that perso n to wo rk their way back in. There are issues that impact young people within my system. There are issues that impact yo ung peop le in other systems, and I believe all shou ld have at least the reco urse for a neutral party to act on their behalf or investigate it, minimally. Mr.

Ma rtindale: I agree with yo u that an impor tant ro le for the Children's Advocate co uld be to help enfor ce the United Nations Co nventio n on the Rights of the Child. I am wo ndering how the Children's Advocate could do that. Do you have any suggestio ns or ideas on that? Mr.

Hartry: I guess in looking at all the sectio ns of the conventio n, certainly it fits with any of us who wo rk in the-at least I personally believe it fits with any of us who wo rk within the service and advocacy ro le, and I think it gives so me clarity and also some ability to argue on behalf of yo ung peop le, taking into account certain articles in the conventio n. It was something that Mr . Mu lron ey, the Prime Mi nister of the day, too k a stron g initiative to and that the go vernment of the day of Manito ba ratified.

It is something that I believe pe rsonally does give so me ability to wo rk to ward so lutio ns in certain situatio ns. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Fir st of all, I will just do a little correction. It is not the government that is reviewing the Child Advoc ate's office. It is the Legislative Assembly, and so the co ngratulatio ns shou ld go to the Legislative Assembly, because it was a review mandated by the legislation. It is the Legislative Assembly that will pass any changes to the legislation and not the government.

So the government may be doing so me very goo d things, but in this case, it is the Legislative Assembly that is doing it. One of the presen tatio ns we received was from the Awasis Agency, and on e oft he po ints they made was that because of the po licing ro le of the Child Advoc ate's office to po lice co mp laints made by children about child care agencies, that it makes it more difficult for the Child Advoc ate to fill the other ro le of wo rking with the child care agencies in a proactive, po sitive approach to develop systemic changes in the system.

Accor ding to the presentation from Awasis, there are no changes needed in the legislation, just a change in the emphasis of the Child Advocate.

122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANIT OBA May 20, 1997 From your experience, would you suppor t that argument? Mr. Hartry: I guess, not having a chance to really look at all of that, I perso nally believe, going back to my original point, we do need to be held accountable for what we do, and sometimes we, as organizations, do make mistakes. We have erred sometimes which causes concern and trauma to the people we work with, and whether we are a child welfare agency, an education system, a justice system, I still believe we need to be held accountable for that.

I mean, I can still act as an advocate for that person, because I can admit to that person that I did make a mistake, and they have a right to recourse and they have a right to look at some other options . I know some people get very guarded, and they get into their little comer and say, no, I could not possibly be wrong. I guess I believe that every one of us can make mistakes, and I think, above all, the people whom we impact need some recourse to do that. As organizations and as agencies, I think we have a skin that should be able to take that, because we are going to get it positive and negative all the time.

I do not know ifthat answers your question, but it is a belief that I have, that I do not know that we cannot have something looking over us and keeping an eye on us. Mr. Kowalski: I guess the point Awasis was making was that, yes, there is a need for someone to be policing them, but after an agency is investigated by the Child Advocate's office, then it is hard to sit down the next day, to sit with them and be open as far as where they could improve instead of on a case by case. That was the point that they were making.

The other situation is we have an Ombudsman in Manitoba, and the Ombudsman's office can review complaints from a child about a child care agency that they feel is not handling their case properly. So we seem to have a duplication here. We have the Child Advocate receiving complaints from a child, or the child could go to the Ombudsman. As far as referring to the minister recommendations for changing the system, we have the director whose job is to review all cases and also be advising the minister.

So, right now, it seems the Child Advocate's office is an umbr ella duplicating a number of roles, of the director of Family Services, of the Ombudsman. What roles should no t be duplicated, what roles should be duplicated, and is there a unique role for the Child Advocate? Mr. Hartry: I guess the role that I see the Advo cate playing is truly what it says, as an advocate. When it comes to insurance and when you talk about making sure things are followed through, I would see that more in something like a child ombudsman as opposed to the regular Ombudsman.

Certainly, in reviewing some of the literature from B.C., they have a very strong youth service. They have a very strong child ombudsman's role, and in talking to some of my colleagues when I have been fortunate enough to be a part of meetings with them, they felt they had to do that because the interests are so varied and so different. * (1530 ) Above all, sometimes we as adults believe we are doing what is in the "best" interests of a child, and that is not always what that young person is feeling strongly toward, and they do need that voice.

I guess a child omb udsman whose area of expertise, area of knowledge, has all to do with young people at their various stages of development and the various things that they are involved with within our commun ity I think would better serve than an already overtaxed ombudsman' s office.

We have a very small office here as well, just looking at the number of cases that pote ntially could be there, and as far as enforcement of suggestions and working toward the power perhaps from that office as opposed to the Advocate's- like, I do no t think the Advocate should be the power to institute change as well, because when you talk about the difficulties in setting up that recourse afterwards, right now there is no other option .

Pe rhaps if there was somebody else you could ensure compliance to, then you could maintain your neutrality and your ability to investigate a case and do what is the best for everybody. I know that all the times some of those cases have been investigated, not always has it been the way the

May 20, 1997 LEG ISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MA NIT OBA 123 yo ung pe rson wanted. They have also taken a very stron g supportive po sitio n in other situ ations, in rev iewing some of the materials that I have done, and altho ugh I am not directly involved, I believe that is the ro le a true advocate needs to have. I need to be able to advocate for all people ifl am truly doing my job as the chairperso n of the coalition, not just for an area I am co mfor table with.

If I am not fully knowledgeable in an area, then I call in on e of my co lleagues from another area to speak to the matter, but we have to be able to advocate for all. Mr. Edward Heiwer (Gimli): Just a sho rt que stio n, yo u talked about the recording mechanism was not sufficient, in yo ur first remarks there. In what way is the recording mechanism no t wo rking, that yo u are talking about when you first started your remarks there? Yo u talked about the recording mechanism. Was this the Child Advocate or are yo u talking about Child and Family Services? Mr. Hartry: I am just trying to remember.

I was talking about the repo rting mechanism. Mr. Helwer: Oh, repor ting, ok ay. No t recording. Mr. Hartry: Yes, certainly, I think we need to have something where we can truly repo rt on all as opp os ed to this very narrow focused limitation that ou r current po sition has. Altho ugh we have massive caseloads within the child welfare system, it is a small number compared to all of the yo ung peop le who are impacted by decisio ns made by government agencies, or ganizations. I guess I have a lot of faith in the yo ung peop le of to day.

I guess I believe empowerment is part of the so lution, and if we had a true advocate to act on their behalf, then I have every faith that we wiii tum ou t ok ay. Ms. Diane McGitTord (Osborne): Thank you for your presentatio n, Mr. Hartry. Am I correct in understanding that what you describe as a true advocate sho uld be able to issue or ders and enfor ce co mpliance? Mr. Hartry: I guess what I believe is they sho uld do the investigation, make the recommendations.

As I said later, I think co mpliance co uld better be served maybe by something like another office like the Ombudsman who might be able to do that, so that there is still the po ssibility to advocate on bo th sides and stay that neutral party.

I think sometimes an advocate, certainly when I have looked at cases and acted as an advocate, so metimes what I say to bo th parties is not what they want to hear, so there needs to be so mething to help mo ve from that po int, and what I try to do is pass those on to somebody else to help them work throu gh that, because we try to do, taking into account everyth ing we believe is best, but perhaps throu gh a different office where the co mpliance co uld be looked at. I know , like, in B.C. that is I think wo rked thro ugh the om budsman office.

I believe also in Qu ebec legislatio n there is a different recourse as far as co mpliance. So I just think we have to look at so mething different. Mr. Martindale: Mr . Hartry, yo u mentio ned an all party committee of the Legislature, and I am wo ndering if you could expand on that suggestion.

It seems to me that on e advantage wo uld be that then the all-party co mmittee co uld ask the minister or any minister or a civil servant to come to the committee and co mment on or explain the recommendatio ns that the Chi ldren's Advocate or a children's co mmissioner or children's omb udsman had made and whether or no t tho se recommendations were being implemented. Was that what yo u had in mind or something else? Mr. Hartry: I guess I explor ed two op tio ns when I looked at ways it could wo rk.

Certainly as an independent office of the Legislative Assembly I wo uld see that as prob ably the pri mary way I wo uld go to suggesting. Seco ndary to that, and ensuring the po ssibility of no sense of any co mplicity or anything go ing on that wo uld warrant anything, an all-p arty co mmittee co uld do that, because I guess anytime we are held accountable to mo re than on e we have the op po rtunity, I think, for things to be dealt with more effectively.

It is the same way if my accountability is on ly to on e supervisor, I also am accountable to the peop le who hired me or iginally, to the principals in the schoo ls I wo rk in. That multiple accou ntability helps, I think-we ll, helps me and encourages me and at times forces me to do a much mo re effective job. I do not see anything wron g with that.

124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NIT OBA May 20, 1997 I guess I look at ho w can we make this system wo rk so it is the best for the kids in this provin ce. I guess I explored two op tio ns, so tho se are the two that I thought were much more satisfactory than just on e minister. That is not saying anything against the department or the minister, but if yo u have on e, there is always the chance for so mebody ou t there to say so mething that co uld be interpreted negatively and po tentially hurt or affect negatively that yo ung pe rson, and I do no t want to see that happen. Mr. Cha irperson: Mr .

Hartry, I want to thank yo u for yo ur presentation. We thank yo u for taking the time to give it to us, for answering ou r questio ns, and wish you well. Thank yo u very much. I wo uld now like to call on ou r next presenters, please, Lo uise Malenfant and To ny Bareirra. Ms. Louise Malenfant (Family Advocate of Parents Helping Parents): Well, I wo uld like to begin my co mments by thanking the Clerk of the co mmittee for the invaluable wo rk that they did for me to put this package to gether. I co uld not have done it without them. Patricia and the staf f of the office, thank yo u very much.

I have timed the- and I apologize in advance, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, for not prov iding this document to yo u prio r to my wo rds. Unfor tunately, it was right to the last minute. I have timed this and it go es to 18 minutes. So with no further ado, I will go ahead if yo u do not mind. Mr. Cha irperson: Please proceed. Ms. Malenf ant: Mr . Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the co mmittee, my name is Lo uise Malenfant, and since November of 1994 I have op erated a family advocacy proj ect know n as Parents Helping Parents in the provin ce of Manito ba.

In brief, the family advocacy project is available to tho se families in the community who believe they have been wro nged by the Child and Family Services system as a result of an ineffective and inco mplete investigative proc ess. Parents Helping Parents believes that children who are unnecessarily brou ght into the foster care system or submit ted to a psychological treatment proc ess when no co urt finding of abuse has been made, or an ineffective investigation has been co nducted, are being abused by the child welfare system.

In the two years of ou r op eration I have accepted advocacy respo nsibility for 48 cases, 32 of which have been resolved with the ou tco me of the reun ification of children with their families. In two years of op eration, I have examined approx imately 300 files on the request of the families.

Utilizing a kno wledge of the modern scientific proc edures of investigation and assessment, I identify tho se cases which I can advocate for, based on an analysis of the psycho logical and medical bo dy of literature, and how tnis research reveals investigative abnormalities as co nducted by the Child and Family Services.

One investigation takes on average approx imately three mo nths, tho ugh some have taken as long as eight mo nths, befor e I determine to my ow n satisfaction that the clients seeking my help have been falsely accused and that the children, therefor e, are being abused by the child welfare system. Fo r tho se members of the co mm ittee who are unfamiliar with my wo rk, I am providing a po rtfolio of public accounts of my wo rk for yo ur review, attached Appendix A. The Advocacy proc ess.

The reason why I feel so stron gly about prov iding input to this co mmittee reviewing the Children's Advocate is that my project has determined that it is no t in the best interest of children and families who seek my help to approach the Children's Advoc ate office. *

(1540) Part of the process of PHP advocacy is to identify aspects of the social system which have relevance on particular cases and bring our cases to their attentio n in order to create a momentum to achieve a po sitive reso lution for children and families. In the co urse of this work we have accessed the ministries of Family Services, Ju stice, Health, Education, as well as the Pr emier's office. We have developed avenues of interventio n with the Yo uth Division of the Winn ipeg Po lice department and the Crow n pro secutor's office.

Parents Helping Parents has also established a profile with various co mpon ents of the health care system, including the Co llege of Ph ysicians and Surgeo ns. In addition, we have established a profile with the

May 20, 1997 LEGI SLATIV E ASSEMB LY OF MA NITOBA 125 Chi ldren and Youth Secretariat and the prov incial Ombuds man's office. We, therefor e, suggest to the committee that the exclusion of the Children's Advocate from this list of co ntacts reflects poo rly on the reputatio n and effectiveness of the Office of the Children's Advoc ate. It has been ou r experience that the Children's Advocate relies too heavily on the agency file to analyze a case, and too little on the infor mation received from the families who seek its assistance.

Over the past year, thro ugh the Civil Justice Review Task Force, The CFS Act review, as well as public statements made by the prov incial medical examiner, Peter Markesteyn, it has beco me very clear that CFS files are incomp lete, self serving and inadequate to arrive at an understanding of the investigative process undertaken by the Child and Family Services on particular files. Neverth eless, we have found that Mr . Govereau's office relies so lely on the agency file, and he does not ques tio n the infor mation or co nfirm its reliability when he co nducts his investigations.

The Case of Melissa B: The first case which Parents Helping Parents bro ught to the attentio n of the Children's Advoc ate is prob ably the most infamous in Manitob a. I have prov ided to the co mmittee as Appendix B some of the pertinent case material. The case of Melissa B began in 1992 when the child was four years old. The little girl began telling tales of horror and violence unparalleled in ou r experience, with scenes of degradation and sexual assault that no small child should ever know.

She said that her father had thrust a knife into her buttoc ks, that he had squeezed her vagina with pliers, that her father held her down while her grandfather sexually assaulted her and her grandmother gave her a bath to wash the blood from her bo dy. She spoke of her father trying to po ison her and of his threats with guns, knives and too ls of to rture which he kept under his bed. There was on ly on e prob lem with this child's nightmare: It co uld not have happened. The child's parents were divor ced when she was eight mo nths old, and the mother refused access to the father.

When the child was two years old, the father agreed to supervised access by paid pro fessionals and further agreed that the visits wo uld take place in his parents' ho me, all for the purp ose of initiating some form of access. Visits with the child took place for three ho urs every other Saturday and co ntinued under these supervised co nditio ns until Me lissa was four years old, when the tales of ho rror began. The case materials in Ap pendix B will provide a more detailed accou nt of this sto ry. I ask the co mmittee to co nsider the actions of the Children's Advoc ate in this matter.

By 1995, the father had essentially been cleared of all allegations. The case was subjected to a full clinical assessment by the Child Protectio n Centre where it was determined that the father should have access and the mother sho uld receive psycho logical co unselling. Unsatisfied with this finding, the CFS took the case to their favourite psycho logist, Dr. E., who maintained that the allegation co uld still be true in the face of all evidence to the co ntrary. In spite of the co nflict of interest, associates from Dr.

E.'s office have been prov iding this child with co unselling ever since and continue to do so to this day, four years later. This tale of childhood degradation was brou ght to the attention of the Children's Advo cate in January of 1995. Mr . Govereau reviewed the file and accepted the agency's explanation that they were co mmitted to resuming access with this father. Mr. Govereau further encou raged Mr . B. to co-ope rate with the agency, and he noted that the psycho logist wo uld be meeting with the mother, father, legal representatives for them bo th, as well as representatives from Child and Family Services.

Mr . Gover eau did not know that the psycho logist wo uld soon leave to wn shortly after this meeting and has not been seen in Manitob a since. The Children's Advoc ate is unaware of the fact that to this day, Melissa B and her father are no closer to seeing each other than they were four years ago. Not on ly did Mr . Govereau move to close his file in this matter within a mo nth of ou r co ntacting his office, he also refused to keep track of the child and what was happening to her.

The greatest co ndemnatio n I can launch at the Children's Advocate is that he came to his hasty co nclusions based on infor mation prov ided so lely by Child and Family Services, and he never bothered to meet this child. What was most trou bling from ou r perspective is that by reviewing the agency file and finding no concerns there, Mr. Go vereau's interventio n served the purp ose of legitimizing the agency's actions in this matter, which was a detriment to the cause of

126 LEGI SLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA May 20, 1997 resolving this case. Today, Me lissa B continues to bring forth new tales of horror on a regular basis, provided with treatment by the same practitioners who assisted the CFS in denouncing the assessment of the Child Protection Centre. Though the case seems hopeless, I can never forget the plight of Melissa B, and as advocate for this family, I take every opportunity to bring her story to public attention in the hope that some way, someday, someone will do something to protect Me lissa from further harm.

Needless to say, we were very cautious about bringing other cases to the Children's Advocate, but this case would not be our last experience with the office of Wayne Govereau. The Chi ldren's Advo cate and Other Service Provi ders: I have noted in comments made by Mr . Govereau to this commit tee that he claims to be unable to address problems relating to services provided to foster children by departments other than Child and Family Services.

We reject his refusal to become involved with services provided by other systems to the chi ldren of foster care, especially since it is the case that those services are initiated by Child and Family Services. We suggest that it is incumbent upon the Office of the Chi ldren's Advocate to become involved in the analysis of services provided to the children of foster care, as they are always initiated by CFS. We have found as a significant problem the practice of CFS prov iding treatment to children where no finding of abuse has been made by the court.

The treatment services provided to young children will often have the effect of subs tantiating false claims of abuse, particularly when those children are subm itted to treatment which can go on for years without a trial being held to substantiate the allegations. This is a problem which the Children's Advo cate refuses to recognize. The second and final case brought to the attention of the Children's Advocate was that of Mr . M., a father with three children, ages one, three and six at the time of the case initiation back in 1991. When I met Mr .

M., he had not seen his children for nearly two years, as the result of an allegation made by his divorcing wife, which was never corroborated by the testimony of the children. The children had already been submit ted to an investig ation by Ch ild and Family Services for nearly three years by the time Mr . M. came to Parents Helping Parents . The children were also being seen by a worker at the Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre who was convinced that the children had been ritually abused, a finding she made because the children expressed abject terror of the government.

As the years went by with no disclosure of any kind, the MAT C worker never wavered in her belief that the children had been abused by their father. The middle chi ld, Darrell, was the primary focus of the allegation and suffered to the point where, at the age of seven, he expressed suicidal thought to his teacher. The teacher noted the following: Darrell ended up with his school bag over top of his head, and he had zipp ered it as tight as he could around his neck. I asked him why he was doing this, and he said, well, I do not want to live anymore. I do not want to breath.

I am going to keep this bag on my head until I cannot breathe anymore and I die. The teacher also related the following incident: We finally did get the bag off of his head, and then he ju st sort of stood up in the middle of the hallway and says, when I grow up I am going into the army, because then I can go to war, and when I go to war the first thing I am going to do is I am going to go out and I am going to stand there like this and they can shoot me, and then I do not have to live anymore. The words of these children are in the appendices that we have provided you. *

(1550) The teacher remarked that seven-year-olds nor mally do not think in terms of trying to kill themselves. Darrell's older brother, Christopher, would ultimately be the imp etus for our approach to the Ch ildren's Advocate on this case. Chris had always rejected the MA TC worker and refused to work with her. On one occasion the MA TC worker noted the following comment made by Chris: It does not matter how much you torture me, you can rip out my guts, but you will never get to my brain. These words were coming from a nine-year-o ld boy.

May 20, 1997 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127 Within six mo nths ofPH P intervention in this matter, the CFS had withdrawn the ir allegations of abuse against the father and eventually initiated unsup ervised access for the father and his children. By this time, the moth er had trou ble co ntrolling her eldest son who expressed extreme animosity to wards her as he blamed her for his inability to see his father ov er the years.

Matters reached the po int where the boy, who had always rejected wo rking with the MA TC, was committed to the MA TC psychiatric facilities, a move supp or ted by the CFS and the bo y's mothe r. The committee sho uld be aware that the case of Mr. B. noted earlier as well as Mr. M.'s case we re cases which or ig inated with the same unit of Child and Family Services. It was at this po int, in May of '96, where we attempted to interest the Children's Advocate in this case. In spite of the disturbi ng reco rds in this case, a po rtion of which has been provided to the committee in Ap pe ndix C, Mr.

Gove reau went to the MA TC to see the child and closed his file. That wo uld be, his staffperson went there. He ignored ou r concern that the MA TC was in conflict of interest by providing services to the bo y when they had been ov ercomm itted to the unsubstantiated allegations made previously against the fathe r. Mr. Gover eau note d that it is no t within the mandate of this office to review client admissions to the MA TC, in spite of the fact that these se rvices were authorized by the Child and Family Services.

We are pleased to advise the committee that to day the children have unlimited, unsup ervised access with their father, and the children are recovering from the ir long or deal. We wo uld like it to be noted that this result has occur red with no thanks ow ing to the Office of the Children's Advo cate who washed their hands of the case almost as soon as it was brought to their attentio n. Mr. Gove reau's assertio n that he cannot beco me involved with services provi ded to children under the auspices of the Child and Family Services is, in ou r view, insupp or table.

We are prov id ing to the co mmittee a brief on a case investigated by Parents Helping Parents which is a testament to the ability of anyone to access multiple service secto rs who have an inter est in the well-b eing of children. That wo uld be App endix D, the Bear case. Children's Advocate Experie nce and Training. Parents Helping Parents has co ncluded that the Chi ldren's Advo cate is ineffective for a number of reasons. Perhaps the mo st significant reason is that Mr. Gove reau readily admits that he was a social wo rker in the field for IS years and was also trained at the University of Manito ba.

I note in his co mments to the committee of April22, 1997, that Mr. Gove reau free ly admits that the U of M curriculum does not teach effective assessment methods for child welfare wo rk. Fo r this reason, what the Children's Advoc ate is able to pro vide in terms of crit ical analysis of agency proc ess is that of a U of M trained social wo rker standing in a critical po sitio n to oth er U of M trained so cial wo rkers. Mr. Go ver eau is untrained in the scientific assessment and risk estimatio n proc edu res which are necessary to provid e a critical analysis of agency work.

In tho se cases which we have bro ught to the Children's Advo cate, we have note d his deficiency in this area. Anot her significant reason why we believe that the Children's Advocate has been ineffective is that we have never heard anyone say a kind wo rd of respect to wards the Advo cate or the proc ess of analysis prov ided by his office. The mo st frequent comment we hear is that Children's Advocate did nothing to illuminate or advance their cases.

Others have noted the mysterious nature of his process , remarking that they have been unable to determine what, if anything, the Children's Advoc ate has done other than to review the agency file. In sho rt, Parents Helping Parents has been struck by the absence of any po sitive remarks made by members of the public with respect to the Children's Advo cate office. We have heard that the process provided by the Children's Advocate is useless, that it effects no change in terms of services provid ed to children and that it has no po sitive effect on the manner in which Child and Family Services handles a case.

In a similar ve in, we no te that the Children's Advocate office claims to be invo lved with approx imately 500 cases per year, and we have to wo nder why the Children's Advocate has never on ce been note d for champio ning a case that he feels passionately about. Whe re are the cases of the Children's Advocate office? Mr. Go vereau's annual

128 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA May 20, 1997 reports are long on rhetoric and short on case study examples of his work and what he has done to assist thos e who come into his office looking for help. Mr. Gov er eau has a great deal of powe r and influence invested in his office, and we find it strange that he has neve r used these powe rs to champion any particular case. For those who would point to secrecy laws as a defence, we would say that Parents Helping Parents has championed a great number of cases without pu blicizing the names of children or the ir families. Mr.

Gov ereau believes that the fallout and backlash which his office has received is the result of being both an advocate and an investigative body. Parents Helping Parents suggests that it would be impossible to separate advocacy and investigation into separate roles, as the latter is necessary to conduct the former. We further suggest that the fallout and backlash experienced by the Office of the Children's Advoc ate is directly related to its ineffectiveness and the pe rception that the proce ss provid ed is indistingu ishable from that which is provid ed by a CFS social wo rker.

Director of Child We lfare and Family Suppor t: Comm ents made by the Children's Advo cate to this hono urable commit tee on April 22, 1997, returne d more than once to the theme that the office of the Director of Child We lfare is not adequately doing the job of en suring standards for Child and Family Services, and he further charges that the director's office is not challenging agencies when decisions were wrong or when there were problems in case planning.

Ph il Goodman was named to the post of Director of Child We lfare in Fe bruary of 1996, and in his brief tenure, Parents Helping Parents has seen revolutionary changes taking place in the director's office. We would have to disagree with the Children's Advocate in his blanket condem nation of the Child We lfare office, for it is our experience that the cases we bring to his attention have regu larly received a fair hearing. Far from refusing to en sure acceptable standards of proce dure for the ope ration of CFS, we have found that the director has made this his No. I priority.

Thou gh we cannot say that every case we have broug ht to his attention has been resolved to our satisfaction, we also believe that to hold the director to such a high standard would not be fair and just. In the one and one half years that Mr. Goodman has held the office of director, we have seen sign ificant changes, both in the manner in which complaints are dealt with and in the reduction of serious complaints coming to light.

We have also seen changes in the way unit offic es of Child and Family Services are condu cting investigations , in the manner in which they treat families, in the recogn ition of the importance of vis itation to the well-b eing of children and in the recogn ition that the best inter ests of children are served by strengthening and reunifying families. Mr. Gove reau states that he will provid e a report of his findings on sp ecific cases to the Director of Child Welfare, following which, he hears nothin g about how the case was resolved. Mr. Gov er eau states that he cannot follow up.

We would ask the Ch ildren' s Advocate why he is unable to follow up on spec ific cases. In our dealings with the director's office, we have not relented until such time as the director and his staff have effectively investigated our concerns and provide d us with an indication of what his office intends to do about the identified problem.

There are times when we have had to play hardball with the director's office, which often means that in addition to our co rrespondence with his office, we ensure that the Minister of Family Services, sometimes the Premier or any othe r ministerial department having an influence on the case, are all kept informed and broug ht into the loop of commun ication. This ensures that our cases and the proce ss they are subm itted to are met with a rigorous attention to detail. Often, cases are resolved as a result of this multisystem commun ication process.

Attached you will find as App endix E a case example of this hardball proce ss. I would like to point out to the commit tee that the hardball case is with respect to the unit where Mr. M. and Mr. B. both em anate. The re was a third Kildonan fathe r, known as Mr. V. So they all come out of that same unit. While I would not want to leave the commit tee with the impression that we would not welcome additional changes at the Child Welfare office, we do believe that the pace of change is adequate given the length of tenure Mr. Go odman has held that office . We believe

May 20, 1997 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 129 that Mr. Goo dman was an excellent choice for the office he ho lds and have co mmended Family Minister Bonn ie Mitche lson several times for her decisio n. Altho ugh I have gnashed my teeth mo re than on ce for Mr. Goo dman, as I am sure he has for me when all is said and done, Mr. Goo dman has earned ou r respect For his willingness to listen to ou r concerns and for the changes we have seen inaugurated during his brief time in office.

The op enness of the Child Welfare office and the transparency of the process provided is in stark contrast to the mysterious process and lack of openness we have ob served of the Children's Advo cate office. Since taking office, Mr. Goodman has met with representatives of Parents Helping Parents on a regu lar basis. Sometimes a free-ranging discussion takes place regarding system issues that need to be addressed, and so metimes tho se meetings are held to discuss specific cases that require his attentio n. Mr.

Go vereau, howeve r, has predetermined witho ut investigatio n that the work of Parents Helping Parents and ou r interpretatio n of child welfare issues is of no interest or co ncern to the office of the Children's Advo cate. During on e case-speci fic meeting which was held with Mr. Go ver eau in attendance, Mr. Gove reau que stio ned the motives- Mr. Cha irperson: Excuse me. Okay, we are at 20 minutes. Ms. Malenfant: Oh, are we? Mr. Cha irperson: What I wo uld suggest is that we will make sure that the rest of yo ur pr esentatio n is in cor porated in Hansard- Ms. Malenfant: Okay. Mr.

Cha irperson: -that it will be su bmitted and will be a part of it. I assure yo u that that will happen. Ms. Malenfant: Okay. Mr. Cha irperson: Is that in agreement with the co mmittee that we proc eed that way? I do not want to take away from time for questio ns, because I am sure there are a number of que stions. So is that agreed with the co mmittee that the in for mation will be put in on Hansard? An Honourable Member: The brief on ly. Mr. Chair person: The brief on ly, yes. Ms. Malenfant: The brief on ly, yes. Mr.

Chair person: That is agreed upon ? [agreed] The n I will op en it up, but this time for questions , please. Are there any questio ns from any of ou r co mmittee members? Oh, there are no que stio ns. Well, then let us pro ceed, and just go ahead. I did not want to take away from the time for que stio ns. Thank yo u. Please proc eed, Ms. Malenfant. Ms. Malenfant: During on e case- specific meeting which was held with Mr. Govereau in attendance, Mr.

Go vereau questio ned the motive s held for the op eration of Parents Helping Parents, suggesti ng that I, as advocate for the organizatio n, was engaged in a process of seeking revenge and displaying personal anger to wards the system. *

(1600) I indicated to Mr. Govereau that Par ents Helping Parents was designed to fulfill a need to make the child welfare system mo re accountable and to educate the public about the prob lems of op eratio n and the impact that CFS had on the lives of children and families, particularly as these prob lems ar e related to the inadequate training and assessment skills of Manitoba social wo rkers. At that time, I offer ed to meet on a regu lar basis with Mr. Go vereau, so that we might reach a mutual understanding about ou r unique perspectives on the child welfare system.

I further indicated that the directo r of child welfar e and the assistant deputy minister, Mr. David Langtry, were meeting regularly with Parents Helping Parents in or der to acquire an understanding of the family perspective on child welfare issues. Mr. Gover eau categorically refused to engage in this type of process, stating: I wo uld not be interested in meeting regu larly with yo u. Needless to say, this comment cut ou r meeting sho rt, and with some embarrassment we left the Children's Advoc ate office.

130 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA May 20, 1997 Be ing well kno wn for my persistence and an inability to remain insulted for long, I on ce again attemp ted to initiate a no-agenda meeting to share the perspective of Parents Helping Parents and ob tain a better understanding of the op eration of the Children's Advocate. As I had recently announced the retirement of the family advocacy project, Mr. Gov ereau did agree to meet with me as a farewell gesture. When I arrived for ou r meeting, I was no nplussed to learn that Mr.

Gov er eau was not in his office, had made no effort to cance l ou r meeting and offered no excuse for his absence or a rescheduling of ou r meeting. This type of arrog ance and petty on e-u pmanship is what I have co me to expe ct from the Office of the Children's Advocate. The Pu blic Vo ice of the Children's Advocate: In January of 1995, Mr. Gov ereau released the first repo rt of the Children's Advoc ate office and caused a majo r sensatio n in the media on child welfare issues.

I still have in my files the exciting news repo rts of that time, where many prob lems within the child welfare system were give n a good public airing for what was pe rhaps the first time in Manitoba. Unfor tunately, the public vo ice of the Children's Advocate has grow n progressively weaker ov er the past three years. Each subsequ ent annual repo rt has been a rehash of the first, with co rrelating weakness in public interest as a result. It is ou r op inion that in many respects Mr. Go ve reau was largely absent from the public debate of child welfare issues that have taken place over the past year. Mr.

Gov ereau was notably absent during the ro und table discussion on child welfare issues undertaken by the Civil Justice Review Task Force and chaired by Mr. David Newman. Mr. Newman was questioned by participants on the Child Advoc ate's absence, and he advised that Mr. Gov ereau provided no explanation for his failure to attend the public debate . Mr. Cha irperson: Excuse me, I will ju st interject here. Yo u have about seven minu tes left. Ms. Malenfant: It is the opinion of Parents Helping Parents that Mr.

Govereau was reluctant to attend out of a fear that he would have been taken to task publicly for the ineffectiveness of the Children's Advocate, a fear that was warranted given the attendance of this advocate at that public hearing. Mr. Govereau is also remembered for his seemingly divisive comments on the issue of child deaths caused by child abuse. Mr. Govereau was invisible during the rousing debate on the issue when Sophia Schmidt and Nadine Beaulieu were killed while under the care and su pervision of Child and Family Services.

When Meagan Ramsay was killed by a baseball bat, allegedly at the hands of her father, Mr. Govereau spoke publicly about the need to address the problem of child abuse deaths caused by parents. If Mr. Govereau had taken the time to research the issue, he would have found that children die in foster care as often as they do at the hands of parents. We submit that the death of a child is no time to be playing politics by comparing foster care to parental care. Mr. Govereau is well known for preferring system life for chil dren over the care provided by families.

Nowhere was this more evident than when Bonnie Mitchelson announced the new direction of the famil y ministry to reduce the number of children in foster care on July 26, I996. I am not sure the government makes the best parents, said Mitchelson. Govereau dismissed the minister ' s intentions by trying to smear the initiative with the charge that family reunification is a simple cost-cutting measure that end angers children. This remark highlights the significant deficiency in research acumen curren tly present in the Children 's Advocate office.

Other jurisdictions have moved toward family unity policies because it has been recognized that state operated child rearing is not producing healthy citizens; it is producing the next generation of society's alienated mis fits. The Children 's Advocate should be well aware of the fact that Manitoba has the highest provincial rate of foster care in Canada, I 00 percent higher than the next closest province of Saskatchewan. Today, Manitoba takes children into foster care at a rate of 19 children per thousand population.

When we compare this to Ontario 's rate of 5 chil dren per thousand, a rate which is similar to the national U.S. rate of apprehension, it is hard to see why Mr. Govereau is opposed to reducing the number of children in foster care. Mr. Govereau is at odds with the government of the day because he continues to hang on to antiquated

May 20, 1997 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN IT OBA 131 ideas which maintain that foster care is better than family care. We su ggest that this is reflective of Mr. Govereau' s out-of-date training in the ideology of child protection, as there is overwhelming evidence to show that foster care is not good for children and should be used only as a last resort. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I will ju st go to the next sectio n which is Fost er Care versus Family Care, the Ideo logical Divide . One of the most significant reasons why I cannot support the activities of the current Children's Advo cate is that Mr.

Go ver eau seems to have blinders on when it co mes to recognizing the desperate lives lived by many children in foster care . The children of foster care are ov errepres ented in the alienated behaviours of teen crime, teen pregnancy, teen pros titution and the phe nom enon of runaways. It is no co incidence that in all of these behavioural indicators, Manitob a has the highest rate of juv enile crime, teen pregnancy and runawayism, co rrespo nding to ou r high rate of foster care . Mr.

Gov ereau's ow n annual repo rt notes that 12.3 percent of Manitob a yo uth in care were on prob ation under the Yo ung Offenders Act. In one study co nducted on the Winnipeg system, it was note d that in the first three mo nths of the study pe riod, there was a 36 pe rcent AW OL rate of foster children ou t of Leve l IV grou p ho me facilities, such facilities almost exclusively used for adolescents.

One issue of sign ificant co ncern to Parents Helping Parents emanates from the fact that there are eight group home facilities for adolescents being op erated within 10 minutes of the child pros titutio n tracks of this city. It is said that nearly every ho me-g row n hoo ker has done a to ur in Marymound. Fo ster care facilities in the heart of pros titutio n and gang territo ry sho uld be a significant issue for ou r Children's Advoc ate. Othe r studies have show n the foster child's greater risk for academic failure, psychiatric prob lems and iso latio n from peers.

Fo ster children dr op ou t in Grades 8 or 9 rather than 10 and 11 . The number of ho mes the average foster child is mov ed to is five in the first year, initiating a pattern of rejectio n, lack of discipline, noncommi tment to the child, which leads to social drift. One Alberta study has note d that regardless of the cause of children co ming into care, negative co nsequ ences for foster care are frequently noted. Other studies have sho wn a link between foster care and un intended pregnancy, academic underachievement, substance abuse, suicide, ho melessness, criminality and mental health prob lems.

Foster children become alienated from the successful means of goal attainment in society precisel y because they are dehumanized when all family ties are severed. In Manitoba, when CFS makes a allegation, it often eliminates all visitation to the entire family system of the accused. American research has established the correlation between the well-being of foster children and family visitation. The deprivation of access to the children of foster care is not an issue that concerns our Children 's Advocate.

In spite of all of the prob lems that co rrelate with foster care, and there has been an attempt to be brief on this po int, . the Office of the Children's Advocate stren uo usly deno unces the po licy of family reunification and the reduction of the number of children in foster care . Mr. Gove reau prefers to believe that foster care is someho w better for children than family care . In addition to the inaction and ineffectiveness of the process provid ed by the Children's Advoc ate office, another primary reason why we cannot support Mr.

Gover eau's co ntinued tenure in the Office of the Children's Advo cate is his refusal to examine the quality of life provided to the children of foster care . We submit that foster care should be reserved for the most extreme cases when no family members are available to care for children, or the parents have serious problems which cannot be addressed with therapy and supervision.

With a reduction of foster care children, it is contended here that the mental health and justice resources of this province would be more than adequate to take care of those children who have no other option but the foster care system. I have made some co mments on the annual repo rts. Altho ugh the first one was significantly better than the following two , I found that they have had ve ry little in the way of scientific infor mation. All too often, Mr. Go vereau states that he has helped a number of families, but we have nothing, we have no case studies to show that Mr.

Gov ereau has, in fact, helped families and exactly what he has done to help tho se families. In

132 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA May 20, 1997 addition , Mr. Gov er eau identifies all closed cases as being reso lved without co nsideration of co nsume r satisfaction. I note in his final repo rt ju st made recently that there is actually a sectio n done on ou tco me ev aluations, and I tho ught that was a little bit amusing because the Children's Advocate has a prob lem in its ow n right with establishing meaningful measures of case ou tcom es. Children 's Advocate An nual Reports: Parents Helping Parents has experienced extreme frustration with the annual reports released by the Children' s Advocate.

There seems to be no effort to provide well detailed case stud ies which could convince the reader that the Children's Advocate does have a recognizable process and has had significant impact on the quality of result experienced by the children and families who ask for his help. We are to take his word for it that there are people in the community who have benefited from the operation of this office. In addition, the scientific calibre expressed in the annual reports is very low rate. For example, Mr. Govereau identifies all closed cases as being resolved without cons ideration of consumer satisfaction.

We have seen man y cases where the Children 's Advocate has elected to close the file on a complaint even though the person who asked for his services was far from satisfied with the conclusion. It was particu larly amusing to see that in the 1995-96 report a brief was prepared on the subject of outcome evaluations in spite of the problem the Children' s Advocate has in its own right with establishing meanin gful measures of case outcomes. It is also notable of all three Children 's Advocate reports that they are very weak in terms of research on child welfare and foster care issues.

It has been our perception that Mr. Govereau does not keep himself up to date on developments in the professional literature in these research areas, and what we are left with is a Children' s Advocate who continues to maintain theories and ideologies which have not been current for 20 years, since the time when he was last studying social work in university. We respectfully su ggest that no amount of exposure to the system can take the place of maintaining a responsible level of knowledge of professional developments taking place in the field of social work and child welfare policy.

I will ju st fly over to the Co nclusions. Can yo u tell me ho w many minutes I have left, Sir? Mr. Chair person: Yo u have four minutes left. Ms. Malenfant: Most peop le say that they want two things ou t of their child welfare system, objectivity and respo nsibility. Frie nds and critics of the system alike say they want ob jective investigations co nducted by respon sible investigator s. The y want professionals to approach their tasks without bias and to pe rfor m them in a manner that elicits the truth without influencing the result.

No less impor tant to most people is a desire to see professionals held accountable for the ir actions. Acco untability and effect ive proce dures cannot take place in Manitob a's child welfare system until we find the co urage to recogn ize our current prob lems and ar e ready to impor t the scientific research established in oth er child welfare systems who ar e far ahead of us in evolutio nary develo pment. Most child welfare systems in the U.S. recognized 20 years ago that institu tio nal child-rearing practices were a dismal failure.

Far from prote cting children, the U.S. recognized that the foster care system had the effect of gu arantee ing failure for American children . Manitob a is far behind the learning curve in many respects, but in ot hers we have done so much review and analysis of ou r child welfare system in the past two years that I am very ho pe ful and op timistic about the future of ou r child welfare system in this provinc e. Tho se who refuse to change and jo in the tide of revo lution sweeping this provi nce must be identified and replaced with new thinkers.

Maintaining an ideology which will increase foster care numbers and ho ld up the belief that the system someho w raises better citizen s than the family is a practice which must be eliminated in the provi nce of Manitob a. Family Minister Bonni e Mitchelson has taken this province from being the wo rst perfor ming child welfare system to one which is at the vanguard of change in this co untry. It is my stro ng belief that the po licies and theo ries which have been inaugurated under her tenure as mtmster will have long- ranging, po sitive implications for the children and families of this prov ince .

May 20, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OBA 13 3 The child welfare system of Manitob a is no longer recogn izable from the system which ex isted on ly three years ago when the Advocate's office was established in this provin ce. I am sure that Mr. Go vereau wo rked hard and to the best of his ability to fulfill his duties as Children's Advocate of this provinc e. I am also certain that Mr. Go vereau represents a bygone era when foster care was tho ught of as the most effective metho d of dealing with family dysfunctio n and child abuse. Do I have a minute left, Sir, for my reco m mendatio ns? Mr.

Cha irperson : Yo u have on e minute left. Ms. Malenfant: My recommendations are as follow s: That a new Children's Advocate be named who will have the scientific training and expe rience required to establish accountability in the delivery of services to foster children. The expe rie nce of Mr. Gove reau and his staff shou ld be retained, if po ssible , to prov ide co ntinuity and maintain the wealth of child welfare knowledge accrued in the past three years.

That a person with American Ph .D training be considered for the po sition of the Children's Advocate, as they will be know ledgeable about the most up-t o date metho ds of investigation and risk-e stimatio n procedures. Several Manitob ans who wo uld be suitable for this po sition are as follows: Kaye Dunlo p, an attorn ey; Ro salyn Go lfman, a clinical psycho logist; Mark Berkow itz and Wayne Ashley, also clinical psycho logists.

Number three : That legislatio n encomp assing the philosoph y that the best interests of children are served by maintaining and strengthening families be explor ed for implementation in Manitob a. The Child, Yo uth and Family Advoc acy Act of British Co lumbia sho uld be given serious co nsideration, with a view to wards examining some of the prob lems and successes which this advocacy system has had in the prov ince of British Co lumbia.

On behalf of Parents Helping Parents, I wo uld like to thank the co mmittee for hearing ou r concerns about the op eration of the Children's Advocate in the prov ince of Manitoba. *

(1610) Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Ms. Malenfant. You have given us an awful lot of infor mation here, and you have go ne throu gh it very rapidly. I want to thank yo u on behalf of the subcom mittee for yo ur repo rt, and seeing as that our time is up, I guess we will leave it at that as far questio ns are co ncerned. Thank yo u again for all the wo rk that yo u have go ne to . Ms. Malenfant: Thank you very much. Mr. Chair person: Then I wo uld next like to call on Eva Temchuk, please. Eva Temchuk, please.

I wo uld suggest then that, if it is the agreement with the co mmittee, we just take a short break, just a sho rt recess. Okay, I guess my que stion here is with Eva-if she co mes within the next minute or two wo uld be my co ncern. I have no prob lem, yo u know , as long as I wo uld be able to co ntact everyone. I wo uld hate to have her wait. Yo u will be in yo ur office. Co uld we get in to uch with yo u there? Okay, then we will meet again at 4:30. Thank yo u. Co mmittee rise. No , co mmittee does not rise. Recess. Pardon me. Co mmittee recess. The sub committee recessed at 4:12 p.m.

After Recess The subcommittee resumed a/ 4:35 p.m. Mr. Cha irperson: Order, please. I wo uld like to call the co mmittee back to or der. Before we do get go ing and I ask Mr. Coe lho to co me and give his presentation, I am go ing to intro duce the subcom mittee members here. I am go ing to start off to my far left at the end of the table here is Mr. Helwer, the MLA for Gimli, Mr. Tweed, the ML A for Turtle Mo untain. The n on this side here, Ms. McGifford, the ML A for Osborne and Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples. I believe that Mr. Martindale, who is the MLA for Burrow s, is just walking in as I speak.

He is here as well.

134 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1997 So, Mr. Coelho, I want to thank you for accepting the inv itation to come and give a presentation. As I indicated to you before, I will ask you for your presentation first, and then after that I am going to op en it up for questions. I will recogn ize the questio ner and then you as the pe rson giving the answer . Thank you very much. Please proceed, Mr. Coelho. Mr. Luis Coelho (President, CUPE Local 21 53): Alright. I will just read my presentation to you then. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and commit tee members. My name is Luis Coelho.

Let me begin by thanking you for the opportu nity to speak to you about my views on the impor tance of the Office of the Chi ldren's Advo cate. I appear before you as the president of CUPE Local 215 3. Our local represents about 450 staff at Winnipeg Child and Family Services. These staff include social workers, clerical, administrative people, and family support worke rs. I speak to you today on behalf of all of them.

Personally, I have been a social worker in child welfare in Winnip eg for 17 years, so I have seen first hand the needs of children and families in our commun ities and how these needs often go unmet. We know that the deteriorating social conditions in Manitoba are driving more families into crisis. Once in crisis, these families discover that the Child and Family Services agencies only have the resourc es to provide them with little more than emergency services. We feel a strong respo nsibility to inform the public and the government about this crisis in child welfare .

In fact, we have been working for some time on a detailed, com prehensive brief which we will soon be presenting to the go vernment and to all MLAs so that decisions made about services to children and families are informed decisions based on information from those of us who work daily to carry out the mandate of The Child and Family Services Act. Tod ay, howe ver, I will limit my remarks to reasons why we supp ort the Office of the Children's Advocate, and some thou ghts on how the minister may want to improve that office's mandate. Consider these frighten ing facts.

Number one, from 1985 to the year ending 1995-96, the number of children in care of the child welfare system in Manitoba grew by 62 percent to a total of 5,336 children. This means that Manitoba has the highest proportional number of children in care of any provinc e in Canada. Number two, during that same period, 1985 to '95-96, there was a 242 pe rcent increase in reports of physical and sexual abuse of children. These are indeed fiighten ing facts, and very sad facts. These trends will not be reversed in the foreseeable future because the root causes have not been dealt with or sometimes even acknowledged.

An en vironmental scan, done by Prairie Research here in Winnipeg in 1996, to shed some light on these tren ds, concluded that pove rty, the number of single paren t home s, and the large number of mi nority peoples, mostly aboriginal, are the major causes for the trends that I have outlined here. Even with only this sketchy background, it become s clear that the continued need for a Children's Advocate remains as relevant today as it was when the office was formed in May of 1993.

In as much as we too advocate on behalf of our clients every day, our ability to do this is constantly com promised by the chronic lack of resou rces and extreme workloads. For example, as the Children's Advo cate has accurately point ed out in his latest repo rt, one example of our inability to advocate for our clients is dir ectly related to the lack of spec ialized treatment resour ces for children.

Whe n we look at the number of children needing care, combined with the identified lack of resource s present in the child welfare system, we can expect that many children will not receive the quality services they need and deserve. Whe n children are not prope rly served or are not heard by any go vernment agency, they need to have as many voic es as possible to speak on the ir behalf. The refore, this is why even if at times it may appear that our own child welfare work is being criticized by the Office of the Children's Advoc ate, that is okay with us, because the mo re important ove rriding

May 20, 1997 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 135 principle is that the child's rights are pro tected and the chi ld's viewpo ints and inter ests are seriously co nsidered. Fur thermo re, if ou r ability to care for children and supp o rt families is co mprom ised by deficiencies in the system and the lack of reso urces, then we welcome the role of the Children's Advoc ate in identifying these systemic issues and the ir impact on the quality of services to children and families. *

(1640) Lastly, as a co mpariso n, the Office of the Ombudsman of Manitob a exists to investigate citizens' comp laints against the gov ernment of Manitob a. This is a good thing, because every citizen has a right to be treated fairly by their gov ernment or any gove rnment agency. Fo r children who are po werless and vo iceless, their ow n advocate is extremely mo re impor tant and even mo re legitimate. In the area of ho w to improve the Office of the Children's Advoc ate or make it mo re effective, I have a few tho ughts for your consideration:

(1) If we accep t the ro le of the Children's Advocate in the same way that we value the Office of the Ombudsman, then the Children's Advocate should repo rt to the Leg islature in the same way that the Ombudsman does and not only to the Minister of Family Services. I will add again that because of the ir lack of po wer and vo ice, children's issues are everyone's issues, and as such they shou ld be bro ught to the Legislature for action and consideration. Also, in this respect, the Office of the Chi ldren' s Advocate has to be and has to remain to tally unp olitical.

It has been ou r experience in child welfare that this is a very po litically charged area which so metimes has been used by po liticians for po litical purp oses. Fo r this reason, the Office of the Children's Advo cate needs to be respon sible to the who le Legislature and not just the on e party or on e minister. Number two , the children invo lved in the child welfare system are almost always invo lved in receiving oth er gov ernment service as well.

Therefore, if we accept the legitimacy of the Children's Advo cate in assisting children to deal with child welfare issues, and I t hink that we do, then it shou ld make sense for the Advo cate to assist children in any area of concern they may have, be it education, health, mental health or the ju venile justice system. In short, the gu iding princi ple shou ld be that any child dealing with the gov ernment agency shou ld have access to a Children's Advo cate if that child is not receiving fair and approp riate treatment and attentio n. Number three,

whereas the ro le of the Chi ldren's Advocate is legitimate, necessary, and can give vo ice to a child's co ncerns, and wher eas in many cases this is sufficient to ensure that the children's rights ar e protected and his needs met, there may be times when the Children's Advocate should have some authority to have plans not just devised and agreed up on but actually implemented. This ability of the Children's Advo cate to insist on certain actions wo uld give real meaning to the princi ple that children indeed have rights which we, as a society, agree up on and insist up on.

In co nclusio n, the need for the Children's Advo cate is as necessary now as it ever was, unfor tunately. The ability of the Advo cate to do his jo b can and shou ld be en hanced. I therefor e enco urage yo u all to use this review as an oppor tunity to affirm the need for the Children's Advocate and to make the changes necessary so that the Advocate's office can in fact do its job. This co ncludes my remarks. I will attempt to answer any questio ns yo u might have. Thank yo u. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you very much, Mr.

Coe lho, for your repo rt and for the reco mmendatio ns yo u have given to us here in this subcom mittee. I will op en it up no w to questio ns, and Mr. Martindale has so mething. Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Coelho , for an excellent and concise presentation. I want to co mmend yo u for supportin g the Office of the Children's Advocate even tho ugh the Advocate has been ve ry critical of the worke rs that yo u represent. So I think that sho ws that yo u have objectivity, and I co mmend you for that.

Do you think it wo uld be better to have the Children's Advoc ate investigate complaints emanating from any or all go vernment departments or co uld the cu rrent Ombudsman do that? Mr. Coelho: Yeah, I guess my po int was that it shou ld be the Children's Advocate or someone like that-1 think we have an Ombudsman to deal with, I gu ess, adult issues. The Children's Advocate by its definition deals

136 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1997 with children, and I think that if children are not receiving prop er edu cation, pro pe r health services, mental health, whatever, they shou ld be dealt with and investigated by the Children's Advoc ate. That wo uld make sense to me. Mr. Martindale: One of the issues that a number of brief s have dealt with is the issue of co mpliance or implementation of the reco mmendatio ns of the Chi ldren's Advo cate.

I think we are really go ing to have to wrestle with this when the committee writes its repo rt, because this has been described by on e presenter as the po lice functio n, and so there are a numb er of prob lems that yo u get into when yo u try to en for ce reco mmendations. Now I realize that on e of the prob lems we have now is that the Advocate is fairly po werless in that he can investigate and make recomm en dations but has no po wer to even influence the implementation of those reco mmendatio ns. So I gu ess the question is: Ho w do yo u get co mpliance with the reco mmendations?

What mechanism wo uld we use or what shou ld we write into the legislatio n? One of the presentations that we heard talked about mediatio n, co nciliation, family grou p co nferencing, healing circles. I am wo ndering if yo u believe that tho se are suitable mechanisms for ensu ring compliance or even prob lem-s olving, and if so, sho uld that be written into the legislation? Mr. Coelho: I think all those suggestio ns so und like ve ry good ideas. I admit that I am not sure I have a spec ific so rt of meat-o n-th e-bon es idea.

I think it is impo rtant, if the Advo cate is go ing to advocate for children, that when yo u have a plan, that so meho w there is some expectation that it be carried ou t, and if it is no t carried ou t, that some oth er mechanism wo uld kick in making a reco mmendation that so mething shou ld happen, and leaving it at that, it is pret ty po werless and I guess it does not achieve what it shou ld. I gu ess I am inter ested in giving some clout somewher e so that kids rights are prot ected and, if a child needs a particular so mething, that that be done. I do not know ho w that wo uld wo rk.

It co uld be prob lematic in so me cases, but I think we co uld start with things like co nferences, healing circles and mediatio n to make sure that what the child needs, he gets. I do not know who wo uld have the authority, but I think it wo uld be wo rthwhile thinking about placing so me authority like that with the Children's Advocate. Mr. Kowalski: I wo uld like to echo Mr. Martindale's co mments that this is a wo nderful brief , and co ming from the wo rkers, it does attest to yo ur co ncern for chi ldren first even before some of yo ur ow n personal co ncerns.

Just to understand with what vo ice yo u spe ak, I am wo ndering how this brief came to be. As far as on ce this brief was written or discussed amongst yo ur membership, how wide supp o rt is there for the po sitions put in here? Was it discussed at an annual general meeting or ·v as there a co mmittee? Ho w did this brief co me to be? Mr. Coelho: It was discussed at a general meeting that this op po rtunity had co me up and, as president, I ex pressed the feeling that we felt we shou ld make a pres entation in supp o rt of the Child Advocate's office.

Peop le generally agreed with that, and I gu ess that allowed me the op po rtunity to go ahead and write so meth ing that I tho ught made sense . I have checked with a co uple of peo ple and they had no difficulty with the comments here, so I presume that I am speaking on their behalf. Mr. Kowalski: One other issue that we have discussed befor e on so me of these pres entations was about children's knowledge of the Child Advocate's office and children's knowledge of their rights to address the ir concerns about ho w they are being tre ated by child care wo rkers.

Do yo u think it sho uld be a requirement in the legislatio n, bo th in The Family Service Services Act and in this legislation, that all children coming into care must be to ld of the ir right to co mplain to the Child Advoc ate, or ar e we just looking for mo re co mplaints the n? Mr.

Coelho: I think the infor mation is ou t there, but I mean, based on the co mments I have made about, I think, the importance of children's rights as opp osed to any grief that might come my way because the child is co mplaining about something or oth er, I think that a child has a right to appeal to some author ity if they even feel that they are not being prop erly treated. So I wo uld not have any prob lem with us being mo re up front with children about the fact that if at any time they feel that they are not being prop erly tre ated, they sho uld have a third party to go to, to advocate on the ir behalf.

May 20, 1997 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 137 I know that I personally have had a couple of those cases where basically there is not a major prob lem, but I think the Advocate is satisfied that we are doing the best we can at the time. I think kids have the right to do that, and they should, and I think the mor e information we give them, the more empowerment they feel, and I think that is a good thing. Ms. McGifford: Thank you very much for your presentation. I always value the input of people who have hands-on experience so I take, and I am sure my colleagues take your presentation extremely seriously.

I notice, too, that the first two recommendations that you make are very similar to those made earlier today by Mr. Hartry so there are numb ers on your side as well. The third recommendation is one I am not quite certain about. I do not mean that I am not certain that it is a good recommendation; what I mean is I am not quit e sure what it says. You talk about the need to have--the Child Advocate should have authority to have plans, not just devised and agreed upon, but actually implemented.

So I am guessing here that what you are asking for is a Children's Advocate who has teeth, who has clout, who can actually have his recommendations implemented. *

(1650) Mr. Coelho: Yes, I guess, in my rather imperfect way, that is what I am getting at; that somehow rather than just sit down and agree on what should happen to a child and come up with a plan, that somehow there be some accountability for that plan to be implemented and if not, then some repercussion down the road, some other mechanism.

So that is what I am getting at and, I guess, talk about the fact that I think if we really are serious about giving children rights, then we have to make sure that those things get carried out as opposed to ju st having nice sounding words and plans that do not really mean very much. Ms. McGifford: I did not mean to cast aspersions on the quality of your writing. Do you think this needs to be legislated? This particular power of the Children's Advocate, do you think it needs to be enshrined in legislation? Mr. Coelho: Why, now you have got me. I would think so.

I think that if we are going to give anyone any power, normally it is under some kind of a legislative law so I presume that if we are giving someone some authority to do something, it should be legislated. Ms. McGifford: So you are looking for amendments to the legislation that would actually give the Office of the Children's Advocate the power to, not merely make recommendations or suggestions, but in fact to issue binding orders. Mr.

Coelho: Yes, I guess I would suggest that, in practicality, if a plan was to be implemented within a certain time frame, if there is a difficulty with that, that it be brought back for discussion as to why that was not done. So I would rather have a gentle persuasion rather than a heavy hand, but whichever way, if the heavy hand needs to be there, that is fine too. Mr. Chair person: Any further questions from the commit tee? Mr.

Martindale: I noticed with interest, in your brief, the environmental scan since I have also had a chance to read it, and I know that it says that the risk factors for children which result in disproportion ate numb ers coming into care are living in poverty, living in a single parent home and being aboriginal, so those are the indicators of the children most likely to come into care, which partly explain the very high numbers of children in care in Winnip eg, for example.

The Children's Advocate, when he made a present ation to this comm ittee, recommended that the Advocate have the ability to make recommendations respecting any and all legislation, policy and practices vis-a-vis their impact on children and youth. I am wondering if you agree with this, and just to use an example, last year we had amendments to regulations and legislation regarding social assistance, and as a result the levels of assistance to families, including families with children, were lowered.

Do you think it would be helpful if the Children's Advocate were allowed to comment on legislation and on policies and practices in all government departments?

13 8 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY _O_F_M_A_N_I_T_O_B-'-'A=---- ---- -----=- M:.::.:a::...Ly-=2=0!._, 1:.:.9-'--9-'-7 Mr. Coelho: I had not quite thought about that, but I guess if we follow the principle that I was talking about, that chi idren need to have a voice and someone to represent them because they do not have a voice if they do not have a lot of power, I would agree then that any changes in law that would detrimentally affect chi ldren, that they need to have someone to speak on their behalf.

If that is what we define the Advocate as being, then it would make sense for the Advocate to have at least the ability to voice concerns about changes that may take place that may impact on children who do not have a voice. So that would make sense. Mr. Martindale: It has also been recommended by some people that the Advocate have a role in seeing that the government implements the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Do you think it would be helpf ul if Manitoba's Children's Advocate took on that role? Mr. Coelho: Another good idea.

Maybe I hint at that in the third recommendation when we talk about, if we really mean what we say then certain actions have to follow. So giving the Advocate the right to insist on certain plans, not just being implemented, but carried out for children goes along with this. I mean, if we really believe that children do have rights, then I think we have to have plans in place and mechanisms in place that ensure those rights are not just words but are actually a reality.

I guess, again, I would agree with that, that I think if we are going to accept the children's rights from the Geneva Convention, then I think the Advocate will speak on behalf of the children when he feels that those rights are being violated. Mr. Chairperson: I want to thank you very much on behalf of the subcomm ittee for giving us your report, for coming and taking time to present it to us, and for answering our questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Coelho: Thank you for your time. Mr.

Cha irperson: With, again, the agreement of the comm ittee, I would suggest that we recess until 5:30 when our next presenter will be coming. Just to report back on Eva Temchuk, she will try to get her report to us but was contacted by our Clerk and sht: was not able to come this afternoon. Recess until 5:30 sharp. The subcommi ttee recessed at 4:56p.m. After Recess The su bcommittee r ·su med at 5:33 p.m. Mr. Cha irperson: Order, please. I would like to call the committee meeting back to order. I believe that our next presenter has arrived. Our next presenter, the information I have been given, is Mr.

Corbin Shangreaux, and I want to welcome you here. Maybe, just before you get started, I am going to introduce the members of our subcomm ittee here. Sitting on the far right there is Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples; and Mr. Martindale here, MLA for Bur rows; and Mr. Tweed, the MLA for Turtle Mountain. My name is Peter George Dyck; I am the MLA for Pembina. Before you get started as well, just to indicate to you that we will be hearing your presentation, and then I am going to be opening it up to our committee members for questions.

I will identify the commit tee member, and then I will identify yourse lf, the presenter. So it will be a back-and-forth dialogue, but I will always be identifying the presenter, okay. Mr. Corbin Shangreaux (Southern Man itoba First Nations Child and Family Services Agencies): Okay. Mr. Cha irperson: So, with that, again, I want to welcome you here. I am certainly pleased that you have cons ented to come and give us a presentation. With that, I will let you give your presentation to the subcomm ittee. Thank you. Mr. Shangreaux: Thank you, members of the subcomm ittee.

There are actually three of us here today, Madeleine Michaud and Glory Lister are also here. In particu lar, when we get into the question-and-

May 20, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN IT OBA 139 answer pieces, there are pieces that I may ask them to assist me with. We would like to thank the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs as well for their suppor t and our testimony here today. I guess, first of all, I would like to begin with the statement that, as Fir st Nations Child and Family Services agencies, we met just last week again to rev iew some of our concerns with the staff from the Chi ldren's Advocate's office, and we cert ainly thank them for the time that they set aside to meet with us and to discuss a lot of our concerns.

We came away from that meeting with, I think, an increased understanding between ourselves and their office. I would also like to say as well that, as professionals working in the area of Fir st Nations Child and Family Services, our first and foremost concern is the prot ection of children. So in all of my comments here today I do not want it interpreted in any manner that we want to take away any mechanism or weaken any mechanism that serves to protect children.

We want only to increase the. effectiveness of the Child's Advo cate's office, and we want to increase the safety net of protection for Fir st Nations children. I would like to start, first of all, by stating that one of the major concerns that we have in the field of Child and Family Services as native people is that we have a world view that often is overlooked or is not given the credence of the credibility, the validity that we believe our world view has when it comes to institutionalizing various aspects of service including the Child's Advocate's office.

We are always concerned about The Child and Family Services Act. It is a mandate that we have received from the prov incial government and certainly also from the federal government in terms of funding for our agencies. We have this legislative and, I guess, executive mandate to carry out services under The Child and Family Services Act, but we cannot do that unless we also have a mandate from our communities. The only way that we can have the mandate from our communities is if we keep in mind that we are practising child welfare oftentimes from a different world view than from our own communities.

Consequently, when we carry out services under The Child and Family Services Act, we try to work with our communities and try to put into place certain principles of practice by which we carry out services, things like communit y-based services, as much as possible, trying to do things in a culturally relevant manner that is respective of the ideals and values of commun ity, at the same time, carrying out that principle that we want to protect children. In doing that, it is always a big challenge to us in the field of Child and Family Services because we work with two different concepts.

One, to many of our commun ity members, the whole notion of child prot ection under The Child and Family Services Act, and, further, when you are rev iewing our decisions through the Child Advocate's office and investigating and advocating for children, that all have their roots, I guess, in what many of our communit y people feel is foreign legislation. It is outside of our traditional practices; it is outside of a lot of our commun ity practices, and many of the decisions that are made sometimes just are-t hey completely ignore communi ty ways and traditions and those kinds of things.

So when we work in this area to try and effectively deliver services, we try to balance the authority that we have under the act and the mandate that we have through legislation, et cetera. We try to balance all of that with the mandate that we have from the commun ity that we are serving, and we feel that over the last 15 years we have learned a great deal about trying to carry out these services and to have the suppor t of a community mandate. *

(1740) I think in all respects, again, that we are working towards the same goal, and that is increased effectiveness when it comes to prot ecting children. As agencies, we are not concerned so much about there being a review process that looks at our decision making, that looks at how we carry out services, but we are concerned about the type of review process and who is involved in that. So we have, I guess, some factors that we would like to share with you when it comes to how we do those things.

Fir st of all, you know, there is our world view, and we have included various parts in the paper that you have before you some of the social work principles, core values, kind of things, but I would like to spend ju st a little bit of time looking at the whole process of

140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1997 social work and how it is impacted by some of the things that I am alluding to here today. Different world views and ideologies influence the manner in which we conceptualize our work, and it is so important that people recognize that Fir st Nations people, you know, while we do want a good Child and Family Services system and while we do want a good Child's Advocate system, people have to realize that we want that system and we want that Advocate's office to be reflective of our values as well, to be sensitive and responsive to our needs and our values.

We do not always feel that, under the current situation, the services provided by the Child's Advocate office are always-what would I say?-re levant or sensitive to our particular issues. We believe very strongly that advocacy for children has to take on a much larger role than just looking at the individualistic perspective of a particular child. It also has to look strongly at what are community interests, what are extended family interests, and advocacy for children, if it is going to be relevant to Fi rst Nations people, has to be more holistic in its perspective.

We have tried to point that out in the paper before you. As Fir st Nations people, we believe that the best interests of children cannot be separated from the best interests of community, and it is very important, when we are advocating for the child's best interests, that we keep in mind that it is in their best interests for them to be connected or to remain con nected to their communit y and their culture.

Again, we can all look at some scenarios where, I guess, some of this might be questionable, but, as I stated in the first part of my presentation, you have to understand that in no way are we talking about compromising the safety and protection of children. We are as concerned about pro tecting our children as much as anybody, if not more. So the social work process itself has to be more holistic.

Then, in terms of defining the problem, it is essential that we understand that oftentimes people will look at a problem that impacts on our communities, and we look at the individual and we say that person is no good or that person is not a fit parent and that person should not have care and control of this child and all of those things. Then we also incorporate this other piece that comes from our system where oftentimes we will set out a cont ract, you know, you have got to do such and such and such and such by a certain time or you cannot ever get your kids back.

Our legislation and so mu ch of the mainstream of social work practice all lends credence to this thing, and we never question whether it is good or bad. I think one of the things that people have to recognize, and especially as we are moving toward the whole movement of self-determ ination and increased self-government for aboriginal people in Manitoba, one of the things that we have to recognize is that we have a history.

We have a history where so much of our historical relationship with governments, with the federal government mostly but also with pro vincial governments, has served to underm ine a lot of the traditional institutions, has served to undermine a lot of the well ness of families. I do not want to get into too much of the colonization process or the residential school process, but I do know this, that when you have a large numb er of families that are impacted by poverty and other really bad socioeconomic conditions, then you are going to have increased family breakdown.

As a child welfare professional who is very comm itted to the preservation of native families, I do not see the solution as always being the mainstream approach or the typical mainstream approach of going in there, finding great fault with the parents and dismantling that family and dismantling those commun ities.

I think when we go to review case situations that the Child Advocate's office needs to be more in touch with many of the socioecon omic realities that we work under as child welfare professionals in Fir st Nations communities, and that as much as the Adv ocate's office advocates for the protect ion of children, the Advocate's office needs to just as much advocate for some changes in the systemic process and in some of the inequality that exists within systems.

We believe very much that many of the families that we work with are ju st not caught in an individual situation, but they are caught in a collective situation, and at times it is our entire culture that gets caught in the system, and we need to take a mor e holistic perspective in dealing with this. Ano ther area that we are quite concerned about is oftentimes when we start analyzing a case and we start analyzing decisions, the Child Advocate's office has

May 20, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 141 made it a practice, it seems to me, to really look toward expert witnesses. They want assessments. They want case assessments, child assessments, family assessments. When we are always looking to these experts outside the communit y, it is kind of like, you know, we have this saying, here come the anthros, and it is like our culture has been studied to death by anthropologists.

Now, today, it is like the native mind, and the native way is being studied to death by psychologists and all these experts that have all of these theories of human behaviour, and oftentimes, you know, to the point where we forget that our culture has been around here for a long time and we took care of our children for a long time. A lot of the inequities and the imbalance that affects our society today is a result of the collision of our worlds, and we are trying to adjust to that, and we know that larger societies are trying to adjust to that.

But in the whole process of reviewing a case, oftentimes, the Advocate's office does not take into consideration the recommendations or the viewpoints of local people, and we feel very str ongly from a Fi rst Nations' perspective that our elders and our people from the commun ity know as much about children and know more about what our children need than any outside exper t does. *

(1750) I guess another part of that is when we had our meeting with the Child Advocate's office, they talked about, well, do you not want an impartial outsider to come in and review a situation? One of our comments back was, well, how can you say it is impartial? You know, you cannot have an impartial outsider. An outsider, yes, but impartial, hardly; at least, we do not feel that today that the Advocate's office has always been impartial.

Most of the time they come in, again, from that mainstream perspective that emphasizes this large role of assessments, and it tends to be problem oriented instead of being problem-solving oriented. We have concerns about other areas. We look at the issue of permanency planning and when we look at that, oftentimes we feel that the system really advocates for adoption as a way to get children out of the system without really taking into concern what are the long term aspects of that or what are the long-term impacts of that.

Whereas in our communities, we tend to work with children more on a life span and work with families more on a life span as opposed to ju st trying to get them in and out of the system as quickly as poss ible. Oftentimes when the Advocate's office is making recommendations, they tend to focus on a brief period of time or on a specific situation,

whereas we are saying a lot of times, you have to look at the whole picture, you have to get the whole picture, and they need to do a better job in that way. We have different conc epts about family. Our concept of family often has to do with the value that children belong not just to their biological parents, but they belong to their extended family, to their clan and to their culture.

Oftentimes when a case is being evaluated, too much of the time, the office will evaluate case activities just based on how that child was interacting with one specific family unit and not so much looking at it in terms of there was an extended family here that was caring for these children. We think that there has to be a greater recogn ition of the role of the extended family when it comes to evaluating cases.

When it comes to reviewing cases, again, the Advocate's office has been very big on looking at files without taking into consi deration whether or not those files are actually reflective of the tot ality of a situation, and we can look at a lot of situations where the file itself is not the best indicator. Again, I think when the Advocate's office is starting to review a situation, they need to get a larger picture and look at more than just the file, but they also need to assess what commun ity people are saying and meet with commun ity people.

Ano ther concern that we have with regard to the Advocate's office-and we are concerned, I guess, at this point with this comm ittee-one of our larger concerns is that our relationship with the Adv ocate's office has not always been the most co-opera tive one. I am speaking collectively as First Nations agencies. It is like trying to dance with a ghost or a shadow or something. It has been a really awkward relationship at times. Certainly, there have been areas where we have co-op erated, and there have been other areas where we have had some real difficulty.

We have been concerned a great deal because our staff are intimidated by the staff from the Advocate's office, and we are not sure that that is supposed to be.

142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 20, 1997 Our staff, generally speaking, believe that the intimidation either comes through the legislation, or it comes through what we perceive as arrogant legislation, and as native agencies, we are not sure if that arrogance, the arrogance that tends to go with that office, if it is legislative-based, if it is the person or if it is the philosophy behind it. We are not sure.

We are concerned that when this review is done-and we are not sure what the future of the Advocate's office is going to look like, but we do know this, that someth ing has to be done about the whole piece of arrogance. I do not think that that kind of, be it the arrogance of a person or of legislation really has a place in the Child and Family Services system in Manitoba. You know, as it is, we work with our communities, and we try to carry out child protec tion services, and I think fo r the most part we do a pretty good job.

We have an internal review process and an appeal process and all these things that we do, but for there to be, like, an outsider who can just come in and say, you know, you guys got to do this, this, this and this because a client said, we do not mind that, but oftentimes it is like there was an appeal process. Mr. Cha irperson: Mr. Shangreaux, I think what I am going to need to do is interrupt, so that we leave time for questions. I know that there are a number of questions here, if that is all right, and maybe the rest of your presentation will come out through the course of the questions that we have.

So I will start with Mr. Martindale, please, then Mr. Kowalski. Mr. Martindale: Looking at your recommendations, starting on page 18, I think your suggestion of a program review is probably a good one. The problem is that normally that would be an internal government process, unless the Auditor did it, so we would not normally find out the results of a program review unless the minister voluntarily chose to make it public. Recommendation No. 2, a thorough review of the Chi ldren's Advocate office, this is the review of the Children's Advocate office.

We are holding public hearings, and we will be writing a report which will go to the Legislature and then it is up to the minister what amendments she brings into that

section of The Child and Family Services Act. So we hope that the amendments reflect the presentations that the public make to us . A number of people have recommended that the Children's Advocate report to the Legislature rather than to the minister, and you have mentioned that on page 19. A num ber of people have recommended that there be Fir st Nations people on the staff of the Children's Advocate office, including people with ability in aboriginal languages. I guess we could do that in two ways. One would be to put it into the legislation.

The other would be to expand the budget of the office so that there was the ability to hire new staff. Do you think we need to write it in the legislation? Mr. Shangreaux: Mr. Martindale, yes. Our group has discussed this and we believe very strongly that it needs to be put into legislation. Mr. Martindale: Another concern that you have is pro viding the office with a broad range of duties and powers without the prov ision of an adequate funding base.

Now, one of the recommendations that both the Advocate and presenters in rural and northern Manitoba have made is that the staff be expanded so that they actually have a presence in rural and northern Manitoba rather than just flying in and flying out, which a lot of government agencies do, as you know, in the North. Do you think that there should be suboffices, for example, in Brandon or Dauphin or Thompson, and do you think that would give the kind of coverage for rural and nor thern Manitoba that is needed? Mr.

Shangreaux: Well, I guess, first of all, we �elieve very strongly that there needs to be a strong Fir st Nations representation in terms of staffing the Advocate's office. Now, that piece, again, I think that has to be responsive to the num bers of Fir st Nations children and clients that are being served in the Child and Family Services system.

Under the current structure, I do believe that if the current structure is continued and there is not a separate Fir st Nations office or parallel one, then, under that current structure, yes, I believe it has to be expanded very much if we are going to have effective advocacy.

May 20, 1997 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 143 *

(1800) Mr. Kowalski: I wanted to thank you very much for your presentation because, as a comm ittee member, I put your presentation together with the one we received from A was is Agency and they fit very well together. They have made a lot better the understanding of the person who is in the city of Winn ipeg what goes on in child care agencies outside the city of Winnip eg, especially for native-run child care agencies.

One of the places where they fit was, you used the expression "world view" and how someone from the Child Advocate's office flying in or over telephone, trying to investigate a case that is happening up in Shamattawa or that. It is a different cu lture. It is a different understanding in what their standard to what safety would be and what the communit y standard would be, very different. Now, as far as additional offices go, what I heard from the presentation from A wasis was, they wanted to go one step further.

They said it is still an outsider; whether that outsider comes from Thompson, Manitoba, or Winnip eg, it is still an outsider coming into their commun ity and judging how a child care worker in their community handled a case. Their suggest

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-subpe7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf subpe7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9d259f658f679d249e8e269d22e7f42d5d0dca64

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).