Manitoba Committee Hansard — 16 August 1983 (Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 11, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-sro11

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on STATUTORY REGULATIONS and ORDERS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairperson Ms. Myrna Phi/lips Constituency of Wolseley VOL. XXXI No. 11 - 8:00 p.m., TUES DAY, 16 AUGUST, 19 83. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. ProVInce ot Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vie SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thomp:;on La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Vir den Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTE E ON STATUTOR Y REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 TIME - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg CHAIRPERSON - Ms. Myrna Phillips (Wolseley) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Evans and Storie Mr s. Dodick, Messrs. Ha rper, Kovnats, McK enzie, Orchard , Ms. Phillip s, Messrs. Sherman and Scott. WI TNESSES: Mr. Ab e Arnold, Ma nitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Mr. Larry Alien, Native Family Services and Winnipeg Coalition for Urban and Native Child Welfare Mr. Paul Walsh, Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg Mr.

Cyril Lillie, Social Workers' Union, Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg Ms. Linda Milburn, Social Worker, Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg. MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 107 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act

(2) MR. ASSI STANT CLE RK, G. Mackintosh: The committee will come to order. Since the Chairman has been replaced, are there any nominations for the Chair? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairperson, I move that the Memb er for Wolsel ey, My rna Phill ip s, act as the Chairperson for this committee. MR. ASSISTANT CLERK: Is it the pleasure of the committee that Ms. Phillips take the Chair? (Agreed) Ms. Phillips. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: We'll beg in by heari ng delegations and the first delegation is the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, Mr. Abe Arnold. MR. A. ARNOLD: Have the copies been distributed, Madam Chairman?

Can we get a couple of extra copies down here if you have them to spare, please.

I find myself in a bit of a conflict here tonight because MARL is supposed to appear at two committees at the same time, and we couldn't bring in another person from the lake for a second night in a row, so I've decided to be here and let our written submission speak for itself at the other committee. 272 The Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties would like to respond to Bill 107 dealing with the proposed amendments to The Child Welfare Act and also to the policy paper of the Minister of Community Services and Corrections, Mr.

Evans, dealing with regional delivery structure of Winnipeg Child Care Services.

To begin with, I should say that we agree with the statement made by Provincial Court Judge, Edwin Kimelman, in his Interim Report for the Review Comm ittee on Indi an and Metis Adoptions and Placements where he states, on Page 20: "lt is imperative that child welfare services are continually responsive to exis ting and changing needs of communities and such sensitivity must be built into the very structure of the child welfare system." MARL supports some aspects of the move of the government towards the regionalization of the various child care agencies serving Winnipeg.

We agree with Jud ge Kimelman that in order for these agencies to respond effec tively to the needs of their clients they should be community-based. Even though MARL accepts thi s decentralized approach to the delivery of child welfare services, we are concerned that the administration of the service maintain some aspects of centralization. For instance, we feel that the movement of family members from one child service area to another should be easily and efficiently handled by the child care authorities without delay and without duplication of administrative tasks.

We feel that this can best be managed through the centralized administration of four to six community based centres. Further we favour retaining some form of centralized administrative services for certain purposes, such as, better training of staff, specialization of certain services and greater consistency in child care policy and procedure. In

summary on this aspect, although we tend to agree with the concept of regionalization of child care services, we feel that the smaller community-based centres should be administered to a manageable degree on a centralized basis. Now with direct regard to Bill 107, we would suggest that while this may be related to the issue of regionalization of child care services, it should not be considered merely as the means of implementing this program of community-based centres.

Whether the directors of the Children's Aid Societies are to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council rather than elected, MARL believes that the board of any child care agency must reflect the interests of those in our community who are most affected by the policies and operations of these agencies. MARL is opposed to the politicization of the child care agency boards, dealing as they do with such sensitive and crucial issues as child care and child protection.

We do not want to see the possibility of a complete replacement of the board of the Children's Aid every time the government changes; nor do we feel that a

Tuesday, 16 August, 19 83 criterion such as political leanings should be a guide to fulfilling the board's membership requirements. If the government wishes to ensure that our child care service agencies are more sensitive to community needs, we believe that the board of di rectors must, in fact, be representative of those community members most involved in the service. Obviously, every effort must be made to ensure that representation by the Native community of Winnipeg is adequately built in to the regionalized child care service.

MARL sugge sts that a Nativ e Advisory Committee be established to assist in policy making within the child care service. I believe we suggested this before in regard to when we appeared before Judge Kimelman, for example. We would further sugg est that the Nativ e Advisory Commi ttee should have the responsibility of either appointing or electing members to the board of directors of the agency. CAS board members may also be selected from other interested groups, such as lawyers, psychologists and social workers who are practising in the area of child welfare.

VJe should avoid the danger of having a board of di rectors that appears to be completely politically controlled. This seems to be the main problem conveyed by the proposed Bill 107. The setting of gui deli nes for the elec tion or appointment of CAS board members should, therefore, have the objective of establishing a board that is sensitive and responsive to children's needs, as well as to community needs. Any plan for the regionalization of child care services must take into consideration the importance of having a board of directors that would be responsive to these real needs.

Now these are my comments, Madam Chairman. I would try to answer questions, but I must say that since none of the representatives of our children's concerned group are here tonight, I may have to take some questions as notice of motion. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Arnold , your brief is very interest ing from the perspective of offer ing a guideline, but I wonder if I could ask you, sir, whether you could comment directly for my edifica tion. Does MARL agree with Bill 107, or is MARL opposed to Bill 107? MR. A.

ARNOLD: I would say that this bill, it seems, has been prepared kind of on an emergency basis. I don't know if this is the best way to deal with the issue. In our brief, we are trying to talk about some fundamental approaches to the que.3tion of setting up a Children's Aid Board. So I would say that we would not strongly support doing it in this particular manner, according to this bill. MR. L. SHERMAN: Certainly, the inference that I draw, Madam Chairman, from the brief is that MARL is highly doubtful or dubious of the value of Bill 107. I'm glad to have Mr. Arnold confirm that. Mr.

Arnold, on Page 2 of your brief, you suggest that MARL is of the view that, "The board of any child care agency must reflect the interests of those in our community who are most affected by the policies and 273 operations of those agencies." In MARL's view, who are those people whose interests are of paramount importance for reflection here, the children at risk themselves, or whom would you suggest? MR. A. ARNOLD: We have already suggested, and it's well known that the major element in the community whose children are being served by Children's Aid is the Native community.

We feel that proper arrangements should be made for the Native community to be represented and to be involved in the board of any Children's Aid Society or child caring agency. Now I know there are moves in this di rection, and that the Native community is beginning to establish and has established a number of its own child caring agencies. I believe that MARL recently wrote a letter in support of the efforts to have a Native children's agency established for Winnipeg. So that we would support those moves. They are the main element.

We also suggest that some elements from the professional community like lawyers, psychologists, social workers could be as well directly represented on the Children's Aid Board, if they are not already.

I suppose they are represented to some extent, but it's the manner in which they are chosen. lt seems to me that some of the bodies, like perhaps the Family Law Subsection of the Bar could be asked to name somebody to the Children's Aid, or things like that, so that the board of the Children's Aid could be composed in a dif ferent kind of a way without the government exerting a heavy hand, and not necessarily in the present way in which it's being done. MR. L. SHERMAN: Madam Chairman, through you to Mr. Arnold, I would like to ask you, Mr.

Arnold, whether you think that the impact and the ramifications of Bill 107 primarily bear upo n the Native child welfare community. You seem to be addressing your remarks with respect to the bill primarily from that perspective, but are you saying that the fallout from this bill only or exclusively has ramifications for the Native child welfare community, or could I suggest to you that it has ramifications for the whole child welfare? MR. A. ARNOLD: I think it has general ramifications. My understanding is that the reason for this bill is in order to carry through with the proposed regionalization.

I think there was a statement or some comment by the Mi nister in his statement on regionalization that it might not be necessary to invoke the proposals of this bill if the proposed regionalization could be carried out with the co-operation of the present board. So in other words really, in a sense, the regionalization plan is more important than the bill. If the regionalization plan can be adequately carried and reflect some of the concerns that we express, then maybe the bill becomes unnecessary, I don't know. MR. L. SHERMAN: I have one further question, Madam Chairman, thank you. I'd like to ask Mr.

Arnold, whether he would be interested in serving in a voluntary capacity on a Board of a Children's Aid Society if this type of legislation were on our statute books, or whether he would find that it discouraged that voluntary spirit for which he is so justly renowned in our community.

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 MR. A. ARNOLD: I don't think I should repond directly to that question but let me say that I think it would be easier for an organization like ours, like MARL, to participate, if the board of the agency were being selected according to the guide lines that we suggest, rather than the way in which it's being proposed here. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Minister. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. First of all I'd like to thank Mr.

Arnold for his brief - all of his briefs, all of the briefs of the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties are very challenging and have ideas and are usually very thoughful. I am a little unclear however, about a couple of matters and I'd like to ask one or two questions. Because there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the brief, in my reading of it and my listening to Mr. Aronold's presentation, is MARL supporting the idea of a smaller delivery unit? You see, the brief refers to our policy statement as well as the bill.

The bill, of course, itself is very limited, very narrow, giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to appoint or dis-appoint, members to Boards of Directors of Children's Aid Societies. Of course, we've indicated that this is a interim measure, and I gather Mr. Arnold is aware that this is strictly an interim measure, a short term measure. But I'd like to know, talking about the policy aspects, whether MARL agrees with the concept of a smaller delivery unit in Child and Family Services? MR. A.

ARNOLD: Yes, I think we would favour the smaller delivery unit, providing it is not so completely decentralized that some children might get lost within the system, because I think we're all aware that there is considerable movement, even within the city, of some of the people whose children that get involved with the child care system. So you have to be able to keep track of everyone.

I know that reference has been made to the regionalized school board system and I suppose, by and large, the regionalized school board system works pretty well, but I even know of situations where the children get lost in that system in moving from one area to another. So this is the main caution to be taken into consideration, that you can have a smaller delivery unit provided there are still some centralized aspects so that if a child in care happens to move from one area of the city to another it won't get lost and it'll still be kept proper track of. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I wonder - I appreciate the fact that Mr. Arnold had certain limited knowledge in this area which he indicated earlier - whether he is aware that the delivery of child and family services in the Province of Manitoba involves far more, of course, than the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg. Within the City of Winnipeg alone we have three organizations - Eastern, as well as Winnipeg and, of course, the department itself offers services in the west end of the city.

But also, in addition, we have the CAS of Central Manitoba and the CAS of Western Manitoba and, indeed, we have our Child and Family 274 Service Division of the Department in the Parklands area, the lnterlake region and the North. Would he not agree that this organizational structure, therefore, does require some degree of co-ordination at the centre and that it could be offered by the Child Welfare Directorate of the department? MR. A.

ARNOLD: Well, I would say that is quite likely so; that cert ainl y the child caring system needs rationalization, shall we say, and we know that certain things are being undertaken, certain things are being planned that we are aware, we're not aware of all of the details, but cert ainly the system needs rationalization and, hopefully, if the regionalization within Winnipeg is rationalized in a proper manner, hopefully it will be helpful. But whether this particular bill will contribute to that is a question.

I mean, the government has to, in its own wisdom, has to decide whether it really needs this particular bill to allow for the rationalization, or whether it can be done through existing provisions of the legislation. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I wonder if Mr. Arnold could comment on methods and means or criteria to be used in selecting members of boards of childrens' aid societies or child and family agencies. He may have made some comment on this earlier, but I'd like to hear his views on what should be the criteria for selection to m� mbers of ... MR. A.

ARNOLD: Well, I don't know if I'm prepared to go further than we've already gone in the brief. We can sit down and elaborate on it at some point, but since we've only been able to consult with a few of the members in our children's area, I think we've given some good suggestions here and I think it can be elaborated on further, but I don't think I'm prepared to do that this evening. HON. L. EVANS: I appreciate that position, Madam Chairperson, but I thought I'd take the opportunity to get some of these suggestions from MARL.

Does - and again you may not have any comment on this, but since we're on the subject - does MARL have any suggestion as to ideal sizes of boards? There are 30 people now on the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg Board. MR. A. ARNOLD: Well, the ideal size would be a board that could work together. I mean, MARL has a board of 30 and sometimes it gets bigger than that and we're able to work together but, you know, sometimes a board of 12 can't work together. I think the ideal size really depends on the composition and where they come from.

I have a feeling if they were selected from specified areas along the lines that we have suggested without having, shall we say, too strong vested interests but, having the overall interests of the community and of the children in mind, then I think you could establish a better kind of board. HON. L. EVANS: Just one last question, Madam Chairperson, in our policy statement we indicated a commitment to maintaining the private delivery system within the City of Winnipe g, in other words, the

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 maintenance of an agency system whereby the bulk of the board would be chosen from the community, as most non-profit organization boards can be or should be. Seven out of 10 Canadian provinces do not have childr en's aid societies, it is run entir ely by the government: the Department of Social Services in Nova Scotia; the Department of Human Resources in British Columbia; etc.

Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia are the only three provinces that have childr en's aid societies, and if you look at the legislation, we have the weakest legisla tion, in terms of government involvement in the whole system. So my question then is, does MARL favour the position that we've taking, and that is, the maintenance of, 1 guess, a mixed system but, within the City of Winnipeg, the proposal to provide a privately-based system ... MR. A. ARNOLD: I don't think MARL would necessarily be committed to maintaining a private system.

I think there should be voluntary input from various elements in the community, but I don't think that necessarily requires the indefinite maintenance of a private system. 1 think you could look at the best of the systems that have been developed in other parts of the country, and possibly come up with a more appropriate model for Manitoba. HON. L. EVANS: I just want to thank Mr. Arnold, and trust that his organization will be on hand next year when we discuss the major changes to the child welfare legislation. Thank you. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

There are a couple of points that you made, Mr. Arnold, in your presentation that kind of surprised me in a way. Maybe it's just perhaps my misinterpretation of them. You mentioned that you were in favour, or at least could see advantages in a purely Native child care agency. MR. A. ARNOLD: No, we didn't say that, not in this brief.

We have supported the Native community in their efforts to get better care for their childr en and, therefore, since the present efforts seem to be directed towards the establishment of Native child agencies and some improvements are being effected that way, well we go along with that, but we don't necessarily say that is the absolute ultimate solution. I think we would probably favour an integ rated system, with the Native community though having full say in regard to how Native children are being handled. MR. D. SCOTT: So you are not . . . Excuse the interruptions here. MR. A.

ARNOLD: You better let the bikers go. They've been demonstrating out there. MR. D. SCOTT: Put on a helmet, and you can hear better. 275 So you are not then saying that you are in favour of racially-oriented child care services? MR. A. ARNOLD: As a matter of ultimate principle, and I think we indicated that even when we made our presentation to the Kimelman Committee, and I have a copy of it here, but I think I can remember.

I think we stated that while we support the effo rts of the Native community to have more influence and more say and even a certain amount of control at this time over the question of what is happening with Native children, I think this is because of the fact that there has been such an imbalance up to now, of the fact that there has been very little until the last couple of years, very little input from the Native community into what was happening with their children, that therefore this is what is happening now, it's helping to correct the balance.

But in the long run, I think that I personally and I think that members of our organization, sort of nodded in that direction in our brief to the Kimelman Committee, would favour some kind of integrated system in which everyone was involved, but without one element of the community sort of dominating what was happening to the children of another element. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: On another area, and this is to deal basically with the responsibility of the province, where the ultimate responsibility for child care rests, is with the province, more so than with the agencies.

The agencies are the del ivery points.

If an agency has an obvious problem - and I think there has been plenty of evidence to show that the CAS of Winnipeg has had some pretty serious problems - do you not feel that there should be some mechanism where the province can intervene, whether it's through board appointments as we are doing with this legislation, in order to get that child care organization back servicing the people who we're supposed to be servicing, in other words, the children, and not being quite so concerned with their own bureaucratic internal squabbles that they may have with the organization or may evolve through this so-called volunteer and elected from a volunteer association board of directors?

MR. A. ARNOLD: I'm not sure. You see, we have spoken to the Minister and written to the Minister on previous occasions in regard to the fact that a certain

section of the act, mainly providing for a review committee, was never implemented. I'm not certain, but I have the feeling that if that review committee which was provided in the act had been implemented, that the changes could have been brought about through the agency of tllat review committee rather than have to introduce �his legislation. Now, I'm not positive about that but I have that feel ing. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Further questions? The Member for Rupertsland. MR. E. HARPER: The Member for lnkster asked what I wanted to ask, that was regarding the setting up of a Native child care agency. However, you seem to put hesitancy on whether the government would appoint

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 a board of directors, where the board might change as a result of change of government. How do you see this Native advisory committee being established? How do you see it being appointed, or is that a voluntary organization? How should it function? MR. A. ARNOLD: Well, I would say there should be some consultaton with respresentative groups from the Native community to see how such a committee should be established. I wouldn't propose to suggest who should represent the Native community.

I think the government should ask the Native community or the various Native organizatons who they think should represent them and ask them to assist in arriving at the solution. MR. E. HARPER: I wasn't speaking against whether the government should consult or not, but I was just wondering if you had any suggestions, aince you have mentioned before that these were suggestions and didn't want to get into or weren't really aware of the details because you don't have your people here.

To me the Children's Aid Society has been a source of frustration and I totally support because an organization such as when you have children placed out of the province, 86 percent out of the province, who are Native children, and out of the country 97 percent are Native children that are placed out of the country, to me that says something. I believe that something has to done and I think the government has taken a step in the right di rection but not to the extent that I would like to see it happen or being dealt with.

How do you account for these kinds of actions in terms of what would be basically problems that you see in terms of setting up, supporting the Native child care agency. MR. A. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think I can really respond to that point, not having been involved directly with any child caring agencies myself. With respect to this legislation, I think I mentioned it at least once, that if the government in its wisdom feels that it must have this legislaton, it's going to make the decision.

We don't particularly like this particular method , but if the government feels it's essential and relating to the regionalization plans, well, it'll have to do it. But we would have preferred some other way with other guidelines and that sort of thing. MR. E. HARPER: One more question. This is in relation to protection of children, especially treaty Indians that do have status, and also, I might say on aboriginal children which are the Metis people who have acquired rights under the Constitution. Are you aware that the Federal Government may be proposing a sort of Federal child welfare legislation? MR. A.

ARNOLD: No, I'm not aware of that. I know there have been situations in which Native children have been the victims of buck-passing, because Native children on the reserves or status Indians have been considered the responsibility of the Federal Government and ther efore have not been eligible for certain provincial services. I hope that has been done away with, but I am not particularly aware of what the Federal Government is planning at this time in that regard. 276 MADAM CHAIRPERS ON: Excuse me.

Before we proceed to another question, the proceedings tonight are being recorded for Hansard and I would appreciate it if each party would wait until I recognize them so that the people who are printing this can get the proper names attached to the proper speeches, or questions and answers as they are to be. The Mem ber of Rupertsland. MR. E. HARPER: I finished my questions. Thank you. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. At the bottom of Page 2, I've got a couple of little questions for clarification only, Mr.

Arnold, and I would call you by first name except that it keeps eluding me.

At the very bottom of Page 2, it starts off with a word that just hit me right between the eyes, it s ys, "Obviou sly, every effort must be made to ensure that representation by the Native community of Winnipeg is adequately built into the regionalized child care service." That word "obviously" kind of threw me, but let's go on just a little bit further. lt says, "MARL suggests that a Native advisory committee be established to assist in policy making within the child care service." Can you, as a representative of MARL, advise why it is obvious to you that every effort must be made to ensure representation by the Native community in Winnipeg and, as a representative of MARL, can you advise why the only reference is to a Native advisory committee and not to a group established from either the Jewish population, Ukrainian, Japanese, Chinese or whatever?

Can you advise the differential and the thinking of MARL in this regard? MR. A. ARNOLD: Well, I think there is a clear differ ential because of the fact that the overwhelming number of children in care, even in the City of Winnipeg, come from the Native community. Now I know that the Jewish community has its own agency and has had its own agency for many years. I don't necessarily suggest that the Jewish agency should become the model. I think it's a good agency, but I don't necessarily suggest it should become the model for everybody.

I think all the others have been represented because they're sort of part of the so-called established community, whereby the Native community has been too much on the outside of the established community until now. This is the reason why, and you've had the representatives from the so-called domina nt com mun ity, of whatever background they would be, really running the Children's Aid Society with the Native community sitting largely on the outside.

I think this is the reason why it is obvious to us, because our organization has been working closely with members of the Native community. lt may not be obvious to some others, but it should be obvious to anyone who studies the figures and the whole situation as to what children are primarily involved in the child caring agencies. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: You've come up with a good point, Mr. Arnold, and I kindSof agree, and I kind of agree

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 with the Memb er for Rup ert sland. The Jewish community does kind of look after their own. I think that's what you were possibly suggesting, to some degree, that they are an agency of people of Jewish background who do look after that particular segment. Would you suggest that people of Native background look after their own, or be a government-funded agency similar to the Jewish agency? MR. A.

ARNOLD: Well, I've stated before that we are supporting the efforts of the Native community to take control and to look after their own children at this time; but I also suggested that ultimately I think that we would feel that we should be looking towards a totally integrated system that still takes into account the di ffering cul tur al backgrounds. lt should not be impossible to do that over the long haul. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions? Mr. Minister. HON. L.

EVANS: Yes, the matter of, you know, what the Member for Niakwa brought up - and his recent question and answer is very a fundamental thing - to what extent should you organize an agency along racial lines or ethnic lines as opposed to public lines, if I can use those terms. By go od public, I don't mean government; I mean public in the general sense, and I guess we're not to debate it, so I can ask it by means of a question. Is Mr.

Arnold appreciative of the fact that the Jewish Child and Family Service, which I agree is a very well run agency, is a very very small agency with about 20 children in care and largely financing its own operations compared to the CAS of Winnipeg, which has 1,300 children in care and 99 percent of its funding provided for by the taxpayers? MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Was that a question? HON. L. EVANS: I just asked if he was aware of that. MR. A. ARNOLD: I'm aware, yes. HON. L. EVANS: In a sense I hate - I would just ask one general type of a question. Perhaps it's a bit hypothetical, but if the delegate, Mr.

Arnold, was the Minister, or respresentative of the government, and he had options towards improving the system in the City of Winnipeg and indeed the whole Province of Manitoba, has he got anything specific that he would like to suggest to us other than what we have suggested so far? We're getting a bit beyond the legislatiofl, Mlfdam Chairperson. The debate has gone on and we've got into big issues, but I mean there are other options.

You could dissolve the Children's Aid Society, impose a government or you could just say just withdraw funding, allow the society to carry on and suggest that they obtain their own funds from whatever source through voluntary donations, etc. But I guess my final question is if he had any suggestions as to how we should be proceeding? MR. A. ARNOLD: I would suggest that we could arrange a meeting with some of the members of the children's 277 concerned group of MARL and get a lot of input when they all come back from the lake. HON. L. EVANS: Thanks. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

The next delegate on the list is Mr. Vie Savino, the Dakota-Ojibway Child and Family Services. Is Mr. Savino not here? All right, I'll move on. Mr. Larry Alien, a private citizen. MR. L. ALLEN: Good evening, Madam Chairperson. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Alien, do you have copies of your presentation? MR. L. ALLEN: No, I'm sorry, I don't have a prepared submission. I'm really not here only as a private citizen. I'm here representing two Native organizations, one is Native Family Services; the other is the Winnipeg Coalition on Native Child Welfare.

Just by way of explaining who these organizations are and what they do, I should tell you that Native Family Services is a grass-roots child care delivery service that's been started by the Native community. it's approximately 14 months old now; has at this time 150 families it's involved with, and has been providing services short of a mandated service delivery; meaning, obviously, we don't have the jurisdiction to apprehend children or to designate foster homes or any kind of a placement authority, but we've been providing what we would term, I suppose, a grass-roots families helping families, consumers helping consumers kind of delivery service to the Native community.

As I said, I think we're dealing right now with 150 families. We estimate that up to the present time there are approximately 125 children Jiving in their own homes or living in homes in their own community who otherwise would be in the care of the government. If one does some multi plication, and estima tes conservatively that for each child the government is spending approximately $300 monthly for children in care.

The Native Family Services estimates that right now, because of our intervention, because of the programs we've established and the work we've been doing in the Native community, this organization has saved this government approximately $30,000 monthly. That figure is growing with every month that we're in operation. The Winnipeg Coalition on Native Child Welfare is a group of people who are concerned about child welfare particularly as it relates to Native people.

Jt's a group which has a representation from many of the Native groups operating in Winnipeg, including the MMF and the board of the Frienship Centre and so on. Virtually all of the active Native groups are represented in some form, indirectly, in the membership of the coalition. I'm here to tell this committee that I have been asked to appear before you tonight to tell you that both these groups, and as I hope I've set out, the Coalition on Urban Native Child Welfare and Native Family Services is, in our opinion, the most representative group of Native people active in the child welfare area.

I'm here to tell the committee that both these groups are wishing to support the passage of Bill 107.

Tuesday, 16 August, 19 83 My presentation tonight, and again I apologize that it's not prepared, is primarily dealing with 107. I really didn't come prepared to talk about the whole nature of whether we're in support of regionalization, which we are, and the reasons for that, but if anyone wants to ask me a question, then I'd be glad to go into that, but the actual prepared

part is really dealing with 107 and why we accept 107. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Alien, as Chairperson, I appreciate that. MR. L. ALLEN: Okay, thank you. I think maybe this committee should take what we have to say fairly seriously for several obvious reasons. I use that word "obvious" because obviously a great deal of child welfare relates to Native people. lt's always been our contention that approximately two-thirds of the children involved in the child welfare system, either the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, Eastern, or dealt with by other agencies in Winnipeg, are Native or Metis children.

Now I understand the Children's Aid Society has just done a study of their own and they put that figure somewhere lower, but nevertheless they place it at at least 50 percent of the children they're involved with are Native or Metis children. The other reason why I think this is significant is that, as I hope most of you are aware as you would have received a copy of an application made on behalf of Native Family Services, which is an incorporated body, to the government under the existing

Section 4 of the Child Welfare Act, Native Family Services has applied under that

section to be recognized as a fully mandated child care delivery system, or child care delivery agency. That is before the government now, and it's our hope that when the implementation committee is established that the impl ementation committee will hear our proposal and will hear our suggestion that Native Family Services be acknolwedged and accredited under the existing

Section 4. Now Bill 107 is an amendment to

Section 4, but it doesn't take away, and my understanding is that the government doesn't at this point plan to take away, the primary sections in

Section 4 which allow for agencies to petition the government to be accepted and mandated.

I can tell you that it is the full intention of the Native community to seek out a full mandate to provide this kind of service to Native people. lt is our hope that if a regionalization system is prepared, if that's what happens, that there will be a separate agency dealing with Native matters with an overriding jurisdiction involving Native families; that Winnipeg Native Family Services will have an overriding jurisdiction to provide child care delivery service to all Native families in the city. lt is our suggestion and submis sion that's the only practical and feasible way to deal with the problem of Natives involved with the child welfare system.

Getting back to why I am here, and that is to speak about 107 and why our groups feel that 107 is a necessary piece of legislation. I think one of the very obvious answers is that, as it stands right now, the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, and I think I have to point out, as was pointed out by the Minister, and that is that we're dealing right now with a very interim 278 situation, because presumably regionalization is coming or change is coming.

So the system that we're dealing with now, with Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg being this incredibly powerful agency controlling child welfare so completely in Winnipeg, hopefully that's only a temporary thing.

The applicability of 107, when the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has been broken up, may be changed somewhat, but it is our understanding that 107 is not meant to be a piece of legislation which will allow the government to permanently affect boards. lt is our understanding that this legislation is more of an emergency measure which the government can use in the event that the boards of child care agencies are not being accountable and not being responsive. lt is our view of the fact situation that leads us to this room tonight; that the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has not been accountable and that its actions have inevitably led to legislation being presented, such as, Bill 107. lt's our view, and I think it's obvious, that the structure of the board of the Children's Aid Society is self perpetuating in that for one to become a member of the board of the Children's Aid Society you virtually have to be nominated by their Nominating Committee.

Now I think we have some background information on that that may be of some value to this committee, and that is, that the Native community decided, at one point this spring, that if we wanted to effect some change as far as the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, then we would have to do something internally, we would have to fight within the system. So we unearthed a copy of the by-laws; we had some difficul ty.

We found a copy of the By-laws of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, and we determined that within the by-laws there was provision for people to become members of the Children's Aid Society, and that was done through a fairly complicated procedure which we set about to follow.

We then presented our applications for membership to the Children's Aid Society, and received the startling response that there were no members to the Children's Aid Society, the only way one would be allowed to nominate someone to this exalted board was if one was a member of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, and there were no members. I shouldn't say there were no members, there had been a member. Some time in the distant past there had been a member, but he was long since dead.

So, at the time we approached them, there were no longer any _members of the Children's Aid Society, and we were told that if we wanted to be concerned about it we should wait until after the annual meeting and we should come back to them then and talk about it then.

So we then went, as a delegation, to the Nominating Committee of the Children's Aid Society, and we said, how do you justify with your 32-member board the fact that you're dealing with half Natives, or two-thirds of the people you're dealing with, the consumers of your services are Native people, and you don't have that kind of representation, in fact, at that time, I believe, they had one Native person on their board. They said to us, well we should be happy with what was being offered in that there was a new off ering of six further Native people, and we should be happy with that.

We decided that we weren't happy with that, and the Native community decided, as you probably all know,

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 that we would present ourselves at that meeting and explain to the Children's Aid Society that we were no longer concerned with them and that we were going our own way.

As I have already indicated, Native Family Services has been going its own way for some time and, in my opinion, although we have been suffering some growing pains and those growing pains have largely stemmed from lack of funding, which I hope in the near future that situation will be rectified, but although we have experienced some growing pains, I believe that our record indi cates that we have been providing services to our community in a successful and efficient way.

So that's the first reason why we feel 107 is necessary, and that is that this board doesn't provide for open elections, it perpetrates itself, and it is not responsible, nor is it accountable. The structure of the board itself. lt is my understanding that the board at the present time, and certainly within my knowledge and, I would expect that probably throughout its history, has never had an actual consumer of the services on the board. Now I notice Mr. Walsh is here, and he is going to talk to you.

If that's wrong he's going to tell you, but my understanding of the situation is that there is not a consumer of child care delivery service on the board of the Children's Aid Society, and that, to me, is a strange situation. I think that is one very glaring and obvious reason why this board has to be changed and shaken up. I should tell you that Native Family Services now operates with a board. The operating principle, as to the make-up of that board, is that one-third of the board members are actual consumers, are people who have actually faced the loss of their children to an apprehending authority.

These are people who have actually had their families touched, directly or indirectly, by the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg or one of the other agencies. Another third of the board is made up of professional people who are concerned in this area; and the other third is by the general population. So it would be my submission that the Board of the Children's Aid Society is not broken down that way. it's not representative of the people it is meant to serve,

whereas Native Family Services has already inherently built into its very structure a system whereby it can be representative of the community it is trying to serve.

Now a third point, and I think probably the most significant point from the point of view of our group, is the fact that the Children's Aid Society has, in our opinion in our submission, from watching them closely and from watching the Native people be abused by the child welfare system in Winnipeg, is the fact that the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has never bothered to develop a long-term phi losorhy, or really any philosophy, as to planning for Native people. The Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has not set up any apparatus for negotiating or for opening up a meaningful dialogue with Native people.

The Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has operated on a crisis-to-crisis basis. They make ad hoc decisions based on the lastest crisis, and I think the latest fury in the newspaper is somewhat typical of the way they operate.

If they have any policy, if they have any philosophy, it's just what was their stance on the last crisis, and that's the way they go - from one crisis to another. 279 As far as we know they've never sat down, they've never opened up any lines of communication with the Native community and they've never been concerned about developing any kind of consistent policy or establishing any kind of real training programs in their own agency to deal with the fact that at least half and possibly two-thirds or more of their consumers are Native people.

Now they're going to tell you that they've started a link with New Careers, which is a program that's designed to provide some training for Native people to get into child welfare. I agree that this is something that they are doing and it's unfortunately somewhat belated and no where near enough.

I would find it very difficult to accept anybody on behalf of the Children's Aid Society offering or suggesting that they have in any way made any kind of step toward the Native community in the past and, if they have made that, they have only made it in the last little while. lt would be my submission that they've only made it because they've had the sceptre of the government and the fact that the government has announced it's going to change things. That is hanging heavily over the Children's Aid Society.

I think as result of that sword over their head, they have started to communicate, they have starteci to negotiate more in the last little while than we have seen certainly in my preceding seven years. Up to this point, the Children's Aid Society has taken a very hard line on most matters. Their only source of negotiation has been through the newspaper. Now, with the fact that the government is standing over them, watching them and has indicated it's going to change things, they are opening up.

I should tell you, and I would be misleading you to say, if I didn't admit that the Native community and the Children's Aid Society are commu nicating better now than we ever have before, but I think that that fact is another reason why we need 107. The Children's Aid Society is finally starting to behave itself in a responsible way, and they're starting to do that because the government is standing over them. I think that 107 can provide that function.

If we supposed that the system was going to stay the way it is now, then Bill 107 gives the government an opportunity to get in there if the Children's Aid Society remains unaccountable. I think that that legislation provides the government with a way to maintain that kind of accountability which up to now has been missing. We're only starting to get it now. The Children's Aid Society has taken an adversarial attitude to Native families. it certainly has been my experience that they have taken that attitude not only to Native families but to the white families that they are involved with as well.

I can tell you that I have appeared in cases where workers have gone on the stand and they have said that they became involved with a family. They felt their function was to assess that family and their capability to parent. They came up with an assessment that indicated that as far as they were concerned, the family wasn't capable of parenting, and they have admitted on the stand that from that point on they felt they had no commitment to aid that family. In one very recent case I was involved in, it was a case of a 16 -year-old mother . They made the assessment that she wasn't acceptable to them. She

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 presented them with relatives whom they could consider as possible placements for the child, and the worker admitted in testimony on the stand that because they had done an assessment and determined that the mother wasn't acceptable as a mother, they didn't feel any commitment to check out these plans as far as relatives, extended family members who might provide a home to the family.

I think that attitude is virtually immoral and that is one of the attitudes that has characterized - I think we'd be here all night if you wanted to hear all my criticisms of the Children's Aid Society - but that is one of the attitudes they have operated on and one of the reasons why, with that kind of arrogant attitude, we need some legislation, if that's the answer, to change that situation. As I said earlier, Native Family Services wants to become a child care. We want to get into the business that the Children's Aid Society is in now.

You might say, well, how can you be asking to become a child care delivery service yourself or an agency yourself, and stand there and suggest that legislation which would inhibit your power is good legislation? But we can do that, Madam Chairperson, for several reasons. I think one of those reasons is the fact that the budget, as we understand it, of the Children's Aid Society is $13 million. Now Native Family Services is not asking for $13 million.

However, it is our opinion and our submission that any government agency or any agency, whether it's government or private or whatever it is, that is receiving $13 million of the taxes collected from the taxpayers should be and must be accountable. Native Family Services is obviously asking and hoping for money from the government. That being the case, we expect that hand in hand with government financing must be an accountability and we're prepared to be accountable. As I indicated, our board has already been set up so that it will contain representation from all elements of our commun ity.

That board is prepared to be accountable and welcomes the involvement and the ongoing assessment of the government through the power afforded by

Section 107.

Now the final area I wish to talk about and suggest for this committee's consideration as to why these two organizations that I'm here speaking for think that 107 is necessary, is the fact that Native Family Services has shown over its brief life and, as I indicated, Native Family Services really got started in July of 1982, I think we have shown by the fact that the service we have delivered, the efficiency with which it has been delivered, the number of children who are living happily or, hopefully, living safely within their own homes rather than within the care of the system or within the care of the government, has shown that a grass-roots organization which really does feature volunteer help, which really does feature people who have been through it themselves, helping other people who find themselves in that predicament, that that kind of thing can work.

I think that regionalization, when it allows smaller agencies which have a real feel for their community, can also be effective in that way. The spirit of people working together, of neighbourhoods working together, of neighbourhoods accepting that our children are our most precious commod ity, and particularly the Native community is rising up and saying that our children are our most precious commodity.

They can't continue 280 to be shipped out of the province, and the very spirit and soul of those Native homes can't be disrupted by apprehensions as has been the case in the past The attitude of the Children's Aid Society, the combative adversarial approach, where they do an assessment and if they determine that the situation is untenable, then they go to court. The fact of 160 contested cases by the Children's Aid Society within 1982 as opposed to 3 for Children's Aid Society of Eastern, I'm sure Mr.

Walsh will tell you if he deals with that that there are reasons why Eastern only had 3 contested cases and there are reasons why Winnipeg had 160. But I find it hard to believe that there are reasons that can justify that kind of differential between two agencies operating within the same area, within the same city. I think that

Section 107 of the proposed bill is legislation that is long overdue. The Native community has been crying out to the government, this government and previous governments, to do something about what is perceived by the community to be a horrendous situation, a situation bordering on having international impli cations. it's about tim e that the government recognized that there has to be some accountability. 1 think the attitude of the Children's Aid Society has been arrogant to the fullest extent.

If anything, I think the remarks of the President of the Children's Aid So ciety as recently as last week, und erscore the arrogance of that agency in that he told a public gathering that he didn't really care. If the government planned on regionalizing or planned on taking away the power of the Children's Aid Society, they may be prepared to fight that and he mentioned going to court and so on.

I think for the President of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg to say that he is not planning on listening to the will of the people, as we accept that our government represents the will of the people; and if he is saying we don't care what the will of the people is, we don't care what the government is doing, we've got a mind of our own and we are holding on to our own situation despite what the government wants, that kind of arrogance when you're dealing with an area as sensitive as apprehensions of children and disruptions of families for good, I think that kind of arrogant attitude has to be cut down.

We can't allow the board of our Children's Aid Society to operate in that kind of arrogant situation where they feel in control and whether the people like it or not, they're going to have to accept that. For all these reasons, I urge this committee, and I certainly wish to make the presentation that it is on behalf of Native Family Services and the Winnipeg Coalition for Urban and Native Child Welfare that 107 is legislation we welcome and we support. That's all I have to say. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Alien. Are there questions for Mr. Alien from the members of the committee? Mr. Sherman. MR. L.

SHERMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Alien, your presentation is interesting. lt seems to be directed almost exclusively, however, to criticism of CAS Winnipeg and really - correct me, if I'm wrong - certainly

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 reflected in my view a total preoccupation on your part with your own grievances with CAS Winnipeg. Some critics of this legislation, myself among them, and I don't mind admitting it, have described this legislation as nothing more or less than a weapon for the Mi nister to pursue and win his own particular battle with CAS Winnipeg. I would infer from your presentation, that's precisely what it is, and that you see it the same way and that you laud it on those grounds. Would that be a fair inference or not? MR. L. ALLEN: Not a fair inference, I don't think.

I accept 107 because I see it as a necessary tool for government accountability. I think that we have operated now - this is the modern day - this is 1983, and yet we have a Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg that is dealing with 50 to 75 percent Native families, and up until early June had one Native director and had absolutely - I don't imagine there is anybody, even the greatest proponent of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, could say that the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has a friend in the Native community. Virtually, there isn't a person . . .

I should tell you that, from my experience with the Native community, there isn't a Native family in this city that hasn't been touched, either directly or indirectly, by an apprehension of a child. This is far more than an issue in the newspaper or an issue on television to a vast percentage of our community, of our society. To these people, the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg is the dreaded enemy. Now, how have we got to that place?

If our system requires that the government has to have some way to hold those boards accountable to the concerns of the community, then maybe 107 is the answer. lt certainly is our opinion that it's needed, but it is not only because we are unhappy with the Children's Aid Society. I accept it as a necessary tool within the workings of the child welfare system. 1 accept the proposal that we will have regionalization. We are hoping that regionalization will include a solely Native Child ren's Aid Society with this over riding jurisdiction. We welcome the fact.

We want our agency, we intend to lobby, we intend to do everything necessary to get it, but we welcome 107. We welcome the government holding us accountable to our community. If we're not accountable, then the government should do something about it. So we accept it as a necessary part of the system, not just as a response to the fact that the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has mishandled their mandate. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Sherman, any further questions? MR. L. SHERMAN: Madam Chairman, through you to Mr. Alien, I appreciate the answer, Mr.

Alien, but I repeat that you come on so strongly against CAS Winnipeg that one would suspect that you had a personal hand in drafting the legislation with the Minister. Let me ask you this. I would like to ask you the question that I asked Mr. Arnold. Do you see the fallout from this legislation and the ramifications of thi s legislation as having meaning only and exclusively for the Native child welfare community? That's the only context in which you appear to be addressing it. 281 MR. L. ALLEN: No, I don't think so.

I think that the fallout or the ramifications of 107 would affect the whole service delivery system. There are other people besides Native people who are affected by the child welfare system. I think that those people are entitled to feel that whoever is making these decisions - and this committee may or may not realize because you haven't actually had maybe on the street involvement with what we're deal ing with here, but we are dealing with something which, I think and others have suggested, is more significant.

The most significant cases dealt with in our courts are cases where a government agency, or in the case of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, is going to court to separate a fami ly. They are going to court to take five children away from a mother and father, or take a baby, a newborn, away from its mother. These are highly signif icant matters. The situation that we have in this province just can't remain where the board of the agency that does more of that than any other agency is not accountable, is in no way responsible to the people it's supposed to serve.

So that affects everybody affected by apprehensions. There's got to be some way out. 1t is too much power to give to private organizations without some means for someone to question that power. MR. L. SHERMAN: But , Madam Chairman , CAS Winnipeg is not the only Children's Aid Society that would be affected by this legislation. What I would like Mr.

Alien's opinion on at this juncture is whether he believes and whether he is suggesting to this committee that legislation that I think could be draconian, given a particular Minister, given a particular government, leaving references to the present Minister out of it - the present Minister may be a very charitable, very wonderful, very lovely fellow, but let us assume that he is draconian. Let us assume that he has got less than admirable methods and ambitions.

Are you saying to this committee that legislation of that kind is a good thing to put on the books, just because you've got an argument in the Native community with CAS Winnipeg? MR. L. ALLEN: I think that there is a back and a front to everything. There is obviously a back side, an unfortunate side to this legislation, and that is that it places a certain amount of power in the hands of the government. If a government wanted to act perniciously, it could interfere with a Children's Aid Society or an agency, because it didn't agree with that agency.

I think that's very true, and that may be the back side to the legislation. However, I think in anything, whether it's legislation or anything in life, you have to weigh the back and the front. We so obviously require the front, the good aspect, the aspect of accountability - as I said, from my own experience, I can tell you that we have already been experiencing the benefits from government intervention in the last few months. We have been experiencing an era of some co-operation.

I would say that the obvious benefits outweigh the possibility that a pernicious government or a pernicious Minister could use that legislation in an unfortunate way. I suppose that even if that did take place, there is always a response. The media is available and the courts

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 are available, and there are other methods to hopefully counteract that kind of misuse of power. MR. L. SHERMAN: Madam Chairman, through you to Mr. Alien, do these two groups, the Native Family Services and the Winnipeg Coalition on Native Child Welfare, feel that the only way that they can achieve their legitimate ambition for autonomy in terms of child welfare services is through legislation of this kind. In other words, let's concede your point that the Native communi ty has been short-changed in terms of recognition, in terms of participation, in terms of clout in this field.

Let's concede your point that reform is needed. I think there's no argument there, but would you say, and would these two groups say, that this is the only way that they can achieve it, that it can't be done other than th rough, what I call, Drac onian legislation? MR. L. ALLEN: Well, Native Family Services had made it

Section 4 application prior to the announcement of this proposed legislation. I think

Section 4 gives us the opportunity to petition for a mandate under

Section 4, and that is the answer as far as our two groups are concerned. There will never be an answer for the Native community until the Native people are controlling the Native child welfare. I think

Section 107 is good legislation, in any event, whether we could have accomplished our ends without it or not. I think that the fact that 107 is there is probably a good idea for our agency, for any agency. I believe we will have a regionalized system, and I think that those systems must be accountable in some way, and 107 will make them accountable. But if I'm to reply directly to your question I think, no, that the Native community could have been satisfied without the passage of this legislation but, nevertheless, I feel that the legislation is appropriate and will certainly provide.

If the public is concerned about Native people, for example, if the public has some reluctance to accept a Native Children's Aid Society, they may be happier about that if there's an overriding government control that's offered by 107. Certainly speaking, not in my capacity representing those agencies, but as a lawyer who works in this area, aside from the Nativ e issue, I welcome that accountability, not only to Winnipeg but to Eastern and everyone else; I welcome that overriding accountability. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions, Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: I just have one more question Madam Chairman.

I'd like to ask Mr. Alien, on this point of accountability, and sort of community-based involvement which really is at the root, I think, of his presentation, or it's one of the roots of his presentation, it's certainly at the root of some of the arguments that the Minister has advanced in defense of the legislation. How do you get community-based involvement, and how can you be sure of community-based children's aid societies when those Boards are fashioned and constructed in a Minister's office, whether it's Mr. Evan's office, or my office, or anybody else's office? 282 MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Alien. MR. L.

ALLEN: As I stated at the outset, I perceive this legislation as being an emergency measure that the government will hold in obeyance unless necessary. I think the legislation is constructed so that there's an in and there's an out for the go vernment.

The government can move in, and there's also a provision for the gover nm ent moving out. 1t would be my understanding of the legislation that the way it would work is that only in cases where there was no co operation, or that there was behaviour on the part of a board of a children's aid society that was deemed unaccountable, only then would 107 be implemented, and when the situation had righted itself the government would move out. So I don't see 107 as being a long term piece of legislation which will dictate how the boards of these agencies will be set up.

In fact, I would hope that the im plementa tion committee will look at that question of how these boards are set up. Certainly we, in the Native community, hope that it'll be looked at from the Native perspective, and that it certainly is our intention to operate from a point of view of an elder's committee having a great deal of control and say as to what goes on in Native Family Services. So really I don't see that 107 is meant to be the mechanism for the construction of boards in the future; I see it only as an emergency measure that the government may have to rely upon.

But, once having done so, as soon as stability is restored to whatever agency they use it on, that they'll go back to a situation where the boards will be nominated from the agencies themselves. MR. L. SHER MAN: I ju st want one concluding observation and half question. I appreciate Mr. Alien's confidence, but I would just ask him, in his 40-years or-so of life in this country, on this planet as a citizen taxpayer, has he seen very many areas into which governments have moved, and then a few years later reluctantly withdrawn? MR. L.

ALLEN: I'm going to have to shave off my beard, I'm only 33. it must be the beard. Well, I think, the government has learned a hard lesson, and I think our community is learning a hard lesson because, if we think we've had trouble up 'till now; if we think that this is an em barrassment; if we think the fact that Native children were being shipped out of our province down to the southern States and so on; if we think that's embarrassing I think we haven't seen really the full ramifications.

I think the time has come that we've got to deal with this situation, a very bad situation, a situation which I feel borders on having international implications, as I said. Obviously the Member for Fort Garry has hit upon the one area of the legislation that would concern anybody and, that is, abuse of that power. Any legislation which gives govennment power lends itself to misuse and one would hope that it's not going to be misused. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Minister. HON. L. EVANS: Since we've got into the area of draconian measures and perniciousness, etc., I'd like

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 to ask Mr. Alien a couple of questions regarding The Child Welfare Act as it exists. As he directly noted, Madam Chairperson, we're only relating to a couple of particular subsections of a large comprehensive, complicated Child Welfare Act. Would the delegate, Mr. Alien, indicate whether he's aware that the Government of the Province of Manitoba already has the power, if it so wishes to be draconian, to disolve a children's aid society by Order-in-Council? MR. L. ALLEN: Yes, I was aware of that. HON. L. EVANS: Okay, yes.

I thought the delegate was aware of that but I asked it because I would like other members of the committee, who are concerned about draconian measures, to know that a government can act, and already has the power to dissolve the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg if it wanted to be draconian about it, and it can be done within hours. The other question I have for the delegate, Mr.

Alien, is would he agree that the legislation that. we now have on the books, the existing Child Welfare Act, nowhere does it suggest that the Government of Manitoba, that the taxpayers of Manitoba, must fund the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg or, indeed, any other children's aid society in Man itoba? There's nothing in the legislation which requires us to fund any agency of this nature. MR. L. ALLEN: Yes to both questions, the first one and the second. I'm aware that the government has that power. I could say that there have been times when we'd hoped you might do it, might use that draconian power.

Certainly if change doesn't happen fairly soon we might want to see that if this doesn't happen in 107. I'm also aware that there's no requirement in The Child Welfare Act that the govern ment fund the Children's Aid Society. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I'm pleased to hear the delegate, Mr. Alien, agree that if, indeed, we wished to be draconian, because that term has been used around this table, we could indeed simply withhold funds.

Madam Chairperson, the other question I have, very specifically, and again to get the matter on the record because reference has been made by the Member for Fort Garry to a pernicious Minister, and a Minister with this power and that power and so on. Would the delegate obs erve, and agree, that we're read ing properly here that the legislation refers to Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may, by order, provide for the appoint ment of di rectors, or di sappoin tment of di rectors, not any one particular Ministry? MR. L. ALLEN: Yes, I would. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, thank you.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Alien, have things got so bad in this province where elected boards, boards elected by the people, have to 283 have legislation such as this from the Minister to come down with the whip hand and say, look, you told a lie, now we'll proclaim this legislation? Is it that bad? MR. L. ALLEN: They are not elected. The Board of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg is not elected by the people. They get there through nominations through their own nominating committee. Things are that bad. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Can I ask you the second question? What are these international implications that you keep referring to? MR. L. ALLEN: The international implications are that there are elements of our community who see that what has happened in Manitoba as far as Native families, as far as Native children, is a form of cultural genocide. They see the numbers, and the numbers are staggering, as to how many Native children left this province as a result of being picked up in their homes, for whatever reas on, and appr ehended by various child care agencies, most particularly the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg.

They go through a process. Sometimes, they go through a process with counsel; sc.metimes they don't. In some situations, they never have the law explained to them; they never have their rights explained to them. In some cases, they don't even speak or understand English. Yet, they lose their children. In the past, those children have left this province. Some effort, and it's questionable how much effo rt, has been made to find homes for them in the province, and then they've gone. They have been sent. The implications of that are international.

If Manitoba doesn't do something about that, we will have an international scene on our hands. I think the obvious response is, well, we have done something in that at least we've got a moratorium now and the government has declared that you can't do that anymore. You can't send children out of the province. So that aspect is hopefully over and one would expect, with the Kimelman Commission, that it will never return. But that isn't all. We operate here in Manitoba, in my submission and certainly in the submission of the people I am here for, in an outmoded way.

Our social work in Manitoba and particularly the social work practised by the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, is some years behind the times. This isn't the forum to go into that, whether it's appr opria te or isn't appropriate, but it certainly would be my suggestion from my exposure to it that there are other jurisdictions in other parts of this continent who are operating social work, who are carrying on delivery services to families that are based on prevention of trouble. They get in there in the first place. One way they can do that is because they're regionalized; they're smaller.

They operate in neighbourhoods; they know if someone down the street is having troubles. They know that if they are having troubles, the neighbour two houses over has looked after their kids in the past and they can pick up the kids and put them there, but not our Children's Aid Society. Our Children's Aid Society is a huge, big place operating out of 11 4 Garry Street, and they don't know those things. So they apprehend children and they ask questions later.

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 The psychological studies that are coming out now are proving - studies are being done to prove that children are emotionally abused from the moment they are apprehended. I have a four-year-old at home. If a Children's Aid Society or anybody was to come out to my house some night and take my child away from my house, even if they gave her back the next day or two days later, my child would suffer, according to these studies and I think according to common sense.

My child would suffer for having been taken and in some cases, in many cases, taken by the police, by three policemen showing up at the door and taking that child. This is a situation that can't conti nue. Other jur isdictions don't operate this way. They don't apprehend first and ask qu est ions later. They concentrate on prevention, on finding out these things. They are operating in the modern world. We're not here. I think we are operating in an antiquated way. Why is that?

I think that it's arguable that is the case, because the administration of the Children's Aid Society has been so arrogant that it has been reluctant to even admit that it's capable of mistakes. If you review, as I did just yesterday, the press reports of this issue over the last year, you'll see questions - and not only the last year but preceding that. You'll see people raised points about the Children's Aid Socie ty. What is their response? Inevitably , their response is, that's not the case. We are not bad. We're good. We don't make mistakes.

I don't think that's appropriate. lt has left us with a situation where, until the moratorium, our children were being apprehended and leaving in shocking numbers. Even now, children and families are being subjected to outmoded philosophies of child welfare. There is a new way, there is a modern way to go about it, and we have people in Manitoba who have worked in those jurisdictions. Native Family Services is fortunate to have a person working for it who has worked in other jurisdictions where progressive principles are practised.

If we don't stop, we do have an international situation, because we've got children suffering emotional abuse and fam ilies suffering unnecessary rupture. One of the things the Minister has said, and we applaud him for that, is that, what's with the Children's Aid Society? Why do they have to go to court so much? Why is their court budget so huge when everybody else's isn't? lt is because of this combative, adversarial, outmoded approach. The government doesn't have to spend all this money. You wait until you see what Native Family Services can save.

We are already saving this government lots of money, and we plan to continue. We are going to advance our idea, our grass-roots involvement. We are going to take that further into small busi nesses that are related, and we're going to open up jobs for Native people. We are spending - what? - $14 million in the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg? How many Native workers do they have? They have one worker and they fired her a couple weeks ago. I think Native people should have some of those jobs. There are Native people trained and ready for those jobs. MR. W.

McKENZIE: If we politicize this board, will that solve the problem? 284 MR. L. ALLEN: Excuse me, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. MR. W. McKENZIE: If by politicizing the board, as it was referred to by Mr. Arnold, will tha t solve the problem? MR. L. ALLEN: I don't think this legislation is suggesting politicizing the Board of the Children's Aid Society. I think it's making an avenue available for the government to deal with the problem and not just now with this agency, but with future agencies.

The government is saying, okay, we still accept that we don't have to get involved, unlike the seven other jurisdictions where the government runs the show. They are saying, okay, we are prepared to accept that private agencies can do the job, but we've got to have some control, because we haven't had controlin the past and we have seen what's resulted. So I don't see it as politicizing the board. I see it as forcing the board to be accountable.

I hope I have already indicated that those of us who work within this area are alre�dy seeing positive results from the government, showing that it is prepared to exercise some clout. MADAM CHAIRP ERSON: Are there any further questions? The Member for Rupertsland. MR. E. HARPER: Just to follow up on Mr. Sherman's question relating to the Native child family service which is to be established, or some sort of other Native group. Don't you think that one of the problems has been that Native people have lacked some sort of control? MR. L. ALLEN: Yes, I do.

I think it's absolutely unbelievable that we can have a system that affects up to possibly a figure as high as three-quarters of the people involved with the Children's Aid Society, the consumers of these services, have no representation whatsoe ver. Up until recently , there has been no mechanism. Even now, there is no actual mechanism for the Native community to dialogue with the Children's Aid Society. I don't mean to say that we haven't been doing that, pushing that.

In the last little while, we have, but certainly one of the problems has been the fact that the Native community has not been represented and has not had any control or even really any input. MR. E. HARPER: I asked the other presenter about the question of the federal legislation respecting child welfare or whether the Federal Government will proceed with that. Do you know anything about it or where it's at, because I have been sort of trying to find out? Maybe you can provide me with some information. MR. L.

ALLEN: I don't really know too much about that, other than I have heard that that was on the drawing board. All I have heard is that it was considered but, as I understand, has been sort of put on the back burner and is not as hot an issue as it was at one time. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further questions? On behalf of the committee then, Mr. Alien, I'd like to thank you.

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 MR. L. ALLEN: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The next delegate is Mr. Paul Walsh for CAS Winnipeg. MR. P. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appear on behalf of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg. I must say that the temptation to throw away these written remarks - I don't have a brief to present to the committee, given the shortness of time, and merely respond

chapter and verse to some of the criticisms that were forthcoming by the speaker precedent are nearly overwhelming, but given what apparently is the CAS Winnipeg's knee-jerk justification of everything it does, as he characterizes it, I'll resist that temptation and restrict my comments to those that are prepared. The Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg has some real deep concerns about Bill 107, and I'm going to add ress them in three compa rtments. The least important one I'll get over with first.

I say the least important one, but I say not unimportant, and that is that the bill has the potential, the very real potential of confiscating property. The Children's Aid Society, while it is true it is funded to a virtually total extent by government, has hundreds of thousands of dollars in legacy funds which it invests, and from which it spends interest and sometimes capital for various projects which it takes on from time to time.

If the government is able to dismiss the board and replace it with its own nominees, that would have the effect of confiscating those legacy funds because the government board could then spend that money as it saw fit, responsive to government dictate.

I throw out to you the notion that that aspect may well be a confiscation of property that might be unconstitutional, as taking away the private property of others; and the legacy funds, you should remem ber, are monies that have been given or willed to the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg to do with it as it pleases, or to fund certain programs beyond those that are funded by government, discretionary programs and the like; and that if the government is then free to replace the community based board with a government dictated board, it then will have access to take those funds over, spend them according to its own priorities, and will clearly breach faith with those who willed their money to the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg in the belief that in perpetuity the agency would be a board that was a private board and not a gover nment corporation or, indeed, a Crown corporation, which it would become during the currency of government management.

So I say to the government, in the passage of 107, consider very carefully what you are doing to private property. 1t may be that you have the attitude that the agency is yours because you fund it. The volunteer members of the board certainly don't agree with that, but if you have that notion, remember that there are large pools of money that are sitting in trust in the agency, given to the agency by people who did not in any way foresee in their wildest imaginations that one day government fiat would be spending those funds.

I say to you that from that aspect alone, it may be that you are without regard maybe even to this notion 285 and perhaps it's the first time you've heard it or considered it in danger of expropriating private monies for your own use. I ask that you consider that problem and deal with it. I say that's the least important problem, not unimportant, but the least important problem. The reason I'm here today on behalf of the agency is to ask you why you're doing this. I don't understand it. I have been solicitor for the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg since 1971. it's had the same constitutio� since 1971.

Members of the board have come and gone, and I would like to know the names of the people who have been refused admission to the board of directors of the Children's Aid Society during the memories of all the people that are around this table until 1983? There was comment made earlier by Mr. Alien that six wasn't enough. Well, if he read the constitution, and he said he managed to unearth it. He managed to unearth it because he wrote a letter to the Children's Aid Society of Winnip eg and said send me your constitution. The Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg sent him a copy of the constitution.

What he would have unearthed if he would have read further is that one-third of the board of the di rectors of the Children's Aid .:3ociety of Winnipeg is elected each year, which means that 10 people are elected each year and the other 20 people carry on for terms of three years so that the board rotates; so that placing 6 people from the Native community on a list of 10 when there were some people who had served in the past and wanted to continue serving, represented at that point in time - and remember - not over a long period of time, but at that point in time - a marked departure from the way the agency had behaved in the past.

Let me say, I'm not here to defend the past. John Sinclair said upon his succession to the presidency that systems that worked, that were operative for many many years are no longer reasonable in the light of present experience.

So that if there is a demand on the part of the constituency served by the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg to find expression on the board and that now finds expression in 1983, how can one blame the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg for not having done something in 1982, '81, '80, '79 and so forth and so on, back to the time when this party was in power for those eight or nine years when no demand was made? If a legiti mate demand is made now and the responsiveness on the part of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg is to say yes, we have a self-perpetuating board, that's wrong.

No one's complained about it before. Everybody who wanted to volunteer to the Children's Aid Society was able to come onto the board in a reasonable way, perhaps starting off as a volunteer, then wor king their way onto the board . No one complained; everybody thought that was a reasonable way of doing business, and we did business that way. Now, that isn't a reasonable way. We have demands made for change and we'll change, because that is not in 1983, and may not have been in 1973, reasonable; but there wasn't a complaint in 1973.

So whatever outmoded system was in place and that carried on because no one complained, why should the people now in office be burdened with the justification of it when they stand up and say we're going to change it? So what has the Children's Aid Society refused to do

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 in 1983 that it needs to be told if you don't shape up, we'll replace your board? What have we done? What is the complaint that we have refused to face? The Children's Aid Society had a lengthy analysis of The Child Welfare Act. We presented a report to the government saying here are many areas that should see change. it's unfair that during an appeal period from an order that a child remain in care without the Court of Appeal granting a stay order. it's unfair that the media shouldn't have access to the court so long as they preserve confidential ity. We made 20 rec ommendations.

Of all of the recommendations in the latest amendments to The Child Welfare Act - not this one, but in the other bill - 90 percent of thos e recom menda ti ons found inspiration from the board of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg. A brief went forward and legislation came back. That was this year. So we're asking the question in a meaningful way and to an extent, I admit, rhetorical way, what did we not do? What did we refuse to do? Now, admittedly, there has been some tension and some adversary posturing between the agency and the gover nm ent.

The agency feels protective of its jurisdiction; the agency feels protective of its structure.

If the agency is now in the process of trying to respond to the legitimate demands for change, for deployment, for decentralization, whatever the operative phrase is, and I can say confidently on behalf of my client that you will find a Children's Aid Society, both from the point of view of the board and from the point of view of its management, anxious and willing to talk to you, anxious and willing to, while responding to its sense of integrity, respond to the appropriate and legitimate demands that government can and should make of it to be an up-to-date and modern agency in 1983, and to help im plement those changes.

But why, when you make your own case against this legislation by saying we can (

a) cut off your funding, and we can (

b) dissolve you tom orrow, do you escalate the adversary atmosphere between the government and the agency by passing a bill that says, we can dismiss your board? Who on the board? I won't go through the names, because that would be unfair to just give you a litany of the names of the people and say that they're good people, because I don't think that you would quarrel with any particular board member as a person. Those people came onto the board in good faith. They said, being a board member of a child caring agency is inherently and, by its very act, a good thing to do and a good thing to be.

I want to volunteer. I'll help. The agency is going through a great period of introspection. lt has suffered a lot of criticism, but why the big stick? What has the agency refused to do that the government has to take a step against a volunteer group of people who are trying their best to do a job? If the government said, by next year we want an open board; we want to see that the board can be elected by nominations and is totally open, and the agency refused to comply by its next election, you would have a case.

If the government said, we want to make sure that certain geographical, constituent areas in the City of Winnipeg, based maybe on the same demarcation lines as the community commi ttees, that they have an ability to elect members of the Board of the Children's Aid Society; we want that in place, and if that weren't done, you could bring in

an act to say, well, we'll dismiss you and put in our people. But you have an issue. 286 You would say, the Children's Aid Society has refused the legitimate demands of government to do one, two, three, four and so forth down the list. But all I see is an atmosphere of hostility and adversariness, which I think has been contributed to on both sides - and perhaps that's a little unfaithful to my retainer if I might be so bold - that has to be de-escalated, that has to be brought down.

I would say that the first gesture of reconciliation shouid be the tabling of this bill, because you have the power to do this anyway. You told us that. You can cut off the funding; you can dissolve the agency. You have the hammers that you need.

Wouldn't it be a gesture to say that you now know in no uncertain terms from a representative of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg that not only is the agency willing and anxious to talk, but they are willing to participate in a meaningful way in the process to make sure, not that its board is preserved and not that its present emp loyees at management level continue with their jobs and not that its present president carry on in office, but that children are protected and that families are secure? That is the object of the exercise.

If you talk to any board member on the Board of the Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg, he or she will tell you that. That's why they are there, not to keep some Indian person off the board, not to take a place that rightfully belongs to someone else, but because a system was in place that no one questioned. We got caught because we didn't take affirmative action. But where were the cries for affirmative action? Where was the demand? Who said, let me on the board, and criticized the agency for not having an open-door policy?

Who is the person who couldn't gain access to the Children's Aid Society's decision-making board? Let that person come forward. Let that person be counted as one so that we can get to the second one and the third one, because there may be one, there may be two, I don't know. But there are not great numbers, and there may not even be one. So the first question I am here to ask you is, why?

Why escalate, when the aims and objectives of the Children's Aid Society now are - and if they weren't before, I don't apologize for what was before - to meet with government in a meaningful way to make the changes that are being demanded and seen in the community? Now the third point I wanted to make was the incredible natur e of this as a preced ent . The switchboard lit up at the Children's. Aid Society when this bill was pronounced.

People recognize that its focus and aim is such that everybody isn't going to come crying that it is doomsday tomorrow and the thin edge of the wedge is going to result in a complete change in the kind of community in which we live. But at the same time, you should be aware of the tremendous concern in every other agency that has any funding from government whatsoever, as this being the kind of resort to which government will go - not withdraw the funding; not cut off the flow of money, but replace the board. Take over the money that was raised from other sources as well.

Then the issue arises, at what point in time, at what percentage of funding does government feel that it's appropriate to take over boards, 80 percent, 85 percent, 90? How much money does an organization have to

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 have of its own before the government doesn't feel that it can expropriate that small percentage? I tell you, the Children's Aid Society has hu:-�dreds of thousands of dollars of money that doesn't come from government. I say that if we look at this piece of legislation as it presents, it is in a very narrow way a form of martial law.

The solidarity that you will find emerging from other volunteer organizations as the reality dawns if this legislation is ever used - because I don't think the mere passage of it will cause the concern - but if it's ever used, will create a feel ing in the community of distrust about any area in which volunteers assemble. As I said before, I don't come here to defend the present method of assembling the volunteers for the Children's Aid Society. I don't defend self-perpetuating boards and I don't defend the notion that people should nominate their friends and exclude others.

But I come here to tell you that the Children's Aid Society of Winn ipeg is not only willing to change, but is contemplating change, that is actively concerning itself with change. You have the evidence of that and the promise from me on behalf of the executive and of the administration that they are prepared to play the proper role if invited to do so with you to effect change. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Walsh. Are there questions for Mr. Walsh. Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

First off, you say that the Society gets hundreds of thousands of dollars that it earns off of trust accounts . . . MR. P. WALSH: No, I said it has several hundreds of thousands of dollars which it keeps invested and earns money. MR. D. SCOTT: . . . and earns funds, so that it earns thousands of dollars . . . MR. P. WALSH: Yes, it's about 300-and - I don't have the figures, but it's in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, legacy funds. MR. D.

SCOTT: My understanding is that the Children's Aid Society gets somewhere in the vicinity of $12 million a year, or at least this past year, in provincial funding directly and probably another close to $8 million for its charges that have been referred elsewhere in provincial funding as well, for a total of probably in the vicinity of $20 million a year from public funding. Even the people who left money in trust for the operation of the Children's Aid Society, they left that money in trust for what reason? MR. P. WALSH: I can't speak for them. Usually it's MR. D. SCOTT: For care of children, was it not? MR. P.

WALSH: As I say, I can't speak for them. Your idea would be equally valid as mine, and I don't disagree with it. I don't disagree with that, but the money was left to the agency in the knowledge that the ongoif1g 287 programs of the agency were funded by government, and that the donations through either gift or will would be used for discretionary programs over and beyond those that government itself would fund. Would you disagree with that? I'm not permitted to ask you a question so I say it rhetorically. MR. D. SCOTT: You mentioned that you are retained by the CAS.

You have been their solicitor now for 13 years. Could we ask you what your retainer fee is, or if you have a retainer fee? MADAM CHAIRPERSON: I think I would rule that question out of order, Mr. Scott. MR. P. WALSH: I think that's public information. I am not embarrassed to answer it, but I leave it with the Chairperson of course. I won't answer any question that is out of order. MR. D.

SCOTT: Madam Chairman, if I could dispute your questioning there, we are dealing with an agency that is alm ost 100 percent publicly financed, the expenditures of that agency are subject to the perusal of the Provincial Auditor; it may be farmed out to another agency, but the Provincial Auditor has the authority to be able to go in and we, as legislators, have a right to know how and where the money is being spent. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: If the delegate wishes to answer the question, fine. MR. P. WALSH: I don't have a positive passion to respond, but if the question is proper, well, I'm not embarrassed to answer it.

MR. A. KOVNATS: Madam Chairman on a point of order. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on the point of order. MR. A. KOVNATS: I don't think that Mr. Walsh is here to be scrutinized and to be investigated at all, Madam Chairman, and I think the question, as you ruled, is out of order. I would request that he be directed not to answer it. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Yes, on the point of order. MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, on the point of order, Madam Chairman. I don't think he has to be di rected not to answer, you have told him that he doesn't have to answer. I think he is at perfect liberty to exercise that right.

I don't think the information is relevant. He's speaking for the Children's Aid Society with respect to child welfare, not with respect to what he commands as a lawyer. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Madam Chairperson, if I could extend the rationale for my asking this, is that I understand that Mr. Walsh's firm is the firm that is retained by the CAS for their legal charges. That we have, from the

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 CAS in the last year, I believe it was a figure given earlier, of 162 cases contested in the courts versus non-contested by the department, versus only three, I believe, by CAS Eastern Region. lt seems to be, even with a larger population base of, say, three times that, or not even quite three times that, or around three times that of the CAS East, CAS Winnipeg seems to have an incredibly inordinate number of cases that it is going to the law courts with.

I'm wondering and trying to get some idea as to how much money that has cost the public through the CAS practice of going to court so frequently and so often. One may question the rationale of the need for it when the rest of the province only having three cases in it. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: On my point of order first, Mr. Walsh. I interpreted the original question as to be, what was your retainer for being here this evening? On that basis, I think that is up to your discretion as to whether you want to answer.

If you want to answer the general question in terms of the overall legal bill for CAS in their annual budget, I think that's a different question. I think both of them could be found out through the budge tary process sub mitted to the department, but if you want to answer the question about the overall legal bill, I think that one would be in order. I think the question about your retainer for being here this evening is the one that I question in the first place. MR. P. WALSH: I suppose that there would be a division of opinion as to whether I earned a penny of it.

Let me say that the legal bill that the agency pays is each year separated and referred to specifically in its annual report at its annual meetings so in the published statement it has a figure "Legal Fees" , and each year I go through some - because I suppose monetary matters tend to embarrass certain types of people - I go through machinations to explain that that is inclusive of disbursements and inclusive of the legal fee paid to another law firm that does all of the personnel matters, all the union work for the agency; but our firm gets paid a retainer on a monthly basis of $2,000 which is designed to be applied on the entire caseload for preparation, and we're then paid a further per diem fee for court work.

Now, lest I go into detail, if you ask, I'll give you the figures if you like. I think that, in total, our firm earned less than $1 50,000 last year in legal fees, and there are five lawyers who do the work. That included our overhead costs and, if you take that as part of a budget of $20 million, if we didn't have any cases go to court I don't know what the saving would be for each child in care, or however you care to spread that thin. I think I'm trying to make the point that I'm helping you as much as I can with the information regarding legal costs and to say that it is a very small amount of money.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Well, it may be small to you, sir, don't know whether it's small in comparison to what they're spending in the other agencies providing similar services in other parts of the province. 288 One of the things you questioned was the willingness of volunteer organizations, and the individua ls to participate as volunteers on these organizations, faced with such measures as Bill 107 and the implications that that may have on other associations. I believe you're the only person here from CAS Winnipeg, are you not? Are there not 30 board members on CAS Winnipeg?

If that is the case, why do we not have all 30 board members and other members of CAS, in general, out here tonight to make presentations about the impact of this legislation on their willingness to volunteer. lt seems that they are leaving it up to their legal counsel again. MR. P. WALSH: Well, the help comes from the member opposite as to the procedure. I certainly was alerted to this bill and was obliged to follow it through the process.

Given the fact that I was alerted to be here three hour s ago, and it was felt by at least the management portion of Children's Aid that they ought not to present themselves here to argue against the bill but to leave it to their lawyer to make those arguments and, in term of the board, there just wasn't time to alert the board to make a presentation.

So that if they could be here in number, if you sort of want a vote from the members of the board as to whether they're in favour of this legislation or not, all I can say is that I have been retained and instructed to come here and tell you what the agencies view is and to say, on behalf of the agency, that we want to co-operative, that we don't feel we need this harsh measure to bring us to the negotiating or bargaining table, and to suggest to you that it would be a gesture of de-escalation of hostilities to table or adjourn this bill, not necessarily withdraw it altogether, if you feel that you want to hold it in abeyance to bring it here.

But I can tell you, responsive to instructions received, that this is the position of the Board and the Executive of the Children's Aid Society. Why they're not here is because we only knew three hours ago that the meeting would take place. MR. D. SCOTT: Well, if you're switchboard lit up from other agencies, as well, I would have expected that we would have had several calls from those agencies, most or many of whom, the volunteers in the other agencies as well, can come out to counter the so-called spirit and intent of the act. I'm surpris ed that they're not out backing up the CAS position as wel.l.

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Is that a question, Mr. Scott? MR. D. SCOTT: My question, as I roll on here, you say that the CAS hasn't been questioned up until now. Was it not questioned quite strongly, even under the previous administration, over the points of foreign adoptions of sendin g childr en, particularly Native children, out of province and usually and often to the United States, a wholly dif ferent country? How can you say that the operations of the agency have never been questioned in the past and that, all of a sudden, the government seems to be reacting almost in a knee jerk fashion? MR. P.

WALSH: I think the answer to that has to be that you have to take a broad view of it. I, for one,

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 once again I don't have specific instructions, feel very strongly about not placing either Indian or any other children from Canada outside of Canada, and I feel less strongly but have some views regarding placing children from Manitoba outside of our own community. But, I think that was done, it was done particularly to Indian children. lt was felt in each case, where it was done, that a proper and good home was found for them, albeit out of the country. I think it's lamentable, I think there should have been positive action, but I think that no one is safe from criticism on the point.

I think the Children's Aid Society did it and now that is seen not to have bee11 21 proper thing to have done because other alternatives sholhd lhlvA been cultivated. I don't know that the Government of Manitoba, through the Ministry, both of the NDP Party and the Conservative Party when they were in power - and maybe Mr. Sherman can speak to it - were not aware of what was being done and therefore were not involved and alert to these activities.

So certainly when people cried out and said, this is wrong, that everybody responded properly and emphatically, but I don't know that everybody involved in the system wasn't alert to what was happening. There are many things that happened in the past that now seem dreadful and bad in reflection, and all we can say is that we do our best to make changes as the demand for change is voiced.

But I don't know, Sir, that the NDP Party when it was in power, before the Conservative Party was in power, was not alert to the notion that children were being placed out of the province, and that most of these children were Indian children. I don't know that. You might find out. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: A final supplementary, Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Final question. Yes, it is a final question, Madam Chairperson. You mentioned that the society was contemplating changing the thought that it would be a good idea to table this bill and not to bring it forth at this time because the society is changing.

I would ask you - when a government, which is ultimately responsible for the care of the children, and the full heap of the blame comes onto those of us who are accountable - in other words, those of us in government - for the care of those children, how long do you expect a government to wait for an organization, which is publicly funded expecially to this extent, and that has such a tremendous responsibility to the children in the scope of the care that is assigned to it, how long can you expect the government to keep waiting for contemplated change? MR. P.

WALSH: Well, with all deference to the questioner I think the change is a two-way street and if it is a result of dialogue the government conceives that it is not yet ready to table its agenda for change, or indeed, even its new structure. lt set up a commission. The Children's Aid Society was invited to participate.

The comm ission changed its composition from a committee generally, to a one-man commission, with some input from the various other people who were sitting around the table; certain recommendations 289 came, so the process has been an ongoing one, and I question the notion that there should have been some change in place at a point in time prior.

I say, in the most generous way I can, I don't know that the Children's Aid Society could have come up with a faster agenda, or a better scenerio than the one that started off, that found its ignition, if you like, with the complaint by the Indian people that children were being placed outside the province; that found its first thrust of investigation with the Kimelman Commission, and now is finding new input from various sources into an agenda and formula for change.

All I'm saying is, as this process goes along, I think its going along at a reasonable clip and that if one, or two, or th ree years from the first cry of, or the first demand for altering the entire structure of child care delivery services in the City of Winnipeg we have something better in place, I don't think that we've done too bad ly. So I don't know about any criticism. it's always easy to say affirmative action should have been taken, or that somebody should have acted earlier. There were other priorities; there were other agendas with other critical paths, other good things were done.

I think that we can say, without my getting into sort of a brush with a wide bristle and white paint, to say that there were a lot of changes that had to be made in the agency over the last five years. Many people were complimentary of the substantial changes that took place over the last five or six years. Certain things weren't done. it's now apparent that certain things have to be done and all I'm saying to you is, starting today forward we want to be part of that change, and that we aren't a force for reaction, and we aren't an negative force in this process. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: The Member for Fort Garry. MR.

L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to ask Mr. Walsh whether he could respond to a question that he has add ressed with respect to the attitude apparently taken by other volunteer organizations and volunteer agencies where this legislation is concerned, but whether he could respond to it from the point of view of CAS Winnipeg and children's aid societies as he knows them. I'd like to ask him, Madam Chairman, whether he has the strong impression from CAS Winnipeg people, volunteer board members, that this kind of legislation will damage volunteerism in the child welfare field? MR. P.

WALSH: I think the only way to respond to that is to give you an impression from a hands-on approach and that is, in my working with the board members and trying to finalize the proposals for change that we did forward to government, there wasn't one board member who didn't feel that he or she was making a real contribution to child welfare, learning about it and being able to make a real contribution to the protection of childr en and the maintenance of fam ily lif e in Manitoba. No one felt that they were there at someone elses expense.

Each of them have if asked now would concede that there should have been greater representation from other groups and other aspects of the community - not to their own exclusion - because they have enjoyed

Tuesday, 16 August, 1983 the process and each of them felt for their own part that they were playing a meaningful role in it. Now that someone is telling them that they as a group, can and should be dismis sed for somehow failing to respond in an overall way to a grand design which they haven't been alerted to, and of which they haven't been informed, leaves many of them, at least to my ear, puzzled and crestfallen in the sense that they want to know what they could have done, how they could have been given a chance to respond so that they wouldn't need this law.

So that's the kind of qu estion I bring to you, responsive to the people on the board that I've talked to, what did we do? Lay out a timetable for us, and lay our parameters, and say - here are the criteria, shape up your board, you don't have a responsive board - here are the criteria that government expects any child-caring agency board to meet; Central, Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Eastern, Winnipeg, every board has to meet these criteria.

If we don't do it then we've failed in our task and we haven't responded to what's been called - the will of the people - or the expression of the government's design in the area of child welfare. it's hard to come to the members of the board, to 30 people, who have been putting in long hours, making a contribution to revisions of the law and saying, you've done such a poor job that the Minister feels he needs laws to throw you all out. They, through me, are asking why? What did we do wrong? How can we shape up to meet the legitimate aspirations of government and still discharge our obligations?

MADAM CHAIRPERSON: A further ques tion, Mr. Sherman. MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, Madam Chairman. Mr. Walsh has referred to tensions that currently exist between CAS Winnipeg and the Provincial Government, and he's made the case that those tensions seem to have been escalated to some considerable degree - and there's fault on both sides - and the occasion is at hand for a gesture of de-escalation by the government.

I would like to ask him whether he is aware of efforts in recent months - and he may not be but I would like to ask him, Madam Chairman - if he's aware of efforts in recent months and in recent weeks by CAS Winnipeg, to sit down with the government, and particularly to sit down with the Ministry, to address those tensions and to establish proper communication between the two parties. Has there been such effort made, such initiatives undertaken by CAS Winnipeg in recent weeks or recent months, to Mr. Walsh's knowledge? MR. P. WALSH: I think to respond to that question would not be part of any solution.

I think that my clear instruction is to make representations that help solve problems, not create them. I think that if there have been overtures for meetings, I know there have been feelers out from both sides, and if meetings haven't taken place they should take place, and that's why I'm here today. I don't want to say that requests for meetings by the agency have not been met with positively or that even some contact hasn't taken place.

What I am here today to say, in a public way, is that meetings should be ongoing, and 290 should take pla ce, and that perhaps sort of the negotiating, in a distant way, has proved finally to be non-productive. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, I think that's a very constructive answer, Madam Chairman, because it seems to me that represents a gesture of de-escalation by CAS Winnipeg, if I may use Mr. Walsh's own terms, and it would appear to lob the ball into the government's court for a reciprocal gesture at this juncture. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a question? MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, I'm coming to it, Madam Chairman.

That was my

preamble. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: I thought that was stating your opinion. MR. L. SHERMAN: I am now coming directly to the question. MADAM CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. MR. L. SHERMAN: When was CAS Winnipeg advised, in your knowledge, Mr. Walsh, that the government was contemplating this kind of legislation, the kind of legislation that's embodied in 107? MR. P. WALSH: I don't have any instructions on that point. I can't say that - you know, you talk about CAS as if it sort of is - well, everybody describes it as a monolith, as if it just sort of has one eye, one mouth and one ear.

I don't mean to create the picture of an ogre, but I suppose there are dif ferent points of view represented even on a self-perpetuating board. People on the board have spoken out on dif ferent sides of some issues and haven't, as you are well aware, exhibited total solidarity on all matters. So I don't know when CAS as an institution finds out about anything. Different people know at dif ferent times. I don't know; perhaps you'd be well-advised to ask the government when it formally advised the Children's Aid of this thing.

As I said before, I really think I'm being - I'll try and think of a nice word - invited by you to say we're unhappy with the way things have beer in the past; but I think in many areas, government have equal cause to be unhappy about the way information has been delivered. So rather than just try and make the CAS case for how we've been treated unfairly or maybe without the appropriate deference, it would be well to turn our faces away from that and look forward to some future period of co-operation. MR. L. SHERMAN: I just have one more question, Madam Chairman. Mr.

Walsh, if you can address this thing for a moment, perhaps not as the solicitor for CAS Winnipeg but as a lawyer and a citizen, would you have any particular reservations about 107 as a piece of legislation which could concentrate the type of power in the hands of a "government" of any stripe that could cut both ways? Do you see difficulties in the legislation itself in terms of the implicit authoritarianism that might be contained in it?

Tuesday, 16 August, 19 83 MR. P. WALSH: The Minister makes the point that in only three provinces is there a Children's Aid Society in place, and that in the other provinces service is rendered by the governent directly. If the government were to come out and say, we are going to deliver the service di rectly , I might qua rrel with them on a philosophical basis, saying I like the present system; I like the idea of volunteer boards; I'm partial to the way we're doing it in Manitoba and Ontario, and not partial to the way it's being done in British Columbia and so forth and so on.

So when you say Bill 107 concentrates a lot of power in government hands, I can't say that I am frightened of that, so long as the government says, this is what we want to do, we want to run the show and we want to run it at a bit of a distance from us by running it like a Crown corporation. I suppose there are all sorts of examples where government runs services not directly out of its own office but through a Crown corporation. So if the government is saying - and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-sro11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf sro11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e815a4d8210c07c3d92aea6f2710b442a0a27c43

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