Members of the Committee present:

Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Kowalski, Martindale, Tweed

WITNESSES:

Ms. Kaye Dunlop, Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba

Ms. Thelma Bland, Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba

Ms. Ruth Bushby, Futures Program of the Ma-Mow-We-Tak Friendship Centre

Ms. Norma Boulé, Thompson Boys and Girls Club

Ms. Ann Marie MacIntyre, Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women

Ms. Hari Dimitrakopoulos, Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

The review of the sections of The Child and Family Services Act pertaining to the Office of the Children's Advocate

Mr. Chairperson: Good morning. Will the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections please come to order. This morning the subcommittee will be considering a review of the sections of The Child and Family Services Act pertaining to the Office of the Children's Advocate.

We have had a number of persons registered to speak, and I will now read those names aloud: Kaye Dunlop, Ruth Bushby, Norma Boulé, Verna Stacy Hildebrant, Lisa Bone, Debbie McVittle, Connie Murray, Joyce Vanderbrook and Louisa Constant. In addition I would like to remind those presenters wishing to hand out written copies of their briefs to the subcommittee that 15 copies are required. If assistance in making the number of copies is needed, please contact either the Chamber Branch personnel or the Clerk Assistant, and the copies will be made for you.

I should point out that the subcommittee has established a time limit on the length of presentations and for questions and answers. The time limit per presentation is 20 minutes with a maximum of 10 minutes for questions to be addressed to the presenter by subcommittee members.

Before we proceed, I would like to introduce the committee members to you. Sitting to my far left is Mr. Tweed, who is the MLA for Turtle Mountain; and next to him, Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples; and sort of in the middle is Mr. Sitter--ah, that is the correct terminology, right?--Mr. Martindale, the MLA for Burrows; and next to me is Mr. Helwer, the MLA for Gimli. I am Peter George Dyck. I am the MLA for Pembina. To my right is the Clerk Assistant, Patricia Chaychuk; sitting out there is Mark Pittet; and behind me is David Alderdice. It is great to have you here, and this is sort of a new one for all of us as well, the travelling tour.

With that, I would like to proceed with our hearings and our first presenter this morning, Kaye Dunlop, please, and I believe we are going to be using this table here, is that correct?

Ms. Kaye Dunlop (Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba): I would just indicate to the panel that there are two employees of the Awasis Agency who are coming--I told them to be here for 9:45--so while I am prepared to start, they may come in during the presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Well, what is your preference?

Ms. Dunlop: I would actually prefer to wait, if that is not a problem, because they may wish to add something to the presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Certainly. Then, with the agreement of the committee, we will just take a short recess. We will wait till the others come.

The subcommittee recessed at 9:35 a.m.

The subcommittee resumed at 9:41 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: We will just give you an opportunity to relax and get settled and want to welcome Thelma Bland and Robert Lafontaine. We are certainly pleased that you could come, and I believe with that, Kaye, you are ready to go. Please, go ahead Kaye Dunlop.

Ms. Dunlop: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, panel members.

As indicated on your record, my name is Kaye Dunlop. I am legal counsel in house for the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba. I have been legal counsel for that agency for well over 10 years now. I have recently moved into the position of program policy analyst so that the agency as a whole can start dealing with bigger issues such as this particular issue, which is why I appear before you today.

On my immediate left is Thelma Bland. She has also worked for the agency for many years. She is the operations manager for our KTC region, which is Keewatin Tribal Council, which consists of a number of northern Manitoba reserves that we represent. Also on my far left is Mr. Robert Lafontaine. He is our resource services co-ordinator. He operates out of our Thompson office co-ordinating resources for special needs children, home studies, psychologists, things like that. He has a particular interest in this area, as does Ms. Bland, because they have dealt with the Child Advocate's office on a regular basis.

Just to provide you with some information on Awasis, because I am assuming you are coming to Thompson with relatively little information of the constituencies here, the Awasis Agency is one of eight First Nations Child and Family Services agencies in the province, having been constituted in 1983. At that time we were constituted as 26 reserves, which was approximately 52 percent of the aboriginal population in Manitoba. Since that time we have been pared down due to different reserves going off on their own, and we now represent 18 First Nations reserves, which is approximately 46 percent of the aboriginal people north of Dauphin.

Our agency is different from the other First Nations agencies in that we are approximately four or five times larger than any of the other agencies, and we represent a very varied constituency of Cree-speaking people, Oji-Cree-speaking people and the Dene communities of Northern Manitoba, all of which have had different experiences both historically and culturally. I make that point because as a child advocate, a child advocate needs to know that every aboriginal person in Manitoba is not the same, right from the fact that they speak different languages to the fact that their history and culture are very, very different.

Our experience with the Children's Advocate office has been varied. I meant to mention you each have a written report before you. I am going to follow it and hopefully not read the whole thing as we go through, but I wish to emphasize certain points. The report as a whole sets out our position with respect to this particular review, with some added experiences that Ms. Bland and Mr. Lafontaine will add on to the end.

Our experience has not been a positive one. We have in the past been able to engage the assistance of the office on case-specific issues, and recently we have begun to have supportive result from that office, simply by virtue of the fact that as an agency we went and met with the Child's Advocate office, outlined our continuing and ongoing problems and are seeing perhaps different service being provided to our agency at this point in time. However, that is a relatively recent experience of approximately the last six months, and it is, as I say, a case-specific experience as opposed to an ability on the part of the Child Advocate to see First Nations problems in this area as being community problems as opposed to case-by-case problems.

What we do with our report that I have provided you is offer you our perspective on the legislation, the policies and the policies and practices of the Office of the Children's Advocate. We have highlighted the practice emphasis of the office and the fundamental flaws we have experienced in the present role of the Advocate. We offer our own developmental experiences as an agency as an example of how CFS service delivery can be approached differently and how you can effect change if you look at it on a nonspecific level. We see the Child Advocate as being part of a process that was instituted by the government in Manitoba to effect change for children. It has not happened, because of the approach that has been taken by this particular Advocate.

Finally in our report we put forward recommendations for changes to the present mandate of the Office of the Children's Advocate in general and specifically as it pertains to our agency.

Now, in our report on pages 2 and 3, I have set out the relevant sections of the legislation which by now you are familiar with. I think just to point out as a lawyer, some areas that cause problems with the legislation, although I am going to tell you that the legislation is not overall the problem, it is not the legislation that is causing the problem; the legislation is relatively well drafted.

However, Section 8.2(1)(a), (b) and (c), which sets out the duties and powers of the Child Advocate, in a sense provide a dual role for the Child Advocate. On the one hand the Child Advocate is to advise the minister on how best to deal with children in this province. What that means to a child protection agency is that we are going to have someone who is going to offer advice to the minister on the problems that are systemic with respect to children, i.e., why do we have so many children in care in Manitoba? Here we have an individual who should know the answers to that and should be able to provide the minister with information as to why that is happening and say to the minister: These are recommendations for change, or here is an agency out here who is changing and doing a good job, let us look at them, here is an agency that is not changing, these are the problems I see, et cetera. That would be one of the roles which, by the way, has not happened and which has not been fulfilled by that particular office.

The second role which perhaps--and I know the Child Advocate, having spoken to him on many occasions, sees his role as being in conflict because of this is to review and investigate complaints. As a result he sees himself as being the police of the system. Being the police of the system, you, to use police lingo, can charge people and convict them, and what that does is put you fundamentally in conflict with the very agencies and children who you are supposed to represent and, under (a), advise the minister about how to effect change.

You can see that as a conflict in the legislation, which is what the Child Advocate does see, and I know he has spoken to the minister on this on many occasions saying the legislation is a problem, or you can see it another way. The way in which the Awasis Agency has chosen to look at this is to specifically say the Child Advocate has choices to make under that legislation, and the choices that the Child Advocate has made have been to be the police of the system and ignore his dual role under (a),. which would allow him to effect change within the system and work with agencies who are doing well and promote their programs as being the ones that we ought to be following as being in the best interests of children.

So we do not overall see that there needs to be a change in the legislation. What we see is that there needs to be a re-education of the Child Advocate or a new Child Advocate or whoever who understands that the dual role can be accomplished if you make positive choices as opposed to taking the negative approach.

* (0950)

To reiterate from our report, page 3, paragraph 2.1(a) provides the Children's Advocate with great discretionary powers which could be used as an opportunity to aid in addressing systemic change for the children of the province of Manitoba. In particular, this would allow the Children's Advocate to act as a mediator, facilitator and animator with other stakeholders to bring about widespread change to the lives of the children in Manitoba. In this role the Children's Advocate would be seen as a proactive individual who had both the ability and the desire to work with agencies and other stakeholders in a nonjudgmental fashion to collaboratively address systemic issues. This would not mean that the Children's Advocate would have to agree with the agencies on every issue; there is room to disagree always. However, we can agree to disagree and still effect change. Unfortunately with this Child Advocate, there is not even room to agree to disagree; it is simply our way or the highway.

Unfortunately the Children's Advocate has not adopted a positive role as described, rather the role afforded by the legislation to the Children's Advocate, which is set out in paragraphs (b) and (c) and the way in which the current Children's Advocate has chosen to fulfill his role has put the Children's Advocate office fundamentally in conflict with the major suppliers of services to children in the province of Manitoba. The Children's Advocate has chosen to adopt the role of system police, focusing on the inadequacies and failures of the system by placing blame for these failures on either agencies, personnel or government offices and yet retaining a hands-off approach to truly addressing the problems of the children in Manitoba.

One wonders that if the primary role of the Children's Advocate is to look out for the best interests of children, how can this be achieved without diligently working towards collaborative system change? This Children's Advocate has chosen instead to make recommendations for others to change instead of proactively leading the way. By adopting a policing and judge-and-jury approach, the power and equities that exist between players in the system are amplified and fully entrenched. As a result, the potential for the development of adversarial relationships is heightened, thus creating barriers to working together.

Having been in contact regularly with most of the First Nations agencies in Manitoba, I know that they will be lambasting this particular Child Advocate in a negative fashion. We wish to promote a more positive image of what this office can actually accomplish. Instead of sitting here and offering you example after example of what is going on with this agency and how there is a fundamental problem with relationships, it is better I think for your committee to focus on what that office can really do if they take the right approach and if perhaps they have the right person taking that particular approach.

I have spent, in the report, several pages on a review of the annual reports of the Children's Advocate. I think it would be well advised for panel members to do the same, simply by virtue of the fact that the annual reports will give you a very good idea of the thinking of this particular Child Advocate. The reports in general have been, without exception, to the service providers to children in this province, surprising and completely inadequate reports. The third annual report was pared down and there is virtually nothing in it, so I do not really have much to say on that, but the first two are completely negative reports full of name calling, and carry recommendations for change without actually providing how to change or providing examples of how the Children's Advocate can lead the way towards change.

It is surprising in particular, because typical annual reports focus on the activities of the respective department, they discuss current goals and objectives and outline various developmental initiatives. I say typical because I have read every annual report of the children's advocates throughout Canada, and this report is extremely different from the approach being taken in other jurisdictions. Comments made within annual reports, the other annual reports and annual reports in general, are grounded within sound statistical data and the focus remains within that particular department. The reports as presented by this particular Children's Advocate for the first two years of operations focus more on the failures of the provincial Child and Family Services system rather than on the Children's Advocate's role and responsibility. As a layperson reading those reports you would not have a clue what that office was supposed to be doing. You would see the report more as being an ombudsman's report saying these are the problems in the system, period.

The reports have also relied primarily on antidotal data from a very small number of cases to form the foundations for the report's themes. Again, the reports have adopted a blaming, negative and reactionary approach towards the entire system, inclusive of First Nations practice, in fact, overly negative of First Nations practice. The first annual report is littered with generic terms such as "most," "many," "few," "some," "seldom," with no attempt to provide the reader with any parameters to these words. The recommendations listed at the back of the first two reports focus on what others need to do to change. The recommendations specific to the Office of the Children's Advocate are only political or administrative in nature.

While the program goals and objectives of the office are outlined, there is no discussion addressing accountability regarding the activities of the Children's Advocate's office over the past three years. While the first two reports allude to collaborative planning with community agencies, there is no discussion suggesting what involvement the office had with these agencies. Again the reader is left wondering how systemic barriers with the system were explored or understood or even addressed by this Child Advocate. We still have no clue after three years of dealing with this office how they actually come to the conclusions that they arrive at, how they actually explore their work and arrive at these very negative assumptions.

The lack of clarity that has arisen from the annual reports has resulted in a failure of both Child and Family Services agencies and the public at large to understand exactly what is the role of the Children's Advocate's office. One also has to question why the Children's Advocate's office chooses to continually focus only on the failures and faults of the system and why the Children's Advocate feels comfortable using such broad generalizations in a so-called professional report.

This agency is well aware that there are failures in the system. You only need to look at the large number of children in care, particularly aboriginal children in care, to know that there is something wrong with the system. Everyone knows that. However, there are also large-scale developmental issues going on in this province that are being ignored by this particular Advocate as well as various other governmental agencies. You are not aware of what is going on, and as a Child Advocate, if you are not aware of what is going on, how can you adopt a more positive approach?

* (1000)

As the Office of the Children's Advocate presently operates, it only becomes involved in cases where the system has failed in some way, which is contrary to the dual goal of the legislation. This particular position appears to have coloured the office's views of the entire system. Had they focused more on their duties outlined in (a) of the legislation by advising the ministers on matters relating to the welfare and interests of children who receive or may be entitled to receive services under The Child and Family Services Act, the Children's Advocate would have had to have adopted a more positive approach, given some of the very positive initiatives that are taking place. The Children's Advocate could have participated in a positive way in some of these activities to help promote change rather than hamper change. At the moment we would very clearly have to say their office works to hamper change in the system. They are old school, they follow old rule practices and they do not believe that there is a new way of doing things that will prevent children from coming into care.

The reports of the Children's Advocate also rely upon small numbers of current cases within the CFS system. Generally the reports indicate that less than 2 percent of families receiving services from an agency during the reporting year were dealt with by the Children's Advocate. Of this number, the number of First Nations agency cases are unknown. These are extremely low numbers upon which to draw conclusions on the entire Child and Family Services system, which is what the reports do. The context issues as well, social, cultural and economic issues dealt with by families who come into contact with that office, are not made part of the analysis of the report, which further weakens the assumptions that the reports make. While the reports may more accurately reflect the themes that emerged from the actual cases dealt with, to suggest that the themes are a representation of our situation, of Awasis' situation and that of other agencies, is completely irresponsible and, quite frankly, reprehensible and insulting to the agencies who are actually working in this field.

Failures of the Children's Advocate's office. While the Children's Advocate has maintained the primary concern of their office is the relevance and responsiveness of those services set up to meet children's needs and to strive positively to influence change within the system in order that the lives of children and youth can be enhanced, that is not correct. This suggests a positive approach. The annual reports do not reflect this attitude, and practice does not reflect this attitude.

The main problems we would see are, No. 1, there is a lack of two-way flow of information. The Children's Advocate receives a complaint, makes an assumption and cannot remove themselves from that assumption; therefore, they are not open to hearing the other side of the issue or, quite frankly, even investigating the other side of the issue. An investigation means they will actually come up north, because they do represent our constituency up here, and investigate what is going on. That rarely, if ever, happens. As a result, assumptions are made and negative conclusions are drawn before a file is even opened by our particular agency and before we have had a chance to respond. That creates negative relationships that are impossible, almost impossible to correct.

Second, the failure of the Children's Advocate to address systemic issues in a positive, respectful fashion. There is a great deal to be said about the lack of respect that flows out of this office and their failure to have any comprehension or understanding of the First Nation communities that they are supposed to represent; and No. 3, the primary emphasis of the Children's Advocate is on case-specific failures in contradiction to the proclaimed theoretical perspective of that office.

As a First Nation agency, we believe that it is not enough for us to merely point out inadequacies, barriers and failures in the system, whether it is a family system, organization system or larger system. We believe that we have a responsibility to not only understand what the present situation is but to understand why it exists. We need to understand why there are 5,000 kids in care in Manitoba, and taking 2 percent of the cases and drawing conclusions about the whole system as a whole serves no purpose whatsoever; in fact, it is a colossal waste of governmental money.

We have a responsibility to not only understand the present situation, to understand why it exists, to understand what we are doing as a system to perpetuate it and to understand how we can facilitate learning, growth and development that will lead to lasting change. It is this responsibility that certainly in the last number of years has guided Awasis' practice, has moved us into change and has moved us into a much more positive position that we have been in the past, and it is an approach that we would recommend be taken by other service providers in the system. This is also an approach that the Children's Advocate's office could have pursued, because the legislation allows for it; in fact, the legislation encourages it. Unfortunately, the office has not attempted to explore the whys behind systemic failures, nor have they offered collaborative approaches that would aid First Nations representatives and the provincial Legislative Assembly in supporting and endorsing development initiatives within the system.

Now, I am not going to go through--I have as background information, which I hope you will read, information about Awasis and how we have moved from a crisis-oriented practice with extreme difficulties that we are prepared to acknowledge to a positive balance sheet with positive happenings. Just briefly, we decided approximately seven years ago to accept the responsibility for how our approach to practice was perpetuating the very things that we wanted to eradicate, and we chose to do something about it. We did not get where we are today through policing, ridiculing or blaming, rather we chose to build our development process upon the foundation of building collaborative, positive relationships, believing that we all want to do well, and we will do well, given support and opportunity to effect change.

Our primary focus for those familiar with what we have done has been on improving the health of our community members, and by improving health at a bottom level you see, and we have seen, by reduction of the number of children in care, an improvement in the lives of the children whose parents are getting healthy. Statistically, we have moved from approximately 500 children in care on any one day in Manitoba--that would be our statistics in 1990--to 221 in care in 1997. We have saved--and we know these figures very well from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs--over $30 million by not bringing children into care over the last seven years. We have gone from providing services to 80 families in crisis, because we were picking them in families only in crisis, in 1990, to 707 families now being serviced by our agency in 1997, and that is, servicing these families who have problems without bringing their children into care.

In addition, I have listed for you, which I will not go through, a dozen initiatives undertaken by this agency in the last seven years, right from educating our workers to assisting them in getting social work degrees to having 13 students graduate this year with Masters of Social Work degrees. In addition, we have moved our organization from a Thompson-Winnipeg based organization to a community-based level where the work is done by the people in the communities as opposed to directed out of Thompson or out of Winnipeg. In addition to that, I hope you will read through the number of other initiatives that we have undertaken.

Lastly, because I am coming to the end of the 20 minute presentation, I have included three pages at the end with recommendations for change to this particular office. It is not the legislation, I reiterate, that is restrictive, rather it is the role and emphasis the Children's Advocate has chosen to adopt in doing his work. Section 8.2(1)(a) clearly provides the mandate for the Children's Advocate to engage in positive collaborative development with service providers and other stakeholders.

Ensuring that the Children's Advocate moves beyond the emphasis of case-specific policing is desperately required if Manitoba is to begin seriously addressing the rising number of children in care each year and the quality and scope of services available to families. The only thing that is stopping change is the paternalistic, bureaucratic approach to CFS delivery, an approach that is encouraged by the present Children's Advocate's office. Growth and development cannot grow out of a ridiculing, blaming environment where only failures are emphasized. Any review of the Children's Advocate must focus on why this office has adopted such a narrow mandate and should provide recommendations that encourage a more positive expanded role allowed by the legislation for this particular office.

Lastly, I just indicated that there is room in the legislation for a delegation of authority. That is something that I have on many times spoken to this Children's Advocate about, because we complain often by the fact that they have no presence in northern Manitoba. So how can they expect to make decisions or conclusions about our particular children that we represent? The legislation allows that office to delegate authority to any person, in effect, to perform the same type of role that the Children's Advocate is doing or allowed to do by the legislation. That is 8.4.

What we are recommending is that there are different forms that this delegation can take. You can provide authority to the local child care committees presently envisioned in the legislation, The Child and Family Services Act, to have them perform the role of the Children's Advocate in some way, or you can appoint and train a specific person on reserve level to do this, or you can open up an office in Thompson or any other place in the North that would provide a presence for this office. At the moment, because there is no presence of this office in northern Manitoba, it lacks legitimacy for that reason alone. People do not know who they are; people do not use the office. That is perhaps why there is only 2 percent of the cases being dealt with through that office, because they are seen to be simply another bureaucratic institution in Winnipeg that is not capable of understanding or relating to the needs of northern Manitobans.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your very precise and good report. It certainly has given us a lot of food for thought. What I will do is I will open it up for questions, and Mr. Kowalski, I will give him the first opportunity, and then I will move down to some of the other committee members.

* (1010)

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I shall be brief, and if I get a chance I will get a couple more questions in. I am going to take advantage of your expertise here, and you correct me if my analogy is wrong. I am a police officer, and years ago we had the police commission. The police commission performed dual roles in that it advised on policy and very proactive things about police in Manitoba, at the same, it would also hear complaints against police officers. I see an analogy here in that the Child's Advocate has a dual role to do very proactive things, to look at improvements to the Child and Family Services' delivery of services to children, at the same time monitoring child care agencies for complaints. What I have heard from you today is that one role is emphasized and the other role is not. The Child Advocate in his presentation said having the dual roles is an impediment, that he cannot do both, and he would like to see a division. I am not too clear from your presentation. Do you still see a need for a Child Advocate or some other office to monitor child care agencies for complaints, and do you see the dual role as being an impediment to the Child Advocate doing a good job in Manitoba?

Ms. Dunlop: No, I do not see the dual role as being a problem, and one of the reasons is because The Child and Family Services Act is a very unique legislation in that there is a whole section of that legislation that our government amended about four, five years ago that has a section allowing for counsel for children. Therefore, the role that is being played in the negative, strong policing position that this Advocate is taking is one that is already provided for in the legislation by providing these children with counsel. These children can have counsel appointed for them and can in any which form--they do not have to go to court--have someone act on their behalf and say to the Child and Family Services agency, you are making a mistake here, you are doing it wrong, you are doing this or that.

The role that I see for the Child Advocate to fulfill is to receive the complaints and investigate the complaints. You do not have to be negative to investigate complaints. You can work with people by investigating, and you can say to an agency, you are making a mistake here, I would suggest you do it this way, or can you explain to me why you are doing it this way? That does not put you in conflict with this dual role of advising the minister of what is going on. It is the approach. Because the approach has been negative, insulting, rude, assumptions made before even approaching the agencies, the dual role does not work. That is why I said very clearly it is the choice that the Children's Advocate makes. If they wish to perform the dual role, then it is the approach that needs to be modified.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Thank you, Ms. Dunlop, for your report. I think it is great, it is good, it is very comprehensive. You talk about the Child Advocate does not do any investigations in some of these cases. I find that unusual, and I guess they cannot get up north here to do or do not do whatever they do not do up north. Where do they get their information from then, and how do they, I guess, decide on each case individually? What do they use for their background information?

Ms. Dunlop: Ms. Bland will answer that question.

Ms. Thelma Bland (Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba): Well, to speak from my experiences, usually it is the child that phones them and gives a complaint, and then we have the Children's Advocate office phoning us and saying, well, you need to get this kid out of the home because the kid is being abused. You see, they have not even checked it out. We have not had the opportunity to check it out and see what is happening for the child, but that is how they come across. They are telling us do it this way, do it that way kind of thing, right away. Like, if I am going to work with you, even you, yourself, we need some type of rapport here, even respect. What is your role, my role kind of thing. What do you do? Do I allow you to do your job? Even the simple courtesy for them to say, well, I received a phone call, this person is indicating this and that, can you check on it or can we check on it together?--but they do not do that. Even that little approach of courtesy is needed from the Children's Advocate office. I also had this case from one of the northern communities here, where it was ongoing, they were very heavy duty about it, they wanted this kid out like right now kind of thing.

I said I am not taking this kid out. This kid needs to grow up in the environment within . . . but she said, no, this kid belongs in Winnipeg. Yes, the child had been there for the past year in a group home setting, but they came down very heavy-handed. They wanted this kid in here. I said, no, I am not removing this kid. Finally this Children's Advocate, one of the officers there went up to Split Lake to check it out. She was supposed to come and meet with me yesterday morning. She had set the meeting up. She did not come to Thompson here to meet with me. She flew back to Winnipeg as soon as she had been to Split Lake.

Once she saw what was going on at Split Lake, she did not see the need for this child to go back to Winnipeg. She finally understood where we were coming from once she checked it out. The Children's Advocate office needs to trust our agency when we are doing case management and we need that relationship with them, but if I have somebody there with their face on the table telling me to do this and that, I do not need that as an agency. I am not going to place these children at risk in the communities when I bring them back. I need that trust from them. I need a better working relationship with them, and it has to do with their approach kind of thing. I need that relationship with them because in the communities, that is the way it works for us to work in the communities.

With this new approach we have adopted this community family health approach, it is based on relationships. There is nothing good happens unless there are relationships, because even in one of these other communities up here in Gods Lake Narrows, we have an incest case, and because we have a relationship with that family, with its children, the man was in my office the other day. He disclosed, yes, I have been having sex with my daughter since she was a little girl. I bothered my niece. But you do not get anywhere like that unless you have a relationship with a family. Also what we did not do is we did not apprehend those kids. We did not remove those kids from the home. We kept them in the home with the mother, but if we used the old approach--how do I say it?--the non-First Nations approach, you apprehend, you remove those kids as soon as you hear the word "allegation" but to have a relationship with the families, the communities, we need a new approach because we used to do it the old way. It did not work like that.

We are able to have somebody come in our office and ask for help, disclose to that kind of inappropriate behaviour because we have that relationship, and that is what we are asking the Children's Advocate office, give us that, a different type of approach. Also, in the system, we would like the Children's Advocate office to recommend, yes, that health approach is needed and it is based on that relationship you need to have with the families and communities.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you for sharing with us.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to thank the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba for a very thought provoking presentation. I wonder if there are some things that could be addressed through budgetary measures rather than amending the legislation? For example, it is my understanding that the Children's Advocate would like to have staff in Thompson, in northern Manitoba.

Some people have suggested that a deputy advocate or associate advocate be designated as an aboriginal person, which you could put in legislation or you could just do. People have recommended culturally appropriate staff which in Manitoba could mean Dene First Nation, Oji-Cree, Cree, Saulteaux. I mean, we could have many different language groups represented.

Do you think that some of the concerns that you are raising today could be addressed through adding to the budget and staff, for example, of a northern Manitoba office and culturally appropriate staff as opposed to putting that in the legislation or do you think it should be legislated?

Ms. Dunlop: The short answer is absolutely. We are saying very clearly here the legislation does not need to be amended. The legislation is adequate; 8.4 allows for a delegation of authority. You do not need to amend the legislation to set up anyone as a child advocate in the province of Manitoba. It already says you can do that. You need resources, however, to set up an office and you need training, because we as an agency are not just interested in having any person off the street come and do this job. It is a specialized job that needs a trained person, and absolutely you need a person who understands the communities from which the complaints are coming and preferably someone who speaks the language.

Now I know that is difficult, because I already told you we have three different languages being spoken in our constituencies alone, but having this office in Winnipeg, although Mr. Govereau with all due respect is Metis, he does not speak the language and his experience is entirely southern Manitoba. So the office is completely inappropriate for anything north of Dauphin as far as I am concerned.

* (1020)

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Thank you and I, too, appreciate the comments made today. I have a couple of questions ,and if we do go back and forth, that certainly suits me.

Ms. Bland, when you mentioned about the role, I found when I was first elected, my roles changed. When people would come to me with their concerns, it seemed very part of my position to jump on that concern immediately and try and represent that concern to my colleagues and to the government. What I found over a period of time is that to do the research before I make this presentation to my colleagues, I quite often found that the story may vary or be different. I think probably that is what you are suggesting in your opening comments, if they would just do some follow-up and a little bit of background.

The question I have is, and I guess I will be as blunt as I possibly can, but do you feel that there is a conflict more with the individual than with the Child Advocate office? I guess, I say, I am getting that sensation and I am asking, is that a feeling? Am I correct?

Ms Bland: I have no problems with the Children's Advocate office and their role and their responsibilities. It is the approach used. That is what we have a problem with.

Mr. Tweed: Earlier, Ms. Dunlop, you had mentioned about the comparisons to other provinces. I did actually read the reports and I will be honest with you. I knew very little of the Child Advocate when I started on this committee and I am learning as we go through, but is there one province that in your opinion has better legislation or perhaps from the reports you have read, you would recommend that we try and change our direction and follow?

Ms. Dunlop: The concept of a Child Advocate is very, very new in Canada, both having a provincially appointed person as well as having a Child Advocate appointed by court for children going through proceedings. So even to look at the case law, in terms of how the courts have dealt with the concept of child advocacy, there is very little guidance.

Now in the reports that you are taking about, I know Mr. Govereau follows extensively the reports from Alberta. The reports from Alberta, if you have read them, they virtually brutalize the system. Everything is negative; there is nothing good about the system. So without knowing exactly how the systems operate in that province, as a layperson with respect to that province, I have to assume that there are big problems there. That is the impression that you get. Similarly, the other reports are quite negative about what is going on with the Child and Family Services system.

In B.C., for example, we know there has been the gov inquiry, and there is another inquiry ongoing right now. The Child Advocate, who used to be the Child Advocate in Alberta, is now the Child Advocate in B.C. adopting a similar approach which is what Mr. Govereau is following, maybe because there is no example for him to follow. So the legislation is all quite similar. Some is more extensive and provides a broader base of powers in terms--if you make recommendations to an agency, for example, and they do not follow your recommendations, what can you do about it?

Some of the legislation does have remedies. Our legislation does not, and we prefer to keep it that way. I think it has worked well without it, but, again, all I can say as a short answer to your question, our legislation is fine. I think, to go back to the question you asked Ms. Bland, I think you are very perceptive in realizing there is a personality problem and an approach problem here.

Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the Children's Advocate is bound by the legislation which is all premised on the best interest of the child. Awasis on the other hand is very community-focused, including the child, and I am very grateful that I received a complimentary copy of your book First Nations Family Justice, and I would commend it to all my colleagues. I think everyone on this committee should read it.

I am wondering how could we change the legislation to broaden the mandate of the Advocate to find community and collective solutions, or is it your opinion that we do not need to broaden the legislation, that community and collective solutions could be found to problems brought to the Advocate's attention by children?

Ms. Dunlop: That is a big question and I am going to make it short, the answer, because I could go on for days about that. That book which is the product of three years of research on the part of the Awasis Agency to try and provide an alternative to going to court on these cases very clearly says that we can do what we want to do within the existing framework of the legislation. The best interest of the child, which is defined legislatively, is not restricting. It does not restrict us in adopting a community family approach. In fact, the principles of the legislation tell us to do that.

What has restricted us and what has put us into this narrow field is the courts and them saying, this is what "best interest" means to us. As a result, we, by electing not to use the court system and by saying we want a mediated-type system, can still work with the legislation because the legislation is fine. It is broad-based and does recognize the rights and responsibilities of First Nations people.

Mr. Martindale: I have a related question and, I think, I started to hear the answer already in your previous answer, and that is assuming that you support mediation-conciliation and family group conferencing and healing circles, do we need to put that in the Children's Advocate legislation, or is it your view that those methods of resolving problems could be used under the existing legislation?

Ms. Dunlop: It is the latter. I do not think the Children's Advocate really has anything to do with determining the direction that these cases should take. It is the legislation that is going to allow us the alternative method, the mediation as opposed to court. The role of the Children's Advocate should be, and it is allowed to be under subsection (a) of the legislation, to tell the minister and people who are working for the minister in this field, hey, this is a good approach, we like this concept of mediation. Let us put some money into it, because we are going to have rewards at the end of the day by having less children in care.

Mr. Tweed: At a lot of the hearings or the hearings that we have had, the presentations have suggested that the Child Advocate should report directly to the Legislature as opposed to the minister. I guess the fear of the political influence and things like that. Can you give us your opinion? I know the legislation and it suggests that you are thinking the legislation. What is your opinion? Is that a good recommendation or is it better or worse?

Ms. Dunlop: As I firmly agree with health care, the minister does not necessarily need to be involved in the daily lives of the individual families that we work with. Similarly, the Legislature should not have that role and responsibility. So, no, I disagree that the Children's Advocate needs to report to the Legislature.

If this Children's Advocate had adopted a different approach, there would not need to be that recommendation. The reason you are hearing it is because there has been so much negative criticism of this particular office. One of the ways to deflect that criticism is to say, well, the legislation is too restrictive. It is not restrictive at all. It is totally--any draftsman will tell you it is open-ended legislation that is subject to the interpretation of the individual who is empowered with that ability.

It is also important to us I think that there is a reporting to the minister's office, because it is the minister's office that has the power to effect change, has the power to listen to the recommendations that the Children's Advocate should be making. That is not happening because there is a conflict between the two offices. There is a negative relationship, the same way the relationship with everyone else is negative. So you cannot tell me that there is going to be any different relationship between that office and the Legislature if you simply change the reporting mechanism. There will not be.

Mr. Chairperson: I wish to thank you very much, Ms. Dunlop, Ms. Bland and Mr. Lafontaine for taking time, coming and giving us your presentation, giving us a lot of food for thought. Thank you very much. We do appreciate that.

There is just going to be a minute break here. While we are doing that, I would like to call on Ruth Bushby, please, and we will get set up.

The subcommittee recessed at 10:30 a.m.

The subcommittee resumed at 10:34 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: I would like to call the meeting back to order. I would like to, in a very special way, welcome Ruth Bushby. I am going to introduce to you the committee members here: Mr. Tweed at the far side, he is the MLA for Turtle Mountain; Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples; Mr. Martindale, the MLA for Burrows; Mr. Helwer, the MLA for Gimli; and I am Peter George Dyck and I am the MLA for Pembina.

So welcome here and go ahead with your presentation, please.

Ms. Ruth Bushby (Futures Program of the Ma-Mow-We-Tak Friendship Centre): I would like to say good morning to the Chair and to the subcommittee members, and I would at this time like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to make this presentation in the city of Thompson. I would like to welcome you all to the North.

An Honourable Member: Cold as it is.

Ms. Bushby: Yes. My grandmother says the snow is just one more snow yet.

As an introduction to the Futures Program, I and my co-workers provide, we believe, quality programming for our youth and our young parents and their children. Many of these people are statistics in the reports such as the Canadian Council on Social Development or the health of Canada's children, which is a Canadian Institute of Child Health profile.

These reports show the percentage of how many of our children live in poverty, high percentage of teenage pregnancies, high percentage of youth dropping out of education and the high percentage of suicides or attempted suicides. The Futures Program is working to make a difference and to improve the overall health of our young parents and their children and our youth. As a youth support worker, I also work with teens who are in the care of Child and Family Services. As a youth support worker, I was not aware of the Office of the Children's Advocate till recently.

I asked myself why? I went looking for information. I spoke with social workers, and they knew the office existed and it existed in the city of Winnipeg. I approached parents whose children are in care, and they did not know of this office. I went to court offices, medical clinics, community bulletin boards, the hospital, looking for information. I did not find information.

At this time, I would like to share a story with you. I met Anne on December 9. She had been raped that morning. She was in the care of the Child and Family Services. What happened was after the police and the hospital report, the Child and Family Services worker took her home. Upon arriving at home, Anne's mother aggressively and forcefully pulled Anne out of the vehicle accusing her that she had brought this upon herself. The Child and Family Services worker witnessed all this and did nothing to stop it.

Anne ran away, ended up at the Ma-Mow-We-Tak Friendship Centre, where I am located. That is where my job site is. I took her back to the office of the Family Services and the worker and together we took Anne back home.

Once at home, Mother spoke in her native language and communicated to her daughter negative feelings about the trouble Anne always caused. The parent was very frustrated with everyone involved, the problems that Anne was experiencing, the worker and the stranger like myself in her home. The Family Services worker removed Anne from the home and placed her at the YWCA with a homemaker in a room. I continued to visit Anne on a regular basis and counselled her about her rape. Anne continued to express her unhappiness by attempting suicide. On January 6 she was hospitalized. At the end of February, I went to visit Anne at the Y and she was gone. She had been moved, and I was told by the homemaker to speak with the worker if I wanted to know where Anne was. I called the Family Services worker twice, had no response.

Here is my point to this story: Anne would have benefited from a quality service as the Children's Advocate. She expressed her desires and her needs, but no one listened. Therefore, I recommend that the Office of Children's Advocate be represented in the city of Thompson and that there be representation of this office for our children and their families throughout the North. I also recommend that the present, existing Office of the Children's Advocate work towards promoting their services to the general public and to group homes, treatment centres, to their resources in the community, such as the Futures Program.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for giving us your report and for sharing your story with us. We appreciate that. I am going to open it up for some questions.

Mr. Kowalski: Thank you for your presentation. I have some questions about your story, just so I understand. This happened in Thompson, this incident?

Ms. Bushby: Yes.

Mr. Kowalski: Okay. If there had been a Child Advocate office in Thompson or whether there is one in Winnipeg, in order for the Child Advocate to be involved there has to be notification, and in this case could there have been notification by you to the office in Winnipeg, in this case, and have the Child Advocate office involved? Was there an impediment to doing that?

Ms. Bushby: I consider myself a very qualified person, and I have experience working in the community of Thompson and throughout the North. I speak my language. I guess the point I am making with this is that I was not, as a resource person in the community who provides services, I believe, to be of quality parenting courses and that, that I myself was not aware of the Children's Advocate anywhere, in Winnipeg or in the North. I would have, if I knew, to have help and that would have been another avenue that may have made a difference for her. My lack of not knowing, and therefore I could not direct her to it.

Mr. Kowalski: So whether or not there is a Child Advocate's office in Thompson or not, the important part of it is the awareness of the Child Advocate's office--is that the real point?

Ms. Bushby: Yes, I would consider that is what I am saying.

Mr. Helwer: Just very shortly, thank you for your report. You say, though, that the child advocacy is not promoted in the North very well or it is not known to many agencies, I guess. I find this unusual but, short of having an office in Thompson, maybe, how would you suggest that the Child Advocate would be better promoted to the communities?

Ms. Bushby: If I were in a position to make some recommendations, I would ask the Children's Advocate at this time--where they are located right now, I guess, is not the point, but that they would visit the North. I phoned the Office of the Children's Advocate, and I asked, when was your last visit to the North? They said at the onset of the program in 1993. Okay. So, if they had done promotion at that time, then most likely the posters and all this have been pulled down or removed or whatever, but I think it is time to make another promotion. Travel to the high schools. There are career days, there is Health Awareness Week, Leisure Weekend, things like that throughout. There are media, you know, things like that.

* (1040)

Mr. Martindale: Thank you very much for making a presentation today. I think it is very valuable for the committee to come to Thompson because we are hearing that there needs to be a presence of the Children Advocate's office in the North, either in Thompson or in other places.

Right now under the legislation the Children's Advocate can make recommendations, so, for example, if a child phoned and made complaints, for example, the example that you used in your brief, the Advocate could make recommendations, for example, saying that, if a parent is being rough with a child, the worker should intervene. The Advocate could recommend that the worker speak an aboriginal language. The Advocate could recommend that the child not be removed from the home but that instead a homemaker be put in the home. Now the problem is that the agency or any agency does not have to do any of the things that the Advocate recommends, so some people believe that the legislation should be changed so that the Advocate has the power to make the agencies comply with the recommendations. For example, the Advocate might recommend that a certain percentage of nonaboriginal agency be aboriginal because some of their clients might be, or that a certain percentage of an agency have staff that speak an aboriginal language, and maybe even a time frame, saying after so many years you have to have this percentage.

What is your feeling about this? Do you think that, in addition to being able to make recommendations, the Advocate legislation should have the power to require agencies to comply with the recommendations?

Ms. Bushby: As a native person and from the story I shared with you, I saw the language barrier between the worker and the parent, and I would recommend that, yes, in the ideal world, there would be a native person or a person who would be able to speak or understand the native language. That did not happen for Anne and her mom.

I would recommend that this Children's Advocate office would be able to mandate children's agencies and have the power to oversee where native people or the people that they are servicing would be represented there through cultural awareness or through their language.

Mr. Tweed: Thank you for your presentation. Probably not related as much to the Child Advocate or the office or what we are doing, but can you tell me what happened to the girl?

Ms. Bushby: Okay, this was the end of February. When I went to the Y at that time, the homemaker, because of her confidentiality, could not tell me where this person, Anne, went, so I did phone the Child and Family Services worker twice, left messages and she never responded. I do not know.

Mr. Tweed: How sad.

Mr. Martindale: Do you think it is time that the Children's Advocate sent posters again to organizations, not just Child and Family Service organizations, but the Futures Program, Thompson Boys and Girls Club, Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women, Manitoba Metis Federation?

Ms. Bushby: The high school. I think it is time for the Children's Advocate to be promoting, to be present, to attend Leisure Week where there are different agencies coming. I walked through the high school, and through their bulletin boards and that, there is nothing there. There is a teenage line, a crisis centre, information like that, but no Children's Advocate. I asked the principal, and he had not heard of it..

Mr. Kowalski: Just because I am not that familiar with Thompson, being from Winnipeg, what child agency, Child and Family Services agency would be involved in a case in Thompson like this? Which one is it?

Ms. Bushby: Because the child and the mother live in Thompson, they fall under the Child and Family Services by the hospital there. They have relocated a long time ago, so they do not fall under the Awasis Agency.

Mr. Kowalski: This committee heard a presentation from the Child Advocate, and one of his concerns was a lack of resources. I believe his staff is four people for the province of Manitoba. I am just going by memory now; I have it written down someplace, the number of complaints they do in a year, plus they are supposed to do research, handle the complaints, inform the public about their existence and also be proactive. Do you think that the Child Advocate needs more resources to address your concern that there is a lack of knowledge about the office?

* (1050)

Ms. Bushby: That is something that I am not sure about know how they would go about it. I do know that there are resources that can promote the Children's Advocate. There are people like myself in the Futures Program that can promote the Children's Advocate in the North. The way it stands right now because the office and because of the four staff and that, it is unreasonable to think that they can do all of the province of Manitoba; but, if they did, maybe some more promotion and just make people aware of this office, then people like myself would hear about and promote it. It would work that way.

Mr. Tweed: Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned in regard to the story that you related to us that the family had moved to Thompson so therefore fell under the Child and Family Services and not Awasis. Have you had experiences with Awasis, and can you relate as to what might have been different had you dealt with them? I am basing that on the fact that you might have some background with that particular organization.

Ms. Bushby: From being with that community, doing home visits, walking in the community-- Thompson is a very regional city, and there are about 25 communities surrounding Thompson and this is the place to shop and spend the weekend. I would say that I see both agencies, Awasis and the Child and Family Services, just trying to deal with crises and emergencies and that, and therefore I do not see them being proactive. Everything is always so negative: they are apprehending my kid, this and that, which is true; the crisis is already happening; the emergency is already happening, and they do have to remove the kids to safety.

I have had dealings with both, and it is a small community. I would not think that Family Services is as negligent as Awasis. I mean, they are just busy. They have lots of children to look after.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Bushby, for sharing your insights, giving us information here that is going to assist us in making our report, and for taking time to do that. Thank you very much.

I would like to next call on Norma Boulé, please. Thank you for taking time and coming out and giving us the information and some information that we are looking for. I would like to introduce our committee members to you. The far end there is Mr. Tweed. He is the MLA for Turtle Mountain; Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples; Mr. Martindale, the MLA for Burrows; and Mr. Helwer, the MLA for Gimli. I am Peter George Dyck, and I am the MLA for Pembina. So welcome again, and great to see you here.

Ms. Norma Boulé (Thompson Boys and Girls Club): Welcome to you on this nice sunny morning.

Mr. Chairperson: Well, thank you very much, and you greeted us with some snowfall overnight. I heard say there was none here. Again, thank you for coming, and please give us your presentation.

Ms. Boulé: Okay, I do not per se have a presentation because I really was not quite aware that I had to give a presentation, so I would like to answer any questions you might have, if I can. I am here. Right now, I am president of the Boys and Girls Club, which is in Thompson. I am not a spokesperson for them because I do not know if they have a child advocacy across Canada, but I also look after children in my home, mainly teenagers, and I guess myself, I am a self-appointed advocate for children, whereas many agencies are to a point. I would like to see more proactive as reactive, which was mentioned before.

Mr. Chairperson: Maybe then I will just ask you a question just for clarification. You said you have children in your home. Are you saying you are a foster parent?

Ms. Boulé: Actually, I am an open custody home, and I look after young offenders.

Mr. Chairperson: Then we will start with the questions, if that is what you are wishing. I will start with Mr. Tweed, please.

Mr. Tweed: Just for my understanding. Open custody home, do you get referrals?

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Boulé. I will be introducing you and the committee members as they speak, so Ms. Boulé, please.

Ms. Boulé: What happens, I am not an employee of the government, but my home has been appointed as a safe home for young offenders where they have been incarcerated down south to Portage or Milner Ridge. They have been doing good down there, so they come up to me as a transition home to be allowed to integrate back into the community, school and things like that before going home to their home when they are finished their time.

Mr. Tweed: Do you deal with mostly native people? Is it a mix, or is it one or the other? Or, it is just by referral?

Ms. Boulé: It is whoever is at the time. The majority is aboriginal. We do have the white ones, whoever has been incarcerated, and it is referral through Probation Services, yes.

Mr. Kowalski: As you may or may not know, this committee is reviewing the Office of the Child Advocate that was created in, I believe, 1993, and Wayne Govereau being the present Child Advocate. We are looking at the office, the legislation, and looking at changes, so this is a good test.

How much are you aware of what the Child Advocate of Manitoba does--what are his responsibilities--and you, as someone who looks after children, what resources he has or what role he can play in what you do?

Ms. Boulé: What role could advocates play with me?

Mr. Kowalski: The Office of the Child Advocate of Manitoba.

Ms. Boulé: I do not know if it is with the child. We have resources for the child. In some resources, the child is too young to be comprehending what the benefits are. I think I would like to see more done with the family unit for the child instead of being returned to the same scene.

* (1100)

Mr. Martindale: The children who stay in your home, I presume they are under 18. The services that they are getting from the government are basically from the Department of Justice. Is that right?

Now the Children's Advocate as it is set up now under the legislation, the Advocate can only look into complaints in the Child and Family Services system which is part of Family Services. Do you think that there is a need for advocacy for children for other government departments? Some people have recommended that we have a children's commissioner who would be responsible for investigating complaints involving children in any dealing with government whether it is justice, education, or health. Can you see a need for an advocate for children involved with the justice system?

Ms. Boulé: Yes.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if you could expand on that. For example, if you thought that one of the children who you are involved with, or was aware of, had a problem and you thought they were being unfairly dealt with, if you were advocating for them, since you said that you are kind of a self-appointed advocate, where do you turn? Do you phone Probation? Do you phone the minister's office? Do you phone your MLA? Where do you get help for these children?

Ms. Boulé: Call the necessary office that is available to me. I would call if it was a probational thing, yes, or Child and Family Services or Awasis, depending on what reign it would fall under, because we do have a lot of transients coming down. Yes, I would call the MLA if I had to.

Mr. Helwer: Your organization is involved in Thompson, the Boys and Girls Club. How many other people besides yourself are involved as parents who take in children who have problems in Thompson, as an example?

Ms. Boulé: Myself. There used to be quite a few homes, but I am the only one right now. As far as foster parents, I know they have dwindled over the years. I was support parent for Marymound North up here. The resources they have now is like Hudson House, MacDonald Youth centre. I do not think we nearly have enough safe houses for the children who are apprehended or taken into care for abuse, crisis or whatever.

Mr. Tweed: Have you ever had any workings or dealings with the Child Advocate's office?

Ms. Boulé: Not personally, no.

Mr. Tweed: You had mentioned in your earlier comments that you quite often, depending on where the issue lies, you would call that department or whatever, and you had mentioned Awasis. Can you tell me how your experiences were with them? Do you deal with them often? If so, has it been positive, good, bad, indifferent?

Ms. Boulé: I never dealt with them directly. It was through a third party. Again, I think I have to go back with what Ruth Bushby was saying. I do not think it is neglect. I think it is just that they do not have the resources. They are just swamped with work. Maybe there is an overload somewhere. That is where I am coming from, yes.

Mr. Kowalski: If there is a child that is being looked after--a child care agency such as Awasis or Child and Family Services--and the child feels that the worker is not doing the right thing, they have the right to contact an advocate, who investigates, and complain. If there was another open custody home in Thompson, and the person who is taking care of the child and the child felt that that person was not giving them enough food, was not dressing them properly or doing something like that, who can that child complain to?

Ms. Boulé: That has happened in the past, by the way, and what happened was it was taken up with the proper probation officer who, in turn, went through their things, and the house was closed. The child was removed. The way the probation is working up here is they are on your toes every week. Like they are coming down on you. You have a mandate to follow, and if you do not follow it for whatever reason, it is not as if, because of the government, well, we have to keep you. No, if you are not following through on your contract, you may be suspended. Either pull up your socks, or this is what happens, you are closed down.

Mr. Kowalski: Do you think children who are in open custody are aware of who they could complain to if they have a problem in custody? Do you think they are aware of it?

Ms. Boulé: When any child has entered my home, I give them a few days to settle down and get used to who we are, because it is a cultural shock when they come into my home. My husband is French. Then we sit down and we go over all that, what I expect, what do they expect, and who can they go--if they cannot come to me or they do not like something I am doing, I tell them this is where you can call.

Mr. Kowalski: And where is that?

Ms. Boulé: Our probation officer right away, yes.

Mr. Helwer: I just have one further question just to add to Mr. Tweed's question there. Are you fully aware of the role that the Child Advocate plays or has that ever been explained to you as to what they can do to help?

Ms. Boulé: I have never been sat down and explained to it. I have a faxed transmission here from Patricia here which advocacy explains itself by the word. But never went into depth with it and all, but I know an advocate is someone who helps the children.

Mr. Helwer: Just to further that. So if they had some further presence in the community, it might be of some assistance to, as an example, the Thompson area.

Ms. Boulé: Yes, very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Then on behalf of the subcommittee, I certainly want to thank you for taking time in coming and sharing your thoughts with us. Thank you very much, and we wish you well.

The subcommittee recessed at 11:06 a.m.

The subcommittee resumed at 11:16 a.m.

Mr. Chairperson: I would like to call the meeting back to order, and I would like to welcome our next two presenters. If you would like to come and sit at the podium here, there are chairs for you. Hari Dimitrakopoulos and Ann Marie MacIntyre.

I would just like to introduce to you the committee here. Starting at the far end, Mr. Tweed. He is the MLA for Turtle Mountain; Mr. Kowalski, the MLA for The Maples; Mr. Martindale, the MLA for Burrows; and Mr. Helwer, the MLA for Gimli. I am Peter George Dyck. I am the MLA for Pembina. So we are certainly pleased to have you here today. I am not sure if it is going to be a joint presentation or, if one is going to be doing the--however, whatever you would like to do is fine with us. But, at this time, certainly go ahead, please.

Ms. Ann Marie MacIntyre (Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women): There are a few points that we wanted to make. My name is Ann Marie MacIntyre and I am here with Hari on behalf of the Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women.

One of the things when this was brought to our attention is that there is not a lot of knowledge about the children's advocacy office in the North. It was our understanding that one of the recommendations that was made--I have here the '94 and '95 Children's Advocate annual report, second annual report--and one of the recommendations was that there be an office more in the North kind of thing.

Again, as a northerner, I think this is one of the first points I would like to make is that there is no awareness of this office. This office has not been established. The different agencies in Thompson, different organizations dealing with children and youth are not aware of the services, are not aware in general.

No. 5, it says additional staffing and program operating funds be provided to the Children's Advocate to ensure province-wide accessibility through the establishment of field offices outside of Winnipeg. This is the office that I am speaking of that agencies, organizations, have no knowledge of and therefore no knowledge of the services, nowhere to turn for advocacy on behalf of children.

The second point is the abilities of the Children's Advocate to enforce the recommendations. Now reading through different--I also have here the presentation to the Children's Advocate to the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections da-dada-dada.

On the powers, reading through all this information, the powers to enforce any of the recommendations, what we are getting from this on the different articles and reports, is what exactly are the powers to enforce recommendations by the Children's Advocate? What I am getting is that even recommendations that are made, the Children's Advocate goes in and investigates, then there is no authority and no powers to enforce any recommendations. Where do the recommendations go from there? To a minister? The Children's Advocate reports to a minister? What happens from that point?

Oh, I guess I am skipping ahead here. To report directly to the Legislature rather than to a minister to see something done. But, again, I think I am referring back to the power of the Advocate and ability to enforce any recommendations made through investigations which is part of their power, Children's Advocate, to investigate on behalf of children, and then what happens from there. Okay.

Point No. 3 is that in the Children's Advocate right now, there appears to be a conflict of roles where the advocacy has a role and also--I cannot pronounce this--ombudsperson.

Floor Comment: We would like to say it is not ombudsman. It is an ombudsperson.

Ms. MacIntyre: It is a dual role kind of thing, that how can you be an advocate and stand up and speak on behalf of somebody and at the same time remain a mediator and have a neutral stand as a mediator? It just really proves to be a conflict of roles. What happens to the children through that conflict of roles? I thought you were going to say something.

Point No. 4, I guess, particularly for the Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women is young women, what is happening to the young children in the system and children who may be falling through the cracks of the system, who may be looked over, just not a high priority in the system--not a high profile is the word I guess I am looking for--that young women may be falling through the cracks. Where do they go for help, as well as all children? But what is there for children?

The governing body. That was one of the points that we wanted to make. A governing body for young women and any children, that the Children's Advocate as a governing body, somebody to be accountable and with the powers to do that, to overlook what is going on in all the different agencies throughout the system; again, for young women but also for all children.

No. 5, we support the recommendations of the Children's Advocate. In '95-96, that there were recommendations made. We were just wondering what is happening with these recommendations. To our knowledge, they have not been carried out, and we agreed with them. That the Children's Advocate had made recommendations, looking over them we agree with what they are saying, particularly again to relate back to the other points that I have made in the power and control as being a governing body making recommendations. After investigating, where do the recommendations go from there? We would say that reporting directly to the Legislature as a collective body for the people kind of thing, rather than to a minister, and the other recommendations that were made, as well.

* (1120)

I guess from the point of a social worker, too, I am a social worker in Thompson. There are a few things, again, as a social worker, the presence--I will relate back to--not having an agency in the North, an office in the North that people can depend on, people can turn to for help.

Now in my own personal field, I deal with women and children. I see a lot of children falling through the cracks, falling through different systems that overlap, enmesh with each other, and nobody is sure what the boundaries are, this kind of thing. It is the children who suffer because of that, the children who fall through the cracks and have nowhere to turn in dealing with Child and Family and dealing with Awasis, whatever the agency might be. That is where I guess I am coming from with abused women, things like that which you do not hear a lot about. Abused women, again, fall through the cracks themselves, but also what happens to the children?

Ms. Hari Dimitrakopoulos (Thompson Action Committee on the Status of Women): I would like to make a comment to reinforce the issue. Ms. MacIntyre came upon young women; she brought the young women up. We know a lot of times, we hear it through the papers, the media, about the youngsters; very often we hear about the boys, the male youngsters, if you like. When we hear about the young women, it is when they have found their dead bodies on the sides of the roads after years of abuse and neglect, and that is something we find very disheartening, especially with all who work amongst the young women. In general, the system, particularly for young women, is not a good system. Very often young female children fall in the crack and then we hear nothing; either through pregnancy they fall into certain situations, prostitution, and then, of course, the issue of mental health comes into play and then the final tragic deaths of young women. So these are all the things very related to an office, and it is basically who is going to talk on behalf of these children.

We have a lot of cases in northern Manitoba related to communities which are very insulated and isolated, if you like, and a mindful of their own, and definitely we have seen the need somebody talking on behalf of the children. As a parent, I find it a very novel idea, somebody to talk on behalf of our children; however, you can see in the general sense, in the collective sense, somebody has to do it. I was reading very recently in Maclean's that there are more young women dying this year than any other year before. This is not because all of a sudden they are jumping off the bridge, but because somebody has not spoken and somebody has not voiced their concerns. Certainly we all try to do our best, but definitely this office here has a very vital role to play. It is almost like very good for us and for you to hear what is going on in this part of the province.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I believe Mr. Martindale had a question for you, and then we will be going from one committee member to the other and just the format here, simply for our Hansard recording here, I need to identify both yourselves and the person asking the question, so I will be doing that.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ann Marie and Hari, for making a presentation today. I think that, if there is one theme that is emerging from presentations in rural and northern Manitoba, it is that the Children's Advocate office needs to have a presence in the North. Do you think that should be put into the legislation, or could the minister address that problem simply by increasing the budget of the Children's Advocate office so that they could hire staff or open an office in Thompson?

Ms. Dimitrakopoulos: My reaction is whatever makes it more permanent and more stable. I myself not being aware of the exact parameters of the situation, the North definitely has to have something which is stable and does not depend on budgets because the future of tomorrow does not really depend on budgets.

Mr. Martindale: You spoke about children falling through the cracks, and I am wondering if you were just talking about children involved with Child and Family Services or whether you meant children that are receiving services or maybe not receiving services from other government departments like mental health, Justice, Education, et cetera.

Ms. MacIntyre: Any different agency. I do not think I was being specific to Child and Family; I am talking about children here. Again, to relate back to women, for a girl child, there is not as many options as there would be for a male child, so any agency that might be involved with children. Child and Family Services, yes, that definitely would be a major one, but also any agency and to have an advocate there that would be involved with the different agencies, not necessarily just directly related to Child and Family but all of the agencies, a voice for children.

Mr. Martindale: So would you recommend that the role of the Advocate be expanded so that the Advocate could be a voice for children, regardless of what agency or government department the complaint might arise against?

Ms. MacIntyre: My understanding is, yes, that is what is needed, that the Children's Advocate to have more specific powers that they could follow through with recommendations. From what I am getting from the reports and everything, the different articles and stuff that I have been given is that there is no specific power to enforce recommendations, that kind of thing. So they are given the role as an advocate and then make recommendations, and what happens with the recommendations? So there is something that is needed that the Children's Advocate has the power to, yes, investigate, but then something beyond that, what happens to the investigation?

* (1130)

Mr. Kowalski: As Mr. Martindale said, thank you very much for your presentation. It is very useful to me, if not to all committee members, to hear you reinforcing other people who have been before us today talking about the need for more people in Thompson and northern Manitoba be aware of the Child Advocate's office and if not having an actual presence in Thompson. But this subcommittee's responsibility is where we are reviewing both the legislation and office of the Child Advocate. We have heard a number of presentations, many of them very supportive of the Child Advocate and the legislation, and some of them critical.

The annual reports that you referred to in the presentation is the Child Advocate's view, and we have heard some other views, and I would like to bounce one of them off you that we have heard today. Kaye Dunlop of Awasis talked about the need--she felt the legislation the way it is is fine, and one of the things that you said is the need for the Child Advocate to go beyond just being able to make recommendations. As a social worker in the field for a while, you are aware that in the last decade we moved from a different paradigm of social work from going into families and forcing families to do things as opposed to working with families and finding that work is much successful. Kaye Dunlop talked about the Child Advocate's need to go into agencies and work with them as opposed to make orders and be confrontational. If the Child Advocate worked with agencies and there was from her point of view less confrontation, do you think recommendations would be enough for the Child Advocate, or do you still want to see the Child Advocate as the policing of child care agencies?

Ms. MacIntyre: Your question is, do I think that recommendations would be enough or do they need more power to police and to enforce? Again, from what I have been gathering out of the reports and the information I have been given is that recommendations are not going anywhere. I do not really like the word "police," and I agree with you that agencies should work collectively and co-operatively together in the best interest of the child and that it does not necessarily need a conflict. But, again, depending on the powers of the Advocate, if the Advocate has a more specific role and not this dual role to act as mediator and advocate, I think that might change things a bit.

Mr. Martindale: Ms. MacIntyre, do you mind my asking which organization you work for in Thompson?

Ms. MacIntyre: No. I choose not to.

Mr. Martindale: I do not know if you are familiar with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but some people have recommended, and I have read a very interesting British study that recommends that a children's commissioner could help fulfil Canada's obligations, or Manitoba's obligations in this case under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. For example, if the Children's Advocate had enough staff and research time, they could examine government policy and practice and the status of children in Manitoba and compare it with the UN Convention, which, I think, is published in the back of the annual report. In the Advocate's annual report, they could make comments on how Manitoba is measuring up and whether or not we are fulfilling the convention, which, I believe, we are a signatory to. Do you think that would be a useful role for the Children's Advocate office to compare what is happening to children in Manitoba with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Ms. MacIntyre: To compare what is going on in other provinces?

Mr. Martindale: No, just in Manitoba.

Ms. MacIntyre: Okay, but the role of the Children's Advocate to report, to be held accountable to the UN, is that what you are saying?

Mr. Martindale: Well, if I could clarify. Some people recommended the Children's Advocate look at the status of children in Manitoba and compare it to the UN Convention and see if we are fulfilling all the obligations to children under the UN Convention since I believe Canada is a signatory to this convention. Then we would have some benchmarks, like in some areas we might be fulfilling all our obligations to children, but in other areas we might not be. Some people suggested that a children's commissioner or the Children's Advocate could comment on that and say, here is where we are falling down and here are some recommendations. This is what we need to do in order to meet this UN Convention. Do you think that would be a useful role for the Children's Advocate?

Ms. MacIntyre: I think that would be part of the role as a voice for children, as an advocate for children. One of the things that we have been discussing this morning was that Manitoba is the poverty capital of Canada, and, yes, I think that would be an important role to examine, to investigate, to compare the different agencies as an advocate. So, yes.

Mr. Martindale: I think you used a very good example; that of child poverty. We had a presentation in Winnipeg from someone who spent most of her presentation talking about child poverty and other issues affecting children. I wonder if the Children's Advocate were to comment on broader social problems, not just individual complaints, what do you think the effect would be? For example, would it have the effect of educating the public? Would it have an influence on the government? Would it prod them to do better in terms of child poverty? Do you think it would be helpful if the Advocate's role was expanded to enable the Advocate to comment on things like child poverty?

Ms. MacIntyre: I would believe so, yes, to have that voice, again the voice for children.

Ms. Dimitrakopoulos: I would like to say that because, particularly for young single parents and women as single parents, we would like to make one more time the statement loud and clear that there are poor children because there are poor families and poor parents, and the whole issue of poverty leads to a lot the issues we are discussing here today, issues related employment, education. So there is a valid comparison. Statistics do prove that.

* (1140)

What we are concerned with is that, as poverty settles across the country, I suppose, with unemployment rates soaring, really, and more women are finding themselves in the very strenuous financial situation which leads to a lot of social issues, it is the children that become the victims primarily of this situation. So you can see a lot of these issues can be linked to a lot of broader society issues. The children's advocacy can work in individual cases, but also it has to address the broad issues because each and every one of us does not work in a tiny framework, we work in a broader framework. Unless we examine the broader framework, we cannot really see the small picture. It is almost like a micro-macro picture, and here if we say the Children's Advocate is advocating on behalf of such and such a child and of such and such a child, it is not as effective as if we had to include the bigger picture as well as the small picture. Each and every child is of worth, but also it is the collective will of the children that we have to address.

Mr. Helwer: You talked about the fact that the Child's Advocate was not promoted in the North very well or not represented. I think that certainly would help if we had a representative in Thompson here and then could probably have a better communication with some of the organizations and the agencies in the North here.

The Awasis Agency talked mainly about children really, and you are trying to emphasize the need for young ladies, young women or the effect on women especially in the North here. You also talked about conflict of roles. What role do you think the Child Advocate could play here in the North, in Thompson as an example? What assistance could they be for your organization or other organizations in the community?

Ms. Dimitrakopoulos: Our organization is not a direct service delivered to young people, and when I say children, I mean children up within the limits of the definition. We are talking about the same age group. We are not having direct experience, but what we are concerned with, the Action Committee on the Status of Women, is with young women in particular. As I have said, I have a son and I have a daughter; I am interested in both. The issue of the exact service delivered to the individual, we cannot comment; however, we can comment on the broader picture and in the northern picture as such.

Mr. Tweed: Just an observation and a question, and I am not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the people that we have talked to here, and I would suggest even in Winnipeg, suggest that the Child Advocate is unknown, particularly in northern Manitoba--unaware, not representative in the community. I think we received that message, as Mr. Martindale has said earlier. The question I would ask, and again please take it just as a question. Some of the comments we have heard that perhaps the Child Advocate could be maybe not as aware of what is going on in certain communities, perhaps because of lack of representation.

There has been some suggestion that the office is maybe somewhat unco-operative, maybe a little confrontational. The question I have is, if that is true and that person wrote a report discussing, basically criticizing, the way that your services that you provide are being provided and makes recommendations on how he sees it should happen or should be done, do you think giving him the ability to enforce those recommendations would be a positive thing?

I guess what I am trying to say is the message I am getting is that the Child Advocate is not here, yet we are asking him to make recommendations without the background perhaps that he should have, and then we are suggesting that we should give him the ability to enforce those recommendations without the first happening, without the coming up here and discussion.

Ms. MacIntyre: It was my understanding that this would happen first, that offices coming up here were recommendations that were made in '94 and '95 and have still not materialized. Okay, so that would be something I would say would definitely have to happen first. And again, you are talking about a particular man or woman to come up and be a part of this office, to be a part of the Advocate on the whole. I think that goes with any kind of person who is accountable to the children, that giving them the power to do anything, I mean, there are a lot of different factors that come in involved with that. If this office, if this person as the Children's Advocate has certain roles to fulfill as an advocate for children, then there has to be powers that go along with that, that there has to be some kind of a governing body to speak for the children to address the issues and somewhere to go with that. Now, from my understanding, what is happening here is that recommendations are being made again, and what happens with the recommendations? Who should the Children's Advocate report to? Should it be a minister or should it be the Legislature?

Mr. Tweed: Again, I guess the only comment I would make is that the reports from the inception of the Child Advocate has been quite critical of Child and Family Services. I guess what I am hearing also is that a lot of the agencies are unaware of the Child Advocate and unaware of perhaps his role or position, and yet at the end of every year the Child Advocate--and I am not identifying a person, I am saying the Child Advocate meaning the office--makes recommendations, I guess, I would say uninformed. I am not saying his recommendation that we need some more identification and recognition in the North, we have heard that. What I am saying is how can he make recommendations and enforce them without that happening? I guess he is ahead of the process, or the Advocate is ahead of the process, in the sense of I am still making recommendations as to how you should do things even though I do not have a presence in your community. I would see it as confrontational, if he was making recommendations to any of my position or ability to carry on my work without experiencing or discussing or trying to co-operate, to communicate as to how we should do it and work together to do it.

Ms. MacIntyre: If you are looking at policy recommendations and an Advocate examining all the different aspects of children, again, you would have to look at the macro. So with input from the smaller communities, with input and understanding on northern issues, with specific issues to isolated communities, with specific issues to distant communities, on the macro level again, on the large picture that recommendations can be understood, that the issues of children on the whole, poverty on the whole, women's issues on the whole, do affect isolated communities, do affect the smaller communities, and with that understanding, with that investigation, with that policy examination that there still could be information.

* (1150)

Ms. Dimitrakopoulos: First of all, it is a little bit, your question, the egg or the chicken--right?--this kind of thing. Well, the recommendation here again, it says '94-95, let us get more field offices outside Winnipeg. You cannot have policy unless you have the input from the communities and the hands-on experience. At the same time, it is almost like let us take one step at a time.

The whole point here, and I am sure everybody's point, is not to criticize for the sake of criticism, but this is like any other office. The whole point is constructive criticism. Our common goal is to improve the situation of children in Manitoba, so it is not pointing fingers, cutting heads, but it is getting people to work together. So as a first step definitely there has to be a presence in the North, not to deliver the recommendations but also to hear a little bit clearer, and that goes back to the issues of how this office works out.

From our understanding here and from what we heard from the direct delivery service agencies, this office has to be a little bit enhanced in terms of staff. They just cannot be here. Expenses have to be seen as such to deliver good services, reasonable budgets. Maybe this is something that the minister has to see or the Legislature has to see. So dollar allocation, and definitely the North pays its fair share of tax dollars, and I am sure each and every one here in Thompson can testify to that. I know you got probably a feeling of what Thompson is all about by now.

The third thing I would like to make, which is very crucial and it is happening as we speak, both Ann Marie and myself and the whole social work has been very fast changing in Manitoba, in the North, almost like we talk, twice as fast. First of all, social services come under the Regional Health Authorities, and social work comes under that, so the face of social work and those who look after children is going to be under the Health Authorities. These people quite frankly, the field workers, are not quite sure if they are coming or going at this point in time, so we have to ensure that though we talk about another agency to look at the big picture, the service deliverers themselves are very unsure about themselves--not themselves, I am sorry--their own jobs, how the service is delivered. I hear comments such as the service deliverers are going to be contracted out to the people who are working today as social workers. How does that affect the children? That is one point.

Now, this will be happening across Manitoba if what I hear is the situation. The second thing, in northern Manitoba, because of the vast numbers of First Nations people, we have the centralization of Awasis Agency that poses almost like another layer of questions there. How do these two things mesh, and the centralization of Awasis to the various communities, how it is going to work out. So it is a First Nations community, very critical at this point in time, because the numbers do show that it is the First Nations children that do suffer at the present time, so unfortunately, from my point of view, we have lots of questions ourselves too. Hopefully, we will provide you with some assistance to your direction, but we do believe that coming to Thompson and hearing from us helped the process.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, and on behalf of the subcommittee, I certainly want to thank you for taking time and giving us your presentation and giving us some insight into the things that you are faced with on a day-to-day basis. Thank you very much for coming, and we wish you well. Certainly this will help us in our deliberations. Thank you.

Floor Comment: We also wanted to thank you for allowing us and inviting us and the time to speak and listening and hearing.

Mr. Chairperson: We would not have heard from you if we had not come to Thompson.

Ms. Dimitrakopoulos: And we are not responsible for the weather.

Mr. Chairperson: Before we rise I need to do something that is very formal here, and the time being 11:55, the subcommittee will now take a recess for a lunch break and will resume at 1 p.m.

The subcommittee recessed at 11:55 a.m.

The subcommittee resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 2 p.m., I have been advised that Louisa Constant will be unavailable to make a presentation today due to a family emergency. She has requested that instead of giving a verbal presentation that she be allowed to send in a written submission which she will mail in.

Further to that, I would just like to indicate for the record that the hour being two o'clock, the following people were to have given a presentation at 1 p.m., and that is Lisa Bone, Debbie McVittle, Connie Murray and Joyce Vanderbrook, and because they have not appeared at this time, we have determined that we will now, I guess, end our committee presentations for the day.

With the permission of the committee, committee rise, as agreed.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 2:02 p.m.