Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 6 - Evidence
WINNIPEG, Monday, September 18, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 9 a.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators and guests, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights is in Winnipeg today to examine and report on Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children. We have filed an interim report and after these hearings, we will complete our work and file a final report before the end of the year.
Our responsibility is to assess how Canada is doing in its implementation of the international convention and we have been zeroing in on the federal, more than the provincial responsibilities. We look at children first, not at provinces or federal government responsibilities.
We have with us this morning Mr. Yude Henteleff, a lawyer practising here in Winnipeg, and Mr. David Matas. Both are experts in various fields. I think the senators are aware of your curriculum vitaes so that relieves me of the responsibility of announcing the long and distinguished careers of each of you. I welcome you both to the committee.
Yude Henteleff, Lawyer, as an individual: Thank you very much. I am of course delighted to have this opportunity to share some thoughts with you. If I do sound somewhat impatient and perhaps a touch angry during the course of my comments it is because I have been at this for a long time.
Not only can you measure progress for children with disabilities by millimeters but also indeed in the last few years for a number of reasons, which I will hope to explore with you, there indeed have been rollbacks, which is of critical concern.
I appreciate the committee's whole-hearted commitment to the effective implementation of children's rights, but quite frankly, it seems to me that there are two gross omissions in your interim report. It seems to me that there should have been an expressed commitment to the early implementation of these rights and how that should be accomplished. I would have appreciated a subtitle to your report and that is what must and can be done now.
I do of course welcome the four recommendations outlined in the summary at page 7 of your report and they may, in due course, accelerate the implementation of children's rights in Canada in accordance with the UN convention. However, that is many tomorrows away and is today's needs that must be met. These needs have been made abundantly clear in critiques from the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children and by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law. Others include the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, there has been a long and continuing failure by Canada to assure that those rights are implemented for many of its children, particularly disabled and Aboriginal children.
I should start by mentioning that in addition to being here in a personal capacity, I am also the honorary solicitor for the Learning Disability Association of Canada and they are aware of my comments. Although they have not had the fullest opportunity to read them because of the shortage of time, they are in accord with what I will be sharing with you today.
I also have had the recent opportunity to read the report presented to you by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law. I have to tell you that I am totally in accord with their comments.
As outlined in detail in a paper I have left with you entitled, ``Human Rights: Still Largely Unmet,'' there is an urgent need for service for this particular group of children and Aboriginal children in particular. This concern has been dealt with at a series of conferences all across Canada over the last several years. At all of these conferences, the urgent need and the grievous consequences of the failure to meet these needs have been demonstrated. These children's needs in terms of early intervention and subsequent treatment are not being met.
The failure at all levels of the child service system, whether early childhood development in the public school system, particularly in the juvenile justice system, is rooted in ignorance, incompetence, discrimination and racism. This includes the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development under whose jurisdiction many Aboriginal children and youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder fall.
The prevailing attitude found amongst much of the bureaucracy and indeed of those who are in charge is that investment in these children with special needs is simply not worthwhile. They apply what I call the cost benefit ratio that unless the investment in their view demonstrates a sufficient payback, then these children become second-class children.
Nothing is further from the truth in fact, namely that investment is indeed worthwhile. In my 2005 paper, I referred to a number of studies where without exception investment in special needs children always produced a positive payback.
It seems to me that from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland, these children's rights to social justice and equality pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are irrelevant to these decision makers. I emphasize that because what ever little progress has been achieved in the past three years, over the past five to 10 years, there have been significant rollbacks and funding to provide appropriate and timely services for these children with the general excuse being insufficient resources.
I will give you an example. The Province of Manitoba, after years of study, finally passed legislation dealing with the rights of special needs children. When you read the whole of it, you will applaud it in every respect except there is a qualifying clause, namely, ``subject to available resources.'' Now that kind of qualification never applies, by the way, to children who are not special in the sense that they are neither disabled nor aboriginal. I find that particularly difficult to understand and for that reason I charge child service agencies across the country with discrimination. The UN committee in its report in response to Canada's report in 2003, in fact at paragraph 21, specifically identifies that situation.
The premise of the second-class citizenship also finds itself inherent in the whole concept of undue hardship. Now this is not dealt with in my paper because I only came to it when I read the report by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law. In Canada, as I am sure you are aware, there is a right to discriminate when you are able to demonstrate whether you are by government or private that indeed you are going to suffer undue hardship. Although the courts have raised the threshold of what it takes to demonstrate undue hardship, the fact is what it means is there is an economic rationalization for discrimination. In other words, you reach a point in time where you have to say you cannot afford to provide services to special needs children. Why? Well, because you are going to suffer undue hardship. There is no such qualification whatsoever in the provision of services to non-special needs children. It means there is a standard for special needs children and one for non-special needs children. What is the standard? The standard is an economic, not a human rights standard. It is of profound concern that we find that kind of limitation of measuring human rights in economic terms as it applies to those who are the most vulnerable.
What is interesting of course is that is why the point is made in other briefs that have been presented to you, why it is so critical amongst other reasons, and I will emphasize a few later, as to why the incorporation of the UN covenant as part of Canadian domestic law is so critical. There is no such qualification found anywhere in the UN convention. It is critical. In addition, there is no such limitation as found by the way if you do apply the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; there is a qualification under section 1 of the Charter that again limits the rights of the individual.
I will very briefly talk to you about a case which the Supreme Court of Canada decided, the Newfoundland case. That is a case where, by law, some $21 million was allocated to women for equal pay for work of equal value. Then suddenly Newfoundland found itself in economic difficulty so it suspended the payment of that $21 million to these women who have been waiting for I do not know how many years in order to receive equality. The rationalization was that Newfoundland had found itself in such a state of financial concern, that in the interest of the public, the rights of the individual women should be subsumed.
One can understand there are occasions when indeed the rights of the individual have to be subsumed to the rights of the collective. What was dreadfully wrong, if I may say with the greatest of respect for the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, was they did not have any evidence whether other like groups were also disproportionately affected. There was a gross discrimination against one group of persons, women, who have been perpetually discriminated against and in this case, the discrimination was perpetuated.
Again, that is why the qualification that one finds even in section 1 of the Charter, which qualifies individual's rights so-called for the benefit of the community, is not found in the covenant of the rights of the child.
The second most grievous omission in the work of your committee today, not that I do not admire much of it, is that there is not a single mention anywhere in that report about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, not a single mention. Yet it is an epidemic raging amongst Aboriginal children throughout Canada and particularly the North.
In October 1996, the then federal Health Minister David Dingwall and then President of the Canadian Pediatric Society, Dr. Pierre Beaudry, released a joint statement that described fetal alcohol spectrum disorder as being one of the leading causes of preventative birth defects and developmental delays in children. It is recognized as one of the leading known causes of mental retardation, severe learning disabilities and severe emotional dysfunction.
Two surveys, one from the Northwest Territories and one from Manitoba evaluated Aboriginal persons, particularly children, in those communities. The surveys found that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of all children born on reserves are identified with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Seventy per cent of these children had a learning disability, 56 per cent had intellectual disability and 50 per cent had a speech disability.
The consequence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is neurological; it has a long-term permanent effect, particularly in the area of cognition. That does not mean to say that you cannot provide means by which they cannot overcome that, but deal with it in a very positive way.
There is a strong correlation between children and youth with FASD and conflict with the law. I have provided many studies that show that correlation, not because it is intrinsic to people who have FASD but because the consequence of the neurological dysfunction causes ramifications, which indeed lead to that situation.
Non-Aboriginal children suffering from a range of cognitive deficits such as autism, Tourette's syndrome, Asperger's syndrome and the like are suffering because of severe cutbacks in the provisions of these services. These cutbacks have occurred under the guise of putting inclusivity into place. You have to understand that the drive for inclusivity has been used as a means of cutting back services all across the country.
I was involved recently in a case in British Columbia which we won, which of course is being appealed. There are six major lawsuits before the courts because of the cutbacks and the failure to the system to provide these children with the services that they need.
I should remind you that the several reports made over the years, including the most recent report by the UN committee noted the continued significant lack of services available to children with disabilities including not only Aboriginal children but also all children. This situation has become worse over the last years. What we have in Canada is a systemic violation of these children's rights.
On May 1, 2002, the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children noted that there has been a steady deterioration of the supports required to enable children with special needs to enjoy the rights afforded them under the convention. The Council of Ministers of Education has been a useless in dealing with these supports. You never even see them on the radar screen even though the need across the country is so apparent.
There has to be a national coming together of the provinces, territories and federal government. Just as health is considered to be a matter of national concern as dealt with in the way that it has been conjunctively by the provinces and the territories of the federal government, so does the area of education, and particularly, with respect to special needs children.
There has to be a nationally agreed funding formula accompanied by both short-term, medium-term and long-term delivery of services and programs. We must establish a new joint provincial-federal-territorial operational committee with a common framework and real power to assure implementation. This consultation clearly, as has been recommended to you time after time, must be with significant NGO involvement. Indeed, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child at paragraph 13 of its October 2003 report on Canada's compliance with the covenant makes that clear.
It is critical, and my paper deals in great length with the non-delegable responsibility on the part of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If ever there has been a ministry that is delinquent in its responsibility to meeting the needs of FASD children who are living on reserves throughout Canada, it has been that minister. It is absolutely appalling when you read about the continuing lack of services. This again was re-emphasized in paragraph 24 of the 2003 report by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
I somewhat disagree with the statement that is made in your paper about the fact that Canada does not, to the extent that it should, recognize the UN covenant and other covenants. In fact, recent decisions of that court have indicated the opposite. I am not suggesting for a moment that should take away from my recommendation that it should be incorporated in domestic law, but the fact is the courts are moving faster than the politicians.
I should point out to you before I forget to do so, there is a very recent text entitled International Human Rights Law and Canadian Law - Legal Commitment Implementation of the Charter. It is by Professor William Schabas, with whom you are familiar.
Chapter 6 of the interim report does not leave me with much hope for improvement of the status of children with disabilities including FASD. There indeed should be a distinct section of your report on the education system to the same extent as the UN report itself deals with that issue. There should be a distinct section dealing with the gross omission of providing services to children with fetal alcohol syndrome and there should be a discrete section dealing with the youth criminal justice system, unlike the United States by the way which is most interesting because of their Americans with Disabilities Act. Every state, which wishes federal assistance, must comply with that act and indeed in all juvenile justice systems across the country in the United States. There are very strong programs in terms of the identification and programs provided to children with learning disabilities and other cognitive functions, and in particular, with children with FASD.
These are my preliminary comments. I do want to point out to you that when one reads sections 2, 3, 12, 23, 28, 29, of the covenant, they re-emphasize the extent to which the incorporation of the covenant as part of domestic law is critical. Our Charter will always fall short of specifically dealing with the rights of children as only the UN covenant can and should.
I do thank you for this opportunity of making these a little more than preliminary remarks. I thank you for your patience in hearing my remarks.
The Chairman: Thank you for those comments and also for the papers. On behalf of the committee, I have to indicate that the interim report was not an all-inclusive report. Our style has been to listen to witnesses, and that report is our summation of what we had heard up to that point. This is precisely why we are continuing. We are taking a broad brush on human rights treaties and their implementation in Canada. We were using the convention as a template.
Our objective is to get into the specifics of the convention section by section. Your work on that is helpful to us. We hope that our final report will be the omnibus report you are looking for and we will welcome your criticism or support at that time.
Mr. Henteleff: It was very tragic and sad for me to see that not one of the witnesses saw fit to make mention of these concerns. That really troubles me. It means even the advocates did not find this subject on their radar screens.
David Matas, Lawyer, as an individual: I have a prepared text that I am not going to read; I am going to summarize it. There is a lot more detail in the text which I invite you to consider.
I will deal with immigration issues and sexual abuse issues. For immigration and refugee issues, aside from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there is a principle in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that states that the act should be interpreted to comply with Canada's international human rights instruments. In fact, the Convention of the Rights of the Child becomes an interpretive guide to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
There are two particular concerns I want to raise. The convention tells us that we are supposed to give the best interests of the child primary consideration and government action. That is in article 3.1, yet that does not really happen when families are being removed from Canada. Never mind that they are not given primary consideration, they are not given any consideration at all. There is no mechanism in place to consider the best interests of the children when families are being removed from Canada. The only mechanism that theoretically exists is a humanitarian application. Anybody can make a humanitarian application to stay in Canada. The problem with the humanitarian application is it is not coordinated with removal procedures. Humanitarian applications can take a very long time, many months, sometimes years before there is a final decision. If a removal is scheduled before a humanitarian application is decided, that is just too bad for the children, the family, and Canada's international obligations. There is no attempt by removals officials even to consider whether it is worth waiting for the humanitarian application to be decided before the removal takes place.
An example, and one can give many, is a client of mine is with his children and his wife in sanctuary in a church in Winnipeg. The couple has six children: two born in Pakistan, two born in the United States, two born in Canada. There is an outstanding humanitarian application. The family asked the removals officer to delay removal until there is a decision on the humanitarian application. The officers give typical responses in those cases. They talk about separate procedures and that they will not wait for humanitarian applications. I mean it is not even a consideration of the strength of the application as a basis for delaying removal. This set of facts is very common for sanctuary cases, which do of course occur throughout Canada from time to time. It presents a problem. The family went to Federal Court, the Federal Court did not intervene and they subsequently sought sanctuary in a church.
I would encourage this committee to recommend that Canada, in order to comply with its obligations in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, ask removals officers to consider the best interest of the child before removal, in particular whether or not there is a compelling case or a prima facie case in an outstanding humanitarian application. Officers will sometimes delay removal so that children can complete the school year but that obviously is not a complete answer to these problems.
The second issue has to do with children who are abroad and whose parents are here in Canada. For the purpose of this particular issue, I draw your attention to article 10.1 on the Convention of the Rights of the Child. This article says that in these situations, the applications of children to join their parents should be treated in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. However, if the parents in Canada are making a refugee claim, these applications to come see their parents are not treated in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. In fact, they will be systematically refused as a matter of policy. It is the policy of the government not to allow family members to join those people in Canada who are making refugee claims. They are not visitors because there is an assumption that they would stay or make a refugee claim as well or try to stay. Therefore, they are systematically denied the visas they would need to get to Canada.
The position of the government is that it does not want family members here because the refugee claim may fail and it would just increase the cost of removal if they bring in the children to join their parents. That may well be so for some families. It is my position that the hardship of the denial of family reunification, particularly for young children, is a far greater hardship than the cost of removal for some of these people. This is a decision of the Government of Canada on this issue, a policy that in my view should be reversed.
Those are the two immigration issues. One of the sexual abuse issues rises out of the many conclusions that can be drawn from the Peter Whitmore saga. Peter Whitmore is a chronic convicted sex offender accused of kidnapping two boys, one from Winnipeg and one from Saskatchewan; he was apprehended just last month. Now, there are issues of accessibility of the police registry which is a real problem. There are issues of the triggering or the threshold for the dangerous sex offender legislation or the dangerous sex offender penalty. There is the issue of the age of consent. These are issues that arise out of this case. I will just deal with one issue and that is the availability of a passport to someone like Peter Whitmore.
When he was previously convicted, Peter Whitmore violated a court order and went to Mexico, where, according to media reports, he cultivated relationships with children. He was found with a notepad containing the names and ages of 13 children. He was extradited and brought back to Canada. It is my view that in those circumstances a person like Peter Whitmore should not receive a passport or if he has one, should have it revoked.
There is a problem with a Canadian Passport Order, which should be remedied and amended. Right now, there is only one offence which allows the denial of a passport, the fraudulent use of the certificate of citizenship and that list should be expanded to include repeated sexual offences against children. Similarly, for revocation of passports, there is a very limited set of circumstances when passports can be revoked. That set of circumstances does not include someone like Peter Whitmore who has committed sexual abuse offences in Canada and is likely to do so abroad. There should be the possibility of revocation of passports for someone in that circumstance.
Finally, and this is my second sexual abuse suggestion and the fourth overall, is that Canada needs a national plan of action to prevent the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Canada actually committed to such a plan of action in 1996 and Stockholm signed a declaration for action that included that declaration, but it does not do it and has not done it in the last 10 years.
There was a national plan of action for children in 2004 which has some sexual abuse elements. There is also a strategy to protect children from sexual exploitation on the Internet. I do not see why it should be a problem to have a national plan of action for commercial and sexual exploitation of children and I would encourage this committee to recommend that the government adopt them.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Henteleff, in terms of the whole learning disability spectrum, autism has been getting a great deal of most recent attention, more so than I would suggest fetal alcohol syndrome. It seems to be the hot topic, although there does not seem to be a great deal of distinction about the needs of the child suffering from autism and the needs of the child suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome.
If we make a recommendation should we keep it in very generic terms; in other words, all the children with learning disabilities, or should we identify specific forms of learning disability, fetal alcohol syndrome, autism or whatever might be the case?
Mr. Henteleff: We can deal with cognitive deficits in a general way. However, the case with respect to Aboriginal children is quite different in the sense that they find themselves in an environment that is profoundly worse than the environment of all other children. We are familiar with the reasons, and if we are not, we should make ourselves familiar with the reasons that they find themselves in such a harsh environment. I think that they are a discrete subset, if you wish, of the whole spectrum of disorders that ought to be dealt with quite specifically under the general rubric of Aboriginal children.
Let me come back to autistic children. There is another reason why the interests of autistic children have not been advanced. Governments use the excuse of insufficient resources, but that excuse does not seem to be working too well. Now suddenly we have a new barrier, which is that the courts ought not to interfere with the right to make policy by the legislature. That is the next major excuse.
I will give you an example of children with autism. In Ontario, there is the Wynberg case, and there are a couple of other cases where the parents have sued the government. Unfortunately, the government has successfully argued that is has the right to decide how to allocate its funds.
What is of profound concern to me is the right to equality is a constitutional right. Therefore, my right as a disabled person not to be discriminated against should surpass all other rights, including that of the legislature which, by saying that it has the right to make policy, and that overrides everything, means that it has the right to discriminate. That means the legislature has the right to override my constitutional right to equality. Ontario, Manitoba, and other provinces provided services and government support to children until the age of six. The moment the children entered into the school system, suddenly the provinces thought of many reasons why they could not provide these children with continuing services. The reason to discontinue services and support is the cost of doing so.
With all due respect for politicians, far too often it comes to people with disabilities, they cannot amortize their thoughts beyond the end of their noses. They cannot comprehend nor do not wish to comprehend nor are not prepared to deal with it or it is irrelevant to them, that the long-term investment in special needs children always pays off. We now have another barrier that we are fighting all across the country.
I will give you a very quick example of the gross actions by a provincial government. In the British Columbia Moore case, the province introduced artificial incident figures of children with severe learning disabilities in order to limit the amount of money they have to give to school divisions. The province did this even though it was fully aware that the actual incident was much larger in many places, particularly where there were large populations of Aboriginal children. When faced with cutbacks, they cut the only facility available to children with severe learning disabilities. The only thing they cut back with respect to non-special needs children was band practice opportunities. I was involved as intervener on behalf of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada in that case. That gives you a real example of what is happening across the country.
I have taken advantage of your question to deal with an issue that I had not dealt with earlier. The whole area of cognitive dysfunction and disabilities generally should be more specifically dealt with in the manner that I have suggested. However, what is interesting is that the work done at the federal penitentiary level in terms of Aboriginal persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is more advanced as compared to what you would find at the juvenile justice system. It is ironic that they wait until they get there in large numbers before they finally realize that they must do something.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Matas, I am interested in your position that we should not send our sexual offenders to other countries and that is what we are doing when we grant them a passport. Often, in those other countries, they are subject to much less harsh laws than they would be if they committed those same offences here in Canada.
What kind of Charter difficulties are we going to come up against if we start saying this individual should not get a passport or this individual should not get a passport based on criminal acts for which he or she has served his or her time?
Mr. Matas: We are not necessarily talking about people who have served their time because we do have these orders where sexual offenders are out in the community as part of their time. Even if we limited it to the period when they were serving their time out in the community, that would be a step beyond where we are now because that was the case with Peter Whitmore. He was still serving his time when he went to Mexico. That is why they were able to extradite him because he had violated the terms of his community service in going to Mexico.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides every Canadian with the right to leave the country. It may well be that if we amend the Canadian Passport Order in the way that I suggest somebody would challenge it as a violation of that right. It may well be a violation of that right, but in my view, it is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and, therefore, it would survive a Charter order. I would say it has to be minimal impairment of the right. One cannot go overboard on this but one can think of ways in which the right could be violated in a way that is minimally impairing it and it is reasonable and justifiable. As you point out, we are dealing with an international phenomenon.
Right now, we have made the offence extraterritorial and it used to be just territorial. That is a positive step, but we have to think of other ways besides just criminalization, because we have to think of prevention when it comes to the sexual abuse of children. We cannot just be waiting until the offence is committed until we do something, particularly where we are dealing with repeat offenders where the repetition of the offence is almost predictable. The advantage of the amendment to the passport order that I am proposing is it is not after the fact, it is prevented and it can be recommended for that reason.
Senator Munson: I have to say that as a new member of this committee I am shocked at some of the statistics that you have given us. I am sure that people have read them, Mr. Henteleff, but I do not think the public or politicians are paying that much attention. You talked about the rollbacks. Are these rollbacks all across the country? Is it the provinces that are rolling back all of these social programs?
Mr. Henteleff: There is hardly a province where that has not occurred.
Senator Munson: Why is it happening and why are they getting away with it?
Mr. Henteleff: It is a question which I have agonized over, why is it happening when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I think that many parents of non-special needs children have expressed their concerns more vocally about the amount of money spent on special needs children. Why? They see that what is happening in the school systems is by virtue of the whole process of inclusivity. On the average, the general classroom teacher may have five to seven special needs children in his or her class of 25 to 30, and sometimes 35 may I tell you. Because of that, the amount of time that school teacher has to devote to special needs children takes away, according to other parents, the amount of time that their children are getting from that teacher. The parents perceive today's society as being extraordinarily competitive and the options for their children are more and more limited. These parents bring pressure on the politicians and the school divisions. How are the school divisions compensating? They have cut back the psychologists, the remedial reading teachers and many other specialists. Instead of the specialists, they plunk a teacher's assistant into the classroom who has no training at all in special education. Those people have become babysitters simply caring for these children in the interim in order to give the classroom teacher the opportunity to deal with the needs of all the other children.
Sadly, you have an emerging conflict between parents of non-special needs children and parents of special needs children. Who is going to be listened to? The 15 per cent parents who have children with special needs or the 85 per cent who are going to vote the school trustees back into office, or the provincial politicians and the like? This horrific situation is occurring within the public school system to the continuing detriment of special needs children.
The Chairman: I was in that system in the 1970s. We had built up a system that removed special needs children to facilities in order to provide them with specialized services. That system leads to over-institutionalization; anyone who had some oddity or difference found himself or herself in the custody of the state in one form or another. We realized that we were marginalizing these people, we were institutionalizing them for one problem. We realized that other than that one problem they could function in a community. We released these people and some claim that this release had lead to homelessness. In some cases, the public did not understand that the normal routine institutions had been charged with the care of these people. There had been an implication that there would be resources following when we shut down the institutions but the resources did not follow.
Mr. Henteleff: Indeed your portrayal of the 1970s is correct, but in the 1980s a change occurred, and a move towards a much more flexible arrangement of in and out. You had what is described as a pyramid in dealing with the nature of these children. Yes, there were some who were so severely affected they had to be removed for periods of time, but the overriding objective was to move them back into the general classroom as quickly as possible and that is what happened. Unfortunately, the governments found that providing an alternative range of service kept increasing and suddenly concluded that it was too expensive to continue. Then an instant phenomenon occurred at exactly the same time that gave them the peg upon which to hang their hat for cutting back on services. That phenomenon was inclusivity. Now there is nothing wrong with inclusiveness in the sense that there should be a greater opportunity for special needs children and non-special needs children to be together and learn from each other. However, that does not mean to say that there should be only one means by which to meet the needs of all children. The inclusive classroom is not the place for all children. There have to be variables on that theme. Unfortunately, governments jumped on that bandwagon and moved to the whole idea of inclusivity. What has happened in the meantime? The number of psychologists dropped by 800 per cent, and you rarely find reading clinicians in the system anymore.
The single pill solution, open area classrooms or the like, keeps on emerging all the time, so you are partly right. Indeed there were changes to the system. When the politicians said this is too much money, suddenly all those supplementary services went down the drain. We now find ourselves where we are which is even worse than it was 20 years ago.
Senator Munson: It drives me crazy when people say that the issue falls under provincial jurisdiction.
On the issue of autism, I had an inquiry in the Senate and it is now going off to another special committee. Part of my proposal is to have a national strategy that would be directed towards autism programs in each province. I think it is a shame that families are leaving Ontario and the Maritimes and moving to Alberta so they can get better treatment for their autistic children. From my perspective, there should not be any borders on this treatment, and I would like to get your opinion. I mean we are all Canadians.
On the other issue, with Aboriginal youth and fetal alcohol syndrome, to me it is an attitude of out of sight, out of mind. It is almost like AIDS in Africa in that it is happening far away. Why should we pay attention to it? These two issues trouble me.
Mr. Henteleff: When you look at the reports that I referred to earlier, and copies can be made available to you, the report of the Northwest Territories, the general conditions as it relates to people with disabilities, both physical and mental in the North are appalling. I do not even talk about the raging epidemic of diabetes, which has occurred amongst these individuals. You cannot have any idea until you read these reports how appalling the general conditions are for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Let me give you some very brief statistics. Of the 15 per cent of Canadian children with disabilities, 8 per cent to 9 per cent are children with learning disabilities. The rest consists of the whole spectrum of behavioural difficulties, which includes autism, Asperger's, Tourette's and so on. It would be unfair to single out one group of children as compared to all others. It is like recognizing the nature and extent of their difficulties.
You are perfectly right. There has to be, as Mr. Matas mentioned, a national strategy to deal with these issues. There is not a comprehensive plan in Canada to deal with the rights of children with disabilities and as a result, we have a group of perpetual have-nots. Studies have demonstrated that 99.9 per cent of children with disabilities can lead active and positive lives and contribute to society. They can become self-fulfilled members of society, and I am going to refer to the covenant and remind you of what it says and why it is so important that it become part of domestic law.
On average, these individuals contribute over $50,000 per year during their working lifetime, for example, to the paying of income tax. By comparison, imagine the cost of not doing otherwise. Imagine the consequences of these children to their families and family breakups amongst children with disabilities. It is just appalling. I consult with these people daily in my position as the honorary solicitor for the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. Now, draw the comparison of the cost of the children who come in conflict with the law and who do not live fulfilled lives. The cost, on average, is anywhere from $2 million to $3 million for every child that does not get the needed services.
I just want to remind you that article 23.3 ensures the dignity in promoting self-reliance and facilitating the child's active participation in the community. These items emphasize the fullest possible social integration and individual development including the child's cultural and spiritual development.
In article 29.1(a), ``the education of the child shall be directed to the development of the child's personality, talents, mental and physical ability to their fullest potential.'' In two articles, the guarantee of fullest potential is emphasized. You will not find that guaranteed anywhere in Canada. They may say so in various public schools acts but then there is always that qualification, that diminution of the rights of this group of people. That is discrimination.
The Chairman: I just want to ask Mr. Matas one question on the issue of a plan of action that sounds eminently sensible. We did not really get a plan of action that triggered provinces and the federal government until there was an uproar from the community. How do we recommend a plan of action that would incorporate the Stockholm declaration and would involve provinces and the federal government in a meaningful way? How realistic is it to recommend that when there does not seem to be that impetus from the community?
Mr. Matas: I think it is unfair to say that there is not an impetus from the community. I mean you certainly heard it from me, and I am not the only one who said it. In fact, because of my involvement with the children's rights groups, I had some contact with different communities. When these people knew I would be appearing here today, they asked me to bring to your attention this one important issue.
The problem with the national plan of action is that it is not a crisis-focused issue surrounding a particular incident. That type of incident always gets a headline.
In response to Peter Whitmore, when you say national plan of action, it does not necessarily grab public attention the way the public registry does or something much more specific.
Planning in an uproar suggests a crisis or an emotional reaction, whereas planning is a cool and intellectual reaction. There is a bit of a mismatch between the two. I think it certainly would help if the Senate recommended it. The Senate might be able to do more than that to facilitate it. The Senate might start thinking about the elements of the national plan, what it might consist of and who the parties might be and the process by which it might be engaged. This is where I think a little pushing might help.
Senator Carstairs: You are aware that I was in the provincial legislature during the 1980s when much of this was discussed. What seemed to me to be happening was that we were moving children from the social service budget into what became the education budget. The education budget was reducing because the health care budget was getting so large. There was struggle between the two. You are quite right that parents of children who were not special needs were saying that their children were getting less of the percentage than they had been getting before. They put the fault on the special needs children.
Is there any value in changing the designation? Should these resources come from something other than the education budget, if only for a perceptual problem in terms of the parents?
Mr. Henteleff: You make a very good point and that is why the coming together of the province, the territories, and the federal government on this issue is critical. There has to be realignment where we dispense with the narrow self- serving political postures. We cannot afford those postures anymore. I mean it is trite but we cannot afford to lose these children. We cannot lose these children and not only because of what they can contribute to our society, but also because of the enormous cost of supporting them when they cannot support themselves.
Yes, you are perfectly right, we have to come together on this issue. We came together for a national health plan, why can we not get together for a national education plan. One would think that the education of our young people in all that it means is ranked equally in terms of our physical health. In fact, I would think that issue would be more important. I think the realignment of how resources ought to be allocated, used and re-designated should be part of a national plan.
The Chairman: Mr. Matas, I received a number of papers about children who were internationally adopted and brought to Canada. These children displayed difficulties and were given up by the parents and the children found their way into the social services system at which point they then came into conflict with the law. In one case in British Columbia, the young person lost his Canadian citizenship and was returned back to Mexico.
Do you have any comment on the fact that we present that adoption as equal to natural birth and yet we are stripping Canadian citizenship of these young people when they come in conflict of the law and returning them to their countries of origin? In such cases, the parental responsibility is not taken into account when they brought them here first. The country's does not meet its responsibility to treat these children equally. Is this a growing problem? Is this something we should know about as we are supporting international adoption? Do you have a comment on this negative consequence?
Mr. Matas: Yes. That question raises a number of issues, one of which is the criteria for international adoption. When a child is adopted abroad and then brought to Canada, the Government of Canada treats the adoption as genuine for creating a relationship of parent and child; and if it is, the person comes in; and if it is not, the person does not come in.
My own view is that the best interests of the child as set out in the convention should come first. The immigration system does not look at it that way. Obviously, if there is not a genuine relationship, it would not be in the child's best interest, however, other considerations come into play for the best interest besides genuine relationship and that deserves our consideration.
There are instances when people are deported for criminality. In some cases, it is not just an adoption issue because this can happen with natural born children of parents who have not gotten the citizenship for their children. This can happen to adopted children as well. Sometimes the parents neglect to get permanent residence for themselves and their children but it is not an issue for the parents who have not committed a crime. In other cases, the parents get citizenship for themselves and do not bother to include the children in their own citizenship application and the children do not even know that they do not have citizenship until they commit a crime and the removal proceedings start. This raises a question of both family unity and best interests of the children. The process is not that well geared to deal with them. It is particularly problematic for people convicted of a sentence of two years or more, because under the new law, if you receive a sentence of two years or more, you do not get an appeal to the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. In fact, you are removable without an appeal.
There are two ways that discretion can kick into the system. One is the humanitarian application, which I talked about earlier. In that situation where there is this lack of coordination and people can be removed before the humanitarian application is ever considered and without any consideration as to whether it is worth waiting for the humanitarian application. That is a real problem and it is another way of reinforcing the recommendation I made at the beginning of my presentation. The other place where the discretion comes into play is at the starting procedure, because the report of the violation of the act, which leads to eventual deportation, is a discretionary decision.
There is a huge confusion in the system right now about the scope of that discretion because when the government introduced the new legislation into Parliament, it said that the abolition of the appeal would be replaced by an expanded scope of discretion at this level. That is on the parliamentary record. In fact, that is often not how the system is applied and the courts have been all over the map on this, some saying the law does allow for an expanded scope of discretion, other courts saying the law does not allow for an expanded scope of discretion. Of course for those people who do not get the expanded scope or are not treated fairly and the courts do not give them remedy, they are stuck. This is a lacuna in the system. As well, there has been a lot of litigation trying to import these Charter values, saying that family unity and the best interests of the child falls within our Charter values. Our courts have not accepted it, but it has been accepted as an interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. There has been an attempt to bring that jurisprudence into Canada but the Canadian courts have rejected that jurisprudence. I encourage the committee to look at this issue.
I appreciate that I have answered that question in a technical way. I would be prepared to expand my written submission to deal with this issue in a little bit more orderly way so you would have it in writing.
The Chairman: I think we would very much appreciate that written submission.
Senator Munson: I am struck by your strong words in dealing with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in the North. You say there is an epidemic in the North, you talk about racism, ignorance, and the prevailing attitude that the problem is not worth our attention.
If there is one thing that governments could do now, what is that? If governments do not do something about this with all the statistics that you have, what track are we heading down?
Mr. Henteleff: I wish I could answer that question. One gets totally frustrated when the obvious is not paid attention to. You sit back and you wonder what it is going to take to have people give this issue the attention it deserves. Is it going to take somebody in a reserve, and I hate to even mention this but I have to, to do some harm? So far, they have harmed themselves only. The suicide rate amongst Aboriginal youngsters is horrible. Why? There is no hope. There is no hope. They look into the future and they do not have one. I am not sure what is going to happen unless you continue this profoundly important work, because nobody else is doing it. No one, other than this committee, is coming together and giving this issue the attention it deserves. One has to ask the question why not? Where have all the other governments been? That is a question that is floating in the air.
In addition to my response to your question, I wanted to identify an excellent text to which you might refer. It can be found in The Unity of Public Law by Jutta Brunnée and Stephen J. Toope, and the essay is entitled A Hesitant Embrace: Baker and the Application of International Law by Canadian Courts. The Baker case is referred to in your report. That case asks some important questions that during the course of your deliberations you will have to address. When is international law directly applicable to Canada? To what extent are the legal effects of international law in Canada dependent upon its domestic implementation? What constitutes implementation? Under what circumstances in international law that is binding on Canada have legal effects in Canada? Finally, under what circumstances can any Canadian international norms that are not binding on Canada or not legally binding at all have legal effects in Canada?
Chief Justice McLachlin mentioned that study in her extraordinary speech in New Zealand. If any of you have not had the opportunity to read that speech, I urge you to do so. She uses the words ``judicial conscience'' at page 28 of her paper, and I am going to replace the word ``judicial'' with the word ``legislative.'' Legislative conscience is founded on the legislature's sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law. It is informed not by the legislature's personal views or the legislature's views to what policy is best; it is informed by the law in all its complex majesty as it is manifested in the sources. She then identifies those sources as usage, custom, values, and firm, firm by relevant textual constitutional sources, and principles of international law endorsed by the nation. Frankly, in the pursuit of social justice for people with disabilities, in particular those I have identified, we really should use her words as a very useful signpost.
The Chairman: Mr. Henteleff and Mr. Matas, as usual, you have put a lot on the table and certainly challenged us with our responsibility. I hope our next report will pass a better test of acceptability than our interim report did and we accept your challenge. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Henteleff: I have one unofficial task. Mr. Matas and I are both involved in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Speaking with Gail Asper, and I told her I was going to be here today and she asked that I provide to each of you the wonderful star that says, ``Be a human rights star.'' I could think of nobody better than to provide these to your group.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Senators, our next panel consists of Dr. Joan Durrant of the Department of Family Social Sciences from the University of Manitoba; Billie Schibler, Children's Advocate for the Province of Manitoba; and Dr. Jane Ursel, a representative from RESOLVE - Manitoba.
Joan Durrant, Professor, Department of Family Social Sciences, University of Manitoba: Honourable senators, it is a great privilege to speak with you today. I am going to focus my remarks on corporal punishment, which is one of four issues identified by the UN committee as one in which Canada has not lived up to its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is also an area identified in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights as a primary focus of concern.
Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child called on all state parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse. The UN committee has repeatedly called on all states to prohibit corporal punishment and has consistently criticized Canada's failure to implement law reform that would provide children with full protection. I have provided some excerpts from those reports in case they are useful to you.
Not only has the Canadian Government failed to live up to its obligations with regard to children's rights to protection, in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada laid out those conditions under which children's rights to protection can be violated. The conditions include, if they are between the ages of two and 12, if they are hit with a hand, if they are hit somewhere on the body other than the head, and so on.
From a rights-based perspective, this decision was a major step backward for several reasons. First, it treats children as objects, not as people. It bestows the right to protection on some children but not others based on arbitrary criteria that have no real meaning in children's actual lived experiences. Second, it contradicts the principle of the best interest of the child. We know from decades of research that corporal punishment has never been shown to benefit children. Rather, it has consistently been shown to place children's healthy development at risk. Third, it undermines all efforts to educate Canadians about children's rights. It contravenes the convention and dismisses the UN committee's recommendations setting a very low standard for the implementation of the convention. It undermines all efforts to prevent physical violence against children through the de-legitimation of corporal punishment. Finally, it affirms the beliefs of many Canadians that corporal punishment is justifiable, effective and even necessary. In a study of more than 400 postings through an on-line bulletin board in the days following the release of the decision, it was found that a majority of writers interpreted the decision as a green light to use physical punishment and virtually none indicated knowledge of the limitations placed on its use.
More than 30 years of research has shown that most of what we call physical abuse is physical punishment. The most powerful route to ending the physical abuse of children is to do all that we can to make physical punishment socially unacceptable. The Supreme Court's decision actually entrenched the legitimacy of physical punishment.
The contradictions among the federal, provincial and territorial laws on corporal punishment reflect the fact that these laws are not based on a principled approach to children's rights to protection. In Ontario, for example, a child welfare authority may investigate a report of parental physical abuse of a child, conclude that she is at risk in her family and take her into care. Police may lay a charge of assault in this case but section 43 provides parents with a legal defence. The child's foster parents would be prohibited from using corporal punishment on her but not on their biological children. If they were to adopt her, they would to longer be prohibited from using corporal punishment on her and section 43 would provide a defence if they were to assault her. This absurd situation exemplifies a non-rights- based approach to child protection sending a very confusing message to children and youth about their rights.
In contrast to Canada, an increasing number of other countries are reforming their laws in a way that affirms children's rights to protection. Fifteen countries have not only removed their criminal defences but have explicitly abolished all corporal punishment. In addition, corporal punishment has been abolished in two dependent territories, six countries are committed to full abolition and three countries have struck down their criminal defences but have not yet explicitly abolished corporal punishment.
By maintaining its criminal defence, Canada is rapidly losing its international status as a leader in human rights. I agree with this committee's conclusion that education is a key factor in limiting corporal punishment, but the effectiveness of such education will be severely limited as long as the law contradicts it.
We know that child protection workers have reported that the Supreme Court decision has made it more difficult for them to persuade parents to abandon corporal punishment. We also know that government messages cannot clearly say that corporal punishment is not allowed. They must say that it is not allowed if the child is less than two years of age or over 12 years, and so on. In Sweden, where both law reform and public education were part of a broad and explicit strategy to eliminate corporal punishment, the practice is now extremely rare.
In conclusion, the right to protection is one of the three pillars of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A law that not only excuses but justifies corporal punishment, violates this right in the most profound and symbolic way. As Paolo Pinheiro, the independent expert leading the UN Secretary General study on violence against children has stated, ``To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights.''
It is shameful indeed that children are the last to have their rights to protection recognized. Let it not also be the case that Canada is the last country to recognize those rights.
Jane Ursel, RESOLVE - Manitoba: Madam Chairman and committee members, I thank you for the privilege of appearing before this committee. I think this is an extremely important committee and the potential for making very real change for Canadian children is extremely exciting and I am very pleased to be a part of it.
Having heard the earlier presentations where many of the issues regarding children's welfare are very complex in terms of interjurisdictional issues, international issues, I am pleased to say that my presentation today is relatively simple in terms of what the Canadian government could do to substantially enhance the rights of children.
I am going to be speaking specifically about Bill C-2, but before I do that, I would just like to state my support for Dr. Durrant's presentation. My belief is that section 43 should be eliminated.
My role as a researcher involves my regular attendance at criminal court hearings at the Winnipeg Family Violence Court that hears matters of child abuse, both physical and sexual. I am distressed that section 43 continues to be cited as a defence for abuse against children. As long as that section in the law exists, I think we are providing a defence that is truly unfair and violates the rights of children.
To get to my point, however, which is Bill C-2, I would like to talk about the recent amendments. They have just come into force in January 2006. While there are many extremely positive components to that Bill, one component is extremely disappointing and very easy to rectify, and this is with regard to testimony outside of the courtroom.
Senator Carstairs: Madam Chairman, perhaps Dr. Ursel could define the area of Bill C-2 because we presently have a Bill C-2, which has nothing whatever to do with this topic, because it is a different legislative session.
Ms. Ursel: I am sorry. This deals with a number of amendments of crimes against children, including sexual trafficking.
The Chairman: This is what the government likes to call omnibus bills and that was in the last session?
Ms. Ursel: That is correct. Thank you, Senator Carstairs, for the request for clarification.
I am going to refer specifically to section 486.2, which regards testimony outside the courtroom. The amendment provides that a witness under the age of 18 or who has a disability has the right to testify outside of the courtroom. This is usually with closed circuit television capacity, if the prosecutor applies, and if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the order is necessary to obtain full and candid account from the witness of the act's complaint. If the judge needs to determine whether that accommodation is necessary, he or she can compel or request the child to testify to prove the need for this accommodation.
In other words, conventional testimony, live testimony in a courtroom is the norm and CCTV must be applied for and ruled upon in terms of the court's requirements for full and candid disclosure. This is not in terms of the child's right to accommodation that considers the child's rights to protection from a stressful and traumatic environment. Having sat through many child abuse trials, I can assure you that testifying in court is a very stressful and extremely traumatic experience for children. Frequently they are called upon to testify against their own parents, their own relatives or people within their community. Previously, we had the option for a child to testify outside of the courtroom but it is always dependent upon the application of the Crown. It is disturbing to note that throughout Canada, the Crown seldom applies for this option.
I would like to cite the experience in Australia where they had a very similar piece of legislation. Prosecutors also had that option and they never used it.
In 1989, the Australian Capital Territory undertook an experiment in which a number of children gave testimony through CCTV and a number of other children gave their testimony through the normal live courtroom presence. What they found were two very important factors. First of all, all of the children who chose CCTV found the experience to be much less stressful. They felt that they had greater control over their role in the courtroom and generally found testifying easier.
The other thing they found, interestingly enough, is the court personnel, particularly the justice, was much more likely to take an active interventionist role in testimony provided by CCTV ensuring that the child had breaks when needed, being aware of the stress and tension that the child was under and controlling the nature of cross-examination.
Senator Munson: What is CCTV?
Ms. Ursel: Closed circuit television. In short, the results were very compelling. They found the child made a much better witness. They also observed that there were cases where they could proceed with the trial because in the case of closed circuit testimony, children were willing to testify, whereas, faced with live testimony, they were not. They also found that all of the court personnel were able to adjust quite well to this phenomenon.
In Canada, we have all of the necessary technology to proceed in this manner and we certainly have the ability to install it in all of the courtrooms. Yet, for reasons of custom and familiarity, we have the professionals who have the ability to make this option available to children reluctant to apply for this option. This is standard across Canada. The option is there, it is not being used.
Based on the information from this experiment, in 1992, the State of Western Australia passed a law that simply said all children have the right to testify outside of the courtroom. That is only in conditions where the child specifically requests live testimony or in the rare circumstances where a judge has ruled that it is necessary to have that because of some peculiarity of the case. Since 1992, all children in Western Australia have been giving their testimony through closed circuit television.
The success of that piece of legislation was noted throughout Australia, which faces more complex jurisdictional issues because its criminal law falls to the state, not the federal government. Western Australia has passed this legislation, which Queensland, Victoria and New South Whales have under consideration. It is a superior model and it is one that I would like to recommend to this committee to bring to the attention of our government.
Billie Schibler, Children's Advocate, Province of Manitoba:
[Ms. Schibler spoke in her native Cree language.]
The name given to me by the grandmothers and the grandfathers is White Thunderbird Woman. I am here from the Crane clan. I am here this morning with great honour. I thank you for this privilege. I am better known as Billie Schibler, Children's Advocate for Manitoba.
I read the report, Who's in Charge and would agree there are many areas in which Canada is falling short in its commitment to children and youth. For example, children's mental health, child poverty, Aboriginal children in First Nation communities, education for children with exceptional needs, child refugees from war-torn countries, et cetera. I have also reviewed my experiences over the past one and a half years as Manitoba's Children's Advocate and have identified the area that has been most disheartening, child and youth suicide.
As highlighted in my upcoming annual report since my legislative appointment, I have sat monthly on a committee with Manitoba's chief medical examiner, reviewing an alarming number of child deaths resulting from suicide. The children ranged from as young as eight years to 17 years. With as many females as males, there appears no common determinant. The methods of suicide differed, although hanging seemed more prevalent. Aboriginal children are highly represented yet the high number of non-Aboriginal youth is equally concerning.
As a committee of professionals from various backgrounds including medicine, law and child welfare, we are sadly bewildered as there does not appear to be a common thread to determine factors or cause. These young people came from various socioeconomic backgrounds representing urban, rural and remote communities. While some came from solid, seemingly functional families, others had tragic histories and at-risk lifestyles. Some were studious high achievers while others struggled in many aspects of their lives. Some had earlier signs of distress or suicidal ideation while others appeared outwardly happy and carefree, showing no warning signs. While some left notes describing their anguish, others left no hint as to what prompted them to take such desperate, drastic actions. The only confirmed fact is that we, Manitobans, are tragically losing our children at their own hands, month after month.
In April of this year, I invited over 40 professionals from the primary disciplines working with children, health, children's mental health, child welfare, education, youth justice, specialized treatment programs as well as Aboriginal elders and various other service providers to discuss the youth suicide prevention strategy. It was clear that almost everyone in attendance had been personally or professionally touched by the tragic suicide of a young person. It was also very clear that despite our serious commitment to children, no one person among us had the answer for a successful strategy to address this pandemic that was taking place, not only in Manitoba but across Canada. What we do know is that something terrible is happening to our children. Our children are in such a state of despair that many are unable to see a glimmer of hope for their future. How have so many of these young spirits become extinguished. How is it that they are feeling such overwhelming pain in living that they feel the only answer is to exit this world?
What was shocking was that a high number of these children were no longer attached to the formal education system. What was even more shocking was these children have been successful in their plea to end their pain. There are so many more that the public and the media do not hear about. They are those who are presently in mental health facilities or are being serviced by the child welfare system due to their unsuccessful suicide attempts.
We were able to conclude from our strategy gathering that the answers must come from the children themselves. They must tell us what they need and what they want from us and we must listen.
This summer, some focused groups were held with children and youth to hear how they experience violence and to what degree. What we heard is that they live in a world of violence and fear. Violence is everywhere, in the media, their music, in movies, on television, in video games, globally, in their cities and communities, in their schools and in their homes. They say there are drugs of every kind everywhere. Even the adults, their parents, are using drugs. They say their parents are losing their sense of responsibility and their ability to nurture. They say that parents are no longer taking care of their children, but neither is society. They feel no safety. They feel no security for their future.
In conclusion, when we talk about their rights as pronounced at the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the rights that they are most concerned with is in article 6,
1. State parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. State parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
In Manitoba, when we speak of ``Spirited Energy,'' we should recognize that as our children. In Canada, we as a country are very clearly failing to protect our most vulnerable, failing to preserve our most precious and presumably cherished resource, our children. We are an advanced country. We have natural resources and we have brilliant leaders, but unless we can find success in ensuring a brighter future for our children, unless we can provide them with hope, unless we can start listening and hear what they are saying, we as a province are lost, we as a country have no future.
Senator Munson: Canada is usually a sensible country but on this issue of corporal punishment, I cannot believe I am hearing this testimony today. You have heard the recommendations of course from this committee. As a committee, all we can do is strongly recommend. Can you suggest any actions that can be taking place that the governments can do to get rid of this archaic piece of legislation?
Ms. Durrant: I think it is really quite ironic and rather frustrating. This issue should be so simple. Ms. Schibler and Dr. Ursel are talking about complex multi-layered issues. This one is so simple. There are really two things that need to be done and the sooner the better. One is to strike down section 43 and the second is to put serious resources into public education around corporal punishment specifically, but parent education more broadly.
I think another thing that Canada is really missing is a universal parent support and education program. Parents now have to access support and education either by being identified as at risk which misses many parents. I mean I myself would not be targeted as being at risk but I can certainly say as a parent, I can use support too. I do not think there is a parent who has not struggled with these issues. We need to recognize that all parents need support; all parents need information. We need to make that information easily accessible and free, and simply eliminate section 43, which gives a message that completely contradicts all of the efforts that everyone is putting in to prevention of violence against children.
I see that as a relatively simple recipe. Putting it into practice may be more difficult although I think that the repeal of section 43 is thought of as much more difficult and complex than it actually is.
In countries where the criminal defence has been struck down and corporal punishment has been abolished, the aftermath of that has been nil. Right now in New Zealand, they are debating it. Ten or 12 years ago, New Zealand took teachers out of that section and now no one thinks twice about it. They cannot imagine that they ever gave teachers protection in the event of an assault against a child. That is where countries move to very quickly. Once an action is declared unacceptable in law, it is unacceptable and attitudes shift very quickly.
Senator Munson: You did not mention the countries other than Sweden, Finland, Norway, Austria, Cypress, Denmark, Croatia, Latvia, Germany, Afghanistan, Greece, and Netherlands.
Ms. Durrant: Yes.
Senator Munson: Where are we? I am flabbergasted. In Manitoba, I guess corporal punishment is not explicitly prohibited, is it, by law?
Ms. Durrant: Even in the schools, it is not prohibited in the Education Act yet. Alberta, Ontario and Manitoba have not prohibited corporal punishment in their education acts. In terms of foster care, it varies from one province to another. However, in terms of the home, section 43 is the law that regulates or defines whether that action is acceptable. It is acceptable, justified, in the homes across all of Canada.
Senator Munson: You talked of education, what are the alternative forms of discipline? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Durrant: Yes. There are many resources available. I think my approach is not one of providing a parenting recipe book but rather through shifting attitudes around corporal punishment, altering the way we see parenting less as a power and punitive relationship than a teaching and guiding relationship. I think that we need to do a lot around building parent-child relationships as opposed to replacing one punishment with another.
I am the lead author of a document called The Joint Statement on Physical Punishment on Children and Youth which has been endorsed by more than 220 professional organizations and a number of prominent individuals in relevant fields in Canada. That document provides an extensive list of resources for parents and professionals who are looking for other ways of thinking about parent-child conflict that leads them away from hitting and toward responses that are more constructive. There are many things that parents can do but they fall under the umbrella of thinking of parenting as teaching as opposed to punishing.
Senator Munson: Can there be any more challenges to section 43? Are there any active groups ready to challenge this again? Can you do this again?
Ms. Durrant: Yes. I think we have exhausted the judicial route, but there are private members bills that can still be brought forward. In fact, there is Senator Hervieux-Payette's bill to repeal section 43. Senator Carstairs has had a bill in the past that address the education aspect as well. This is the second round for Senator Hervieux-Payette's bill. It died on the Order Paper with the election. It is just going to have to keep coming back and coming back.
I think that we have to really address the fear that underlies the idea of repeal. I think that fear is really the one that we see in relation to children's rights in general. We have to overcome this fear that if we respect children's rights, we will lose our power and authority. I think that is something that this committee probably struggles with in terms of educating Canadians about children's rights. I think that if we could address what it is that is standing in the way of such an obvious matter, identify the obstacles and address them head on, I think that, you know, we really could do this.
Senator Munson: I was aware of Senator Carstair's work and the work of Senator Hervieux-Payette. I think I am sometimes an accidental politician and when it comes to private member's bill, I will understand the process as we go along; however, you rarely get to home plate. We have to do more.
Ms. Durrant: More than 220 professional organizations have endorsed the notion of appeal and that includes the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the College of Family Physicians, the College of Adolescent Psychiatrists, and the Canadian Nursing Association. There is broad consensus on this issue. I think if we can mobilize that support and inform Canadians about that support, it can also be very powerful in shifting attitudes and allaying fears.
Senator Lovelace-Nicholas: Ms. Schibler, I think we all know that the causes of suicide attempts in First Nations communities are related to no funding, no jobs and disparity. Would it help if the Kelowna accord was passed and came into the communities?
Ms. Schibler: That is my recommendation. Many professionals have been meeting with one another, trying desperately to find answers. I have been involved in doing a child death review in this province over the past several months, and it is incredibly disheartening. As we have looked at the histories of some of these children without going into too much detail, we were just I think overwhelmed by the amount of pain in many of these children's lives. As professionals, if we do not have the answers, the only place, as I have indicated, that I feel those answers lie is hearing the young people, going into the communities, meeting with them.
In the communities that I have worked and lived, I have always seen a fair amount of despair, particularly in our remote communities because of the limited resources. However, this is not just about remote communities; this is everywhere. This is a very frightening situation.
As much as all of the other matters around children's rights are critical, unless you are keeping these children alive, they do not mean anything. That is the most important piece, is we need to find a way in this country to keep our young people alive.
Senator Lovelace-Nicholas: What could we do as a committee to help the situation?
Ms. Schibler: Meet with individuals, hear from young people and hear what they need. Find out from them what is important for them in their life, what it is that they need in order for them to see a future for themselves in this country.
The Chairman: You pointed out the fact that there is violence everywhere in the lives of the children and a lot of it is coming on Internet and television, et cetera. All of us struggle with this issue. How can a country like Canada protect issues on the Internet when they are global? Have you given any thought to that?
I was interested that you said that violence and consequent suicide is not just in the Aboriginal communities. It is not just boys, it is girls, it is urban and it is all class structures and compositions in our society. Do you have statistics on that because we have heard certain statistics on Aboriginal youth in certain areas, but I think your comments are the first comprehensive comments that we have heard. It would be helpful if we could get an idea of the breakdown. Do you have a report on this subject?
Ms. Schibler: We have a report that we are preparing for the government on the child death review. That is more specific to the ones that we are receiving or entitled to receive, child welfare services. The information that you would probably find more helpful would come from the chief medical examiners.
What I have is statistics around what has happened with youth suicide in Manitoba over the last five years. In 2000, were there were 18 youth suicides; 2001, 13; 2002, 14; 2003, 12; 2004, 18; and in 2005, 25. Now those numbers might not seem alarming to some people but I think any amount of suicides in a province is alarming. When you see 25 in the year of 2005, it becomes increasingly concerning. As I indicated in that year, the youngest suicide victim was eight years of age.
The other information that you are looking for, I can certainly have forwarded to you. But again, that is more in respect to our province, in Manitoba.
The Chairman: I think that is helpful, though, Manitoba. We have heard it is males, we have heard that it is Aboriginal. You are saying it is more pervasive than that and it would be helpful to get that information and to see where the differences are, et cetera.
Senator Carstairs: Dr. Ursel, I think you have made a very simple presentation. It is one that if we cannot do any other way, maybe we can do it by private members bill in order to provide closed circuit television for all children when they are testifying in court.
Dr. Durrant, I am very disturbed at your comments about the Supreme Court decision because I must say that my initial reaction was quite different from your own and I am now going to have to read your submitted information. I suppose to some degree, I came at it as a teacher and the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the teacher and that gave me great satisfaction because the Manitoba Teachers' Society, to which I belonged to for so many years, has always advocated the removal of section 43. The Canadian Teachers Society intervened in this case because they insisted they needed to have corporal punishment. When they were struck down, in essence, that gave me great hope.
You are indicating that in fact it has backfired to some degree. That it has in fact given the advocates of corporal punishment some room to maneuver. I hoped that the Supreme Court decision would in fact result in saying that, well, the courts could not judge it based on a Charter case because children unfortunately in Canada do not have Charter protection, therefore, they are going to try to do everything that they could to move the politicians along to change this. I have to express my horror that it seems to have backfired in that way.
Obviously I am supporting Senator Hervieux-Payette's bill, which is in essence a somewhat mirror image of my own two bills which I introduced previously.
My concern is with parenting skills. I would like to hear from all of you on this. We have prenatal classes. Lots of women getting ready for a birth of a child go and take what are very good prenatal classes almost across the country. Many of their husbands join with them in these classes. That is where it ends. We then take the newborn child who, in many cases, certainly in this province and many other provinces, is sent home the day of the birth, but we have done nothing with respect to helping young people, some not so young, deal with the new stresses in their lives. Yes, it is wonderful to have a newborn baby but they are stressful. We all know that as mothers and fathers. They are great joys in our lives but they are also difficult.
I would like to hear from all three panelists about what you think we can do, not only in recommendations but what we can do as a society to provide parents with the kinds of skills that will perhaps prevent their young persons from even contemplating, let alone acting out, a suicide, either an attempt or successful conclusion. How can we help them deal with some of the violence issues out there, everything from bullying, which I have watched impact significantly on children, to the violence on the Internet? What can parents do to help in that removal of those kinds of dangers for their children?
Ms. Schibler: That is another matter that I also speak about in my annual report. It is an area of concern because one of the matters that I raise is people's feelings around the child welfare system and around seeing that as an adversarial intervention rather than one that can be a supportive prevention. Many issues have been raised here this morning.
One of my concerns of course is you cannot take back what your children already know. I wish that we had censorship of some nature and protection from the adult world for our children. What the children know nowadays is beyond my knowledge and it is frightening. I think the worst that we used to see when I was a child was people smoking a cigarette or having a drink on the television show, and now what the children are exposed to is something very ugly. It is not a nice world, it is not a healthy world for them, and how do you take back what has already happened? How do you protect them from that awareness that they already have?
They lost their childhood, and we as adults have stood back and we watched it happen. We have allowed it to happen. How do we turn that back now? I do not know. The only thing I can think of is that we need to make sure that we are helping parents know and understand how important that nurturing is, that it is not just about making sure that your babies are fed on time, that nurturing is lifelong. We need to let them know that there are places for them to go to get help and to get support that they need without them being labelled inadequate as a parent. Every parent needs help.
Ms. Ursel: The reason that prenatal classes have universal appeal is that all expectant parents see it as a pleasure and an interesting class to attend because they are free, non-judgmental and practical. I think the problem with the way parenting classes are delivered in our society today is the only way they are delivered free is if they are implicitly judgmental. They are delivered free to individual parents judged to be at risk. I think the whole philosophy around parenting education needs to fundamentally change so that it can have the same cache in our society as prenatal classes which are exciting, interesting events that people look forward to going to, not punitive and judgmental imposed on you when you are judged to be at risk.
Ms. Durrant: I could not have said it better. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I think that we make a very big mistake by making the assumption that every parent can do it, that it is natural and you just know what to do. If you do not know what to do, there is something wrong with you so we will give you this program.
As someone with a Ph.D. in child development, I know I need help. The vast majority of us do. There is no such thing as a parent not at risk. Every parent is at risk for making mistakes, for hitting his or her children, for acting in ways that are not constructive.
To provide universal parent support, I emphasize the word support over education because education implies we have the right answer and I will tell what you it is. Support is acknowledging the stresses involved in parenting and providing what that parent needs at that time.
It is difficult for parents to access parent support and education if they do not have child care. All of these policies go together. We need to move parenting up the political agenda to give it a priority and to recognize that many policies are interrelated. Parents need to have time off from work to attend parent support and education workshops. We need labour market policies that support parents.
I spent a lot of time in Sweden studying family policies in particular in relation to parenting. They provide baby cafes in the municipalities. The parents can just drop in anytime, have a cup of coffee with other parents and their children are watched and supervised and they are all equipped with other children so the parents can talk. One of the important components of parent support is recognizing that we need to decrease social isolation among parents, especially new parents, and normalize the challenges of child rearing. Hearing that all babies cry and all babies need to be fed every three hours would do tremendous things to reduce the incidents of shaking of babies. Just hearing that from other parents can be very powerful.
They do other non-tangible things. I was just reading in the Free Press the other day that there is this argument going on among Winnipegers about the role of strollers on buses and some people see them as blight on public transit. Parents are saying they need to be able to get around.
In Sweden, seats are removed from buses and straps attached to the sides of the buses that are reserved for strollers and the seats are reserved for the parents so that they are out of the way. The bus comes down so the stroller can roll on. The parents do not pay because they get on the back door. They do not worry about getting up to the front. Things like that, making museums and other activities free for children so that parents with large families can afford to get out. Those kinds of things I think are critical to the fundamental parent-child relationship and that is attachment.
Rebuilding attachments between parents and children after generations of having those attachments destroyed is extremely important. We are not necessarily talking about giving parents a recipe for punishment or, you know, you do ``A'' and ``B'' will happen. We are talking about building relationships from the very beginning and not sending parents home from the hospital when the baby is a couple of hours old. We need to provide support while the mother is dealing with the depression that can often accompany a new birth rather than leaving that mother and child alone. We must recognize the stress and physiological changes that take place at that time and provide support to the mother.
The Chairman: I want to pick up on your comments about Sweden. This committee traveled to Sweden and it has not implemented the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Ms. Durrant: In law.
The Chairman: In law. Certainly when we questioned a number of people in Sweden who hold representative positions, they did not look at the ability to implement as important. They said it is a long-term goal. More particularly, in my opinion, it was still a paternalistic look at children, what is good for them, but through the eyes of adults and less speaking to the rights of the child. You seem to be advocating that the Swedish model is fine. Are you saying that we should not implement the Convention of the Rights of the Child?
Ms. Durrant: Oh, goodness no. I think Norway, which is very similar to Sweden, has implemented it. Sweden has been a world leader in children's rights. Their organizations Save the Children Sweden and Children's Rights in Society are hugely influential organizations in Sweden. Their Parliament in 1999 I believe, unanimously approved the idea of child impact statements. Through the Office of the Children's Ombudsman, they conduct impact statements on any new policy that has the potential to affect children. They do that through talking with children, through researching all the aspects of the policy and the related policies. In the end, the recommendation is in the best interests of the child and that always takes precedence unless it is a matter of national security or an important economic concern or something of that nature. If the interests of the child does not take precedence, it is incumbent on the person proposing the bill to explain why and to build in compensatory measures.
In that way, Sweden is attempting to implement the convention because they found that it was difficult to put it into practice through this idea of child impact statements at the government level. They are developing a process that they are supposed to implement across the board.
The Chairman: Your argument leads me to say then that implementing from the parental or from societal is the correct one, not acknowledging and living by rights of the child.
Ms. Durrant: Oh, no. I am not saying that at all. I think that Sweden for decades has been building a parent and child friendly society. In terms of implementing the convention, I know that is one way that they are attempting to do it. I am not certain of their reasons for not building it into their law. I do not know why they have chosen that particular route because they are an extremely child rights oriented society.
The Chairman: That is why I am saying I am not sure I would agree with you that they are a child-rights society. I think they may be a child friendly society but they have not acknowledged that the children have rights. The way you would do that is by implementing and living by those rights of the convention.
Ms. Durrant: Well, it is an interesting discussion because I think I would disagree with you. Sweden has made quite tangible the child's right to an environment free of violence and the child's right to a safe environment in terms of traffic safety and so on. Every child has the legal right to a day care space for example. The parents have the right to time off work until their youngest child is in school with full job security and so on, and these are universal rights. These rights are developed on a principled approach as opposed to arbitrary criteria.
I think it would be an interesting discussion to think about how we define a rights-oriented society and I would like to know more about why the people you spoke with are suggesting that they might not want to implement it in law.
The Chairman: I do not think they are saying they are not going to implement. They see it as a longer-term goal than the proposition that if we sign a convention, we should implement it, live by our words, which would mean that it would not be adults who would determine the rights of the children. The convention speaks to the rights of the children and these are therefore rights the children have, not parents, not society, but the children. By doing that, the international commission, certainly the human rights commission does not make the distinction on rights between adults and children.
Ms. Schibler, one of the concerns that I had in my previous life in family court was the number of Aboriginal families coming before the court. Unfortunately, many of our policies and practices were geared to parents and we did not take into account any of the Aboriginal cultural differences.
People have expressed to me that if we took away section 43 without doing some homework before, that we would probably find before the courts and then the criminal courts more of the disadvantage because they have the least capability to have afforded themselves all of the privileges of our policies and practices. That would marginalize them even further. For example, if you had been taught the way to discipline is a slap on the hand, you are likely to become frustrated and use that more quickly. If you are already visible before the Social Services Department, you are going to be picked up for one more reason, as one parent said to me. How do you feel about that?
Ms. Schibler: I feel that Canada has to model the value of children and that model would go across all nations of people. We have seen the breakdown in families and in communities and I believe not just with our Aboriginal families. It is interesting because I have had this conversation with my children when we have talked about what it was like back in the day. We have spoken about the sadness, as we became more of a richer country insofar as possessions in families, our standards of living increased but our family values and value of family decreased.
I believe that in our Aboriginal societies, you probably have heard this as you have travelled, you know, so much of our traditional ways was a different way of child rearing, was a different way of teaching and how it was a shared responsibility. Because it was a shared responsibility, there was a value to every generation of people within a family. You saw everyone taking their role and their responsibility in raising children and the children were very valued as were the older people, the elders.
Families were together in large families. You did not stop at 2.5 children; you saw the value in every one of your family members. Your riches, your wealth as a family was measured in your children. We have come away from that value. I do not think that is exclusive to Aboriginal people. I think there was a different type of family value back then or valued families. I think Canada has a responsibility to try and bring that back to understand how important children are in this world. When the government is modeling that, then I think people will start to practise that as well. I do not know if that answers your question.
The Chairman: I think it answers it in a different way and I thank your response. If we started to value children as human beings, which is the message of the Convention of the Rights of the Child beyond its specific articles, that would force governments to look at them. In our previous report, we indicated that they are not noticed because they do not vote. How do we get them to be noticed and to be valued and to be equal perhaps is to render them in a position of having rights which is what the convention did; otherwise, we get caught everyone talking but in their best interests. The voice of the children is not heard, which I think is your message.
Ms. Schibler: Absolutely.
Senator Carstairs: I think what we found noticeable on our trip to Sweden was not all the good things they did. They clearly did a number of very positive child-focused, child-directed things, but it was in contrast to Scotland where there was quite a different attitude. There was much more engagement of the children in developing policies and developing strategies. The children hired the Children's Commissioner for Scotland and the commissioner said that she had a harder time in the interview with the children than with the adults. Two groups of children performed the interviews, one under the age of 10, the other over the age of 10 years. This process empowered the children. Not that we dismissed anything that was happening in Sweden because it was clearly a child and family focused society.
My concern is that our whole society has become a very busy society. As a parent, I loved snow days because those were the days when dad had to stay home, mom had to stay home, nobody could go anywhere because the snow was falling so fast and you had to play together. You had to engage one another together. We now have all encompassed hugely busy lives. Children are busy people. It is not just school, it is homework, and it is after-school activities for some and unfortunately not for others. My husband used to say they do not have time to count their toes. It is true. How do we create a community that values family time? I do not think we value a lot of family time anymore.
Ms. Schibler: Yes, I agree. As a matter of fact, it was an interesting conversation that I have had recently as well when I overheard parents saying oh thank God, September is here and the kids are going back to school. I thought; I am sad when my kids go back to school. I do not know, maybe I am a different kind of parent and maybe I need my children more than they need me, I am not sure. I know that when we have to get back into the scheduling and the busy days, it is a different tone, it is a different tone in our family and in our lives.
It would be wonderful to keep our children out of volatile environments. It would be wonderful to keep them away from at-risk activities and have them have healthy activities. We have found that this advantage should not be solely for those that can afford to pay for it.
It occurred to me that what we should be really promoting how to engage families? What can you offer families to come together as recreation activities for every socioeconomic background where you are promoting them enjoying each other, doing family activities together rather than sending your children off to activities? I really think we need to start directing it towards family-focused activities and recreation.
The Chairman: I would like to thank all three of our panelists for challenging us, for giving us information and for caring about children.
Susan Prentice, Advocate, Child Care Coalition of Manitoba: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you and I appreciate the generosity that allowed me to sneak on to your full agenda at the last minute.
I will make a case today that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides clear and compelling direction to Canada and that is that under this binding international agreement, Canada is committed, although it is not yet doing it, to ensuring early education and learning for all children.
Article 18 speaks to the primacy of parents' roles in their children's lives and the obligation of governments to support them. Article 18.2 reads that, ``States parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in their child rearing responsibilities.'' Article 18.3 is quite specific, ``States parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities.
Canada is very far from this goal as nationwide, there is licensed child care space for just 15.5 per cent of Canada's children under the age of 12. There are not enough services even for the children of working parents let alone for all children. Where licensed services are available, they are expensive and fee subsidies are restrictive. Parents often pay over $7,000 a year per child or more for regulated spaces. In most provinces, family incomes must be well below poverty lines for eligibility for subsidies, and sadly, the quality of regulated care is more often mediocre than developmental.
Let me just highlight access. Across the country, access to regulated care varies wildly. In neighboring Saskatchewan, for example, there is a child care space for just under 5 per cent of Saskatchewan's children. Travel east to Quebec and almost one in three children has access to a space. Even within provinces, services are very unevenly developed. Across all the provinces and territories, infants, school-aged children and children with special needs are underserved. The Canadian Coalition on Children's Rights has pointed out this not only violates article 18 but also article 2, which specifies freedom from discrimination. It also violates article 23, which specifically addresses the rights of children with disabilities. As the coalition notes, ``Canada's current child care system is discriminating against some children based on location and/or socioeconomic status''
Early childhood care and education means much more than just daycare. It encompasses maternity and parental leaves, work-family reconciliation policies, prenatal supports and care, the treatment of children in systems of taxation, and more. It would link to primary education, particularly kindergarten; yet, Canada very rarely thinks about this more expansive and generous vision of care. We have a hard time even providing just the limited narrow notion of daycare itself.
Today, the majority of Canadian children are in some form of non-parental child care. This is a contemporary reality and there will not be a turning back from this. The question for your committee might be how will we assure that this is the best for children and their parents?
The most recent evidence from Statistics Canada tells us that over 53 per cent of children from the age of six months are in care by someone other than their parents. Most of these children though are not receiving high quality, developmental, regulated care. I want to underscore that good child care is good for children. As an eminent research scientist of the National Academy in the United States said, ``The positive relation between child care quality and virtually every facet of children's development that has been studied is one of the most consistent findings in developmental science. High quality care is associated with outcomes that that all parents want to see in their children ranging from cooperation with adults to the ability to initiate to sustain positive exchanges with peers, to early competence in math and reading.'' ``High quality daycare centres increase children's linguistic, cognitive and social competencies and it has particularly long-lasting benefits for children from low-income families.''
Your committee is particularly interested in obstacles facing children and vulnerable children. I would like to turn to that topic.
High quality child care is especially important for children who are disadvantaged by family poverty. Good quality services provided by trained, sensitive staff can buffer some of the long-term negative effects of growing up in poverty. It can reduce poverty by permitting the greater participation of mothers in the workforce, simultaneously promoting more equality of opportunity for children. Given this close relationship, you might expect that where child poverty rates are high, poor children might have ready access to regulated early learning and care in Canada. The opposite is perversely true. Poor children have less access to child care than do more affluent children. The evidence suggests that when they do access child care they are over-represented in lower quality care arrangements. I can cite you some of the evidence from recent studies in Quebec, Winnipeg and Vancouver if you would like the statistical evidence for this pattern, which is very compelling. I will make a claim that part of the reason for this is a failure on the part of Canada to think about what the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child gives to states parties, national governments, to meet these obligations. In Canada, the private sector delivers child care. Now admittedly, most of this is non-profit voluntary sector which provides about 80 per cent of Canada's spaces. The remainder is provided by the for-profit sector. The reliance on the private sector to implement public policy I will argue is a failure of Canada's early childhood care and education policy. It results in a reliance on a private sector in places where it is not well developed; affluent communities find themselves at an advantage and poorer communities find themselves at a disadvantage. Particularly in Canada's lower income neighbourhoods, there are fewer child care programs and they are of lower quality.
All of this in fact is set to worsen on April 1, 2007. While national progress on early learning and child care has been frustratingly slow, the bilateral agreements that were signed between the federal, provincial and territorial governments over 2005 marked a very important, if imperfect, advance. They would provide dedicated funds to provinces for regulated services, which, over time, will have improved access and raised quality for all children and vulnerable children in particular. Here in Manitoba, we were anticipating next year $42 million up from this year's $24 million. Those funds will not appear.
In seven months, the small incremental movement that has been made that would be contributing to our convention commitments will be rolled back. This is a matter that I hope is of direct and urgent importance to your committee.
The United Nations has called on governments to make children, the youngest most especially, the priority at all policy tables. The UN calls upon all governments to ensure that this has the necessary financial and political support. Canada, I would respectfully submit, has miles to go before our early learning and care systems meet our UN commitments.
The Chairman: Are you saying that you think that Canada is falling down as a state's party to the convention? I am not sure of the statistics but I certainly agree that we have a heavy reliance on non-profit voluntary sector. Are you advocating that government provide universal daycare? I am confused. If so, how do you rebut the argument on the strength of the non-profit sector? Many of these non-profit centres are parent-controlled and I understood that to be a good situation that respects the parents' need to be the primary source of influence with their children. I am not sure what model you are advocating and how you rebut those arguments?
Ms. Prentice: You have astutely observed an important point in my argument. It is certainly true that about 80 per cent of Canada's child care spaces are non-profit. Our research evidence tells us that the pattern is non-profit. Child care produces higher quality service than for-profit services, largely because of a greater reliance on trained staff, better wages, less turnover, more money on programming, less money taken out of the program. There is no question that as a policy direction, non-profit child care is higher quality and better for children than for-profit care.
It is not, however, as high quality as directly government-operated services which we have in Canada mainly in Quebec and in Ontario's municipalities. The national studies of quality that have been done tell us that the finest care for children is in directly operated programs. I do not intend to make child care a compulsory service in which all parents must register their children. I would very much want to see child care a voluntary service. I don't want to see truant officers for child care centres. Parents need to arrange full-time, part-time, occasional, part-year, services that work to their needs. However, I think that the fundamental reliance on the voluntary sector as the motor for providing services is failing Canada.
My children are in a non-profit daycare centre here in Winnipeg, age eight and age 10, but it exists because parents got together and started it up. It is a fairly affluent neighbourhood and the parents have the skills and the resources to do this. In the inner city in Winnipeg, we are still waiting for parents to get it together to organize themselves to start up services because if they do not do it for themselves, no services will be started. My argument is that this reliance on spontaneous eruption is failing more vulnerable children. In those communities, this reliance on spontaneous eruption is not bearing fruit. There are not services in those neighbourhoods.
The Chairman: How many daycare spaces were created in Manitoba, would you know, because of the 2005 bilateral agreement?
Ms. Prentice: We do not have account on spaces in Manitoba. What I can tell you is that the bilateral funds have made a number of quality improvements. Direct funding has been provided to programs that did not have funding. Wages have gone up. Capital funds have been available for the first time in years to make improvements, particularly for access for children with disabilities.
Manitoba does not keep account of spaces in that direct way so we cannot tie it directly to spaces. I can say that the community is dismayed as what might happen come April 1 when the funds are presumably gone.
The Chairman: You say that you cannot provide the statistics on the spaces. Can you provide the other statistics that you noted?
Ms. Prentice: I can, and I will be pleased to send those in to your committee.
Senator Carstairs: I want to take us a few years beyond the child care because I do not disagree with anything that you had to say. What I am discovering, unfortunately, with my own daughter who teaches in a school in Toronto, is that the school system is also beginning to suffer the same pressures that the child care system is suffering. Those in affluent areas, the parents are raising all kinds of money, and that means better computers, that means more services, that means money for the drama production, that means money for the band. In schools where she teaches that potential is not there. The vast majority of money comes from the province and the school division, but the other great chunk of money that comes from the neighbourhood takes care of the extras within the curriculum. This situation does nothing more than perpetuate ``those that have, get.'' Have you seen any evidence of that ``creep'' here in Manitoba?
Ms. Prentice: Yes. About 3 per cent of the funding in the child care system in Manitoba comes from parent fund raising. It is not hard to see where parents have more access to funds.
I am aware that in inner city child care centres, parents have to bring their own diapers, for example, because the program cannot afford diapers for infants. People have to bring sun screen. I know that children who cannot afford extra money for field trips cannot go on them.
Manitoba is a fairly good province on this issue. We have a very innovative flat fee structure. We do not have boutique daycare in more affluent, well, not extremely boutique daycare in different parts of Manitoba. It is quite unlike Toronto where fees can vary enormously. You get cut-rate daycare at one end of the block and boutique daycare up the other end of the street. Canada says child care is something that you want to use, you have to pay for it. If you pay a lot, you will get good quality and if you can only pay a little, you will get minimal quality. I think this enormously disadvantages our children.
The Chairman: Senator Carstairs had a good question. Obviously you live in this community, you have children. Is the creep occurring in the school system, because you went back to the daycare system and it is the school system here?
Ms. Prentice: Yes, we do. I had just written my obligatory cheque to my school so that the children can go on field trips this year. Yes indeed. I think one of the things that ought to happen, and I hope I see it in my lifetime, is that the child care system and the education system find a kind of a rapprochement. It is a historical artifact that before the age of six, children are a private responsibility only, and after six, they belong to the school system and that these two systems never need to come together.
In very small ways, we are trying to build linkages. Schools are magnificent community resources. In most communities, the libraries, computer labs, gymnasiums and playgrounds sit empty all summer. There is a number of ways the resources of the school system and the child care system can and should be put together. I would want to see some of this creep immediately halted. I think it is pernicious.
Senator Carstairs: Words are important, semantics are important. Should we be ridding our vocabulary of ``daycare'' and speaking only of ``early childhood education?''
Ms. Prentice: I am tormented by this question because the answer of course is both yes and no. Yes, of course we should, partly because the more inclusive language captures the more important role that early childhood care and education plays in children's lives. Most people do not have a clue what you are talking about, right. I do it all and then I say you know, daycare. Oh, and the lights go on. I think there is a real transition that needs to happen. Remember, only one in seven or eight children in Canada has access to child care. The other seven or eight parents do not have access to it, do not know what we are talking about, have not seen the gains in their children's lives and do not have a conception of early learning and care.
Senator Carstairs: That was my dilemma with palliative care. All of a sudden, when I started talking about quality end-of-life care, people understood what I was talking about; palliative care just was a blur.
The Chairman: I wanted to pick up on the fact that you are talking about daycare and early childhood learning, whatever we want to call it, and however broadly, it really has narrowed down to daycare. That is the dilemma. I come from Saskatchewan where it is still very rural. Daycare becomes very difficult in the way the advocates talk about it because we are talking about dropping off and picking them up and need to support a family in a very traditional nine to five kind of thing. Most of the families that come to me say none of that fits because they are in a rural setting. They are saying you are developing models that marginalizes them even more. The poverty within rural Saskatchewan is equally important as the poverty in urban Canada. How should we deal with that situation?
Ms. Prentice: There is no doubt that there is more licensed care in urban centres than there is in rural areas. I am currently conducting a study in rural Manitoba in the Parkland area where we are looking at the economic and social impact of child care. We have done a number of consultations with parents who have very creative ideas. If school boards can figure out how to get five year olds to kindergarten, how come, for example, the bussing cannot be in place to help get children to child care centres? If schools are in place, why can they not function as community lighthouses, sort of the hub model of a school whose resources are available to children year round?
There may be seasonal needs in rural areas that are different from urban needs. It is very clear that farms are work places and children's accidents and deaths are high in rural areas. There is an urgent matter of child safety. The farm setting is one of the few workplaces you can have your child on the shop floor.
There are in fact a number of very creative models. If you are unaware of the work of a group called Rural Voices, I would urge you and your staff to take a look at what they have done. They have piloted some innovative, very high quality rural hubs for child care that work very well in the communities where they have been implemented. The problem is they are resource intensive. If you rely on parent fees as the sole income, it becomes unaffordable. That is the challenge. Should child care be only or primarily funded by the fees of the parents who use it or like education or health care, ought it to be funded through general revenues?
The Chairman: Just an aside, it is interesting you say to attach daycare to schools. One of the dilemmas is the closing schools, the bussing, and the transportation getting farther away. If you have children in every age group, that is a real problem because you are trying to get one child into one community and another child in another community while you are trying to maintain a business that is floundering, the farming business. The stress I think on that family is greater.
While I appreciate ``Rural Voices,'' and you mentioned exactly that phrase, I do not think it is being addressed nationally at all. We are really looking at an urban model and that is one of the dilemmas.
Ms. Prentice: I suspect you are right, that child density makes a difference and rural densities are low. But rural densities are dropping, as you will know. Rural areas are being depopulated. And increasingly farming families find that an all-farm income is necessary for farm survival. That often means rural women are taking up paid jobs. It becomes very difficult when there is no child care service to support them during working hours.
The Chairman: If there are no other questions, we have come to the end of this phase of our hearings. We thank you for coming forward with your perspectives on Manitoba and on the issues that we are studying, and I think we need to be reminded of the disparities of our families and you have certainly done that. Thank you.
The committee adjourned.