[FEAT BC Admin]

In this topic area, discussion is about the fight to secure Government funding for your A.B.A. treatment program. It is also the place to talk about your thoughts and ideas about how to establish new Government programs specifically designed for autism treatment.

This is the place to hear input from parents who have fought for funding and won, as well as those who have fought for funding and would like to share their horror stories. There is a tendency to not share success stories once funding is secured. Please fight that tendency. By sharing our experience, we all become stronger.

 

---

—-By FEAT BC (Freeman) on Saturday, January 3, 1998 – 03:16 pm:

-Hi everyone!

These are some things to think about in your dealings with government to help you to obtain support for your child’s Autism Treatment Program. These are my personal opinions and do not represent those of FEAT of BC or any other organization.

Many of these observations are based on my personal experiences (and I believe it poetic justice to help every parent avoid being systematically abused by their social worker the way I was).

Good luck to everyone! (Let’s all pull back the curtain on the Wizard of OZ).

Sabrina

 

---

How To Fight for Funding for Autism Treatment and Appropriate School Placement

1. Establish a Paper Trail

Always take notes, documenting major points of all conversations with government and school officials.

This includes casual, in person conversations with social workers as well as ALL telephone conversations. All key points of discussion must be written down in your notes including the date and time of the discussion. This includes what was agreed upon, as well as what was not agreed upon.

Then the notes should be used to write a letter recapping the substance and content of the conversation. This letter must then be mailed or faxed to the person with whom you had the conversation. In addition, a copy must be kept in your file (see section on the icci game).

Why?

It is important to formalize the interaction between you and Government officials. In addition, everyone is put on notice that they must closely adhere to their responsibilities, regulations and laws., Furthermore, they must then consider the paper trail you have created. This lets everyone know that the interaction can become public and that any abuses of power and authority can be formally appealed and/or publicized.

In other words, they canit use discretion unfairly under the cloak of secrecy.

2. Submit all Requests in Writing

All your requests for your child must be submitted formally in writing with a copy included in your file and a copy, if necessary, sent to their immediate superiors.

3. Set Deadlines for Action

All formal requests for action must have a reasonable deadline set for that action. If no action or response is received by the deadline you have set (two weeks for example), then you will interpret the lack of response as a formal declination (a formal NO) of your requests.

Why Set Deadlines?

When bureaucrats do not want to do something, they will stall by ignoring you and your request. (As an aside, in the study of the bureaucracy, this is known as ithe power to do nothingi). They can string you along for years. When you have determined that the person you are interacting with is not inclined to help you or is not dealing in good faith, then you must take the initiative and formally label his/her behavior as obstructionist and de facto as a declination (a NO to your requests). This allows you to move to the next level of authority on your timetable to present your case. This takes the power to do nothing away from the bureaucrat with whom you are dealing. Simple stated, a bureaucrat who stalls and does nothing becomes irrelevant (use your invisible spray) and you move on to the next level of authority.

How to icci?

A cc. is a copy of your letter sent to someone other than the person you are writing. You put the cc. at the bottom left-hand corner of your letter followed by 2 spaces and the name of the person or people to whom you want to send a copy of the letter.

Who to icci to?

Sometimes it is best not to icci at all, especially in the early stages of the relationship (for example, your first letter to a social worker requesting assistance). This gives them the opportunity to do the right thing and does not present you as an overly combative person. When you start to run into problems, it is a good idea to send the icci to the 2 immediate superiors of the person you are having problems with. We do not recommend icciing all the way up the chain of command, since you want to give them a chance to solve the problem at the local level.

Why send a icci copy?

The reason for playing the icci game is that you want your interactions with the official to be known to his superior and possibly to other organizations so that 1) their action or inaction becomes a matter of record and 2) the individual knows he is being monitored. This helps minimize abuses of power and authority and helps encourage the official to meet their obligations and do the right thing.

What is the sequence of letters?

Find out the chain of command of the particular bureaucracy you are battling.

TOP

Minister
Deputy Minister
Children’s Ministry’s local region chain of command, all the way down to the District Supervisor
and Social Worker
Contacts can be found at the government directory: http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/

BOTTOM

Start at the bottom and climb. At the Regional Operating Officer (ROO) level (once you have been declined) you have to decide whether to jump up to the top, threaten and then go to the media, or both. A word of wisdom: DO NOT BLUFF. If you are not willing to go all the way, they will ‘smell’ this. You must be prepared to take it right up to the Minister and beyond.

Documentation from Experts:

In your arsenal to fight for your child, it is wise to get his/her pediatrician and/or psychiatrist to write a letter on your childis behalf. In addition, any other experts who know your child and are sympathetic to what you are trying to do should become involved.

When to hire a lawyer?

If money is not an issue, you can hire a lawyer when you get to the area manager level. Make sure that you have a paper trail so the lawyer has something to work with. Also, have the lawyer give F.E.A.T. of B.C. a call, and we will send him/her information that will help.

If money is an issue (as it is for most of us running autism treatment programs), you might want to hire a lawyer once you have been turned down by the Minister.

How to hire a lawyer?

The type of lawyer needed is a litigator, or trial lawyer. S/he does not need to be an expert in autism, or special needs; s/he needs to be experienced in suing governments, and enjoys being in court. Word of mouth is a good way to find a lawyer.

Topic

[Dione Costanzo]

“Medicare for Autism Now!” Rally

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Shadbolt Centre for the Arts
6450 Deer Lake Avenue
Burnaby

Bring the whole family! As well as lots of outdoor space and a playground, there will also be a Kid's Area set up with crafts and toys right at the Rally.

Directions:

The Shadbolt Centre is centrally in the heart of Burnaby, just minutes from Vancouver, New Westminster and the North Shore. Travel along the Trans-Canada Highway to the Kensington South exit to Canada Way. The Centre is located just behind Burnaby City Hall on Deer Lake Avenue.

Map to the Centre – http://www.city.burnaby.bc.ca/__shared/assets/Shadbolt_-_Map1759.pdf

The Shadbolt Centre is well served by public transit. The 144 SFU/Metrotown bus links the Centre and the Metrotown and Burnaby Lake Skytrain stations. For more information contact the Translink information line: 604-953-3333

Parking:
All parking at the Shadbolt Centre and surrounding locations is FREE to the public. Parking at the Centre includes 70 underground stalls and 130 parking stalls at the north end of the building.

Deer Lake Park has a number of additional parking areas including Burnaby Art Gallery, the Burnaby Village Museum and street parking along Deer Lake Avenue. Parking facilities outside of Deer Lake include Burnaby Central High School and City Hall. For special events and festivals parking attendants will be on hand to help manage traffic flow and assist in directing cars to alternative parking areas.

SEE YOU THERE!

[Debra Antifaev]

“Medicare for Autism Now!” Rally

Sunday March 2nd, 2008

2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Shadbolt Centre for the Arts

6450 Deer Lake Avenue

Burnaby

Don’t forget the Rally folks. Take two hours out of your day to remind this Government that they have let our kids (and their exhausted families!) down. Please take a look into the face of your child with Autism and try to remember what we are fighting for.
Forget our differences for just one day.
A story goes that during World War II even the British and the Germans lay down their weapons, in the midst of battle, to sing “Silent Night” at Christmas.
Surely we can come together to cheer for a better life for our kids!!

[Andrew Kavchak]

A new tax break for autism in the federal budget of February 26, 2008?

This was just brought to my attention, but I am trying to identify the source document and get more details…
_________________________________

"Training for Individuals with Autism or Other Disabilities

The budget proposes to expand the exemptions for basic health and education services. Training will qualify for exemption where it is supplied after February 26, 2008 and is specifically designed to aid individuals in coping with the effects of a disorder or disability. Typically, these provisions will apply to specially-designed training supplied by a government, training that is funded by a government program, or where a health care professional who makes exempt supplies identifies the training as an appropriate method of assisting an individual to deal with a disability or disorder.

This exemption is focused on ensuring that children with autism who require assistance to help them cope with the daily impact of this disorder obtain the training without the burden of GST/HST. Previously, some training required by these individuals was exempt while other forms of training were considered to be taxable."
____________________________

[A Father]

Hello everyone,

I as a father whose son was recently diagnosed, I am always interested in what our government is planning for my son’s future. I used to spend my lunch hour surfing the Internet looking for articles about advocacy initiatives. Now, there is an online centralized source to find all the latest advocacy news!

I would like to invite everyone to visit the new Medicare for Autism Now blog. It is FEAT's non-partisan political initiative to have Autism treatment covered by Medicare.

This blog is already filling with information about the upcoming rally on March 2nd. It has news releases, articles, event notices, links to useful resources and even videos! It is a great place to see the progress we are making and to leave your comments. As we get ready for the next federal election we will be updating it with even more information.

We are all in this together so let’s get together online and talk about this initiative. I’ll meet you there!

Visit: http://medicareforautismnow.blogspot.com/

[Andrew Kavchak]

Wow! This is interesting! Health politics in Ontario is really stuck somewhere between the legs. The Health Minister is prepared to think "outside the box" and actually try something different for a change just to test the practicality of government programs and policies. All because he is "so serious"!

If memory serves correctly, this same Minister announced last year that he was going to have a "same sex" wedding with his partner and wear a thong during the ceremony.

Here's an idea for the Minister: one day, regardless of whether he is simultaneously testing his diapers or thongs, how about spending one day with a child who suffers from autism who did not get treatment because of Medicare's ongoing discrimination and refusal to provide the core healthcare need to this group of Canadians, and then spending another day with one who did get treatment?

From CTV.ca:

Ont. health minister prepared to don adult diaper

The Canadian Press

TORONTO — So serious is he about the welfare of seniors, one of Ontario's most outspoken cabinet ministers said Wednesday he's prepared to don an adult diaper — and use it — to satisfy himself that elderly residents of the province's nursing homes are getting appropriate care.

Health Minister George Smitherman sent eyebrows skyward when he made the straight-faced suggestion in response to critics who say the standard of care in Ontario nursing homes is so bad, residents are spending hours on end wallowing in soiled diapers.

Those complaints have prompted him to "seriously consider" taking one of the diapers commonly used in Ontario nursing homes out for a test run.

"I've got one of these incontinence products – albeit a new one, not the ones that tend to appear at committee – on my desk and I'm really giving this matter very serious contemplation," Smitherman told a group of wide-eyed reporters.

"I want to have the right policy for Ontarians."

The bizarre remarks sparked outrage among opposition parties and lobby groups who advocate for better standards in the province's long-term care facilities. The minister is making a farce out of serious questions about the dignity afforded seniors in Ontario, they charged.

"Smitherman's a damned embarrassment," said NDP critic Peter Kormos, whose leader Howard Hampton made an impassioned plea for seniors during the election campaign last fall.

"One doesn't have to use or exhaust one's imagination to understand the humiliation, the indignity of sitting in one's own waste for what could be hours at a time."

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory called Smitherman's comments a "disgrace."

"It's some kind of a sideshow he seems determined to put on when, in fact, I think people in Ontario would say, 'George Smitherman, do something about it."'

Premier Dalton McGuinty defended his minister, saying Smitherman was only doing what he felt was appropriate "under the circumstances."

"I know where some of you may want to go with this issue and if you mention that particular word, it can draw guffaws and it's easy to make light of it," said McGuinty, who worked as an orderly before heading to university.

"I think what we all need to do is remind ourselves that this is a matter of human dignity. If this was your mother or your father or your husband, you'd see it as such."

Smitherman explained that his unorthodox proposal was intended to gain a better understanding of an issue he didn't comprehend fully.

Products designed to help adults deal with incontinence have undergone an "evolution" in recent years and have become more absorbent, making them an invaluable tool in improving the quality of life for elderly people, he said.

Some of his staff laughed at him "the first three times" he talked about the idea, but Smitherman insisted the matter is no joke.

"I said, 'How does a guy like me really actually figure out what's right about all this?"' he said. "Is a product that offers greater absorption capability an appropriate product or is that a front for some diminishment of care?"

The furor over his remarks appeared to overshadow calls for better care – calls the government has yet to answer. The indignity suffered by seniors forced to sit in soiled diapers only scratches the surface of what's wrong in Ontario nursing homes, critics say.

Some facilities are so short-staffed, residents are forced to wait for hours for meals, are put to bed too early and aren't getting enough exercise, said caregivers who work in nursing homes.

Smitherman promised that legally binding minimum standards of care for residents in nursing homes could be established within months of the Liberals taking office following the election, but that hasn't happened, said Sid Ryan, president of the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

"If the minister wants to play silly games, well then, let him put on a diaper and sleep in it all night long and come into the legislature and wear it up until 12 o'clock," said Ryan, whose union represents nursing-home workers.

"Let him soil that diaper and lay around in it for the length of time that our seniors have to do in this province."

Smitherman said the province is improving care in nursing homes, pointing to recent improvements in meals and an additional 2.3 million hours of nursing care allocated to long-term residents.

But McGuinty wouldn't commit to CUPE's demand for a minimum 3.5 hours for resident care.

"I don't know what three-and-a-half hours represents, whether that's adequate or inadequate," he said.

[Andrew Kavchak]

February 27, 2008
THE OTTAWA SUN
PAGE: 2

Sun columnist honoured

Sun columnist Susan Sherring has won the Joan Gullen Media Award for her four-part series on autism and its impact, both emotional and financial, on families.

Named after Joan Gullen, a distinguished local social worker who has been recognized by the governor general, the award honours excellence in the exploration and reporting of significant social issues affecting the community.

"As a local reporter in Ottawa for many years, I've seen firsthand the kind of good work and dedication of community activist Joan Gullen," said Sherring. "It's really very meaningful for me to receive an award named after a woman like her."

Sherring's interest in autism began years ago when a close friend from high school, Alan Roberts, told her his son had been diagnosed. At the time, she had no idea what that meant.

When she was the Sun's Page Six columnist, Sherring covered many events sponsored by Children At Risk — a group dedicated to making the lives of children with autism a little bit better — and learned more about the subject.

Years later, Sherring says there are still many misconceptions about autism.

"I have always wanted the opportunity to explore autism further, and this series gave me that opportunity."

The series was published in December, and explores the complex issue from the family unit to the political realm.

Sherring plans to donate her prize money to Children At Risk.

"We're very proud of Sue," said editor-in-chief Mike Therien. "This is a great example of community and social journalism."

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,
Even when the Premiers ask for a "National Strategy" on a healthcare issue the government seems to drag their heels on it. But not all "National Strategy" proposals of course…there are many others that the feds have promoted, including ones that they ran on during the last election and put money for in a subsequent budget.

Speaking of budgets, last year the Tories announced the creation of a Registered Disability Savings Plan…my contacts in two separate banks tell me that the RDSP won't be available until the end of the year at the earliest because of footdragging from the Ministry of Finance regarding the technical details and regulations to establish these plans. Thus, when the government announced last night the creation of a new "Tax Sheltered Savings Account" or something, I am left wondering whether they can at least try to complete something they announced over a year ago first before trying to duplicate it?
_______________________________
Senate Hansard
Tuesday, Feb 26, 2008.

Health

Proposed National Pharmaceutical Strategy

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The high cost of prescription drugs is a growing concern for Canadians. For people living with cancer and other serious illnesses, the costs of medically necessary medication can be financially devastating.

This issue was of such importance that in September 2004 the first ministers asked the ministers of health to develop a national pharmaceutical strategy.

The resulting task force began its work and released a progress report in June 2006. One month later, provincial and territorial health ministers called upon the federal government to commit to an ongoing partnership with them to finalize the strategy. That was 20 months ago, and it seems that there has been no movement since.

Can the Leader of the Government give any indication of the federal government's progress on this file?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government and Secretary of State (Seniors)): I thank the honourable senator for the question. As she will know, having been a premier of a province, the issue of the cost of pharmaceuticals is a complex one in Canada, given that these matters are administered by the various jurisdictions, the provinces and territories. Of course, we are well aware of many examples from province to province where people living literally 100 miles from the province next door have availability to certain drugs paid for by the provincial health care system, and, 150 miles away in another province, they are not paid for by the provincial health care system.

With regard to the specific recommendations made to the Minister of Health, I will take that question as notice.

Senator Callbeck: I realize that health is a provincial matter, but, as I said, in September 2004, the first ministers asked the health ministers to come up with a strategy. It has been 20 months since the provincial and territorial ministers of health called on the federal government to commit to an ongoing partnership.

In December 2006, the provincial and territorial ministers of health reiterated their need for leadership, and in a news release stated:

Ministers urged the federal Minister to be an active partner with provinces and territories in moving forward with the National Pharmaceuticals Strategy, including the development and implementation of catastrophic drug coverage, to ensure that no Canadian suffers undue financial hardship in accessing needed drug therapies.

Why has this appeal from the provinces and the territorial ministers gone unanswered for so long? Is the federal government committed to a national pharmaceutical strategy?

Senator LeBreton: The Minister of Health has worked closely with the provincial and territorial ministers of health on a great many fronts. With regard to the national drug strategy for catastrophic drugs and the different availability of pharmaceuticals in the various provinces, the honourable senator claims that they have demanded that. I will be interested to see if, in fact, all of the provinces have demanded it or whether there is some difficulty in the various provinces as to what their role would be.

Suffice it to say, this is a serious question, honourable senators, and I will be happy to find out the results of that meeting and the requests from the provinces and territories.
_____________________

[Andrew Kavchak]

Hi Folks,

I just wanted to say that I finally got my hands on a copy of Dr. Sabrina Freeman's latest book on the evaluation of autism treatments. I spent this evening going through the book. It is a substantial text which will take a few days to thoroughly absorb, but my scanning it this evening was one of those rare cases when a new book is so good that the time to read a page was shortened by the excitement and my impatient desire to get to the next one!

The text is a beautiful masterpiece that deserves to be a classic in the field and a "must read" for every parent, particularly those who have children that were just diagnosed. In fact, for any parent of a newly diagnosed child, the text should probably be recommended as the first book to obtain and read.

As was said in a previous message, thank you Sabrina for this wonderful contribution to humanity! Bravo! It deserves a lot of good reviews and I sincerely hope that the demand for the text will outstrip the supply so that it goes into many reprints!

Andrew Kavchak
Ottawa

[Deleted User]

http://www.rightsofchildren.ca/pdf/MonitoringInitiative.pdf

2008 the UN will be reviewing the progress of countries who ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In FEAT of Ontario's brief to the Senate in conjunction with FEAT BC we called on new legislation to be implemented on a federal level. No action has been taken on these three pieces of necessary federal legislation. I have been in touch with the UN for the upcoming world autism day and am working to have it addressed in the house and senate. However, I think this PDF document is worth looking at. It is from the Canadian Coalition for Children's Rights of which Mr. Brent Parfitt, Member, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is also an advisor on. We have always really been working alone. Perhaps getting other groups involved based on their mandates and the autism situation in Canada might be beneficial in pressuring Canada to enact the convention and force compliance. Anyway it's a good website.

[Deleted User]

I thought some of you might be interested in two witnesses in particular that testified for the report "children the silenced citizens". One is our own wonderful Birgitta Von Krosik (co-counsel for Auton) and the United Nations Committee representative Mr. David Brent Parfitt. That should be of particular interest to you out there in B.C. since that is where he hails from. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/647a2ab573a858f6c1256a2a0027ba29/126860b9e197efe3c1256fbf00385f81?OpenDocument
that is the link that shows his involvement in your OMBUDSMAN office etc. Both speak to legislation and legal barriers to justice and protection of children.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/huma-e/09eva-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1&comm_id=77
Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights
Issue 9 – Evidence – Thursday, September 21, Morning meeting

VANCOUVER, Thursday, September 21, 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.
Birgitta von Krosigk, Lawyer, as an individual: I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to attend as a witness here today. I hope that I might be able to share some of my observations as a legal practitioner who has worked in the field of children with disabilities. In courts, administrative tribunals, as well as the now defunct British Columbia Children's Commission, I have tried to work as an advocate for these children.
I would also like to thank you for the committee's valuable and insightful interim report and say that I agree with everything I read. It is very important work and I look forward to the next segment. I think it is very important to draw attention to these issues. It also can act as a resource for people like me and to parents looking for a place to go for history, background and recommendations. I agree with the findings and recommendations of the committee and hope we will have some further discussions about what can be done.
As a legal practitioner, rather than an academic, I tend to look for practical and realistic solutions. I am always aware of the difficulties of bringing a case because of the number of years and the resources that are required to do so.
I have been involved in many cases focusing on the disability of autism. As I note on the third page of my summary, I tend to plead the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I try in that small way to increase awareness of the convention and add to the body of case law that holds that international treaties are relevant to the interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The case that you may be aware of that has involved children with autism is Auton v. the Attorney General of British Columbia, a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal held in favour of the families finding a breach of section 15(1) of the Charter that was not justified under section 1 of the Charter. That, however, was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada, which found that the claimants did not even meet the threshold of establishing discrimination. I have set out a little bit of the background of the case to illustrate that the families who are involved in bringing that case had actually started to try to approach government as early as 1995. For three years, they tried to find various ways to discuss the issue of obtaining funding for treatment for their children. Only after three years did they begin litigation. Nobody chooses litigation as an option. I think that parents go that route only because they find all other doors closed to them. I think that applies outside the autism field as well.
The litigation started in 1998 and it was at the end of 2004 when we received a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. That is a long time in the life of a young child. During that particular case, even though the government was informed as to the medical and psychological opinions that supported the need for treatment, the children did not receive funding until after the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. It was an incredible burden for the families, both to put up with the litigation for that long, but also to try to fund treatment through their own means.
I was happy that the British Columbia Court of Appeal paid particular attention to the convention. I have set out, at page four, the findings of Madam Justice Saunders. After a reference to the particular sections of the convention focusing on children with disabilities, she went on to say,
The convention has moral force relevant on an assessment of the application of s. 1 of the Charter to a breach of s. 15(1)…
This committee has commented that the convention is not enforceable in and of itself, but it is encouraging to see when the courts use it in other measures.
In terms of the travels and burdens of litigation, it was quite an experience to reach Ottawa and have all governments intervening against the families. The federal government took the lead in supporting the British Columbia government in seeking to overturn the decision of a breach finding. It is a very overwhelming burden for families to try to counteract when one attorney after another stands up and says that this is an impermissible way for the courts to interfere with the legislative prerogative.
There were other interveners in that case as well. It was also rescheduled many times. I had placed some hope in having Mr. Justice Iacobucci and Madam Justice Arbour on our panel. However, the case was delayed from the original date in January and they were no longer on the court at that time. It was also, I believe, scheduled to be heard together with the Chaoulli case from Quebec because it was deemed to be of political importance in terms of the funding of health care. Sometimes an issue can become swallowed up in the bigger climate of what other things may be going on in the country.
There have been other autism cases in Canada. There was the Ontario case of Wynberg v. Deskin, where at the trial level, Madam Justice Kiteley found in favour of the families. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal of Ontario fairly recently and there are ongoing litigations with that case. There was initial optimism on the part of families, and not only families with children with autism. Many other families with children with disabilities followed these cases very closely.
Right now, I am quite pessimistic about the possibilities of breaking new ground in the litigation area. I am finding that section 15, the discrimination section or the equality section is becoming increasingly difficult for claimants. Two particular areas where that has manifested itself is in the debate that is going on about comparison groups. I know in the Wynberg v. Deskin case, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the families had not established and put forward before the court sufficient evidence to allow a comparison with other disabled groups within the school system. Again, we come back again to the burden on families to have the financial resources and wherewithal to present that evidence that really is in the purview of the government in question. When you seek that information, such as the success or lack thereof of other children in the school system, you are typically met with the answer that the information is confidential.
How useful is a Charter when it becomes almost impossible to bring a case? It takes five, six, seven, eight years. When you finally get to court, the governments make it clear that they are quite prepared to keep the appeal going. Very often, when you get to the end of the road, you hear that unfortunately, you have chosen the wrong comparison group. It used to be much less of a hurdle at the beginning of the development of the Charter.
I think there is an increasing trend of the courts to show deference to government and a hesitation to be seen as stepping on to the legislative arena. In light of these things, I believe that this committee's work is particularly important because, while litigation is one tool, it is certainly not the only tool upon which we can rely.
I have set out, at page eight, one suggestion that I felt flowed from some of the recommendations that the committee made in its interim report. There is an excellent precedent in the Court Challenges Program. It is, however, limited only to federal laws and policies. I would like to see if there is some way of extending a similar program because most of the laws and policies that directly affect children with disabilities are in the provincial arena.
Jim Kelly, Legislative Chair, Parent Finders of Canada: British home children, Duplessis' children, Mount Cashel, butter box babies, Canada's discriminatory treatment of its most vulnerable is historic and systemic. It would be nice to think that in the twenty-first century Canada's mistreatment of this minority has been overcome. I sit here before you today to report that it has not.
Good morning, my name is Jim Kelly, Legislative Chair for Parent Finders of Canada. Parent Finders was founded in Vancouver in 1974 to provide a support group for adult adoptees, birth relatives, and adopting parents for the primary aim of promoting a feeling of openness and understanding about adoption. We lobby for access to adoption records and access for birth records for donor offspring. Parent Finders has worked with the B.C. Adoption Advisory and Consultation Committee in an ad hoc group of adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, and the gay and lesbian community, which focused on the best interests of the child in order to facilitate a change to the B.C. Adoption Act. That Adoption Act with its discriminatory vetoes, for better or worse, has now been cloned in Newfoundland in 2003 and Alberta in 2004.
In my capacity as the chair, I have acted as an intervener for our members before the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner, and as an intervener before the B.C. Human Rights Commission in the Gill and Maher; Popoff and Murray v. Vital Statistics Agency. In that case, two lesbian women wanted to have their names put on the child's original birth registration.
In addition, Parent Finders gave evidence before federal Bill C-47 in April of 1997, before the Health Subcommittee on Human Reproduction and Genetic Technology Act, on the issue of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the donor offspring's right to biological identity.
Our organization also requested to appear before that committee for Bill C-13, but we were not invited. It is interesting to note that at the committee stage of Bill C-13, the donor offspring's right to identity was recommended by that committee.
Some people believe the existing laws will provide protections that are currently not part of laws but part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am sad to say that they do not apply to our organization or the members of our organization.
Adoption activists in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario have also attempted to assert their right to identity as mandated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, through provincial human rights legislation, only to have their cases denied before they can even be heard. The reasons given to these activists were reciting past practices of discrimination for the reasons for denying these hearings.
Today, the systemic discriminatory legislation, which affects the invisible minority, the five per cent of the population, comprised of adopted children and donor offspring can be found in both federal and provincial legislation, and it is in the Adoption Act, the Citizenship Act, the Employment Insurance Act, the Tax Act, and the Human Reproduction Act. As well, the federal government is now deporting adoptees when they commit crimes. Canadian citizens who go oversees and legally adopt children are finding, in some cases, that their children are being barred from entry to Canada on medical grounds.
Where is the continuing discrimination of this invisible minority reported in either of Canada's reports to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is not. For this invisible minority, the first two reports have been a total whitewash with respect to their issues.
The proposed changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act in respect to adoption occurred not because the federal government considered itself bound by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but because an adoption activist, Shirley (Starrs) McKenna, filed a human rights complaint in regards to this matter.
Why did the issue of adoption and rights to identity appear in the most recent Committee on the Rights of the Child concluding observations? Again, it was not because the federal or provincial governments considered themselves bound by the convention. It was because adoption activists such as Mike Slater, Karen Lynn, Ron Murdock and Sandra Falkiner Pace, felt compelled to approach the Committee on the Rights of the Child directly in order to plead our case about rights to identity for adopted children and donor offspring. What was surprising is the Canadian delegation's second report deliberately avoided answering the Committee on the Rights of the Child's questions about why Canada has closed adoption records. I think it would be a mild understatement to report that adopted persons and donor offspring have little faith in the current reporting process of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in Canada, which consistently ignores this invisible minority and their issues.
I would like to remind this committee of the Convention on the Rights of the Child who repeatedly reminded Canada's delegation when they were reporting — it is on the second report — that all rights in the convention must be implemented as other countries are now looking to Canada to be a leader in the implementation of this convention.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am interested in your request for a fund similar to the court challenges fund. As you know, the government is committed to cutting a couple of billion dollars and programs like that may disappear, never mind expand. We do not know yet.
I am not a lawyer, however, it is my understanding that most Charter cases since 1985 have related to government agencies such as the Auton case.
Do you see a place in Canada for the development of a new law that deals with equality rights, including those of children? Do you see a law that would deal with civil actions only? It seems that the Charter confines Canadians from actually getting their rights.
Ms. von Krosigk: I am always in favour of new laws that open up new routes for people seeking to enforce their equality rights. In terms of expanding so that you could go beyond a government body, there is some opportunity to do that within the human rights legislation. I have had cases in that scenario as well. You are looking at employers often, and that obviously has a big implication for disabilities, as well as there have been some cases involving private schools and so on. There are always difficulties in the timing. I would welcome any setting that would open things up so that there could be some accountability. I would welcome any setting that could complete its task in less than five years.
I regretted the abolition of the Children's Commission here in British Columbia. Even though the commission could only make recommendations to government, the commission presented a forum for families and for children to have the ministry, in that case, answer questions to somebody outside of government. It promoted disclosure of information and documentation, which is not always that frequent.
In my experience, most of the things that people encounter for children with disabilities in some ways involve one form of government or another. The private sector, I think, comes more into play in accommodation and employment.
I do not know if that really addresses your question.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I was interested in your hopes in Judges Iacobucci and Arbour. The Province of Ontario made some court level announcements this morning, which will not please many equality seekers in this country. I do not know whether this is the beginning of what is yet to come, but Frances Kiteley in Ontario is an exceptional judge. This shows how important the judicial process is to this subject.
Do you have any comments you want to make to us about the judicial process because it sounds like you think you were screwed because your judges were not there?
Ms. von Krosigk: I probably would not choose that particular wording.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is all right.
Ms. von Krosigk: I had the privilege of appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada in a different case that had nothing whatsoever to do with disability rights. In that particular case, the panel of justices were engaged and interested and knew the material and asked numerous questions that proved challenging to answer. However, when we appeared on the Auton case, we faced a wall of blank faces and we pretty much knew that we were not going to get very far. There was also a very disappointing lack of real discussion of the background and the volumes of expert evidence. Whether Madam Justice Arbour or Mr. Justice Iacobucci would have made any difference to the outcome, of course, I cannot tell, but I base those comments on previous decisions in which they had been involved.
I am troubled by the trend that we are seeing, making it much, much more difficult to even begin thinking about bringing a challenge. If that is happening, why do we have a Charter? I do believe that courts are not the only custodians of the Charter. I believe our government is as well. I am borrowing from Mary Ebert who made that submission that really the government at all levels should be the first place they look; not only the Charter but the convention. I am not sure that is always happening.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Just following up on that, there are those that will say that the Auton and EI case from Newfoundland are not necessarily about the Rights of the Child or the workers. They will argue that they are more about whether the court has the right to force government to fund from the public purse. The courts do not impose taxes and cannot ask to spend taxes. As you have stated two or three times, you disagree with this, and I guess you do if you were a lawyer in Auton, but we are politicians.
We are in a time where we may be looking at another six years of Conservative government in this country. Have you any suggestions to us as we walk around those buildings, what we could do about this because, in fact, some of us might be in agreement with you?
Ms. von Krosigk: One suggestion would be to take advantage of the longer perspective of the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons where we have elections. We might also consider the time frame in the provinces. The time frame for politicians tends to be quite short. When you refer to expenditures from the public purse, and I use Auton as an example, evidence showed that there would be over a million dollars of savings for each child over the lifetime of that child if there was early intervention. Lifetime savings do not hold the same level of campaigning importance as if you are faced with something that is going to happen within your mandate. Here, in British Columbia, and I do not know how it applies across the country, ministers have part of their salaries docked unless they meet certain budgetary goals. It is very personal objective, as well as a government objective to meet budget goals. I think what is lacking is that longer perspective. We had evidence in the Auton case that sometimes it would cost as much as $350,000 per year to house and provide staffing for an adult with autism, so that is how you end up with the cost savings. If this committee could emphasize that longer-term perspective, it would be helpful.

Brent Parfitt, Member, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Chairman and senators, for allowing me to speak this afternoon.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the fine work you have done. I have had the opportunity to read your November report, and I think you have canvassed the issues well, certainly that I am aware of, in Canada, and I commend you for the work. I also had the opportunity to review the list of individuals you have interviewed over the last few years, and you have touched almost all the bases. These names are familiar to me, both nationally and internationally, so I commend you for the work.
I also looked at the conclusions of your committee, and I am impressed with those conclusions. The rights-based approach to deal with children's issues, I think, is the way to go, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, of course, provides that approach for this vulnerable and unrepresented group in society.
Also, I note the reference to your holistic approach, and your use of the convention as a lens to look at legislation, regulation, policy and programs of Canada. I also commend your recommendations concerning an interdepartmental working group to report on the progress with respect to the implementation of the convention. We all know that document is a holistic one: it should not be parsed into individual sections, but looked at as a whole document.
You will note that many of the provisions in the convention appear to be in conflict from time to time. For instance, the best interest of the child is often put in contrast to the child's right to be heard and considered. Article 12 does not mean that a child's views will be the overruling factor. It merely means that a child's views will be considered in the best interest. It is important to look at this document in a holistic way.
I notice, also, that you have made provisions for a monitoring mechanism with respect to implementing and monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I know that former Senator Pearson recommended that a children's commissioner be established at the federal level to ensure that the convention was implemented uniformly across Canada.
I would like to talk about that issue because I think it is important, but one that has a number of practical problems. The practical problems are occasioned by virtue of the fact that we live in a federal state. The issue is even more complicated in that the majority of children's rights and programs are administered at a provincial rather than federal level. Therefore, a federal monitoring system is difficult, because we would need a provincial buy-in to such a mechanism for it to be effective.
We, at the committee have come up with general comments in 2002 on what an independent monitoring system would look like, and included in the provisions are that the committee or children's ombudsman, if you will, or a commissioner would monitor the implementation of the convention, would promote the convention, and would accept and investigate complaints by or on behalf of children.
This would provide that commissioner or children's ombudsman with practical information, objective information to bring before these international bodies such as our own that monitor and treat such.
Also, we have recommended that such a commissioner or ombudsman would report publicly on his or her findings, and that they would be independent and accountable to the parliament or the legislature.
With respect to the division of powers in our federal state, I can see great difficulty in creating a federal commissioner, but, nevertheless, I think there is much merit in it. I think it might be possible to construct such an office by having the provincial governments turn to the jurisdiction of such an organization.
This could be done through various mechanisms. One is by utilization of the spending power of the federal government, so that, as part of the funds that go to the various provincial governments, there would be an undertaking by those provincial governments to implement provisions of the UN convention.
That is but one way it could be accomplished. It requires a lot of thought and a lot of negotiation between federal and provincial officials, but I think it could be a powerful organization, and indeed support and implement the convention.
The last thing you mentioned in your conclusion was the issue of meaningful participation — you call it "youth participation," and on that we heartily agree. In fact, the committee recently held a meeting, a general day of discussion on youth participation. At least 35 youth attended, and about 100 nations, and we discussed what meaningful youth participation was like. Too often what we see, I am sure, is tokenism: that a number of children, for instance, are invited to a national conference to present "the youth perspective." I do not believe that is meaningful youth participation.
Meaningful youth participation is where children have a say or some role in actual decision-making. That may seem a little strange, but it is possible, and there are many examples both at the community school level, and indeed at the governmental level, provincial and federal. Youth parliaments are an example of how that youth voice can be heard at an official level.
We look forward to producing a general comments paper on youth participation that can serve as guidance to the federal and provincial governments.
I was asked to comment briefly on Canada's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I went through our report — our last report from 2003, our concluding observations — and I noted a few things that are still to be accomplished in Canada.
As you know, Canada has an excellent reputation internationally with respect to these UN conventions, and one reason Canada has this reputation is that not only does Canada ratify the convention, but it also attempts as best it can to implement the convention.
In Canada, we still have difficulties with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As you know, some glaring problems need to be addressed. One is that we have been unable to domesticate this convention. We have signed it, we have ratified it, but we have not domesticated it — indeed, made it a law of our land. While I appreciate there are federal-provincial complications with that, I think it is still possible that Canada can give more priority to implementing this convention.
There are examples of that happening. The courts have been extremely proactive in the support of this convention. At least 10 Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made reference to not only the convention, but also the concluding observation of our treaty committee.
Bill C-2 is another good example of how provisions under the convention have been incorporated into federal legislation. Indeed, in Bill C-2, the preamble to the bill indicates that this bill is in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and respects that convention. I would like to see more examples of that in domestic legislation, both at the federal and provincial level, to show that acknowledgement and recognition. Indeed, in provincial legislation, I do not think there is a jurisdiction in Canada with respect to family relations matters that does not have some reference to the best interests of the child.
How that is defined is another problem. Nevertheless, there is recognition of that principle as being paramount. That is a problem in Canada.
As I mentioned before, one way that we can ensure better implementation of the convention is through the spending power of the federal government, not to interfere with the division of powers that are set down in our Constitution.
The other area where we have not succeeded is in the area of independent monitoring. Although there is reference to a number of provincial ombudsmen and children's advocates, and children's representatives — whatever you wish to call them — there is no federal organization to implement and ensure implementation of the convention.
Again, the committee has recommended that if there is no commission or a children's ombudsman, at least there should be more support for non-governmental organizations, NGOs, that do a lot of this work, ensuring the implementation of the convention, and monitoring Canada's progress in that regard.
Another glaring area, and one that I am deeply embarrassed about, is our treatment of aboriginal children. As you have heard from numerous witnesses to your committee, aboriginal children are over-represented in our child welfare systems and in our juvenile justice systems. In a country with surpluses of over $13 billion, I think this situation is inexcusable in this day and age, and a lot has to do with our federal system.
We have the federal Indian Act, and then we have provincial legislation that deals with child welfare issues, and the two do not seem to come together very well. Aboriginal children are still falling through the gaps, and there is no reason for that in this day and age. We have the wherewithal, and we have the funding to improve the condition of Aboriginal children in our country in education, health and child welfare issues.
Another issue that needs to be dealt with in Canada uniformly is refugee children. I think more and more we will find that refugee children end up on our shores, and right now those children are not treated in a uniform way. They are treated according to the local law of the province in which they come to. Sometimes that can be good, and sometimes it is not so good.
An example of good practice is in my own province of British Columbia, where the refugee children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from China, were treated as any other child that needed protection in British Columbia. Indeed, I suggest that is good practice. They are not incarcerated: they are treated as a child in need of care and protection by the state.
Another issue that you have heard about, that we have raised and certainly one the committee and Geneva is concerned about, is the sexual exploited and trafficked children. It is a huge problem area in all provinces, with the number of street children seemingly to increase. A number of those children are victims, of course, of domestic violence in the home, and sometimes in the community.
The other area that we are all aware of is the issue of corporal punishment. Even though we have had a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the issue of corporal punishment, section 43 of the Criminal Code still exists, even though read down to a certain extent by our Supreme Court. The committee has recommended the abolishment of that defence to an assault against a child. Although that view is not necessarily popular, it is a view that the committee suggests be dealt with, and section 43 amended accordingly.
I think of bills before you right now for consideration in this area. If Canada is not prepared to implement the recommendations, at least Canada should show some leadership in the area of proper parenting, an alternative to corporal punishment as far as discipline of children is concerned.
I think one area the Senate could support is parenting education, especially in the high school situation, where alternatives to corporal punishment are taught. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, most of us learn parenting skills from our parents, and that may be good or it may be bad.
If our parents exercised corporal punishment, in all likelihood, we may exercise the same form of disciplinary procedures. We should be taught, then, in school about alternatives to discipline, rather than the use of corporal punishment.
The other area that deserves Senate attention is the centres of excellence that have been established throughout our country. I think the centres have done a phenomenal job in raising awareness with respect to children's issues, and that the centres should continue to be supported by the government.
Now, I should tell you about a few initiatives of the committee in Geneva that may be of some assistance to you. We are preparing a general comments paper. I do not know if you are aware of general comments papers, but the committee will take certain articles of the convention, focus on those articles and explain hopefully in layman's language what they mean. We have done that in many areas. As I mentioned before, the issue of independent monitoring has been subject to a general comments paper.
We are working now on a comments paper on indigenous children, and that should be available over the next two years. The committee hires an expert writer, that writer writes a draft for us, the committee goes over that draft on numerous occasions, and then produces a general comment which guides state parties on how they can comply and implement that provision — one of those provisions under the convention.
I am pleased to also note that a subcommittee in Geneva of indigenous people have chosen a writer to assist us, and that writer is from my province, again. I had nothing to do with the decision-making, but her name is Margo Greenwood, who works with both provincial and federal governments on indigenous issues, and in particular on indigenous health care issues. We are pleased about that possibility.
We are also working on papers about children with disabilities, children in alternative care, youth participation. Our general day of discussion on youth participation will feed into that particular paper on youth participation.
The other area that you may be aware of is the publication of Paulo Pinheiro's UN study on violence against children. In that study, Mr. Pinheiro has made a number of recommendations with respect to how we deal with children who are a subject of violence. He makes a number of recommendations: his study is lengthy, but his recommendations I will briefly indicate.
He indicates that we should strengthen national and local commitment and action; we should prohibit all violence against children, including amending section 43 of the Criminal Code; we should prioritize prevention; we should promote non-violent values and awareness raising; we should enhance the capacity of all work with and for children; we should provide recovery and social reintegration services; we should ensure the participation of children; we should create accessible and child-friendly reporting systems and services; we should ensure accountability and end impunity against those who would violate children; we should address the gender dimension of violence against children; and we should develop and implement systemic national data collection and research of violence against children, and strengthen our international commitment.
Lastly, I want to bring up the fact that the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, has commenced a study. She has recommended that a number of the treaty bodies be combined into one standing body to consider all the treaties.
The position of the children's rights committee is that we oppose that position, and we oppose it on the grounds that we believe, because children are particularly vulnerable and have no voice, that they should be heard independently. We see no benefits for children in combining all the treaty bodies into one standing body.
We appreciate that state parties sometimes have difficulties in complying with all the treaty provisions. For instance, in Canada we are subject to seven treaty bodies, and that is a lot of work for both federal and provincial employees. We could make this a lot easier if the treaty bodies, at the administrative level, came together and ensured no duplication, and some sort of scheduling so that every year a new treaty does not come up for consideration by the state parties.
There is agreement amongst the administrators of the treaty bodies that, indeed, some problems faced by state parties can be addressed at the administrative level, rather than bringing all treaty bodies under one standing committee.
Thank you very much for your attention, I look forward to your questions.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Parfitt.
[Translation]
Senator Munson: Mr. Parfitt, do you agree that governments will not advertise something they have not implemented? If they were on the page, ratification is one thing, but if they are not implementing it, they do not have the big billboards, or the public service things out there. The commitment seems to be that small.
Mr. Parfitt: I think the issue raised, Senator Munson, has been the problem for a long time with a rights-based approach. There needs to be the political will or the political commitment to make it happen. Where does that come from, and how does it come?
I think we would have a lot of political commitment if we lowered the voting age to 12. All of a sudden, we might find politicians responding to this approach in a much more positive way. It is because kids are vulnerable, and they do not have those rights to vote and make decisions about their own lives, that we have the problem.
Your question is, though, how do you ensure that commitment happens? One thing you have recommended, of course, is the issue of a monitoring body that will put pressure on the government to report publicly on the fact that this convention is not being implemented. It has been ratified; there have been a lot of principle-based discussions, et cetera, and there has been a lot of buy-in at that level, but when it comes to actual dollars, we do not see that type of commitment.
How do we enforce it? The NGO groups need to be given more wherewithal to make these issues more political. I think advocacy organizations need to be sponsored, and they need to be given a forum in which to bring these issues up. As mentioned by my colleague, the youth need to be heard in a meaningful way, not only in a youth parliament that happens every year, but they need to be involved in community government. They need to have a position in community government where their voices are not only heard, but acted upon.
Those are some ways that we can make this happen, but it needs to start at a low level. There needs to be a commitment by society in general that this approach is a good thing. If you merely deal with the ministries of finance and treasury boards, you have a real problem, because those voices often are not heard. Priorities are decided, not on the basis of what is best for children, but on other criteria.
If we did our homework correctly, we might be able to show government that investment in children is a good financial investment as well, and a good economic investment because if we do not, we will pay for it threefold over.
When we talk in terms of prevention, we have often been unsuccessful — we have these matters we have to deal with now, usually at the tertiary end, we need to establish more juvenile detention facilities, and we need to take more children into care. Those ways to deal with a social issue are extremely expensive. We need to convince politicians to put money into prevention. They need to look at the issues of children through this lens of the convention. Politicians need to believe that by ratifying a convention, Canada has undertaken to implement those various provisions under the convention that affect children.
I think there needs to be that awareness-raising. Politicians at the federal, provincial and municipal levels need to understand what those articles mean, and they also need to be given good advice on how to implement them. There is a lot of good practice around, even in Canada. The problem is, it is fragmented and often not shared amongst the various agencies that should know about it.
Senator Munson: Perhaps the provincial and federal governments can learn lessons from the Conseil jeunesse de Montréal and from Dr. Julien, and maybe they can make them pay attention.
Senator Poy: Mr. Parfitt, you mentioned in your presentation that the convention has not been domesticated in Canada. After the report comes out on Canada, in your role as a member of the UN committee, what can you do in practical terms? What action can you take in cases of non-compliance?
Mr. Parfitt: That is a good question, and one that the committee is indeed struggling with. It is one of the issues that we brought before Louise Arbour as the High Commissioner. There is no provision with respect to how the committee deals with the report after the concluding observations have been made.
What we have recommended, and what has happened with some state parties, is they have invited both the chair and the rapporteur back to their country to go through the concluding observations, paragraph by paragraph.
I had the privilege of being rapporteur for Thailand about a year and a half ago, and shortly after we made a report, the chair and I received an invitation to attend with the Thai government and various agencies, NGOs included, to go through the report and discuss it.
At that time, they would ask us, "What do you mean by this, and how do we go about implementing these?" The recommendations are very general. They would say, "We want to tell you a bit more about the frustrations in our country, about the enormous amount of migration from other countries, and refugees and asylum seekers from other countries, and how frustrating this is for us to implement the convention."
We listened, we found some solutions, and we are able to share, as a result of our international experience, some good practice that is happening in other jurisdictions.
Likewise with respect, for instance, to the issue of independent monitoring, we have now seen how countries all over the world go about independently monitoring the convention. Taking into consideration their constitution, and whether the country is a federal country or a unitary country, we can advise them on things that we have seen that will allow them to implement those provisions.
However, I think it is a real problem. It is not addressed in the convention itself, but that is one thing we have recommended, and it has shown to be successful.
Senator Poy: Is that the same way you deal with Canada?
Mr. Parfitt: We have not been invited. I was not around at the time the report was made, and I understand our last concluding observations in 2003. I am not aware of any committee members being invited to Canada to discuss those recommendations.
However, they were invited to speak with your group. That is a positive step in the right direction, so at least you can understand from their perspective where Canada needs to improve.
Senator Poy: Ms. Filiatreault, your organization has been around for four years. How is it financed, and how many volunteers do you have?
I will follow up with another question because you did not have a lot of time for your presentation. Can you give us an example of, say, how you deal with one group of young people, or one single person? I want you to walk through so that we have a better understanding of exactly what you do.
[Translation]
Senator Nancy Ruth: I think having kids vote at 12 is brilliant. Start working on your provincial government to change the Municipalities Act.
I have two questions. One is about rights and conflict, and how do we balance them out in a free, fair and democratic society? My second question is around advocacy. There has been an indication recently that grants for the federal Status of Women Canada will not be allowed for advocacy work. Have either of you any indication that grants you receive for advocacy may be cut back?
Mr. Parfitt: The issue of balancing rights is a tough issue to deal with. Courts deal with it every day and social workers deal with it every day. There are always competing rights and responsibilities under any piece of legislation or, indeed, under treaties.
I think one has to remember to look at these documents in a holistic way: What is the damage we are trying to remedy as a result of this convention or this piece of legislation, and then work it back that way. It can be done.
With respect to a court proceeding, for instance — how about a family relations matter where custody and access are at issue? Under the convention, the child has a right to be heard and considered. The convention does not talk about the age limit on that. We have taken a position that if a child is capable of understanding what is going on, they should be given a voice, no matter how young. If they are too young, then at least some form of advocacy should be provided. That voice must to be listened to, but ultimately the courts working under the convention must consider the best interest of that child. Now, the best interest of the child may be something different than what the child wants.
The classic example of that, when I was involved in the ministry in British Columbia, for instance, is an operation for cancer. A young child would need a limb amputated, a doctor would ask for consent from the child, and the child would say "No, I do not want my limb amputated: I will be disabled for the rest of my life."
That young child would be 14 years of age. The state would often intervene and do the operation, saying that the child at age 19 would have a different view of the world.
In certain circumstances, we listen to the child and take those views into consideration, but those views will not necessarily rule the day. Those issues are difficult, and they require a degree of sophistication in balancing those interests.
[Translation]

[Author]

Replies