Post by Dean Robinson on Apr 24, 2007 22:27:53 GMT -5
Time and time again I hear DiCocco flaunting how much her government cares about the children. but they keep avoiding the fact that the Cas is broken, in bill 210 they had their chance to ammend, with bill 88 they they ignored it because it was introduce by the NDP, and then they start pushing bill 165.
our liberal goverment has foesaken us, its time to vote for some one that is going to listen to us the people.
Bill 165: Apples and Oranges –
an Advocate is not an Ombudsman
Submission to the
Standing Committee on Justice Policy
respecting Bill 165,
Provincial Advocate for Children
and Youth Act, 2007
André Marin
Ombudsman of Ontario
Toronto, Ontario
April 24, 2007
2
Bill 165’s proposed creation of an independent Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, as an Officer of the Legislative Assembly, is a positive step forward for the province. It is, however, only a very small part of what is needed to ensure an effective system of protection for Ontario’s children. Until a proper, independent oversight foundation is laid for the child protection system in Ontario, we will continue to lag embarrassingly behind every other province in Canada in truly caring for children.
An advocate is as much an ombudsman as an apple is an orange. Child advocates, by definition, are biased. They are there to take on the voice of children who need to be heard. In contrast, an ombudsman is an independent, impartial investigator of “things gone wrong.” In Ontario, the Ombudsman has strong investigative and reporting tools to galvanize the government into action, while the Child Advocate can only articulate a point of view. While their function and organization are markedly different, in many jurisdictions in the world, both advocates and ombudsmen work in tandem, complementing each other’s role.
In Ontario, 53 independent, non-profit children’s aid societies carry out the vital role of child protection. While the Provincial Advocate will be able to represent the interests of children seeking or receiving child protective services, the Advocate will have no investigative powers. In fact, if the Provincial Advocate felt that a thorough investigation of a complaint were necessary, he or she would have to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Unfortunately, if a complaint relates to child protection matters involving a children’s aid society, there is nothing the Ombudsman can do.
Year after year, the Ombudsman’s office is forced to abandon hundreds of serious complaints against Ontario children’s aid societies because our hands are legally tied. In the past fiscal year alone, we received more than 600 such calls and complaints. These are allegations of child neglect caused by the provincially funded child protection system – yet instead of being investigated, they are effectively thrown out. Despite all the government rhetoric that “children are our future,” we in Ontario are choosing to rid ourselves of hundreds of these serious allegations every year by taking a trip to the dumpster and looking the other way.
Bill 210, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act, which received Royal Assent March 28, 2006, could well be renamed “The Lost Opportunity Act.” When the government decided to take a crack at improving the functioning of our child protection system, it had a golden opportunity to raise the scrutiny of our children’s aid societies to the same level of scrutiny applied in other provinces. Instead, the government waffled and the window of progress that was opened by the Bill was promptly slammed shut.
3
Instead of extending oversight of children’s aid societies to the Ombudsman, the government chose to adopt an adjudicative model which for the most part covers only complaints relating to procedural matters, not the hard-core issues that are complained about in the hundreds every year to the Ombudsman’s Office. The Child and Family Services Review Board does not have the power to investigate substantive complaints about the services sought or received from children’s aid societies, and neither will the newly-created Advocate, who has no investigative authority.
As a result, complaints about the actions of Ontario’s 53 children’s aid societies remain beyond the reach of independent investigative scrutiny. Although the Auditor General can investigate and report on instances of financial mismanagement by children’s aid societies, those who wish to have the Ombudsman investigate complaints of unfair treatment of children and parents by children’s aid societies are left with no recourse.
While there is no question that the children of this province deserve a strong advocate, such an office must go hand in hand with a strong watchdog to safeguard the interests of children and their families. Unlike coroner’s inquests, police investigations, and Pediatric Death Review Committee inquiries, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about child protection services before tragedy strikes. The Ombudsman of Ontario is uniquely placed to deal with individual complaints as well as systemic issues and has broad investigative powers as well the scope to make effective recommendations for improvement.
As noted at the outset, Bill 165, which entrenches the independence of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, is a good small step forward. Before we shower ourselves with praise over baby steps, however, we need to cut through the rhetoric and recognize that we have miles left to go. Vulnerable children in need should be able to access a venue where their complaints can be investigated and resolved. Right now, they are falling through the cracks, but not accidentally.
Until we in Ontario stop looking the other way, government rhetoric about giant leaps in progress in how children’s complaints are treated will be empty fluff. However you slice, chop or spin it, there is no contest as to which province finishes dead last in investigating children’s complaints. Ontario does. Along with this Bill, what is needed now is a corresponding amendment to the Ombudsman Act ensuring that Ontario children and their families will finally have the right to bring their complaints about children’s aid societies to the Ombudsman for independent investigation.
our liberal goverment has foesaken us, its time to vote for some one that is going to listen to us the people.
Bill 165: Apples and Oranges –
an Advocate is not an Ombudsman
Submission to the
Standing Committee on Justice Policy
respecting Bill 165,
Provincial Advocate for Children
and Youth Act, 2007
André Marin
Ombudsman of Ontario
Toronto, Ontario
April 24, 2007
2
Bill 165’s proposed creation of an independent Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, as an Officer of the Legislative Assembly, is a positive step forward for the province. It is, however, only a very small part of what is needed to ensure an effective system of protection for Ontario’s children. Until a proper, independent oversight foundation is laid for the child protection system in Ontario, we will continue to lag embarrassingly behind every other province in Canada in truly caring for children.
An advocate is as much an ombudsman as an apple is an orange. Child advocates, by definition, are biased. They are there to take on the voice of children who need to be heard. In contrast, an ombudsman is an independent, impartial investigator of “things gone wrong.” In Ontario, the Ombudsman has strong investigative and reporting tools to galvanize the government into action, while the Child Advocate can only articulate a point of view. While their function and organization are markedly different, in many jurisdictions in the world, both advocates and ombudsmen work in tandem, complementing each other’s role.
In Ontario, 53 independent, non-profit children’s aid societies carry out the vital role of child protection. While the Provincial Advocate will be able to represent the interests of children seeking or receiving child protective services, the Advocate will have no investigative powers. In fact, if the Provincial Advocate felt that a thorough investigation of a complaint were necessary, he or she would have to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Unfortunately, if a complaint relates to child protection matters involving a children’s aid society, there is nothing the Ombudsman can do.
Year after year, the Ombudsman’s office is forced to abandon hundreds of serious complaints against Ontario children’s aid societies because our hands are legally tied. In the past fiscal year alone, we received more than 600 such calls and complaints. These are allegations of child neglect caused by the provincially funded child protection system – yet instead of being investigated, they are effectively thrown out. Despite all the government rhetoric that “children are our future,” we in Ontario are choosing to rid ourselves of hundreds of these serious allegations every year by taking a trip to the dumpster and looking the other way.
Bill 210, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act, which received Royal Assent March 28, 2006, could well be renamed “The Lost Opportunity Act.” When the government decided to take a crack at improving the functioning of our child protection system, it had a golden opportunity to raise the scrutiny of our children’s aid societies to the same level of scrutiny applied in other provinces. Instead, the government waffled and the window of progress that was opened by the Bill was promptly slammed shut.
3
Instead of extending oversight of children’s aid societies to the Ombudsman, the government chose to adopt an adjudicative model which for the most part covers only complaints relating to procedural matters, not the hard-core issues that are complained about in the hundreds every year to the Ombudsman’s Office. The Child and Family Services Review Board does not have the power to investigate substantive complaints about the services sought or received from children’s aid societies, and neither will the newly-created Advocate, who has no investigative authority.
As a result, complaints about the actions of Ontario’s 53 children’s aid societies remain beyond the reach of independent investigative scrutiny. Although the Auditor General can investigate and report on instances of financial mismanagement by children’s aid societies, those who wish to have the Ombudsman investigate complaints of unfair treatment of children and parents by children’s aid societies are left with no recourse.
While there is no question that the children of this province deserve a strong advocate, such an office must go hand in hand with a strong watchdog to safeguard the interests of children and their families. Unlike coroner’s inquests, police investigations, and Pediatric Death Review Committee inquiries, the Ombudsman can investigate complaints about child protection services before tragedy strikes. The Ombudsman of Ontario is uniquely placed to deal with individual complaints as well as systemic issues and has broad investigative powers as well the scope to make effective recommendations for improvement.
As noted at the outset, Bill 165, which entrenches the independence of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, is a good small step forward. Before we shower ourselves with praise over baby steps, however, we need to cut through the rhetoric and recognize that we have miles left to go. Vulnerable children in need should be able to access a venue where their complaints can be investigated and resolved. Right now, they are falling through the cracks, but not accidentally.
Until we in Ontario stop looking the other way, government rhetoric about giant leaps in progress in how children’s complaints are treated will be empty fluff. However you slice, chop or spin it, there is no contest as to which province finishes dead last in investigating children’s complaints. Ontario does. Along with this Bill, what is needed now is a corresponding amendment to the Ombudsman Act ensuring that Ontario children and their families will finally have the right to bring their complaints about children’s aid societies to the Ombudsman for independent investigation.