Embargo Not for release until

1:00 p.m. (PDT) Thursday, June 5, 2014

Speech by Ted Hughes, June 5, 2014 to the staff of the Office of the
Representative for Children & Youth, Victoria, B.C.

I was pleased to accept the invitation to speak to you today. Specifically it was
that I talk about my recent Manitoba report. That has reference to my December
2013 report entitled The Legacy of Phoenix Sinclair Achieving the Best for All
our Children.
The Report was delivered to the Government of Manitoba on December 16, 2013
and released to the public on J anuary 31, 2014. I have no doubt that I was asked to
go to Manitoba because of my involvement in the 2006 BC Children & Youth
Review out of which the office for which you all now work was born and was
given the major responsibilities that you are fulfilling.
My Manitoba assignment was to conduct a public inquiry. That was not the
process followed in BC. On that previous occasion the request came from the
Minister of Children & Family Development that I do an independent review of
the child protection system in B.C.. The method of public consultation that I
carried out and the details of the accompanying research are well documented in
my 2006 report.
It would be reasonable to say that my assignment in Manitoba was also an
independent review of the child protection system but of that province. Being a
public inquiry it was constituted by an Order in Council passed by cabinet. The
discovery of the body of Phoenix Victoria Hope Sinclair on March 18, 2006 in a
shallow grave in rural Manitoba gave rise to the Inquiry. Phoenix was a little
2

Aboriginal girl who was born in April 2000. Twice during her life Phoenix was
taken into care by the child welfare authorities in Manitoba and over the 5 years of
her life there were 13 occasions when the responsible agency received notices of
concern for her safety and well-being and on all of those occasions a file was
opened by the agency and soon closed, often without a social worker laying eyes
on her.
There was a long delay before the inquiry was called, although it was promised at
the time of discovery of her body. That was mainly because of the time taken in
the prosecution and subsequent unsuccessful appeals by the mother of Phoenix and
her then male partner of their convictions for first degree murder.
Following confirmation of their convictions by the Manitoba Court of Appeal the
public inquiry was convened in 2011. I was mandated to inquire into:
a. the child welfare services provided or not provided to Phoenix Sinclair
and her family under The Child and Family Services Act;
b. any other circumstances, apart from the delivery of child welfare
services, directly related to the death of Phoenix Sinclair; and
c. why the death of Phoenix Sinclair remained undiscovered for several
months.
and to make such recommendations as I consider appropriate to better protect
Manitoba children.
Thirty three months elapsed from the time of commencement until delivery of the
report. On two occasions, rulings I made during proceedings were unsuccessfully
challenged in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, causing long delays. In all we were
in session for 92 days and heard from 126 witnesses.
With that background it is my intention today to address three areas.
3

Firstly, and briefly, the question of why Phoenix was not protected by the child
welfare system from the evils of her mother and her boyfriend, given her lifelong
involvement with the system. In answering that question I will make brief mention
of some of the many recommendations I made to strengthen the system in
Manitoba, beyond improvements made by child welfare officials in Manitoba
between 2006 and 2013.
Secondly, I will take a few moments to place emphasis on recommendations I
made that I believe have equal application to British Columbia. These emphasize
that responsibility to protect children is a shared responsibility shared with the
child welfare system itself, and with other arms of government and with the
community as a whole.
Thirdly, and what I judge to be among the most important of the subjects
considered at the Inquiry, namely the dramatic over representation of Aboriginal
children in the Canadian child welfare system. This is a serious problem that needs
to be tackled at a national level. I will discuss what I have done to move that
subject forward for discussion and action at that level.
I turn to a consideration of the first of the three subject areas. Having already
referenced that on 13 occasions referrals relating to the safety and well-being of
Phoenix were made to the agency responsible for her safety, I reached the
following conclusions:
time and time again the focus was limited to the short term. A worker
would determine that there were no immediate protection concerns, the
file would be closed, and the agencys services to the family would stop,
until the next referral. Parental motivation, commitment, and capacity
were ignored. No consideration was given to the potential long-term
4

harmful effects of leaving Phoenix in the care of parents who had
significant unresolved issues of their own.

In considering the services provided and more significantly those that
were not provided to this family under The Child and Family Services
Act, I have identified certain failures that were ongoing, throughout the
time that agency files were open. In particular, the agency failed
throughout to make adequate face-to-face contact with the family, and
especially with Phoenix herself. The agency failed to keep current in its
understanding of Phoenixs safety and well-being. Case plans were
prepared and then not followed. Files were closed when further
investigation was warranted.

When I consider the evidence in its totality, I find that often what was
missing was a fundamental understanding by staff of the mandate of the
child welfare system and of their own role in fulfilling that mandate. For
the most part, workers and supervisors lacked an awareness of the
reasons why families come into contact with the child welfare system
and of the steps they needed to take to support those families. The focus
on short-term safety concerns to the exclusion of long-term risk is an
example of this lack of understanding.
Those paragraphs answer in a general way and to the extent that time permits, the
question why the child welfare system did not protect Phoenix from her mother
and her mothers male partner.
To their credit those responsible in Manitoba did not sit idle between 2006 and
2013.
5

A major response to this tragedy has been the adoption by the child welfare system
in Manitoba of a new practice model. Called a Differential Response model, it
aims to identify families that need help in the early stages, before children come to
harm; assess their needs and their strengths; and provide the services to the family
that will enable their children to be kept safe at home.
This approach depends on skilled social workers who can spend the time to
develop a relationship with the family. A set of assessment tools is designed to
guide the worker through the process of gathering the information that evidence
has proved to be critical to the decisions that need to be made. The standardized
risk assessment tool now in use requires a worker to thoroughly check the familys
history. When the form is completed, it automatically generates a preliminary
calculation of the risk level, which may be adjusted upwards by the worker, but not
down.
This new practice model provides much more thorough, ongoing assessments of
safety and risk, and of strengths and needs. It also promotes better engagement
with families by social workers who build working relationships based on trust.
Once assessments are made, however, the next step is to provide the services and
supports that those assessments indicate are needed. The emphasis is on
prevention and early intervention with the objective, where possible, of keeping
children safe at home.
Other changes have been made. For instance a province-wide standard for face-to-
face contact has been established. Whenever there is an allegation of abuse or
neglect, a worker must see all children in the household and if possible, interview
them in a safe environment.
6

Recommendations I made built on the improvements made between 2006 and
2013. Included were recommendations addressing the following:
the same worker provide services to a family throughout the familys
involvement with the child welfare system.
all ongoing services to families be delivered on the basis of no more than
20 cases per worker.
funding be provided to a level that supports the differential response
approach.
and to the surprise of nobody here I am sure, a recommendation that the
position of a Manitoba Representative for Children and Youth, as an
independent Officer of the Legislature, be established under its own stand-
alone legislation.
That last recommendation is a testament to the success of this office here in British
Columbia and the diligence and devotion of the Representative herself and the staff
she has gathered around her. Subsequent recommendations in my Manitoba report
address matters pertaining to this office, an office whose duplication in Manitoba
will be to the benefit of children and families in that province just as children and
families in British Columbia have benefited from your work on their behalf.
Included is a recommendation to create a standing committee of the Legislature on
Children and Youth and a recommendation giving the Representative the power to
make special reports to the Legislature a function that, as you know, must be
used wisely and with discretion in order to achieve maximum benefit for those you
serve.
It is time I move to my second area of discussion the responsibility that we all
share to protect children. Child welfare agencies alone cannot bear this burden.
7

They must be supported by individuals, families and communities. That being so I
directed my attention to a consideration of what programs and departments -
whether government or community-based - were available or ought to have been
available to support families and children. In doing so I looked firstly at the
supportive role of appropriate community based organizations and secondly, at
early childhood intervention as an effective means of protecting vulnerable
children with an emphasis on integrated service delivery centres for early
childhood development programs that also provide a range of services that children
and families need in community locations.
I heard evidence from nine community-based organizations that serve families in
the City of Winnipeg through programs and supports for children and their
families. The variety of programs I heard about included:
An Aboriginal preschool program.
An afterschool and weekend and seven-day-a-week program for children
six to seventeen-year-olds.
Help and support for parents.
An indigenous led organization that delivers over 50 different programs in
Winnipeg at eleven different sites, the programs including a mentoring
program for youth leadership roles, family violence programming, training
of foster families, drop-in centres for toast and coffee and access to laundry
and internet and a place to make community connections.
A program for Aboriginal youth who are out of school and unemployed. It
is an all-day three-month long program that promotes pride in identity by
teaching about colonization, treaties, and traditional ceremonies and offers
training and practical skills.
8

The list could go on and on. I concluded that collaboration with community-based
organizations that are trusted by families is essential if the child welfare system is
to ensure that families receive the support they need under a differential response
approach with its emphasis on prevention.
I will mention but two recommendations I made in my support for the role of
community based organizations.
The first reads:
That the capacity of community-based organizations be enhanced by
provision of sustained long-term funding to allow for delivery of holistic
services, with particular emphasis on support for Aboriginal-led
organizations and programs that promote cultural identity within
Aboriginal communities.
I made that recommendation because the evidence was clear that community-
based organizations are effective in providing prevention services, both before
and after involvement with the child welfare system. These organizations
need consistent and sustained long-term funding to effectively plan for the
delivery of those services.
An accompanying recommendation was that a committee be established by
legislation with provision for broad-based representation including persons
who represent Manitobas various regions and its cultural diversity, including
the aboriginal and francophone communities, and persons who are parents of
children under eighteen years of age. The committee should be charged with
allocating government funding to community-based organizations following
meaningful and inclusive consultation, it being understood that funding from
the private sector and other levels of government will continue to play an
9

important role in supporting those organizations. My reason for so
recommending was made quite clear in the Report:
Having recognized the role that these organizations can play in
supporting families and protecting children, it is important that a
formalized process be put in place to ensure that services are provided
and accessible in a coordinated and fiscally responsible manner.
I now turn briefly to the second area where I made recommendations pertaining to
our shared responsibilities to protect children, namely the value of delivery of early
childhood development programs with an emphasis on the creation of community-
based integrated service delivery centres that make a range of services available to
families including public health, employment and income assistance, housing and
adult education.
First, in recommending support for a legislative framework for the delivery of
early childhood development programs I said,
Early childhood education programs, whether kindergarten, childcare, or
other pre-school programs, can significantly benefit children and their
parents. Pre-school years offer the most significant opportunity to
influence childrens capacity to learn throughout their lifetime.
Universal access to quality early childhood programs supports parents by
allowing them to address their own health issues including substance
misuse and mental health; to seek employment; and to further their
education. Ultimately, quality early childhood education results in cost
savings to health and justice and other systems and combats poverty.
I then followed with a recommendation that:
10

The legislative framework for delivery of early childhood development
programs should also provide for establishment of integrated service
delivery centres to provide a range of services in addition to early
childhood education, including public health, employment and income
assistance, housing, child welfare, and adult education. These integrated
service centres should be located in existing infrastructures such as
schools or facilities that house community-based organizations.
In speaking to that recommendation I noted, with approval, the evidence I heard
supporting the use of schools to provide a range of programming for families. That
reasoning was based on the fact that schools operate from 9 to 5, five days a week
for 10 months of the year. Schools are located in every neighborhood and can be
the centre of their communities.
I recognized that some government funding would be necessary to support
integrated service delivery centres. As in the case of my recommendation for the
funding of community-based organizations, I recognized the need for meaningful
and inclusive consultation with a committee that reflects Manitobas regions, and
cultural diversity including the Aboriginal population of the province.
To some extent, to its credit, Manitoba has already started down the road that I
recommended to be followed in those recommendations I have just referenced.
My report details the Lord Selkirk Park childcare program in Winnipeg and the
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and Community Wellness Centre located at Nelson
House in northern Manitoba.
Lord Selkirk Park Childcare Centre, located in Winnipeg, is a facility for 47
children beginning in infancy. The community where these children live is known
for a high crime rate. Most families are on social assistance and most are
11

Aboriginal. The Centres program was developed in consultation with, and is
funded by, Healthy Child Manitoba, to meet the early education needs of children
living in poverty. Higher-than-average staff-to-child ratios allow for more adult-
child interactions, and children are given healthy snacks and a hot lunch. The
facility also serves as a drop-in centre for families. Importantly, a home visitor
works closely with the 19 families whose children attend the Centre. Many of
these families are involved with the child welfare system. The outreach worker
sees parents every day when they drop off and pick up their children, and she
meets with them at home at least weekly. She helps them problem-solve;
advocates for them, and helps them navigate through their crises.
The Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and Community Wellness Centre was
developed through a community-based consultation process. It provides public
health, maternal health, and head start programs; daycare; fetal alcohol
programming; diabetes initiatives; and child and family services, among others.
The community centre offers mens groups, fitness classes, parenting groups,
various youth groups, early childhood education, and other community services. A
mentoring program makes elders available to young people attending programs,
and at the same time engages elders in the community.
Much of the content of my Manitoba report and what I say to you today has
reference to a large urban centre with an extensive Aboriginal presence. That is
because it was in Winnipeg that Phoenix spent all but the last few months of her
life. That preventive services are possible in more rural settings is evidenced by
the success of what is being accomplished at the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and
Community Wellness Centre.
I have singled out the foregoing initiatives because of the heavy emphasis they
place on prevention. The fact is that prevention is the first step in protection. The
12

presence of and support for programs and facilities such as I have just reviewed
will reduce the need to remove children from their homes and take them into care.
I appreciate that governments do not have unlimited funds to devote to child
welfare responsibilities that rest with them. A gradual movement of dollars within
a departments budget to prevention initiatives will pay huge dividends, both for
children who will be kept at home rather than being placed in care and also through
the avoidance of the high cost of maintaining children in the care of the state.
This brings me to a discussion of the third and final subject I intend to address
today, namely the dramatic over representation of Aboriginal children in the
child welfare system. I have already identified it as a serious problem requiring
action at the national level. The over representation issue is well known to you as
evidenced by the content of your November 2013 Special Report When Talk
Trumped Service.
In my 2006 BC Report I noted that Aboriginal children were being taken into care
at a steadily rising rate and that an aboriginal child was 9.5 times more likely to be
taken into care than a non-aboriginal child.
What I concluded in my Manitoba report accords very much with the content of
your November 2013 Report.
I found that:
Aboriginal children are involved with Manitobas child welfare system at a
much higher rate than non-aboriginal children. Of the more than 9,700
children in care of child welfare agencies in Manitoba, more than 80% are
Aboriginal, and the numbers have been steadily increasing since 1997. In
Winnipeg alone, 83% of the 5,291 children in care in 2012 were Aboriginal.
13

Based on the evidence of leading experts who gave evidence at the Inquiry,
including Doctors Trocm, MacKenzie and Blackstock, it is clear that the general
trend of over-representation is similar across Canada although Manitoba is at the
high end of the range. You identified that, as of March 2013, more than 53 per
cent of the children in care of the BC government were Aboriginal. The impact of
these statistics is driven home when it is appreciated that in British Columbia in
2011 about 5.4 per cent of the population identified themselves as Aboriginal.
In my report I concluded that:
the fact of this dramatic over-representation is incontrovertible when it
is appreciated that Aboriginal people represent just over 4% of the
Canadian population. Even in Winnipeg, where the figure is about 10%
and in Manitoba, where it is about 16%, this disproportionate number of
children in care is unconscionable. In Manitoba and across our country,
the horrors of life that cause children to be taken into care and away from
their moms and dads are visited in gross disproportion on Aboriginal
children.

To Canada, a country that purports to be a leader in the advancement of
human rights, both at home and abroad, the foregoing facts have to be a
significant national embarrassment. The problem cannot be solved by
Manitoba acting alone.
Nor can it be solved by British Columbia acting alone. I do not question the good
intentions of your 2013 recommendation that MCFD take the lead in developing a
clear plan for B.C. to close the outcomes gap for Aboriginal children and youth
across government ministries but in my opinion a provincial initiative will
neither rectify nor reverse what I have characterized as unconscionable, a gross
14

disproportion and a national embarrassment. I refuse to accept that it will
indefinitely remain as such. There has to be a solution.
Before I identify what I have recommended to accomplish that end from within the
constraints of a provincial public inquiry, there must be an appreciation of how we
got into the position of this gross disproportion and what the consequences are for
Aboriginal children and families. The Representative and I are, I believe, on the
same wave length in that regard. Dr. Alexandra Wright, one of Manitobas leading
academics in the field of child welfare offered the following explanation as
recorded in my Report,
The negative effects of colonization on the Aboriginal community,
through government sanctioned practices such as residential schools and
the apprehension of children, continue to permeate the health and well-
being of Aboriginal familiesIssues such as high levels of substance
abuse, suicide, family violence, mental health issues and parenting are
considered to result from long-term social and economic impacts of
colonization on Indigenous family life

That accords with what I reproduced in my 2006 Report from an earlier Report of
British Columbias Provincial Health Officer:
The high rate of Aboriginal children in care reflects the historical
disadvantages experienced by Aboriginal communities. Residential
schools caused generations to grow up without opportunities to develop
parenting skills. Poverty, relative isolation, unemployment, and
inadequate housing all contribute to family disruption. When Aboriginal
families experience difficulties, they have not always been given the
15

resources and support they need to ensure that children are raised in their
home communities and culture.

In your 2013 report you define, correctly I believe, what Dr. Wright called
colonization as the historic legacy of discriminatory government policies that
undermined Aboriginal culture, traditions and language.
You recorded:
Many Aboriginal people face chronic and deep poverty and live in
inadequate and crowded housing. A recent study found that while the
average poverty rate in B.C. for non-Aboriginal children is 17 per cent,
the poverty rate for Aboriginal children is 28 per cent and for Status
Indian children it is 48 per cent nearly three times the average for non-
Aboriginal children. Aboriginal people also have poorer health, lower
educational achievement, higher rates of incarceration, higher
unemployment and higher reliance on income assistance than non-
Aboriginal people.

The outcomes for Aboriginal families identified by you in that paragraph flow
from and are attributable to the colonization process that took its roots 150 years
ago. The question today is what should occur in 2014 and the years immediately
ahead to successfully embark on a journey to bring the scales into balance and end
the lifetime of disadvantage with which so many Aboriginal children are presently
burdened from the day of their birth. I opined in my Manitoba Report that in order
to successfully do so it will be necessary to address the underlying factors of which
I have just made mention, most importantly poverty, lack of adequate housing,
substance abuse and the absence of educational and economic opportunity.
16

Appreciating the national scope of such an undertaking I took what I saw as the
only avenue open to me at a provincial inquiry by recommending:
That at the next meeting of the Council of the Federation (the Premiers
of Canadas ten provinces and three territories), the Premier of Manitoba
request placement on the agenda and the opportunity to speak to the
unacceptably disproportionate number of Aboriginal children taken into
care by child welfare authorities across Canada in comparison to non-
Aboriginal children. Further, that if given the opportunity to speak to the
matter, the Premier of Manitoba outline the severity and seriousness of
the problem and the consequences for all of us, but particularly for
Aboriginal children and families, if allowed to continue unabated; and
that he explore whether collectively his colleagues are of a mind to take
steps in search of a solution and a process for implementation of that
solution over time.
On the day of the delivery of my Report I met with Premier Selinger. He fully
appreciates the problem, is supportive of my recommendation and has agreed to act
in accordance with it. The next meeting of the Council of the Federation will be
held in Charlottetown in late August. I have requested a brief meeting with
Premier Clark to acquaint her with the above recommendation, the intentions of
Premier Selinger and to seek her support for his endeavours. Now that the
Legislature has adjourned for the summer I am hopeful that Premier Clark will
make a few minutes of her busy schedule available to me.
The outcome of any discussion that takes place in Charlottetown by the thirteen
premiers is of course unknown at this time but it is certain that there can be no
long-term solution without the involvement of the federal government in this
national problem.
17

My interest, based on the mandate I held in Manitoba, is focused on the
overrepresentation of Aboriginal children and families in the child welfare system.
A concerted national effort to tackle that issue will result in benefits being reflected
in other overrepresented areas such as incarceration and suicide rates and also in
improvements in areas of educational achievement, employment and economic
opportunity.
The cornerstone of such a concerted national effort must be an attack on the
underlying vulnerabilities resulting from colonization with poverty and a lack of
adequate housing including water supply at the top of the list.
At the time of release of my Manitoba Report I was both surprised and alarmed at
how little public attention and discussion the over-representation issue received. It
was treated almost as a non-issue with what appeared to be an acceptance of the
status quo. It is because I believe such a response is so inadequate that I have
decided to make my remarks to you today publicly available. It should be well
known that the Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry moved this issue forward for discussion
and attention beyond the borders of Manitoba. Premier Selinger is deserving of
widespread support as he provides leadership on this initiative.
I note that Premier Ghiz has invited his colleagues to attend the August meeting on
the 150th anniversary of the historic Charlottetown Conference where the Fathers
of Confederation met in 1864. He has noted that there will be discussion of issues
of importance in the Confederation.
Notwithstanding how well-meaning and honourable the intentions of the Fathers of
Confederation and those who followed them may have been, the policies
implemented and the actions taken by them seriously undermined the culture,
traditions and language of Aboriginal people who preceded them on the lands of
18

this country. The over-representative statistics that I have reviewed with you today
and others akin to them and readily available are ample proof that that is so.
Since the delivery of my Report nearly six months ago there have been issues of
relevance and importance that have occurred on the national scene. I refer first to
the unfortunate impasse that has taken place between the Government of Canada
and First Nations leadership with respect to educational changes relating to on-
reserve schools.
Second is the report released last month by the RCMP on missing and murdered
Aboriginal women. It recorded that Aboriginal women are over-represented
among Canadas murdered and missing women. Also noted was the fact that the
rate of victimization by acts of violence against Aboriginal females was close to
three times higher than in the case of non-Aboriginal females.
It is my belief that the unacceptable risk of violence that Aboriginal women and
girls face is attributable to the same factors that I have earlier suggested explain the
disproportionality with respect to Aboriginal representation in the child welfare
system and the other sectors of our society that I have identified.
Likely the Premiers will be reminded in Charlottetown that the national public
inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women to which they gave their
support when they met in Niagara-on-the-Lake in 2013 has not come to pass.
Notwithstanding that calls for such an inquiry have intensified since the release of
last months RCMP Report, I do not view that lack of response as a negative. That
is because in my judgment further inquiries are not the solution. This is a time for
action not for further study.
It would be ideal for that action to commence at the Charlottetown meeting which I
see as an opportunity to make the initial moves required to turn the page on the
19

missteps of the past and to lay the groundwork for the commencement of a
collaborative journey to achieve the attainable successes of the future.
Central to and directly involved in that collaboration must be the leaders of
government Provincial, Aboriginal and Federal in stark contrast to the
unilateral approach taken in 1864 and the years that followed. The opportunities I
have had in my working life over the last sixty years, including my time from 2003
until 2008 as the inaugural Chief Adjudicator of Canadas Residential School
settlement program, satisfy me that the Aboriginal community, through those
giving leadership to it, will willingly participate at the table as solutions are
identified, agreed upon and implemented. Indeed, they and all the leaders of the
governments I have referenced must be there in a spirit of goodwill.