Child and Family
Services Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 118, Mr
Martin / Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les
services à l'enfance et à la famille, projet
de loi 118, M. Martin
Children's Aid Society
of Algoma-Central District
Mr Hugh Nicholson
Mr Jim Baraniuk
Sexual Abuse
Coordinating Committee
Ms Sharon Vanderburg
Ms Karen Nixon
Ms Debbie Amoroso
Mary
Anne
O'Connor
Sexual Assault Care
Centre; Algoma Community Legal Clinic
Ms Bryna Coppel-Park
Dr Gayle Broad
Algoma Health
Unit
Dr Allan Northan
Zonta Club of Sault
Ste Marie Area
Ms Patricia Tossell
Dr Susan Febbraro
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North / -Nord PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1006 in the Ramada Inn,
Sault Ste Marie.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): I call the meeting to order.
Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. This is the standing committee on justice and social
policy to consider Bill 118, An Act to amend the Child and Family
Services Act.
The first item of business is
the subcommittee reports on Bill 118 and Bill 155. Mr
DeFaria.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): Madam Chair, I am pleased to move
the report of the subcommittee.
Your subcommittee met on
Monday, January 22, 2001, to consider the method of proceeding on
Bill 118, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, and
recommends the following:
(1) That the committee meet
in Sault Ste Marie on February 15, and that the committee meet in
Toronto on February 19, for the purpose of holding public
hearings.
(2) That the clerk have an
advertisement placed once in the major English daily paper in
Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Timmins and North Bay. The
advertisement will also be placed once in a French weekly paper
that covers the north. The advertisement will also be placed on
the Ontario parliamentary channel and on the Internet.
(3) That the deadline for
witnesses to request an appearance before the committee is
February 9 at 12 noon.
(4) That the deadline for
written submissions is February 28.
(5) That on February 19, the
Minister of Community and Social Services and the Attorney
General be invited for 30 minutes each to make presentations to
the committee. Following these presentations, the two opposition
parties will have 20 minutes each to make statements and ask
questions.
(6) That on February 2 at 12
noon, each party will provide the clerk with a prioritized list
of those witnesses from whom they would like to hear. Using these
three lists, as well as the names of those people who have
contacted the clerk directly, the Chair, Mr Martin, and the clerk
will determine who to schedule and how long they will have to
present. As a guideline, individuals may receive 10 minutes and
groups may receive 20 minutes in which to make their
presentations.
(7) That the Chair is to
evaluate requests by witnesses to have their expenses paid by the
committee on a case-by-case basis.
(8) That the legislative
research officer prepare a research paper on other jurisdictions
as soon as possible and provide a summary of recommendations by
March 5.
(9) That amendments be filed
with the clerk by Monday, March 19.
(10) That there be an
opportunity for each party to take 15 minutes to make opening
comments at the beginning of the clause-by-clause process.
(11) That the clerk has the
authority to begin implementing these decisions immediately.
(12) That the information
contained in this subcommittee report may be given out to
interested parties immediately, as opposed to after the committee
has voted on it.
(13) That the Chair, in
consultation with the clerk, has the authority to make any other
decisions necessary with respect to this bill.
I am pleased to move this
report of the subcommittee, Madam Chair.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr DeFaria.
All in favour? That
carries.
For the record, Mr DeFaria,
if you could also read the subcommittee report for Bill 155.
Mr DeFaria:
Madam Chair, I am also pleased to move the report of the
subcommittee on Bill 155.
Your subcommittee met on
Monday, January 22, 2001, to consider the method of proceeding on
Bill 155, An Act to provide civil remedies for organized crime
and other unlawful activities, and recommends the following:
(1) That the committee meet
on February 20, 21, 26, 27 and 28 for the purpose of holding
public hearings. The first two days will be spent in Toronto
while the latter three days will be spent travelling. The
committee intends to go to Niagara Falls, Ottawa and Sudbury.
(2) That the clerk have an
advertisement placed once in the major English daily paper in
Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Timmins, North Bay,
Niagara Falls, and Ottawa. The advertisement will also be placed
in the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the
National Post. If available, French newspaper advertisements will
be placed in the above-noted areas. The advertisement will also
be placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel and on the
Internet.
(3) That the deadline for witnesses to request an
appearance before the committee is February 9 at 12 noon.
(4) That on February 7 each
party give the clerk a prioritized list of the witnesses they
would like to hear from. The clerk will begin to fill
approximately 75% of the agenda with these selections.
(5) That on February 9 the
clerk will provide each party with a list of those groups and
individuals who contacted the clerk to request an appearance
before the committee. On February 12 at 12 noon, each party will
provide the clerk with a second prioritized list of the witnesses
that they would like to hear from. This second list may only be
selected from among those groups and individuals who contacted
the clerk directly. These lists will be used to fill
approximately 25% of the agenda.
(6) That on February 20 the
Attorney General be invited for 10 minutes to make a presentation
to the committee. The opposition parties will then have 10
minutes to make statements and ask questions. Ministry staff will
then be offered one hour to answer questions and make
statements.
(7) That individuals have 10
minutes in which to make their presentation and groups have 20
minutes in which to make their presentations. The Chair has some
discretion as to how time is allotted.
(8) The Chair will authorize
payment of reasonable requests by witnesses to have their
expenses paid by the committee.
(9) That the legislative
research officer will prepare a research paper on other
jurisdictions, specifically focusing on the United States of
America and Britain. The researcher will also provide a summary
of recommendations. Both papers are requested as soon as
possible.
(10) That amendments should
be filed with the clerk by Monday, March 19 at 12 noon.
(11) That clause-by-clause
consideration of the bill commence on March 26.
(12) That there be an
opportunity for each party to take five minutes to make opening
comments at the beginning of the clause-by-clause process.
(13) That the clerk has the
authority to begin implementing these decisions immediately.
(14) That the information
contained in this subcommittee report may be given out to
interested parties immediately, as opposed to after the committee
has voted on it.
(15) That the Chair, in
consultation with the clerk, will make any other decisions
necessary with respect to this bill.
I move, Madam Chair, the
report of the subcommittee.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr DeFaria.
All in favour? That
carries.
We'll move to public
presentations and-
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): Madam Chair, I notice we have a presentation at
1:00 and then a blank at 1:20, and I'm wondering if it might be
possible to move the Algoma Health Unit to 1:20 rather than 1:00,
which will give us a little longer period over the noon hour
that's uninterrupted.
The Chair:
We'll certainly check into that, Mr Wood, and get back to
you.
Mr Wood:
Could you let us know prior to adjournment so we know how much
time we have for lunch?
The Chair:
Yes, we will.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): Madam Chair, I just wanted to raise an issue
at the very beginning of these hearings so that we might perhaps
think about it and together find a way to resolve it, if it in
fact becomes the issue that I think it may. Perhaps we could get
some direction from the parliamentary assistant, Mr Maves, on
this.
As you know, this piece of
legislation has some significant and important ramifications re
the ability of the, in particular, children's aid society to
respond to indications that there is abuse happening within
institutions. As long as their hands continue to be tied in the
way that they will share today and Monday, children are at
risk.
It sounds to me like the
government may be intending to prorogue before the House actually
comes back, whenever it comes back. That means, as you know, that
all bills will die, including this one. Is there any thought
being put into, or consideration given to, perhaps trying to save
a few bills that might be of import, particularly a bill like
this one? I feel-I think we all around this table feel-that if it
becomes obvious to us during the two days of hearings it needs to
be implemented immediately in order to further protect children,
something might be done to that effect.
The Chair:
Obviously, as Chair I can't comment on that, Mr Martin. Mr Maves,
would you care to respond to that?
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): I don't know if it's the intention of
the House leader to prorogue or not. I'd be happy to make
representation to him that if indeed that is his intention, he
give serious consideration to carrying this bill over.
Mr Martin:
Okay, I appreciate that.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Martin and Mr Maves. That puts us about two minutes
early, rather than the five.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI
DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE ET
À LA FAMILLE
Consideration of Bill 118, An
Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act / Projet de loi
118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et
à la famille.
CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF ALGOMA-CENTRAL
DISTRICT
The Chair:
Can I assume that representatives from the Children's Aid Society
of Algoma-Central District are here? Hugh Nicholson, executive
director, Jim Baraniuk, director of services, and Nadine Gareau,
solicitor, would you like to come forward, please?
Good morning. You have 20 minutes to make your
presentation. Questions will be asked by the committee.
Mr Hugh
Nicholson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Hugh Nicholson,
the executive director of the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.
Sitting next to me is Nadine Gareau, our legal counsel, and Jim
Baraniuk, our director of services for the children's aid
society.
I'd like to thank the
standing committee on justice and social policy for holding a
hearing on Bill 118 in Sault Ste Marie. This hearing is important
to us because it gives members of the community who have been
affected by institutional abuse the opportunity to talk directly
to members of the Ontario Legislature and to see first-hand that
positive action is being taken on a matter which is very
important to them.
I also wish to thank our MPP,
Tony Martin, for bringing this bill forward, and all three
parties for setting partisan politics aside when they voted on
this legislation.
The Children's Aid Society of
Algoma believes that the current laws do very little to protect
children in institutional settings from abuse. When we consider
Grandview school for girls, Pelican Lake school, Ernest C. Drury
School for the Deaf, St Ann's Residential School, St Joseph's
Training School for Boys, as well as the court cases in Sault Ste
Marie, we cannot escape the fact that this is a recurring
reality.
History has shown us
institutional abuse often continues for years, and in some cases
10 to 20 years, before the offender is brought to justice. Many
children's lives are permanently damaged. Over the period in
which abuse takes place, people do come forward but are not
believed. Finally, although it's a very small percentage of
caregivers, it happens more frequently than we would like to
believe.
It's simply unacceptable to
allow this level of abuse to continue for so long before
corrective action is taken. The amendments to the Child and
Family Services Act proposed in Bill 118 would allow children's
aid societies to step in quickly and institute the measures
necessary to prevent abuse before it happens or stop it before it
becomes widespread.
1020
From our experience in
investigating reports of institutional abuse by caregivers, we
are well aware of some of the dynamics that lead to the
situations we described earlier. Co-workers are often reluctant
to report abuse because of friendships, loyalties, career
concerns and peer pressures; organizations are often reluctant to
acknowledge the facts, and at times even investigate them,
because of threats of legal action, labour relations issues and
exposure to suits from parents; some abusers are charismatic and
influential staff who are well respected by other staff and
children; and parents are often nervous about pursuing issues
because of threats of legal action by both the institution and
the caregiver. They also tell us that pushing the issue will only
make things worse for their children.
As a consequence, some strong
incentives exist to rationalize the actions of the abuser,
discredit children and parents who report these concerns, and
ignore the facts. In some instances this is overt, and in other
instances it's quite subtle. The institutions and staff have only
to ignore one situation before they find themselves compromised
and legally liable, which at times can be a further incentive to
suppress the facts. Under the current legislation, there's little
that children's aid societies can do to protect children in
institutional settings from abuse.
I'll now ask Jim Baraniuk,
our director of services, to explain the limitations of the
current legislation and how Bill 118 addresses the problems. In
December, we also submitted a written response to Bill 118 in
which we suggested some changes in wording. Mr Baraniuk will also
provide some information on these recommendations.
Mr Jim
Baraniuk: Abuse in institutions has been well
documented. It is something this community is acutely aware of,
and you'll hear of that today. This raises questions about how
children are being protected in caregiving institutions.
What do we mean when we say
"caregiving institutions?" What we are targeting here are those
institutions within our communities which are entrusted with the
charge of children; for example, churches, schools, voluntary
organizations, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boy Scouts and Girl
Guides.
Children's aid societies are
empowered through the Child and Family Services Act to protect
children. That mandate is clearly stated in section 15 of this
act. The ability to protect children is clear when children live
in a family setting. For example, we can investigate reports of
abuse by a parent, we can inform the other parent of a risk to
the child, we can make remedial recommendations to parents to
alleviate risk to the child, and if they refuse to follow the
recommendations, we can apprehend the child or go to court to
secure an order requiring the parents to follow the
recommendations.
When it comes to situations
involving institutional caregivers, the ability to protect
children isn't as clear. We can investigate protection concerns
related to children in their care, but under the legislation as
it currently exists, we have no power to intervene to ensure that
remedial steps are taken to alleviate the risk to children within
caregiving institutions.
For example, the children's
aid society has the power to investigate allegations that a Boy
Scout or Girl Guide leader may be abusing children. We can
investigate these allegations. However, if we find there is
abuse, we have no way of intervening to protect the children. It
is even unclear whether we are able to communicate with the heads
of those organizations about our findings so they can take
appropriate measures to follow up on the concerns with those
leaders.
One of the most dramatic
changes coming from Bill 118 would give children's aid societies
the ability to move from simply investigating protection concerns
in caregiving institutions to now having the ability to protect
children in caregiving institutions. Bill 118 would allow us to
directly communicate our findings to the heads of caregiving institutions, so that they
can make appropriate actions on CAS recommendations or findings.
Bill 118 would also allow children's aid societies the
opportunity, if required, to apply for a court order requiring
institutions to take the necessary steps to protect children
within those institutions, if necessary.
We realize that this may be
seen as controversial. Some may say this goes too far in
expanding the powers and obligations of a children's aid society.
Perhaps a better question may be, who should have this
responsibility if not children's aid societies?
Perhaps some would say that
regulatory bodies of caregiving institutions may play this role.
However, many groups and organizations do not have regulatory
bodies governing their work, and where regulatory bodies exist,
they do not have the expertise to assess risk of abuse and
develop effective plans to alleviate risk of abuse. Children's
aid societies have this expertise and infrastructure.
Expanding children's aid
societies' power may also raise questions around liability for
children's aid societies once this role is broadened. However, we
must not lose sight that children's aid societies have the
expertise and the infrastructure to investigate and protect
children. Children's aid societies simply lack the power under
the current legislation to do so, and therefore require the
amendments this bill is suggesting. While the liability issue is
concerning for our children's aid society, what is the
alternative? To ignore abuse in institutions?
In reviewing Bill 118, we
have a number of suggestions that may assist in alleviating some
of the concerns that were raised in connection with this
bill.
First, Bill 118 defines a
list of organizations which fall under the definition of the term
"caregiving institution." However, in an attempt to clearly
define caregiving institutions, there is always the danger of
possible exclusions, given the broad range of organizations that
exist and may come into existence in the future. Therefore, a
more general definition of "caregiver institutions" may better
address this issue, and we propose the following wording: "A
caregiver institution is an organization having charge of
children, or responsible for the care being provided by a
caregiver." Our definition of "caregiver" would mean every person
who has charge of a child, other than a parent or other person
with legal custody of the child.
Second, the jurisdiction of
the court to make an order governing actions of caregiver
institutions might more properly be placed in section 80 of the
Child and Family Services Act rather than section 57, which
predominantly focuses on placement of children. Section 80 deals
with protection of children by persons other than the parent with
whom the child resides.
Third, we strongly support
Bill 118's changes in the duty-to-report section of section 72.
Under the current legislation, a duty is imposed on individuals
to report information to societies when they are suspicious of or
believe that abuse has occurred. Charges can be laid under the
Provincial Offences Act for failure to report. There is a
six-month liability period imposed under the Provincial Offences
Act for laying charges for failure to report.
This section of the bill
would clarify that the duty to report is a continuous
responsibility. Therefore, if the holder of information fails to
report the information for months or years, the duty continues
during that period and is not limited to the six-month period
following receipt of the information, as it currently is.
The changes proposed in the
bill will assist in ensuring there is better reporting, given the
pressures that can often occur within institutions not to report
a colleague or a union member.
1030
However, for more clarity
we would propose a change in the current wording of the bill in
section 72. The current wording states, "The duty to report under
subsection (1) continues each day until the risk to the child
ends." We propose the wording be as follows: "The duty to report
under subsection (1) continues each day until the report is
made." This change in wording would add clarity that the duty to
report continues even if a particular child leaves the
institution. This is important, as other children might continue
to be at risk within that institution, and therefore the
reporting of information continues to be critical.
Fourth, we have heard
concerns raised that the passing of the bill would create an
avenue for children to make false allegations against teachers,
clergy, coaches etc. The same concerns could be raised with
respect to the powers the children's aid societies currently have
for investigating and intervening with abuse within family
settings, and in our experience this is not a common occurrence.
Such concerns themselves call for a body with expertise in the
investigation and assessment of abuse to separate fallacious
reports from reports of actual abuse or risk of abuse. The
alternative is to ignore all reports of abuse in the
institutional setting, which is unacceptable. The bill also
provides due process by including the court system in the
analysis of and intervention in abuse.
Finally, we believe the
proposed expansion of access to the child abuse register for
caregiving institutions in Bill 118 requires further review,
given the future uncertainty of the child abuse register and how
it will function within the environment of the new fast-track
system, which is a central database for children's aid societies
that now is being used across the province. We recommend that the
remainder of the bill proceed, rather than holding up the process
for further review of this section.
I would again like to thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you about Bill 118. Mr
Nicholson will be providing some closing comments.
Mr
Nicholson: In closing, I want to emphasize once again
that our current laws do hold abusers accountable under the
Criminal Code, but this is far too late for the hundreds of
children who have suffered abuse in these settings. What we need
are laws that prevent these occurrences and, when abuse does happen, end it
before more children are affected.
There are too many of these
instances to ignore, and as we will hear from some of the other
presentations, each instance exacts a heavy toll on the future of
these children and their families. Under Bill 118, the province
of Ontario has an opportunity to put an end to this situation. We
encourage you to take advantage of it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Nicholson, Ms Gareau and Mr Baraniuk. We have about
six minutes for questions. Mr Martin, if you would like to begin
I'll give you about three.
Mr Martin:
I first of all want to thank you for responding in the way you
have to the report that was done by Justice Robins and working
with all of us in coming forward with a piece of legislation that
will go a fair distance in making sure there are some provisions
in place, legislated, that will stop in some significant way the
further abuse of children in institutions. Certainly you make a
compelling case here. It's clear in my view, anyway, what we need
to do and that we need to move on it very quickly.
Perhaps for our own
edification and clarification, to become a wee bit more specific:
since the children's aid society experience in the DeLuca affair,
what is your experience when you move to investigate and what are
these things that get in the way, more particularly and more
specifically, of your doing your job?
Mr
Nicholson: Jim can chip in during this too, and Nadine.
One of the problems is the duty to report. At this stage, because
of the confusion around the period of limitations on that, I
think people feel a lot of pressure in these systems from their
peers, and they have friends who work there, and sometimes
they're reluctant to make a report to us. We do get people
phoning two or three weeks after an event, saying, "Look, I saw
this happen. I really was uncomfortable. I knew it was wrong, but
I was worried about reporting it. But I just can't wait any
longer." We know there are other people, when we look at the
DeLuca situation, who have been in those situations and have
never reported to us, even when there's been significant pressure
from parents and children and a lot of reports made to them.
Certainly that seems to be one obstacle, that pressure within the
institution, both their worry about liabilities, I think, and
their worry about what impact this is going to have on their
friends and their peers.
The other major area is
that when we do our investigations we're very thorough, we get a
lot of information, and quite often, nine times out of 10 when
we're doing these investigations, children aren't at risk. It's
minor things by the caregiver that might be inappropriate but
it's not abuse. But probably one out of 10 times there are things
that are really concerning to us. The problem then becomes, how
do we report this to the people who are managing those
facilities, the CEO or their board? Because under the current
legislation, when you look at section 15, it talks about
providing guidance and support to parents. Section 15 defines our
role but it really is silent about us providing any sort of
information and guidance to the management of these institutions.
We broadly interpret section 15, which also says we have a duty
to protect children, so we do provide information, but I know
that across the province certainly other children's aid societies
take a different position than we do. I phoned a few and asked
them what type of information they report and they say as little
as possible, because of the lack of clarity in the legislation.
And we actually have government policies telling us we can't
report to school boards, but we really feel that to protect
children we have to do it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Nicholson. Actually, that took five minutes, so
you've got about 30 seconds for the government side. Mr
Maves.
Mr Maves:
Thank you very much for your presentation and your continuing
obvious interest in this issue. We realize that Sault Ste Marie
has been especially struck by incidences of abuse in the school
system. Sadly, I picked up a local paper today and read that
another retired teacher is facing sex-related charges. It's a sad
incident too.
I had several questions,
but let me just jump to this one. As you know, in the 2000 reform
of the CFSA we tried to strengthen the duty to report and
strengthen the ongoing nature of the duty to report and we
lessened the test for reports, all toward this area of getting
better reporting and so on and so forth. When you do receive a
report from a professional in a caregiving institution, as you
said, you can go into a home and apprehend a child from their
parent where there's abuse. Early on, was it your contention that
you don't have the ability to apprehend a child in a caregiving
institution, if there's evidence of abuse, once you've been
informed of it under section 72?
1040
Mr
Nicholson: No, we don't. When we go into an institution,
the only people we can hold accountable under law are the
parents. But if a child is in a young offender centre or a
residential treatment centre or a school, really the abuse we're
investigating isn't due to the parents; it's due to the caregiver
in that setting. If we wanted to bring some action to protect
children, we can only bring that action against the parents. So
we can say to parents, "If you send your kids to this school,
their safety is at risk and we will have to apprehend your
children," or "If you send this child to this daycare centre," or
something. It really isn't fair. It should be the caregivers, not
the parents, who are accountable.
Mr Martin:
Might I just beg the indulgence of the committee-I think it's
important that this is the only time we'll have the local
children's aid society before us-for us ask one further short
question?
The Chair:
The difficulty with that, of course, Mr Martin, is that it then
delays other submissions. We have advised everyone that they have
20 minutes in which to make their presentation and for questions
to be asked. Actually, the children's aid society had an
additional two minutes and we're now at an additional three.
Mr Martin: We have 20 minutes
before noon that hasn't been filled, in terms of the slot. I
don't think the people here would mind waiting a couple of
minutes.
The Chair:
What is the wish of the committee?
Mr Maves:
We agree to unanimous consent that he have a few more minutes if
he wants to ask a question, Chair.
The Chair:
OK. If you could please try to keep it brief.
Mr Martin:
I'll put it quickly. The DeLuca affair was quite dramatic in this
community, and shocking. Has anything changed, in your
experience, with the institutions that indicates to you that
because of that there is more willingness to come forward and
actually report and nip these things in the bud before they go on
too far?
Mr
Nicholson: I think things have changed in the community.
Schools are much more sensitive to the need to report, and when
we do make reports to the directors of education, they are very
sensitive to the information we've presented and they do seem to
have a greater awareness of the impact of it. Particularly Cecile
Somme and the Catholic school board in Sault Ste Marie have
focused a lot of their energies on trying to become more
sensitive to abuse issues and to address them. So the community
has moved forward. My worry is that without something in
legislation, as time passes and there's less political attention
on these issues, I think we stand a good chance of going back to
where we were before. I think at times children are still at risk
in institutional settings in the Soo.
Mr Martin:
Thank you.
Mr John Hastings
(Etobicoke North): Ms Gareau could probably answer this:
how should a regulator be a deliverer of services? We had
instances in this province in the past and in British Columbia
where CASs and similar bodies have actually been the users and
abusers of the situation itself, not just sexual allegations. I'm
concerned about how you would separate out your delivery service
responsibility from what you're now seeking as a regulatory
function when a CAS itself could be part of the problem, not the
solution.
Mr
Nicholson: That's a good question, because we have
foster homes, we have group homes and we run some of the
institutions that we're discussing in this legislation. What
children's aid societies do whenever there is that type of
conflict of interest, if we get a report from a child of abuse or
something indicating risk, is that we contact both the local
police-we have a protocol with them-and the Sudbury children's
aid society for Sault Ste Marie or for Algoma, and they come in
and conduct the investigations and they determine what action
needs to be taken. They could institute under this legislation
the same measures against us that we could institute with other
institutions, and that would be fair. I think every children's
aid society across the province has that sort of protocol
agreement with a children's aid society from another
district.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Nicholson, for coming this morning and
giving us your presentation.
SEXUAL ABUSE COORDINATING COMMITTEE
The Chair:
The next presenters are Sharon Vanderburg, Debbie Amoroso and
Karen Nixon, all members of the Sexual Abuse Coordinating
Committee. Good morning. Please proceed.
Ms Sharon
Vanderburg: My name is Sharon Vanderburg. I'm co-chair
for the Sexual Abuse Coordinating Committee.
Ms Karen
Nixon: I'm Karen Nixon, also co-chair of the Sexual
Abuse Coordinating Committee.
Ms Debbie
Amoroso: Debbie Amoroso, member of the Sexual Abuse
Coordinating Committee.
Ms
Vanderburg: The Sexual Abuse Coordinating Committee is
pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 118. This
committee comprises several community agencies and institutions.
We have been meeting regularly since 1993. Our mission is to
strive to enhance the promotion and integration of a coordinated
response to sexual abuse for victims, survivors, offenders,
family and community needs.
Child sexual abuse is a
problem of major proportions having significant implications. We
believe this bill will improve CAS investigation and thereby
reduce the risk to children. When a child is at risk within an
organization or institution, the response for the child is
compromised, for a variety of reasons. Often the organization
becomes entangled with other issues, such as the potential for
legal suits, staff loyalty, the reputations of staff and the
institution and the reluctance to report. Lets face it: sexual
abuse makes people uncomfortable and denial is still an effective
defense mechanism, even for the most diligent professional. This
was quite evident in the Robins review. It is our concern that
the risk for children will persist as long as organizations are
unable to focus solely on the needs of the children.
This bill also recognizes
the evolution of the family. Today's family accesses community
organizations and institutions to foster our children's
development much more than our parents did. It is time to
acknowledge this role of the village, not just the parent or
guardian. It takes a village to raise a child; it also takes a
village to protect a child.
In our minds, Bill l18 can
be summed up as a blinding flash of the obvious. It's time to
give the CAS the necessary authority that will enhance their
mandate of protecting children. I'll proceed now with our
suggested revisions.
Subsection 3(1) of the
Child and Family Services Act, as amended by the Statutes of
Ontario, 1999, chapter 2, section 2, and 1999, chapter 12,
schedule G, section 16: we propose that this be amended to say,
"`caregiving organization' is any group or institution having
charge of children, or responsible for the care being provided by
a caregiver." Our rational is that the term "institution" is
misleading. A term such as "caregiving organization" is more
inclusive of a variety of caregiving situations, such as
community, sports and recreational groups.
Our second one is regarding section 72 of the act,
as amended by the Statutes of Ontario, 1999, chapter 2, section
22: "The duty to report under subsection (l) continues each day
until the risk to all children ends." Our rationale for this
revision is that we'd like to see the statement include all
children at risk, as opposed to the singular child.
Thirdly, subsection 75(8)
of the act: we feel it is probably best if this section is
deleted. The current child abuse registry needs to be revamped to
maintain a balance between the rights of the individual and the
community. We are hopeful that substantial changes will be made
to the registry prior to it being included in the
legislation.
1050
That ends our revisions or
amendments, but we have also identified a gap that we felt the
standing committee may be able to address. Given that many
disclosures are dated and the alleged victim is no longer a
child, the CAS should have the same power to investigate, advise
and provide guidance to the caregiving organization.
In summary, on behalf of
the agencies represented by the Sexual Abuse Coordinating
Committee, we would like to thank you for this opportunity of
presenting our views and concerns. We are confident that revised
legislation will enhance the protection of our children.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We'll move to questions, starting with the
government.
Mr Maves:
Thank you very much, ladies, for coming forward and making a
presentation today. In the second paragraph-and the children's
aid society before you has a similar statement in their
brief-halfway down, it says, "When a child is at risk within an
organization or institution, the response for the child is
compromised, because the organization becomes entangled with
other issues, such as potential for legal suits, staff loyalty,
reputations," and so on.
The children's aid society
said the same thing, "Co-workers are often reluctant to report
the abuse because of friendships, loyalties, career concerns and
peer pressure." I think Justice Robins, in his report, made it
clear that in the DeLuca case there was almost a systemic
reluctance for many years to report. So now in the new act passed
in the year 2000 there's a duty to report and a liability on any
professional who refuses to report.
Mr Martin asked the CAS if
things had improved and the CAS response, I believe, was that
awareness has improved anyway. In your view-and it has only been
in place a short time, I understand, but perhaps the teachers or
other professionals you may have spoken to over the past year-do
you think that has made them a little more willing to actually
report abuse that they may be aware of?
Ms
Vanderburg: I believe that the legislation and the
sensitivity has improved, but our feeling is that when denial
becomes a defense mechanism it compromises the professional's
judgment and ability to report. So we feel that the denial issue
is still alive and well in all communities.
Mr Maves:
Further, at the bottom of that second paragraph you say, "It is
our concern that the risk for children will persist as long as
organizations are unable to focus solely on the needs of the
children." What struck me is that again in the new legislation
they put in a statement that the paramount purpose of the act is
to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of
children. Previously, I know, the act had sections that talked
about not breaking up family units or-I'm not going to get the
wording right, but the least-
Mr Avrum
Fenson: Intrusive.
Mr Maves:
-intrusive. Thank you.
When we have the statement
that the paramount purpose of the act is to promote the best
interests and protection of the child, has there been a benefit
from a section like that, the notion that above everything else,
the family unit or otherwise, the benefit of the child should be
the paramount importance?
Ms
Vanderburg: I'm not really clear on your question. I
don't know if the other members-
Mr Maves:
I'm not a lawyer. Some of the other lawyers in the room might do
a better job of asking this question, but when-
The Chair:
Not necessarily so.
Mr Wood:
Probably worse.
Mr Maves:
Yes. When something becomes of paramount import, a lot of purpose
clauses go into acts, and when people are actually implementing
other sections of that act, they are protected in their scope and
their reach of things they can do under the act when the purpose
clause of the act helps them, aids them. In this act, the
paramount purpose of the act is the protection of the child and
the best interests of the child. If I were a lawyer, I would
argue if I went perhaps outside of what the act might say, that
that paramount importance clause would allow me to do things such
as intervene in an institutional setting rather than just when
the parent is deemed to be unfit.
I may be asking the wrong
group, because you may not have had as much experience with
intervention on children's behalf. I guess I was trying to find
out if over the past year that paramount importance of the act
being in the best interests of the child has had an improved
effect on people's willingness to come forward and to apprehend
kids. I don't know if the numbers have gone up in the community,
of apprehensions of kids or whatnot.
Ms
Vanderburg: Do you want to respond to that?
Ms Nixon:
As far as I know, they have gone up. That might have been a
question that the CAS might have been able to answer, but at a
recent training session we were at, they had indicated that they
had gone up.
Mr Maves:
OK.
Ms
Vanderburg: I guess it wouldn't hurt to reiterate that
the denial issue would also play a huge part.
Mr Maves:
There's a $1,000 fine right now for someone who is held liable
for not reporting. Do you think that's enough?
Ms Vanderburg: I guess I can't
reiterate enough that if a person is in denial, they will not
proceed with any other thoughts, because the denial
supersedes-
Mr Maves:
Regardless of the penalty.
Ms
Vanderburg: That's right.
Ms
Amoroso: The whole legislation and the whole denial
issue-if someone can sit there and convince themselves that what
they're seeing is not actually an incident of abuse, then they
don't believe that that $1,000 fine applies to them, so again
you're back to the systemic issues. The legislation has been in
place for a year, but the reality is that it takes a lot longer
to change. The problem didn't get created in a year, and it's not
going to get resolved in a year. But I think it's a start; it's
moving in the right direction.
Mr Martin:
Thanks for obviously doing a lot of good work around this piece
of legislation here. Your amendments are consistent with the
amendments brought forward by the children's aid society, and I'm
sure the committee will be looking at those as we move forward.
The recommendation by the children's aid society that we set
aside the child abuse registry piece for perhaps another day is
simply to get the more important heart of this in place.
There was an issue, though,
raised by the CAS that you didn't touch on in your presentation
that I just want you to perhaps comment on. This is the idea that
if we make it too easy, actually children will make false
allegations against teachers, clergy, coaches etc. What would
your response to that criticism or fear be, that obviously it
wouldn't be mentioned if it wasn't on the table?
Ms
Vanderburg: My thoughts on that are that there is always
that fear that there will be false allegations, especially from
federations and unions and protection of their employers. My
experience from reading the literature and working with
professionals in the arena of sexual abuse is that the incidence
of false allegations is much less than the public's
perception.
1100
Ms
Amoroso: I think it can be weeded out, but certainly I
respect what children's aid has said in bringing this forward. We
need to be careful how we guard this issue so that it also isn't
so tough that people don't come forward and things stay hidden.
There needs to be a balance struck so that the rights of the
child are protected and the rights of the caregiver. It's a
difficult balance to create, but I would much rather see things
come forward and be able to be weeded out than have it so
stringent that things can't come forward at all.
The Chair:
We have a couple more minutes.
Mr Martin:
In your view, what happened in the DeLuca case? How did it
continue for so long and why wasn't it reported?
Ms
Amoroso: In my view, much of it was the systemic issues,
the things that Sharon spoke about earlier: the protection, the
loyalties, those kinds of things. It was shuffled, and it was
swept under the carpet for a number of years. I think much has to
do with education also. People didn't know how to handle this.
This is a very, very uncomfortable topic for people. People
didn't know what to do with the information, so they didn't do
anything with it.
Mr Martin:
Do you believe that if the children's aid society had had the
power back then or if they were given the power by way of the
passing of this act, they will then know what to do with it? Will
it be easier for them to report?
Ms
Amoroso: I think the education and the guidance that is
getting out there will create the atmosphere to report.
Ms Nixon:
And giving the children's aid society the backing that they need
to go ahead and do that, I think, will be a benefit.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming in this morning.
MARY
The Chair:
The next presenter is Mary. Good morning, Mary.
Mary: Good
morning.
The Chair:
Please proceed.
Mary: In
order to protect the anonymity of this family, I have been asked
to read this letter on their behalf:
"As the mother of one of
Ken DeLuca's many victims, I feel compelled to write this letter.
I have kept silent from speaking out publicly for many reasons.
One very important one is that neither my daughter nor our family
wanted it known who we were and also, as in the past, it made no
sense to come forward on our own. Things are now different
though.
"I applaud the Sault Star
for publishing the Robins report. As I read it I find myself
shaking with fear, anger, disgust and sickness. The same feelings
I had when my daughter first informed me that a teacher was
sexually assaulting her in the separate school system and in the
school that she was attending. The same feeling I had when I
realized that no one at the separate school board was listening
to my cry for help when we informed them of what was going on.
The same feelings I have when I think about the fact that all of
these men Bill Struk, Harvey Barsanti, Gary Barone, Raymond Mask
etc are sitting in their comfortable homes collecting a big
pension cheque knowing full well that they sat back and did
nothing to stop this pedophile from sexually abusing minors.
"As parents themselves, I
wonder how they would have dealt with the fact that every night
before they closed their eyes they would say a silent prayer that
their daughter would be safe in school tomorrow and that she
would be able to stay out of sight of the stalker and pedophile
who was being allowed to roam freely among the children because
his superiors refused to deal with him and his behaviours.
"As parents we sent our
beautiful little girl into a system that we thought was being
overseen by good, upstanding, Christian people. Little did we
realize how very wrong
we were. I wonder once again how these very people would have
felt if they had to deal with the fact that 16 years before their
daughter was born, a pedophile was already beginning to stalk and
abuse little girls and was getting away with it because he was
being protected by his supervisors who were good, upstanding,
Christian people.
"I have heard it said that
one must walk in someone's shoes to know and understand. Well, Mr
Struk, Mr Cameletti, Mr Barsanti, Mr Mask etc, I challenge you to
try to walk in my shoes and go where I have gone: countless
nights of being awakened by your little girl's screams and trying
to convince her it was only a bad dream and that this man
couldn't hurt her any more; countless nights of being awakened by
your own grown daughter's screams, only to go to remind her once
again that it was only a bad dream and that this man couldn't
hurt her any more; trying to explain to her why this man was
allowed to do what he did and, most important, trying to teach
her to trust again.
"The Robins report being
published in the Sault Star was a good thing, because for the
first time all these men could see in writing what they as a
group did to innocent little girls and their families. Once
again, as all of you men sit in your comfortable homes, I hope
you will see the devastation that is caused by your refusal to
see what was going on and how your lack of involvement allowed a
pedophile to run loose, and how he ripped through the hearts and
souls of so many children and their families. May God help you
all when you face your higher power and try to explain to Him why
you allowed this terrible thing to happen to so many innocent
children.
"As parents who have
experienced the shortcomings of the existing legislation
first-hand, we believe Bill 118 is a step in the right direction.
The amendments contained within this bill, had they been in
place, would have minimized the number of victims and the length
of Ken DeLuca's tenure within our educational system. We also
believe those persons responsible for the care and safety of our
children within the educational system would not have committed
acts of omission had they been held legally accountable.
"With this bill there will
be no more reluctance on the part of the person who has a duty to
report suspected abuse. No longer will those persons have the
ability to transfer the problematic co-worker or friend into
another unsuspecting school or institution so that the abuser has
total reign over a new selection of victims.
"As parents, we have a
legal responsibility to provide shelter, health care and
education to our children. I feel that when we have a
responsibility to enrol children in these institutions, they in
turn have a legal responsibility to us and to society as a whole
to ensure the care and safety of our children while they are
within their confines."
Thank you, "from the mother
and father of one of Ken Deluca's victims."
The Chair:
Thank you, Mary.
Mr Martin, do you have any
questions?
Mr Martin:
I don't have any questions.
The Chair:
Government members?
Mr Maves:
Sure, I'll ask a few.
Thank you, Mary, for coming
forward and making this presentation on behalf of this family. As
the father of a four-year-old daughter, who is just now in
school, and a two-and-a-half-year-old son, when I read Robins'
review it strikes a bit of fear in my heart. You obviously can't
protect your kids their whole lives. You'd like to keep them at
home and play with them and feel you can protect them from
everything, but as they get older they do go to school and go out
and play sports. You have to let your kids do that, because they
have to live normal lives and you can't let the terror of certain
monsters we've come to know in our society, unfortunately, steal
your child's life. You can't protect them from everything.
When I read that report,
even though I'm not from Sault Ste Marie and haven't really lived
it the way people in Sault Ste Marie have, nor lived the fallout,
nor lived what the folks here in Sault Ste Marie have lived as
they've picked up their paper and read the report, and read about
it for many years, I do feel the fear that report and the
instances it reported on brought to the hearts of the people in
the community.
I just wonder, for my own
interest, if, throughout this ordeal in the last few years, there
has ever been any kind of response from any of those-and I won't
name any persons' names-who have really turned their eyes from
the whole process or who some of the parents feel are culpable in
the whole process?
Mary: I
don't believe so.
1110
Mr Maves:
You know we still have in the school system-actually, the parents
in here noted that we tend to transfer the problems. I know; my
wife is a teacher. We tend to do the same thing with teachers who
perhaps are not performing up to par as teachers-forget about the
sexual abuse or misconduct side-and transfer them to another
institution until the parents there get frustrated because their
kids can't learn from that person and they get transferred again.
I wonder if you have any advice for us. There are 100,000-plus
teachers in Ontario, and I don't intend to pick on them or
anything today. But maybe that denial the ladies talked about
before, not just about sexual abuse but about a colleague who
can't do their job-has there been any discussion in the community
about how we as a community can handle that type of buck-passing,
that type of turning our backs on these types of things?
Mary: I
think that now with the amendments, with the duty to report, more
teachers are going to feel compelled, even if it's something
they're not sure of but have a suspicion. Perhaps with the
changes in this bill, that's going to make teachers say, "Look, I
don't know for sure," but at least it'll be investigated. Then if
it's in a report on the teacher and they're being transferred,
the other institutions are going to be aware. Right now I don't
believe they are.
Mr Maves: I wonder, though. The
ladies before you said that even with the new
responsibilities-the onus to report, the ongoing duty to report,
the penalties for not reporting-in a case where there's denial
they just won't report. Is there some broader education we can
undertake in order to get people over that hump?
Mary: I
believe the educational system is starting to do extensive
training with the teachers and that sort of thing. Actually, I've
heard some teachers say it's putting fear into them as far as
giving a hug to a student or that sort of thing. They've
certainly become more aware-
Mr Maves:
The other side of the coin?
Mary:
Yes.
Mr
Hastings: Mary, thank you for coming today.
You know this family. Do
you know to any extent, aside from criminal penalties, whether
this family and any other families may have gotten
together-although given the sensitivity of the issue, probably
not-whether they have actually contemplated an individual civil
suit or a class action suit?
Mary: I
don't know.
Mr
Hastings: I'm not a lawyer, but that's certainly
something I would think ought to be looked at. I've had similar
situations in another context and have suggested that. A lawyer
friend of mine did take up a case, not on sexual allegations or
abuse or conviction, and they won. It's not much relief, but it
is another way to get some kind of limited justice on something
that's now past. I encourage, if you talk to these folks, that
they look at that route.
Mr Maves:
Just for clarity, Chair, my recollection is that there was a
civil suit by some of the families involved and it was actually
settled out of court. I don't know if this family was involved in
it, but I know that some did that. As Mr Hastings says, if this
family wasn't involved in that, there may be an opportunity.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for coming in, Mary.
ANNE O'CONNOR
The Chair:
The next presenter is Anne O'Connor. Good morning, Ms
O'Connor.
Ms Anne
O'Connor: I'd like to welcome you to Sault Ste Marie and
thank you for coming. I don't think I'll be as clear and make as
much sense as the two previous presenters and I'm not sure I'll
say anything that will be useful in moving you forward in this
legislation. I really just came because I wanted the opportunity
to tell you a story.
I'm a social worker in a
private practice, and as a social worker in private practice I
have a little bit more freedom than my colleagues who work in
institutions. I was a former children's aid worker some years
ago.
When Gladys Pardu, the
judge, declared in her sentencing that Ken DeLuca was a predator,
that hit me like a baseball bat in the head. I saw, maybe for the
first time, that each of us in Sault Ste Marie held a piece of
the puzzle, and, because we had never talked, we never put the
puzzle together. We never put it together that this was going on
under our noses.
I want to address the
question that someone asked earlier about being part of the
problem versus being part of the solution. It's my opinion at
this point-I'm going to go beyond what Ms Vanderburg said-that
Sault Ste Marie is a poisoned environment. It definitely was a
poisoned environment during the course of this abuse that went on
for 20 years, and the investigation. I even believe post-DeLuca
that Sault Ste Marie is a poisoned environment. So I'm addressing
the context in which this is taking place.
When I first heard the word
"predator," I thought of the situation as being like a plane
crash, and being a bleeding-heart social worker, the obvious
response on my part would be, "It's like a plane crash; we all
have to get together and start talking." If you had a plane
crash, you would go to the site of the plane crash, you would
help the survivors and immediately you would begin looking at how
this happened and what you were going to do to prevent it. In my
experience, there is great resistance to talking about how it
happened and how we're going to prevent it, and to my mind we are
still in that place. We're still not talking about how it
happened and how to prevent it.
I was rather outraged
during this time and some of my friends might say I was slightly
insane. I headed out to have a number of conversations with
people. I just took it upon myself: "I'm going to go and talk to
some of these people to find out why there is resistance to
public inquiry."
Tony Martin was one of the
people on my list who I spoke to and I would have to say that
Tony and I went nose to nose, head to head, because at that point
Tony was also saying, "Anne, we have to put this behind us." Tony
has moved very clearly, very strongly off "put it behind us" and
has shown a great deal of courage and provided a great deal of
leadership. He has shown integrity, he has taken a firm and clear
stand about some of the things that needed to happen here, and I
really thank Tony for that. I know it was personally and
professionally a very big struggle for him, as it was for all of
us, to try and deal with this head to head.
One of the things I did
along the way was, I thought, "I've got something to say about
this situation and it's not being said publicly, it's not being
said in the newspaper and it's not being said, as far as I know,
except around kitchen tables and in parking lots." I started to
write a newsletter, and I just sent my newsletter saying what I
had to say and what other people had to say. I sent it off in
many directions, but I particularly sent it to the separate
school board, only to find out some months later that my
newsletter was never delivered to the board members. It was
stopped by the director of education and never delivered to the
board members.
In speaking to a member of
our elected board of trustees, I was told they knew nothing more
than the public did about what had gone on in the DeLuca
situation. They'd had a meeting with lawyers and the insurance companies and were
told they could not talk about the situation and they would not
be given any other information about the situation.
I met with the director of
education. I innocently made an appointment and went to see him
and said, "Let's talk about how this happened and how we're going
to prevent this." He said to me, "Our lawyers and our insurance
companies advise us that we cannot discuss this, and I'm not
going to discuss it with you."
1120
I had a meeting with the
police chief. I had some really serious concerns about the
involvement of the police in this situation. You may or may not
be aware that it was alleged that three policemen were aware of
what had taken place, that they had been told what was taking
place. Apparently some investigation had taken place and the
police chief went on television and said that he believed no
wrongdoing had taken place and that we needed to trust him, that
he was going to protect children. So I had a meeting with the
police chief and I said to him in no uncertain terms, "I am not
confident that the city police will protect children, given that
the real information about these three policemen was never
brought to the forefront."
Our mayor at that time was
a former teacher and principal for the separate school board and
a former member of Parliament, a man who, to this day, I have a
great deal of respect for. He publicly took the position, "Let's
put this behind us." I went to the mayor and said to him, "It's
not acceptable for you to say publicly, `Put this behind us,'
because these young women will never put this behind them. We
have to have the courage to stand up and say, `Let's deal with
this. Let's do something about this.'"
At that time there were two
council members who were also implicated in this case. One was a
former director of education, Mr Cameletti, and another one was a
brother of the offender. So picture this, folks: the city
council, the mayor and two councillors are directly related to
the separate school board.
I had a public meeting on
television with one of our child-serving agencies. At that time,
in this public meeting, I said to this person, "How come your
agency isn't moving forward and leading a response to the
situation?" Remember, what I was looking for was a public
inquiry: how did this happen and what are we going to do about
it? He said, "It is not our responsibility to step into the
domain of another organization." What he's saying is, "If the
people in that castle are beating each other up, we're not going
to go over there and check out what's going on in that castle."
Only, the people who were being hurt were children. That
particular agency had a long-standing contract to provide
services to the separate school board.
People would call me up and
tell me things. I became aware that there was a letter on the
bulletin board in every teachers' room in the separate school
board that said, "You will not speak about this case, and if you
speak about this case, you will not be protected." So I asked for
a meeting with the head of the teachers' union. The president of
the teachers' union met with me and said, "Yes, I know about that
letter. I wrote it." Picture this: over 20 years, there were many
teachers, as well as students, who knew rumours, heard gossip,
knew that something was going on in the community. I said, "Why
would you do that? Why would you silence your colleagues?" He
said, "Well, we can't protect them if they speak up and they're
sued for libel." After an hour of head-butting with this man-and
I'm happy to say he did buy my lunch-he stood up and said, "I
have to go now, Anne. Keep doing what you're doing. It's vitally
important to my children"-to his own children.
I wrote letters to 22
child-serving agencies. My letter was just inviting them to have
a conversation, to take it away from the parking lots and the
kitchen tables and move it into the boardrooms and let's talk
about what is happening here. How did this happen? What are we
going to do? What part do we play in this?
I only heard back from
three child-serving agencies. The president of one of the
child-serving agencies called me from that person's workplace and
said, "Our board did discuss your letter and we decided that we
were going to take individual action. We are not going to take
group action." I said, "Oh, that's interesting. What kind of
individual action are you going to take?" "I can't discuss it."
"What do you mean you can't discuss it?" "Well, I'm at work right
now, Anne, and I can't talk about it." I said, "What do you mean
you're at work right now? We're talking about child abuse." "Yes,
but I can't talk about it." This person worked at the separate
school board. This is long past the DeLuca conviction and the
person is still saying, "I can't talk about it. People around
here are sensitive."
The Chair:
You have about one more minute.
Ms
O'Connor: A parent on a parent council stood up at a
public meeting and said to me that the parents at the parent
councils were told they could not discuss this case. So they
could not ask, "How did this happen and what are we going to do
about it?"
I only have one more
minute.
The point is that this is
an example of a poisoned environment consisting of 80,000 people.
These professionals that I'm talking to you about are highly
trained and ordinarily professional people who at any time I
would trust to carry out their duties. I have respect for all of
these people. But in this situation they did not act with courage
or integrity, for whatever reason: because they're afraid for
their jobs or because of privilege or a fear of the relationships
they had with people. In your act, it talks about informing and
supporting and giving guidance. These people did not act to
inform, support and give guidance to this community, and this is
our leadership. This is our agency leadership and our political
leadership.
I just want to leave you
with a question: who is going to speak for the children? Who's
going to say, "I know what you're doing and I'm going to stop
you; I'm going to take steps to stop you"?
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms O'Connor. We're a little overtime, but I will allow
one question from Mr Martin and one government member.
Mr Martin: Thank you, Anne, for
all of your work and for coming here today. I have to tell you
that when I contemplated bringing this legislation forward, and
then the possibility of having a hearing in Sault Ste Marie about
it, I thought we would be inundated with people who wanted to
come and talk about it. Sadly, we hardly have enough to fill half
a day. We could have plugged in probably another 10 people here
today to talk about this, and they're not here. Why aren't they
here?
Ms
O'Connor: Tony, I still believe we have a poisoned
environment. I think it goes beyond morale. I think there is a
cone of silence, which is kind of a Trekkie term, but I believe
there is a cone of silence.
Mr Maves:
Because of the time, I'm only going to say, in reading some of
the excerpts from the DeLuca case, Justice Robins's report says,
"The school board repeatedly failed to appropriately receive and
act upon complaints." Another section says, "Officials or
employees may have suspected DeLuca's abuse and refrained from
making further inquiries out of loyalty for a colleague or
concern for the reputation of the school system." Lord knows
where that reputation is today.
But this is something that
scares me-a report in the local paper today about a former
teacher being charged scares me. Robins says: "It must be
concluded that the DeLuca case is neither aberrant nor out of
date. Teachers' sexual misconduct is sufficiently prevalent to
warrant special attention." I think you'd agree wholeheartedly
with that statement. I'm concerned, as you may have heard before,
about my own kids and other boards and other communities. How is
it that we get people to take their heads out of the sand and
realize that the protection of that child should be the paramount
consideration in their minds?
Ms
O'Connor: To me there were three significant things that
happened that helped in Sault Ste Marie. One was the publication
of an investigative report in the Globe and Mail; the second was
the TV program on The Fifth Estate; and the third was the Robins
report. But my feeling is that unless there's an outside
intervention into this community, that poisoned environment will
continue.
Mr Maves:
The more public disclosure, the better?
Ms
O'Connor: The thing our mayor was really concerned about
was how we would look to the rest of the province, right? I'm
saying if it comes to the best interests of the children, there
needs to be intervention from outside Sault Ste Marie into Sault
Ste Marie when we have one of these multi-victim situations.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms O'Connor.
I had a request for a
two-minute recess, so we'll be back at about 11:31.
The committee recessed
from 1130 to 1142.
SEXUAL ASSAULT CARE CENTRE ALGOMA COMMUNITY LEGAL
CLINIC
The Chair:
We'll call the meeting back to order, if committee members could
please come back to their seats.
The next presenters are
Bryna Coppel-Park, coordinator, and Dr Gayle Broad of the Sexual
Assault Care Centre of the Sault Area Hospitals. You have 20
minutes.
Ms Bryna
Coppel-Park: Thank you. Before I begin, I would just
like to clarify that I am the coordinator at the Sexual Assault
Care Centre and Dr Broad works at the Algoma Community Legal
Clinic, but we have chosen to present together. I'd like to
welcome the committee to Sault Ste Marie and I thank you very
much for this opportunity to present to you.
The Sexual Assault Care
Centre, a department of the Sault Area Hospitals, has provided
both medical and counselling care to women, men, adolescents and
children, survivors of sexual assault and sexual abuse since
1990. I might add that includes those who are survivors of sexual
abuse in the past. We serve approximately 250 people on an annual
basis.
The Algoma Community Legal
Clinic has provided services to low-income people throughout the
district of Algoma since 1984. On an annual basis they serve
approximately 150 survivors of sexual assault and/or abuse in the
context of criminal injuries compensation and they provide advice
to many more.
Together the Sexual Assault
Care Centre and the Algoma Community Legal Clinic, in conjunction
with other local agencies, have developed materials for the
general public providing guidelines for the reporting and
aftermath of sexual assault and abuse, and have developed a
television series that has been aired across the province. We
regularly provide community leadership around this issue.
Today's presenters have
over 20 years' experience each of working with victims of child
sexual abuse and both have been active in lobbying for
progressive changes to the legislation affecting survivors.
In the early 1990s, as you
know, a case in Sault Ste Marie illustrated the need for further
changes to the Child and Family Services Act. A local teacher was
charged and later convicted of multiple acts of sexual assault
perpetrated against children entrusted to his care within the
school environment. While this particular case received national
media attention, we are well aware that this was not an isolated
incident. Rather, locally and nationally there are many examples
of abuse which occur in an institutional or organizational
setting. Other examples include the Mount Cashel tragedy and the
Maple Leaf Gardens assaults. There are many other examples less
well known but which also inform our recommendations today,
including a sports coach, a school bus driver, chaperones for
travelling sports teams, members of the clergy and volunteer
organizations. In short, wherever adults are in a position of
trust and authority over children, such examples of abuse of that
trust have been found.
Our experience has taught
us that the lives of children who have been victimized in the
context of institutional authority have been profoundly disrupted
by the inability of society to provide adequate protection.
Although those who have
recovered from such abuse should serve as heroes to us all, all
too often their voices are not heard. We would ask the committee
to consider how many victims have been able to appear before them
in their consideration of these proposed amendments.
As service providers, we
cannot speak with the voice of survivors. We have chosen today to
make our comments in the context of the following questions:
would this proposed amendment have protected one child from
abuse? Will it prevent one child in the future from suffering the
pain of being a victim?
Dr Gayle
Broad: I'm going to now lead the committee through the
recommendations. I would like to introduce this by just saying
there are a couple of general comments we wish to make for the
committee's consideration in terms of reviewing the amendments
that are being proposed, as well as other amendments which you
may wish to consider. I think the previous presentations this
morning have spoken to some of the issues we wish to raise in our
general comments.
First of all, with regard
to making a complaint: in our experience, individuals who come
forward to make complaints against suspected perpetrators, and
who of course are now obligated to do so under earlier amendments
to the act, do not have sufficient protections. We believe that
responsible actions should in fact be rewarded but, instead, in
at least two local cases, we're quite aware that these actions
have resulted in severe penalties for the people who brought
forward the complaints. As we heard from previous presenters,
people fear, and quite justifiably, for the kinds of sanctions
that others who do not believe the allegations will bring against
them, including loss of employment or suspension from employment,
which may later in fact result in reinstatement. However, during
the time of crisis it certainly causes incredible emotional
damage, as well as financial damage, to the people bringing
forward the complaint. We believe this issue should be addressed
by providing penalties to employers and organizations who may try
to dismiss, suspend or terminate, whether it's a voluntary
position or a full-time paid position, as a result of a complaint
being made.
We also believe, second,
that there needs to be a communication protocol in place in cases
like this. Anne O'Connor previously spoke to the issue of this
sort of cone of silence that descends upon organizations,
frequently due to legal advice they've received from either
lawyers or insurance companies. In cases of institutional or
organizational abuse, a large number of people are affected-not
only the direct victims of the assault but the co-workers, the
volunteers, the members of the boards responsible for the overall
functioning of the organization. For many of these people, fear
of liability, reprisal from the perpetrator, particularly in
smaller communities, or their own culpability in it, struggling
with the fact that they may have heard rumours 10 years ago and
didn't act upon them and so on, may cause further trauma to the
victim, to the family members, as well as to the complainant.
1150
We therefore recommend that
a communication protocol be established so that all members of
the organization are provided with the information they require
to address their own emotional and psychological needs. Again, to
refer to one of the previous speakers, in the case of something
like a plane crash or the death of a child or a bad accident
happening at a school ground, counsellors and crisis workers are
brought in regularly and a team is provided. That certainly is
not the case in organizations, particularly if you are talking
about a smaller organization which perhaps does not have the
financial resources itself to bring in such a team. We would
recommend that that be given consideration.
With regard to the specific
amendments that are before the committee and are currently being
considered, we have a number. We support comments that have
already been made regarding the proposed definition of both
"caregiver" and "care-giving institution." In our view, the
definitions provided in the amendments are too narrow and they
should be expanded to include members of the boards of directors,
members of the clergy, volunteers and paid staff of religious
organizations, clubs, associations or institutions.
Our rationale for this
amendment is that children are exposed to but are frequently
unaware of any adult's specific, particular role within an
organization. They just view this as a person in authority and
may be victimized by that person. A member of the board of
directors of a non-profit organization, for example, or a
parent-run children's activity could be the perpetrator and
should be subject to the same kinds of investigation as any other
member of the organization. Voluntary roles within organizations
also need to be supervised, and the organization itself is
certainly affected by those volunteers who participate in it and
who may perpetrate such a crime.
The suggestion to amend
subsection 15(3) by (c.1) is strongly encouraged. Our rationale
for this-this is the subsection that deals with the children's
aid society having the authority to provide guidance and support
and so on for the protection of children-is that no organization
can justify their internal policies and procedures having
precedence over the law. It's our view that by instituting that
amendment, organizations can no longer say to employees that
their first responsibility is to the organization; that in fact
then the first responsibility is to the protection of the
children who are in their care. So we would strongly encourage
that amendment to be enacted.
Third, we have to speak to
a caution that we would encourage the committee to consider
carefully, the proposed amendments to subsection 75(8), due to
our concerns that the opportunity to pursue criminal charges may
be compromised by the proposed amendment as it currently stands.
Although we are very supportive of the need for an outside
organization to have the authority to seize records that may
pertain to the incidents, we are also quite concerned that the
search and seizure of those records and the removal of
documentation may jeopardize a complaint of sexual assault that
would lead to a criminal
conviction. Many of the members here are quite possibly more
familiar with the Criminal Code and the protections that are in
place there for the defenders of perpetrators of such crimes and
that broad powers to remove documentation from files may result
in putting more children at risk by allowing a perpetrator to go
unpunished for their crime due to inadmissibility of evidence in
the criminal trial.
We would suggest that, as
an alternative, consideration be given to establishing a special
investigation team in each community that would be composed of
both children's aid society workers and police officers. We would
suggest that such a committee be staffed by senior personnel with
a great deal of experience in the investigation of sexual assault
cases. In smaller communities, of course, this may require-and I
think again we would support the position of the children's aid
society-that these not only be specially trained individuals but
be from outside of the community. It would prevent
conflict-of-interest situations in smaller communities where the
perpetrator or family members of the abuser are known to either
the child welfare worker or the investigating officer.
It's our position that the
police and children's aid need to be working very closely.
Certainly locally there has been an improved and closer working
relationship that we have been able to observe between the police
and children's aid in recent years. But that certainly is not
true in every community across the province, and we encourage
this committee to consider taking action to ensure that kind of
close working relationship is there.
In conclusion, we trust the
information we've presented today will be carefully considered by
you, and we urge you to make amendments with consideration and
care for the victims of sexual assault and abuse. For far too
long, organizations and institutions have placed the interests of
the organization itself before the welfare of the child it was
established to serve. We urge that the committee's members today
place the child's interests first.
The Chair:
Thank you very much. We have about four, maybe five, minutes for
questions. Mr Martin.
Mr Martin:
Thank you for coming forward and for the obvious work you've done
in looking at the proposed amendment and your recommendations. We
certainly will look at them and see what we can do together to
improve this piece of legislation.
I'm going to ask you a
question I've asked others this morning, because I think we're
getting a bit of a mixed message. You deal with the abused on a
regular basis, and so you know what's going on to some
degree-those who do actually come forward. Have circumstances or
conditions improved in this community since the very dramatic and
shocking revelation of the DeLuca affair?
Ms
Coppel-Park: It's been a number of years, and I think
the men, women and children we see are able to tell us that, yes,
in some ways things have improved, but not all the time.
Obviously-or there wouldn't be the need for this amendment-we
don't always know the result of our reporting to the children's
aid. We're not privy to that information, and sometimes the heads
of organizations are never privy to that. So it's sometimes
really hard to judge that. I think we have noticed improvements
in some ways, but it's not enough to feel satisfied and secure
that all children are being protected.
Mr Martin:
Do you have any thoughts on perhaps why some of the folks who
were directly involved and still have responsibility are not here
today talking to us about this amendment?
Ms
Coppel-Park: I can't answer that. All I can tell you is
that I made personal phone calls to a number of people, letting
them know about the hearings and suggesting they might want to
attend. I can't speak for them.
Mr Martin:
I think one of the recommendations you make here warrants some
attention. It goes back to a very good question Mr Hastings asked
earlier, and that's the question of conflict of interest. I think
the children's aid society was very forthcoming and honest in its
response; they have sort of dual roles. In smaller communities
where, as you indicate here, there is a lot interaction between
people and interrelationship between people, how do we make sure
the job gets done? You have recommended the police and the
children's aid society coming together; you've recommended maybe
outside. Do you want to expand a bit more on your concern on that
issue?
1200
Dr Broad:
We provide service across the district of Algoma, so we provide
service to many small communities. Sault Ste Marie may be
considered small by some standards, but we're talking about
communities of 500 people and smaller rural areas where the
community might be 35 or 40 families. In those situations, it is
still extremely difficult for people to come forward. Everyone in
the community knows about it. They tend to know their local OPP
officer; they tend to know their local children's aid worker. The
children's aid worker may be a neighbour, may be a friend. For
example, people may have seen the local children's aid worker
speaking to the perpetrator in a grocery store or in the post
office and assumed they are somehow friendly or friends, and
therefore it wasn't safe to report to them. Having someone from
outside the community having responsibility and having, as well,
a team that is specially trained, that knows these issues, that
knows the crucial importance of dealing with it in a
community-wide way-because I think it has an impact on the entire
community.
I would like to give you
some personal examples or some examples from my own caseload, but
I can't do that and still protect the confidentiality of the
clients. But there are circumstances in rural areas where jokes
are made about a perpetrator. Everyone knows that a particular
perpetrator has a reputation for having underage drinking parties
with young boys or young girls or whatever. When I say
"everyone," I don't mean that it's widespread knowledge; it's a
hint. There's a suspicion; there may not be any proof available.
Those kinds of things
happen in a small community, and it is terrifying to come forward
and report. Even though there is now an obligation, the people
who tend to know about that obligation tend to be professionals
who are not necessarily living in the rural community or are not
necessarily exposed to the comments, the jokes, the sort of
underlying knowledge that isn't really knowledge that's out
there.
Mr Maves:
Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to point out
that in the Legislature, Mr Martin and I spent a few moments
alone a couple of times talking about the bill. In the
Legislature the bill received all-party support. However, as you
may know, we reworked the Child and Family Services Act in 1999,
and a lot of time and effort was put into doing that.
When people draft
legislation, they have to be very careful with everything they
draft. One of the concerns I talked about to Mr Martin was that
in the bill, when you start actually naming professions, teachers
or child care workers as caregivers, you run the risk, when you
put that in legislation, of not getting everybody. You've made
this point very clearly. I know that when drafters do draft
legislation, they usually try to come up with a very broad
definition so they'll be able to encompass all the people you've
talked about, the people Mr Martin has listed in his bill and any
other potential perpetrators. I think you have very wisely
pointed out that you have to be very careful when you're doing
that in a bill, and I thank you for that suggestion and for some
of the people you've added.
Similarly, on section 3,
another problem I've come to learn in my five and half years as
an MPP is that when you draft legislation, as careful as you are
and as many lawyers are involved in the drafting and public
hearings and the number of people who come in to talk about it,
sometimes as much as a word or one clause can have an unintended
consequence. You again point that out in your concern about
subsection 75(8). I want to thank you for that. That's the reason
we're here, I think, and to have hearings so that we can hear
from folks.
I'm going to finish off
with a question. The sentence right at the bottom of your
presentation reads, "For far too long, organizations and
institutions have placed the interests of the organization itself
before the welfare of the child it was established to serve." I
think that strikes home with a lot of people, that we as a
society introduce all kinds of institutions and organizations
with the sole purpose of looking after kids or providing a
service to kids, and too often, once you've been in the
institution or the organization for a long time, you kind of get
blinkers on and forget that and the adults in the system tend to
look after the adults in the system.
I don't know how to turn
that into a question. It's quite a statement that you made, and
you've picked up on something. Have you any advice for us when we
go forward? I know we're doing some training programs in
community and social services with the education system on sexual
abuse in the system. Is there any advice that you have for us in
our governmental organizations on how we can educate people
within the organizations, within the province, to keep paramount
what the organization is for? It's a broad question, I know, but
it's a huge problem for us. I don't know if it's just a matter of
education.
Dr Broad:
I guess we both want to answer. It seems to me that one of the
questions that all too often we lose sight of-I work for an
organization too. Whenever a new policy is introduced, I think we
should be asking ourselves, the template for evaluating any
particular policy should be, "How does this improve our service
to our clients?" If you're a child-serving agency, then it's,
"How does this improve the quality of service that we deliver to
the children?"
Ms
Coppel-Park: I think education needs to be broadened
out. We've appreciated the efforts that the local children's aid
society has made in providing education to other professionals
around the changes to the act, April 1, 2000.
It's very time-consuming
for them to do it, and I know that, as important as it is to
reach professionals, it's also important that the community at
large understands its responsibility to report as well, and
whenever there are any changes, that education be looked at in a
multi-faceted way.
This is not easy
information for any of us to deal with, and for the general
public, who very often are the ones who know or sense that
children are at risk or that children are being abused, I think
it is still unclear as to what their obligations are. Having
education at many different levels would be really helpful.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Coppel-Park and Dr Broad, for coming in
this morning.
We will recess for lunch,
and we'll return here at approximately 1:20.
The committee recessed
from 1209 to 1335.
The Chair:
I'd like to call the meeting to order. Could I ask committee
members to please take your seats so that we can get started. I
apologize, ladies and gentlemen, for our being a little late.
Some of us got tied up at your local college.
ALGOMA HEALTH UNIT
The Chair:
The next presenter is the Algoma Health Unit, Dr Allan Northan,
medical officer of health. You may proceed.
Dr Allan
Northan: I wasn't here this morning, so if there are any
rules to this, I don't know them. Just remind me if I do
something that's inappropriate.
The Chair:
You have, Dr Northan, up to 20 minutes to make your presentation.
If there is time at the end of the presentation, there may be
questions entertained by members of the committee.
Dr
Northan: Thank you very much. My presentation will
likely be short. If there are any questions, I'd certainly be
happy to try to answer them.
Basically, the purpose of
being here, from my point of view, is that society should ensure
comprehensive protection
of vulnerable children and youth from abuse. I think we all buy
into that. For vulnerable, just to let you know where I'm coming
from, I relate that to an imbalance of factors such as age,
experience, position and authority. What I thought I would do,
and I'm keeping it pretty brief, is look at the stakeholders
involved in this issue. Obviously children and youth are the ones
we're concerned about here. The outside stakeholders that
influence children and youth are the children's aid society in
the instance of the legislation that we're looking at here, and
they have a very distinct role in making sure that children and
youth are protected. Then there are the caregivers in the
institutional settings, who definitely have a day-to-day role in
protecting the children they're working with.
First for the children's
aid society: the children's aid society should have no barriers
to reasonably and sensitively pursue and deal with a concern of
abuse of children or youth in any setting, home or institution. I
believe, from working with the children's aid society, that they
have the best interests of children and youth at heart, and I
have full confidence that when they get involved in an issue it's
solely to protect the vulnerable side of these people in our
society.
The second part is the
caregivers. I'm not really even sure how much this ties to the
child and family services legislation that you're looking at, but
it's certainly part of the justice and social policy part of the
role this committee serves. Caregivers who witness abuse should
come forward to protect young victims from any further abuse. The
witness is a critical element in that the CAS can only act on
abuse if they are aware of a concern. I know the act goes into
what the CAS should be able to do when they learn about potential
abuse, and I fully back the efforts that the CAS is making in
terms of being appropriately involved. But unless somebody
notifies them or tells them, things can go on and on.
Two areas of concern in
terms of the caregiver-witness are as follows: one thing that I
think is important in our society throughout the province of
Ontario is the whole element of prevention. I think all
institutional settings should be required to hold annual
sessions, for choice of a timeline, which review the issue of
abuse, its effect on children and youth and the ethical and legal
responsibility of those in charge to provide a safe environment.
I think that's the awareness of people who take care of children
about their role and the potential effects on children.
Fire drills are held on a
regular basis to remind people about fires and how to deal with
them if they should occur. Likewise, legal requirements to
regularly address values and duties could prevent abusive
situations from arising. If situations do arise, they are more
likely to be stopped quickly. To me, that's the whole thing of
prevention: the sooner you can stop something, the better.
The last one is condition
of employment. I think most people would agree that anybody who
has responsibility for children should have their best interests
at heart; if they don't, that would make me wonder why they are
employed in that role. As theft is considered a reason for job
dismissal, flagrant inaction to come forward to protect children
and youth from abuse should clearly be a cause for dismissal from
a job. Peer pressure or other issues which might bias people from
coming forward to expose a fellow worker who is abusing children
and youth would be offset by the importance of holding a job. I
guess that's just another lever on top of everybody's ethical
state to protect the rights of children.
That's my submission. If
there are any questions, I'd be most happy to address them.
The Chair:
Thank you, Dr Northan. Questions, government members?
Mr Maves:
I'll start, and I know Mr Hastings has a few.
How long have you been the
medical officer of health?
Dr
Northan: For Algoma, eight years.
Mr Maves:
What type of dealings would you typically have with the
children's aid society here?
Dr
Northan: It could be through the many children's
programs that we operate. We have common interests with children
at heart. We have our Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program,
our infant development program and several other programs where
we would be in contact with young children and their families,
and if we saw any evidence of abuse, the CAS would be contacted
in those cases. So that's one route for being involved with them;
the other is the prevention side that CAS is interested in,
working at preventing situations where children would come to
harm. We act together to address those situations preventively
even though enforcement might not be a part of that action.
Mr Maves:
A couple of times today we have talked about how the current act
puts an onus on professionals to come forward in the workplace if
they have reasonable grounds to suspect abuse, and there's a
$1,000 fine if they don't do that. You've proposed something very
interesting, in my view, that "flagrant inaction to come forward
to protect children and youth from abuse should clearly be a
cause for dismissal from a job." Right now, unfortunately, I know
there are some cases in the College of Teachers where the actual
abuser has not even lost their certificate nor been dismissed
from their job. That's a very interesting angle you've come at,
and I know that a lot of folks feel that the $1,000 fine right
now for inaction is not enough. Do you want to expand any further
on that?
Dr
Northan: I used the analogy to theft. I guess it
wouldn't be just theft of a pen, but theft from a company is
grounds for dismissal, so why wouldn't turning a blind eye to the
grief of a child be the same thing? I would certainly put it at
least on the same level, if not higher, for the consequences. We
do know that cases of children being abused have gone on for many
years where there was knowledge around but nobody did come
forward. I know ethics is one part; most people would feel an
ethical reason to come forward. But beyond that there are
other forces that
obviously sometimes prevent people from revealing the concern
that they see. I guess there's peer pressure, if some of these
people in the workplace are your friends and there are other
people who know each other and what's the pressure on you. But
certainly if your job is at risk for not coming forward, to me
that would protect the child from too much of this "Let's just
turn a blind eye" sort of thing.
There are so many cases of
obvious grief to not just one child but many children from this
kind of inaction by people. So if you get hired and it's up front
a part of your conditions of employment that you have a
responsibility to protect the children you work with and if you
don't, you won't be working here any more, I think that's fair
enough.
Mr
Hastings: Thank you, Dr Northan, for appearing before
our committee today on a very important subject, relating partly
to the tragedy that's occurred in this city over the last few
years.
When you say there ought to
be better training, because prevention is a cure rather than
going at it post-haste so to speak, can you inform us as to what
kind of approach you've made to the Algoma and Soo children's aid
society to undertake the new training in terms of prevention,
dealing with abuse by your own staff, or have you had an ongoing
arrangement with other public health units in the north or
through the association on this subject matter?
Dr
Northan: On this subject, in a general way, we certainly
have a role along with other agencies to deal with abuse of
children and youth or abuse of anybody, including the elderly. So
we've had a general role. We haven't had a specific role in the
sense of what I've suggested here. I put an annual presentation
or interaction with staff to go over the issue so it's kept clear
in people's minds what the issues are, what the effects are on
children, what the duties are of staff who take care of children.
There isn't anything formal in place like I suggest, but
certainly I know if this kind of thing was endorsed, the CAS and
other partners in the community would work together to make sure
that those kinds of workshops were conducted. It could be staffed
from a number of appropriate agencies that could deal with
that.
Mr
Hastings: It's been suggested by other groups making
presentations today that there ought to be some kind of-I don't
like using the words "swat team," but some kind of an external
group to deal with conflicts of interest involving children,
nurturing and providing services to children, by community
agencies in rural and small-town Ontario. As a teacher from
small-town Ontario a few years ago, I've seen some of these
inhibitions, or the denial that was brought up regarding the
whole allegation of sexual abuse of children. I'm wondering if
you would comment as to how comfortable you are with having such
a group undertake the needed investigation should this occur
anyplace in Ontario-is it some sort of a lesson, hopefully, that
we can learn out of this terrible experience in the Soo?-and what
your comments would be as to whether the CAS, anywhere, ought to
be one of the lead investigating agencies into such allegations
of sexual conflict or any other kind of abuse if that agency,
that CAS, had in any way, shape or form contributed to those
allegations. What's your thinking on that subject?
Dr
Northan: It's kind of a long question and I might have
missed pieces of it but I'll try to answer it. If I don't seem to
do it as well as your question directs me, just let me know.
My thought was the CAS
would be the body that would look into these situations. They are
the enforcers. I didn't know if I heard you suggesting that they
were part of-
Mr
Hastings: As legislators, sometimes conflicts occur when
agencies that provide the service, whatever it is-in this case
it's services to kids-are also the regulators. It's like me being
a referee in a hockey game and then I decide halfway through the
second period-a certain side's winning-that I want to join as a
right-winger or as a centre person and also want to be the
referee. You can't do that, in my estimation. You're either going
to have to be the regulator or you're going to have to be the
provider. You get a confusion of roles in public agencies
sometimes when you have that approach of an enforcement function
as well as a providing-of-service function.
1350
Dr
Northan: I suppose in some instances that could occur,
but certainly in Algoma I have full confidence in the CAS as I've
worked with them to fulfill that role. My underlying concern is
the vulnerable child and youth who might be at risk. I think
absolutely somebody has to get in there and put them first. I
would worry less about the agency, if somebody figures who's the
best agency to get in there-I feel CAS is quite appropriate-if
somebody feels there's somebody else who should get in.
To me the issue is that
somebody should get in there, investigate and do something about
it, because it's just not right for a child in that situation to
be left because of some kind of concern of, say, who's the most
appropriate, or is there some conflict? I'm quite comfortable in
the role CAS has played in my interaction with them. I think they
should be in there when there is a concern, and they should be
able to act on the concerns and put an end to a problem if it's
there and be sensitive about it. You saw the word "sensitive" in
the paragraph I used there, and obviously sensitivity for all
stakeholders, including somebody whom there might be allegations
against, is very important.
Mr
Hastings: Thank you very much, doctor, for your
views.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Hastings.
Mr Martin. If you could try
to keep it a little brief. I let them go on a little bit too
long. Sorry about that.
Mr Martin:
Thank you for coming today and making the presentation. It's
really important, when we're developing public policy here, that
we hear from folks who have responsibility in communities as to
how they see things that we're considering and what we might put
in place, because it ultimately affects all of us.
You suggest that society should ensure
comprehensive protection of vulnerable children and youth from
abuse. Could you expand a bit on the term "comprehensive"?
Dr
Northan: I guess "comprehensive" means there aren't any
gaps. What I'm looking at here and what I'm understanding here is
that there isn't a total comfort level. I know by the CAS, from
talking to them and from certainly my understanding of things,
that in an institution setting and some of the things that are
outlined in the act that is being looked at here, there isn't a
comfort level that somebody can get in and look at a problem and
deal with it quickly. There is still a chance for things going on
either unreported or perhaps undealt with, and that's my concern,
that children are the vulnerable ones. As I said, if they're
vulnerable by age, experience, position and authority and they
don't have the ability to get themselves out of a situation that
they find themselves in, I feel clearly that comprehensively we
should be able to make children feel safe in any setting, whether
it's their family setting or in any of the community settings
that they're in.
Mr Martin:
To follow up on that, and this will be my last question, you then
a little lower say, "The children's aid society should have no
barriers to reasonably and sensitively pursue and deal with a
concern of abuse of children or youth in any setting, home or
institution." Could you expand on the term "reasonably and
sensitively"? It seems to be a grey area that I think we want to
capture here.
Dr
Northan: Yes. Sometimes trying to be absolutely detailed
is difficult because it's hard to cover everything, so I was
general. I guess "reasonably" again means fairness is there for
all stakeholders. Certainly the person the allegations are made
against, you want to be reasonable about that, so you have a good
reason for being in there, and that's fair enough. "Sensitive"
means people are involved here, children and also the person the
allegations are made against. So you want to be sensitive to the
whole situation and be fair to everybody involved, but you want
to get down to, "Is there a problem?", and if there is, deal with
it.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Dr Northan, for your presentation this
afternoon.
ZONTA CLUB OF SAULT STE MARIE AREA
The Chair:
The final presenter for this afternoon is Patricia Tossell, the
corresponding secretary for Zonta. I understand we have two more
speakers, Dr Susan Febbraro and Ms Kathryn Buchan.
Ms Patricia
Tossell: We didn't know if the committee was familiar
with Zonta, because there aren't a lot of Zonta clubs in Sault
Ste Marie, so we've given you some information on Zonta
International and on our club. I'll just highlight that to begin
with so you'll know that we're an advocacy group that is
concerned with the issue of violence against women and children,
which is why we have made ourselves familiar with the bill and
various other pieces of information in appearing here today.
Zonta International is a
non-profit service organization of business and professional
women who work to improve the status of women and children
worldwide. Zonta is recognized by the United Nations as one of
1,500 non-governmental organizations in the UN Department of
Public Information and has a special consultative status with the
UN Economic and Social Council.
We have provided an
attached information sheet on Zonta International's program to
eradicate violence against women and children, known as ZISVAW.
The objective of the program is to raise awareness and promote
collaboration, such as today, among individuals, organizations
and governments working toward the common goal of a world free of
violence against women and children.
The Zonta Club of Sault Ste
Marie has 32 members representing professionals in law, medicine,
teaching and social service sectors. We are from a community now
painfully aware of the need to protect children from abuse in the
very institutions where they should be safe and protected from
harm.
With me today is Susan
Febbraro, who is a family doctor and the medical director of the
Sexual Assault Care Centre in Sault Ste Marie, which is the
agency locally that does the forensic investigations of sexual
abuse of children, and adult abuse as well. Kitty Buchan is also
before this committee. She has been a member of many volunteer
organizations in the community and is a retired office manager.
Between the three of us, we are the mothers of 10 daughters who
have all been educated in the elementary and secondary school
systems in Sault Ste Marie, so we've been following with great
interest, as has our whole community, this serious problem,
wondering how it could happen in our community, and grateful to
Mr Martin and those who have presented here today for becoming
involved in a solution.
What we wish to do today is
to support the initiative of Mr Martin in Bill 118, with the
proposed changes recommended by the Children's Aid Society of
Algoma. We also recommend that the following change be
considered: that the age of the children protected by the
provisions of Bill 118 be increased from under the age of 16 to
under the age of 18, to reflect the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, article I, which requires Canada and
Ontario, as signatories to the convention, to make their
legislation comply with that definition of "child."
We also would like to
recommend that the children's aid societies of Ontario be
provided with adequate funding to educate senior staff to conduct
the investigations required by the bill. We feel there's a very
high level of skill required and that's part of our
recommendation.
Those are our
recommendations. Do you have any questions?
Mr Martin:
Thank you for coming forward today and participating in this very
important forum where together, as you say, we develop public policy that will
go a distance to responding to challenges that we face as a
community as we try to protect each other. I just want you to
know how pleased I am that you've taken that responsibility
seriously and have looked at this bill and come forward to make
some very valuable suggestions as to things we might do.
I wanted to get a sense
from you and to share with the panel here, who are not from Sault
Ste Marie and who are going to be very instrumental in moving
this through the system as we move back to Queen's Park with
it-and I asked this question earlier today-has much changed in
Sault Ste Marie re the whole question of the protection of
children since the very dramatic and stressful DeLuca event, in
your experience and in your view?
1400
Ms
Tossell: I am actually a lawyer. I have experience in
family law and in child protection law, but I have not had to
deal with sexual abuse allegations in schools or institutions. I
have dealt with a lot of adult clients who have been victims of
sexual abuse as children and I've certainly seen the impacts on
their lives, and I can say they greatly number, the clients I
have who have been parents of children in need of protection-that
it really greatly affects their ability to parent, having been
the victim of child sexual abuse, including at school.
But perhaps Susan Febbraro
would have more of a comment on whether things have changed since
we became aware of Mr DeLuca's abuse in the schools.
Dr Susan
Febbraro: People in Sault Ste Marie are highly sensitive
to this issue now and I think probably we are getting more and
more reports of child sexual abuse, so there is an increase in
the number of children we examine and an increase in the number
of the children who feel safer in disclosing. It's not uncommon
now for children to disclose at school and for the teacher to
call the children's aid. That's a change I have observed.
Mr Martin:
Looking at this bill, which in my view will give the children's
aid society more ability to actually do that investigation and
make it more comprehensive and to share information with people
that will lead to some action being taken that will be more
protective of children, you've decided to focus on a couple of
pieces. One is raising the age from 16 to 18. Do you want to
expand on that a little bit? Why from 16 to 18?
Ms
Tossell: We feel that a 16- or 17-year-old child within
an institution is still very much a child in need of protection,
who ought to be protected by the services of the children's aid
society if there is any concern about physical or sexual abuse
within, for instance, the school or caregiving institution.
Mr Martin:
Are there any examples you're aware of where we've had 17- or
18-year-olds or people who are over that age whom we determine to
be children, who have sort of fallen through the cracks, that
you're aware of?
Ms
Tossell: Actually, a child is a person under the age of
18. It's the 16- and 17-year-olds we're talking about who aren't
covered by the bill, who are still very young and very vulnerable
to a teacher or a caregiver in an institution.
Mr Martin:
There was another issue, aside from this, that was raised this
morning, that we didn't get a chance to talk about. I missed
asking a question about it. It's the question of protection for
whistle-blowers. We've had a couple of examples in our community
where people have actually had the courage to come forward and
tell somebody that abuse had occurred, and they become a victim
in many interesting and disappointing ways.
There was a suggestion this
morning that we build into this act protection for
whistle-blowers. What do you think?
Ms
Tossell: If it's not there now, it should be there, for
sure. I very much, as someone in the audience, commend the
previous witness for his recommendation that people who fail to
report could be subject to dismissal.
Then there is less
likelihood that a whistle-blower would be penalized. If there are
serious consequences for not whistle-blowing, of course they must
draw attention to abuse that they become aware of.
Mr Maves:
Thank you, ladies, for coming forward today and making your
presentation. I have a Zonta Club in Niagara Falls. It's a
community with 76,000 people, very close to the population of
Sault Ste Marie. Mr Martin and I over lunch talked about us both
having a large Italian population within our communities. I think
we have a lot more in common, even though we're about eight hours
apart by car, than many people might think.
One of the statements you
made in your comments kind of struck home with me. You talked
about the fact that as parents we send our kids to school because
it's a place for them to grow up, for them to be properly
nurtured, to learn. When you send your kid off to school, it's a
hard thing to do, to watch your four-year-old, as I did this
year, go off to junior kindergarten and turn and walk away with
classmates and leave you behind. I think one thing that parents
never really think of is that they're sending their kids into
danger. It's horrifying to think that you could be willingly
sending your kids into a dangerous situation.
We had a colleague, a
former colleague of ours who was elected from 1995 to 1999, who
lost a daughter at 15 years of age. They had taken her to the
doctor because she had a stomach ailment. He prescribed some
medication for her and that medication ended up, as far as we
know, killing the daughter. What a tragic thing and what a
difficult thing for our former colleague: to know that I took my
daughter someplace to get them better, to help them, and ended up
doing the exact opposite.
So it's really difficult
for me to think, as you had put it, that these schools and
daycares and other places like that are places you send your kids
to be nurtured and taken care of and where they're going to be
safe and learn, and it's hard.
In Sault Ste Marie, some
people have kind of beaten themselves up a bit today about the
whole DeLuca case. I think anyone who had direct knowledge and did
nothing should beat themselves up, quite frankly, and I think
most people would agree with that. But as a city in general, I
think you have to be careful about beating yourself up too much,
because I noted in the DeLuca report, he said: "It must be
concluded that the DeLuca case is neither aberrant nor out of
date. Teacher sexual misconduct is sufficiently prevalent to
warrant special attention." We know that there are all kinds of
cases all across the province of Ontario, throughout the country
and in other countries.
I think one of the things
that's sad about the whole DeLuca case and the Robins report is
actually how little attention the Robins report got anywhere but
in Sault Ste Marie, because if there is a type of systemic
protecting of abusers or a systemic turning of the head to this
type of abuse in a place like a school system, I think the
attention of the rest of the province should be drawn to
this.
I really appreciate you
folks coming forward today and making the comments that you made.
It's obviously hard to come forward and talk about this for a lot
of folks. I want to thank everyone who's come forward today in
Sault Ste Marie with some very good suggestions. As Mr Martin
said, the suggestion from the medical officer of health about
maybe someone should lose their position for not reporting is
probably a good one that the College of Teachers should look at.
So I'm going to make sure a lot of this input gets in. Again, I
just wanted to thank you. I guess I didn't ask a question. A lot
of times, as politicians, we end up making statements and don't
leave time for questions, but I really wanted to thank you, as
our final group, for coming forward today.
The Chair:
That concludes the Sault Ste Marie portion of the public
hearings. We'd like to thank you all for taking the time out of
what we know are very busy schedules to make presentation to us
today. We will be reconvening on Monday at Queen's Park for
another day of hearings, and the clause-by-clause consideration
will be some time after the House reconvenes. If you would like
to know when that is, please contact the clerk, Mr Prins, and he
will advise you of the date once it is set. Thank you very
much.
Mr Martin:
I just want to briefly thank you, as Chair, and the committee for
taking time to come to Sault Ste Marie today. I know that this is
a private member's bill, and a private member's bill, no matter
the government, doesn't always get the consideration that those
of us who sponsor them think that it should. I have to tell you
that in this instance I'm very satisfied and happy and pleased
and want to thank all of you for the co-operative nature of the
discussion that we've had around this. I'm hopeful that we will
do something positive and constructive in the interest of
protecting our children.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Martin. This meeting is adjourned.
