Members of the Committee present:

Honourable Mrs. Mitchelson, Honourable Messrs. Radcliffe, Toews

Ms. Cerilli, Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Martindale, Penner, Ms. Wowchuk

APPEARING:

Mr. Daryl Reid, MLA for Transcona

Mr. Gary Kowalski, MLA for The Maples

WITNESSES:

Bill 47--The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act

Mrs. Joan Vanstone, National Director, Parent Finders of Canada

Ms. Darcy Lyons, Private Citizen

Mr. Roydon Kading, LINKS Post-Legal Adoption Support Group Inc.

Mr. Wayne Helgason, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg

Mr. Luis Coelho, President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2153

Ms. Tamsin Collings, Private Citizen

Ms. Karen Linde, Private Citizen

Ms. Ellen Peel, Winnipeg Child and Family Services

Ms. Joan Wolf, Private Citizen

Ms. Linda Shapiro, Private Citizen

Mr. John Poyser, Private Citizen

Bill 48--The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Ms. Louise Malenfant, Parents Helping Parents

Mr. Wayne Helgason, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg

Ms. Alice Wright, Private Citizen

Mr. Dave Waters, Winnipeg Child and Family Services

Ms. Mallory Neuman, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2153

Ms. Tamsin Collings, Private Citizen

Ms. Eileen Britton, President, GRAND Society

Ms. Donna Ekerholm, Private Citizen

Ms. Linda Dorge, Private Citizen

Ms. Colleen Suche, Law Society of Manitoba

Dr. Charles Ferguson, Winnipeg Child and Family Services Abuse Committees

Ms. Helen Zuefle, Private Citizen

Ms. Linda Shapiro, Private Citizen

Mr. Garth Smorang, President, Manitoba Bar Association

Ms. Norma McCormick, Private Citizen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 47--The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act

Mrs. Joan Vanstone, National Director, Parent Finders of Canada

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

Bill 47--The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 48--The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Before committee can proceed, we need to elect a vice-chairman.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Chair, I would nominate Mr. Peter George Dyck.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Peter George Dyck has been nominated. Any further nominations? Seeing none, I declare that Mr. Peter George Dyck is elected vice-chair.

To date we have had a number of persons registered to make presentations to the bill this evening. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who are preregistered. The first presenter on Bill 47--and I will read all of the names, and we have two out-of-town presenters that we want to deal with, but the presenters are Roydon Kading, Wayne Helgason, Joan E. Vanstone, Darcy Lyons, Rosella Dyck, Luis Coelho, Tamsin Collings, Karen Linde, Ellen Peel, Dian Cameron, Joan Wolf, and Linda Shapiro.

On Bill 48, we have Louise Malenfant, Wayne Helgason, Alice Wright, Rosella Dyck, Dave Waters, Luis Coelho, Tamsin Collings, Eileen Britton, Donna Ekerholm, Linda Dorge, Colleen Suche, Dr. Charles Ferguson, Helen Zuefle, Linda Shapiro, Garth Smorang, and Norma McCormick.

Those are the names of the people that have registered so far. If there are any people in the audience that have not registered and want to make presentations, would you please indicate to the Clerk in the back of the room.

We have two out-of-town presenters who are registered to speak to the bill today. What is the will of the committee? Should we allow those two people to present first? [agreed] That will be done.

Secondly, does the committee wish to limit the presentations?

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, as we have done previously in other presentations, that we limit it to 10 minutes for presentations and five minutes for questions.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested that we limit the presentations to 10 minutes and the questions to five. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): We have frequently objected in the past when the government insisted on time limits. We are objecting again tonight. We are dealing with two major pieces of legislation, The Adoption Act and The Child and Family Services Amendment Act. Both of these are making substantial changes in the area of Child and Family Services, and we know that some people have detailed and comprehensive briefs and probably cannot even read them in the time being allocated, and so we would like to and plan to vote against this motion.

Mr. Dyck: I can appreciate the comments made by Mr. Martindale. On the other hand, though, I think in fairness, in order that the people that are here tonight, and I know that many have come a long distance, in order for them to be able to do some planning as well, in order to accommodate them, I think it certainly would be in order that we allow and that we determine the time allocations for presentations, Mr. Chairman. On the other hand, I can also appreciate, as I indicated before, the comments that were made, but I would like for us, in fairness to the presenters, in order for them to accommodate the time allocations that they have for themselves, to be able to do that.

So, with that, I believe that I would like it to stand that it be at 10 and five, as was originally indicated.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Dyck says that there are a lot of people that come a long distance. I have looked at the two lists here. There are two out-of-town presenters; one of them being out-of-province. Perhaps some of the people who are here this evening have come a long distance, but it does not indicate that on the list, although I would very much want the members of the public to have the opportunity to speak to the bill. These are two major pieces of legislation; there is no doubt. I have some problem, though. I know the government was not intent in speaking to these pieces of legislation, and if my memory serves me correctly, only the minister spoke to the bills.

No other member of her caucus spoke to the pieces of legislation, so the government, it appears to me, to be intent on trying to ram through these bills in a very short period of time. I do not think it is fair to members of the public. Obviously, a great number of them that are here this evening want to have the opportunity to make their presentations. I think there needs to be some latitude in this committee so that if some of the presenters want to have a few minutes extra time to make their presentation, or if members of the committee want the opportunity to ask questions beyond the five minutes, I do not think it is fair and reasonable for us as legislators sitting here intently to the presentations to limit our opportunity to ask questions of the presenters and for them to give us their viewpoints. I think it is fair to the presenters. They have gone to a lot of work to put together these presentations, and for us to limit them to 10 minutes, I think, is unfair to the public, and I think it is unfair to us as legislators here to give us that two-way dialogue that we need to find out about the full intent of this legislation and its impact upon them.

Mr. Chairperson, with those words, I think we need to have some latitude on the 10 minutes and five minutes and go into a period of time, whatever the presenters might seem fair and reasonable to themselves having come here to make their presentations.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity, the good fortune, I guess, to be involved with this legislation right from the outset when consultation was taken across Manitoba, and I can let this committee know that in fact there was very extensive consultation right across Manitoba. Many of the names that I see on the list here tonight are people who have already presented on the--a lot of the people who present tonight were at the public hearings. [interjection] My honourable colleague says that he was not at those hearings, and I acknowledge that; I understand that. As I have had the opportunity in years gone by to sit in your chair, I know that the Chair does exercise latitude and flexibility that, if a question is started or if there is a conversation and an exchange already in process when the time limit comes, the custom of the Chair is to let that particular exchange complete itself and that particular dialogue work itself out.

But I think just because there are in fact the number of people here who have identified that it is only fair to let everybody here have the opportunity to speak, because in fact there have been a lot of people in the past who have spoken, there are a lot of people here tonight, and if somebody should choose to take the opportunity and talk and make a major presentation all over again, due to the fact that they feel very strongly about some of these issues, because I know some of these issues are very, very emotional and very, very controversial, in fact it would end up having the effect of disallowing individuals who have made the effort to come out tonight to make their presentation.

* (1910)

So it is my feeling that, given the discretion of the Chair--and I do not think that your regime will be dogmatic and absolute--and if my honourable colleague is in the midst of a dialogue or exchange with an individual presenter, you would allow him to finish. I would urge that to happen, but short of that, as a guidance, as an outline, I would urge the 10 and five in order that we give everybody who is here the opportunity to come forth and speak. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? If not, I will call the question. All those in favour of limiting presentations to 10 minutes and questions to five, would you indicate?

An Honourable Member: With some latitude?

Mr. Chairperson: With latitude, yes.

An Honourable Member: Yeas and Nays.

Mr. Chairperson: For clarification I think most of you have seen me in the Chair before, and I have normally allowed time for the question.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, would you say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Chairperson: I would declare that the Nays have it.

Mr. Martindale: Recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Recorded vote.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 3.

Mr. Chairperson: I declare the item carried. The presentations will be limited to 10 minutes and the questions to five. As I indicated, I am going to exercise a lot of flexibility. We will then call--how does the committee wish to deal with out-of-town presenters? The normal practice is that we allow out-of-town presenters to come first. Is that agreed? [agreed]

Is it also the agreement of the committee that we will call the names of people that have registered, and if they should not be in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list, and at the end of the presentations we will call their names again. Is that agreed? [agreed]

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I just want to clarify. Their names are called twice more after they are dropped to the bottom of the list?

Mr. Chairperson: No, once more. They will be called, dropped to the bottom of the list and when we finish the presentations, they will be called again for the second time.

We have also several people who have been registered to speak on both of the bills. Is it the will of the committee that we hear the presentations on both bills simultaneously or not? What is the will of the committee? That we hear them separately? Is that the will of the committee? Okay, then we will hear them separately. What is the will of the committee? Should we hear Bill 47 first?

Mr. Chairperson: Presentations on Bill 47. I call then the out-of-town presenters. The first one on the list is Joan Vanstone. Is Joan Vanstone here? Would you come forward, please. Have you a presentation for distribution to the committee? We will ask the Clerk to distribute. You may proceed.

Ms. Joan Vanstone (National Director, Parent Finders of Canada): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and also the other people seated behind me here.

I want to, first of all, commend the minister for bringing in an entire adoption act in its own entity and taking it out of the Child and Family Services realm. Adoption is such a unique and important way of building a family, and it deserves to have its own act. I would also ask that you give the act as much time as you possibly can in your busy schedule, because I want you to look at me in front of you tonight. I am a 63-year-old wife, mother of three and grandmother of five, but I was once a tiny, helpless infant in a crib whose parents were not able to look after me, and the state had to take over my care. I was disabled by my physical ability to speak up for my own rights and I was disabled by my age--too small. So I think this is very important.

Now, Parent Finders, whom I represent as the national director, is a volunteer group with 35 branches across Canada. We are all unpaid volunteers. I am here; I am footing my own bill tonight. But we feel so dedicated about the work that we do. We work for free but that does not mean we are not wonderful workers. Give me a well-motivated volunteer any day.

Parent Finders started 23 years ago in Vancouver to meet the needs of adult adoptees, birth parents and birth relatives, and adopting parents. We are really an analogous group, and we have been historically denied the full rights under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights as they are enjoyed by all naturally formed families in Canada.

As of this morning, before I left Vancouver, we had 46,500 people registered in our computer from all across Canada and, in fact, from many parts of the world, seeking to find more information about themselves in the case of adoptees or birth parents desperately wanting to know whatever happened to their child. If I may slide a sidebar in here, my birth mother was also an adopted person born in Brandon, Manitoba, and she died in 1972. She never knew where on God's earth she came from. No one would ever tell her, and when she died she never knew what had happened to her baby. To me, this is the most incredible cruelty that was wreaked upon a very nice woman whose only sin was to be born out of wedlock.

As regards our reunions, we have had over 11,000 reunions, and when you consider that most reunions take in a family group of five, we are talking about a ripple effect of 40,000 people. Very few families in Canada are not touched by adoption, and all of these people are citizens of one province or the other, and they are all voters. In our reunion research report-- because when we do our work we feel a responsibility to report honestly on how the reunions take place--92 percent of the birth mothers we found, using discretion and tact at all times, were very pleased to be found. Eighty-eight percent of the birth fathers were pleased to be found. A few of them were a little surprised. They had not realized they were birth fathers, but, again, when you approach a person in a courteous manner, that makes a very large difference. Ninety-eight percent of birth sisters who became involved in a reunion were very pleased to have a new sibling and 96 percent of birth brothers.

The reunion statistics success rate--and we say success where it has brought contentment and the end of questions and yearnings to people involved. New Zealand's 10-year record is 85 percent successful. I really went through this adoption act with a fine-tooth comb. In fact, I was still looking at it at two o'clock this morning.

I sadly did not feel that this legislation, although well intended, meets the only criteria that an adoption act should meet, and that is that it be in the best interests of a child. It started off well, but it fell off the rails. There is much good in the new legislation, and I do commend you, minister, I truly do, particularly the international adoptions, the openness agreements, the agencies. Many of these things I kind of sort of spotted some language from the B.C. adoption act which I was very much involved in. I was at meetings all weekend and worked five days a week. It was sort of effort by exhaustion on the part of many dedicated people.

But the one thing that must be upheld in your new act is the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. You cannot write into a Manitoba law something that violates international law. You just simply cannot. It is not fair to expect a birth mother or an adult adoptee or an adopting parent to have to hire a lawyer and pay $50,000 to come and challenge your act. It needs to be done right at the beginning.

* (1920)

No government has the right to build walls between a birth mother and her child, her own flesh and blood. This legislation, by attempting to hide a child's name and true blood and medical history, is imposing itself in a manner that it cannot lawfully impose upon a regular nonadopted family household. You cannot do this with other families. I do not think they would stand for it.

The secrecy provisions, taking a child's name off an adoption order, that is the child's name. You do not have the right to steal it. I am sorry, whether you are legislators or not, you do not. The government of British Columbia did not have the right to steal my full name. It belongs only to me. Its secrecy is obstructive, it is punitive, and it is not in the best interest of the child. It is not in the best interest of a child who was born in 1920, 1940, 1960 or the children that have not been born yet who will come under the openness provisions of the new act. We cannot have openness for future adopted children and slam the door on people that were born before. This is not equal law; it is discriminatory, and it is violating Chapter 15. So again, there needs to be some more work done, in my humble opinion.

Section 31(1) is a prime example of the archaic 1930's thinking, and I was amazed to see it there. The clause that says that an adopted child, as if the adopted child had been born to the adopted parent of the adopted child. You know, this is just a biologically untrue statement. I adored my parents, Thomas and Elsie Scott, my adoptive parents, but the blood in my veins here was given to me by a lady named Gweneth and a man named Cecil. So this is a fantasy clause. It has no basis in law; it has no basis in simple biology. My adoptive parents and I could all get the household cold germ, and we could all get the household flu bug, but my medical problems that were genetically and blood-based came from the two people that created me at birth, Cecil and Gweneth.

Now, Section 30(2) is, in my mind, a shameful clause. It seeks to steal a helpless infant's legal birth name. You are saying, do not put any names on there, put numbers. Well, excuse me, but a convict in jail has got a number on his back, but he knows what name to answer to. That is just so unfair to a helpless baby. You are stealing their identity before they are a year old, and you are deciding which is their name. They have a right to decide and claim both their names.

You are also, by this process, putting the child at medical risk, because I could not find anything in there, and maybe by exhaustion at two o'clock I missed something. I did not see a clause such as we have in British Columbia where the director has the power to go into an adoption, find the child's name, find the birth mother and get critical medical information for that child.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I interject just a wee minute. You have gone just a shade better than 10 minutes already. I mean, time flies fairly quickly when you are making a presentation. I am going to allow you some time to summarize and wind up your presentation.

Mrs. Vanstone: I am getting there, I am nearly there. Okay. So we have to be always mindful of the child's health, safety and well-being, and taking away the name is not helping to look after that issue. The child must have first an unobstructed right to their name, their medical and genetic information throughout their entire lifespan from their infancy to their death, because we all grow up.

The act in its present form is unacceptable in the closed aspects. So I really ask you to please take your time. Remember, try to picture, as we did in our committee in British Columbia when we got offtrack or we were getting confused, we tried to picture a newborn infant, and it has certainly homed us in very smartly, and it certainly polarized and focused whose rights we were and whose future we were deciding.

So, to the adoptive parents who are courageous in that they take on such a loving relationship with the children, please also remember that you violate their rights when you do not allow them to treat their children equally. If they have a naturally born child and they have an adopted child, and they cannot tell the adopted child the same information in history as they can tell their own birth child, you have put discrimination in a house, and it is cause for many behavioural problems.

So that pretty well sums up my remarks. I would close by saying that children and families are any country's strongest assets, and I believe that you can alter this bill at this stage and make it a stronger and a better bill in the best interests of that tiny baby that I ask you to remember.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. If it is the committee's will, I would suggest that we print your entire presentation in the record so that it will be recorded in the committee hearings.

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Vanstone: Are there any questions?

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any questions?

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I would like to thank the presenter, Ms. Vanstone, on behalf of Parent Finders of Canada for an excellent presentation. I am not a lawyer. However, you have a lot of quotations in your brief about the UN Convention and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am wondering if you got legal advice on writing these sections.

Mrs. Vanstone: Four lawyers.

Mr. Martindale: Would it be your belief that if someone challenged the new adoption act in Manitoba after it passes--it will certainly pass; the government has a majority--if someone challenged it in court, do you believe that they would win under the legal opinions that you have cited in your brief?

Mrs. Vanstone: Yes, I truly--

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Vanstone.

Mrs. Vanstone: I truly do. Oh, I am sorry. I was jumping the answer.

Mr. Chairperson: I have to do this as Chair so that the Hansard recording people can identify the speakers.

Ms. Vanstone, do you have further comment?

Mrs. Vanstone: Oh, I was just saying that I believe that, yes, there are two very strong grounds, and Mr. John Poyser is at the end of the list, and he is going to give you a lot of the legal rationale and case study so that Mr. Martindale will be able to answer your questions then.

Lastly, we have faxed to all of the legislative caucus offices all of those recommendations that I have gone through point by point through the bill so that every member, I hope when they take their seat for the third reading clause by clause, they will have our recommendations sitting right beside them. Thank you very much.

* (1930)

Mr. Martindale: I should have said when I asked you one of the questions about a legal challenge that I was referring to your recommendation that an order of adoption shall show the name of the child. I presume that your answers were referring to that part of your brief, that if you were to challenge this act that at least one of the grounds would be on children not being given their birth name. Is that correct?

Mrs. Vanstone: Definitely, because the UN Convention states that this absolutely must be given and this is international law. Canada, as a signator to the UN Convention in December of 1991, has guaranteed that the Government of Canada and all of its provinces who have ratified this agreement, which includes Manitoba, must conform.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): One of the issues that I am interested in asking presenters about and I find is one of the most, I guess, contentious issues is the waiting period that should be given between the time--I guess it is like a probationary period--the child is born and put up for adoption and the time when the adoptive parents actually will have legal custody. I am wondering if your organization has a recommendation for what that period should be.

Mrs. Vanstone: One thing I saw in your act that I had a problem with was the right to surrender at 48 hours, but I suppose if that was the situation where you had a mother who had a drug problem, then there would be, in the best interests of the child's health, safety and well-being, a very good reason to apprehend as quickly as possible for the child's benefit. As regards the length of time to complete an adoption legally, years ago--because I have been around so long, I have been through I do not know how many adoption acts--the waiting period was one year. So the child was placed and sort of the calendar started to roll from there.

Some adoptive parents felt that was a very anxious period because during the one-year probationary period a birth mother, if she could make a plan and show that she could care for her child, could go to the courts and petition to have her child returned. So it was sort of one of those changes that evolved from the anxiety of the adopting parents. They said, really we would like to have this adoption formalized and so it drifted down to six months. Since that has been in effect for quite a long time, I cannot really say that I have an objection. I personally was with my birth mother in a baby home, in foster homes and my situation went on and on for 18 months. I do not think that is good because there is the bonding factor of the infant with the mother and the father. Again you see, I always default to the best interests of the child. I am sorry, it is just a bad habit of mine. I have little grandchildren and they remind me daily of the fragility of small children.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Vanstone, for your presentation.

I call next Mr. Darcy Lyons. [interjection] Ms. Darcy Lyons, sorry about that.

Ms. Darcy Lyons (Private Citizen): I am not a cross-dresser.

Mr. Chairperson: I know a person by the name of Darcy and he is a man. Have you a presentation for distribution?

Ms. Lyons: Yes.

Mr. Chairperson: The Clerk will distribute. You may proceed.

Ms. Lyons: I am not a speaker portrayed like Joan, but I will do my best. I am just going to read from what I have.

I have waited a lifetime for this day. My name is Darcy Lyons and I am an adoptee. I was told that I was adopted before I could understand. My mother rocked me in her arms and said, my adopted little girl. My parents did what they were told to do. They told me I was adopted. My parents did not realize that an adopted child has different needs than a child born to them would have. Child and Family Services did not even acknowledge the difference. There is a saying, what you don't know won't hurt you. This saying does not apply to adoption because we know that we do not know. This is the basis of an adoptee's grief and the complicated identity formation that they have.

By the age of four, I spent many hours looking in the mirror wondering what my birth parents looked like and where I came from. I would tell everyone that I was adopted. Who knows, maybe they would know my family of origin. The search continued for years, looking and searching for a resemblance, for my identity in crowds, in people in shopping malls. I asked my parents questions about my family of origin. They did not know a lot. They were so excited about the adoption that they did not remember my history which was given to them verbally. They did not take these questions seriously. They just figured that I was going through a phase that would pass and that it was all just a matter of curiosity.

There is a well-known unspoken belief that if an adopted child has a need to know their origin, it is a negative reflection on the ability of the adoptive parents, so I grew up dealing with my grief alone, feeling insecure about my membership in this family. I wondered what was going to happen to me when I turned 18. Would I still be considered part of this family?

I had to be the perfect little girl so that my parents would not send me back. I grew up feeling second class, like my feelings did not count and I did not count. I had lost my birth parents, my heritage, my ethnic origin, my identity, all because I was too young to speak for myself and no one was there to advocate for me. It was just expected that I would take on the identity of my adopted family. I grew up knowing that I was different but was forced by the law to pretend I was not. My adolescence consisted of episodes of deep depression, angry outbursts and incredible emptiness and loneliness. I grew up being constantly reminded about what I did not know and what I had no right to know, and that is what adoption meant to me, all done in my best interest.

It was not until I was 26 after taking a class in loss and grief that I was able to identify how adoption had affected my life. I did not know why I was depressed, felt empty and alone. I now knew that I had a lot of unresolved grief, and this awareness allowed me to take care of my needs. I realized that as a child I was forced to deal with the reality of adoption alone. I realized that I had the right to know, even though the law did not recognize it. It was now my adoptive parents' turn to deal with the reality of my origins. I had to fight off the label of ungratefulness and insinuations that I had no right to interfere with my birth parents' lives. I had to risk rejection from both my birth parents and my adoptive parents. In addition, I had to reassure my parents that my needs had nothing to do with them and that I was not looking to replace them as parents, and I had to trust that time would prove this to them.

My name was on the adoption registry for eight years. My patience ran out and I decided to search on my own. I found my birth mother on my fourth day of searching. Not all searches are that easy and successful. Some are even impossible. I feel so lucky I was not rejected. My birth mother did not register because she felt she did not have the right to interfere with my life. How ironic. She was also a victim of the same insinuation. She told me that not a day went by when she did not think about me. I told her that I thought a lot about her, too, and that I had saved a place in my heart for her.

I do not compare my parents. They are all individuals whom I love dearly. I believe people can love a lot of people, and these laws are based on comparison and role confusion. They instill fear in all members of the adoption triad. My birth parent gave up her right to parent me. She did not give up her right to love me. I believe that our birth parents felt that by giving us up for adoption they were giving us a chance in life. I believe this choice was without the realization that our childhood would be more complicated with grief and that we would experience more difficulty with identity formation.

Closed records instill fear of the unknown. They reject the adoptee's true identity, which in turn disregards a part of their unique identity. The secrecy of closed records is shaming. We become a source of shame when we want to know those who are responsible for our existence. We are blamed for the potential upheaval in our birth parents' lives, and this is the basis for closed records.

Adoption was done to us. A self-search allows adoptees to have control over forces they previously had no control. Self-search helps the adoptee to experience the self as capable of acting rather than being acted upon. The present recommendations to extend the services of Child and Family Services will continue to allow it to search for us for a fee. This fee holds no guarantee of reunion or vital information which we need. They are continuing to do to us and exploit us financially as well. This especially refers to those born after medicare who do not have their last name on the decree of adoption and therefore are unable to do a self-search.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Lyons.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Lyons, for appearing before the committee. I know that it is not easy to share a personal story with a room full of people, but we appreciate you doing so.

Are you concerned that the fee might be a barrier to people finding out their identity?

Ms. Lyons: Yes, I do, especially because the people that the fee is probably more directed to are children that were born after 1968, and so they are quite young yet. They might not be financially set. When they want to find out is when they are 18, and they do not have the finances to drop $200, $300 for a search or more.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Lyons, for your presentation.

* (1940)

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Not any questions, but I do want to indicate to you, thank you for your presentation; it certainly does speak volumes about your feelings. I am pleased you have had success in the whole process and a positive response to the search.

I also did want to say to Ms. Vanstone, too, and I hope she is still here, to thank her for her presentation. I know she travelled quite a distance to be here and made a lot of good points. So thank you.

Ms. Lyons: So thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. I call next Mr. Roydon Kading. Have you a presentation for distribution? The Clerk will distribute. You may proceed.

Mr. Roydon Kading (LINKS, Post-Legal Adoption Support Group Inc.): Thank you for this opportunity. While I did make a presentation in the fall, I am representing over a thousand or many thousand adoptees and adoptive parents and birth parents in the province of Manitoba, and it might be hard to condense 4,000 presentations into 10 minutes.

I am talking on behalf our organization called LINKS, Post-Legal Adoption Support Group.

For those of you not familiar with our organization, we are a volunteer, nonprofit, nonfunded adoption support group comprised of members of the triad: adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents. We help our members through the exchange of information and ideas, and provide them with emotional support to deal with adoption issues.

We would like to compliment the minister for acknowledging that adoption is such an important issue that it deserves its own law. We would also like to say our organization and birth families in general welcome the expansion of the registry to make it entirely active for all members of the triad. This, we feel, is long overdue and a very good step.

However, we have serious concerns with particular parts of this proposed law that violate the rights of the adoptee and that discriminate against both the adoptive parent and the adoptee.

Under Section 30(1), Order of adoption, which reads: "Where an application for an order of adoption is filed and all the applicable requirements of this Act have been complied with, a judge may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, make an order of adoption."

Section 30(2) reads: "An order of adoption shall be in the prescribed form and shall not, except as provided in subsection (3), show the surname of the child prior to adoption, but shall identify the child by the birth registration number of the birth record or other identification acceptable to the judge."

There are other societies in this world who identify people by number, and I do not want to be associated really with any of them.

Section 30(2) must be deleted and rewritten to read: An order of adoption shall be in the prescribed form and shall show the surname of the child prior to adoption.

Section 30(2) continues the discrimination against adoptees and adoptive parents. It is stated that adoption records will be opened. This is false. Adoptive parents and adoptees will continue to be denied the birth name in full, and only 18 years from now will the adoptee be able to apply for a copy of the original order, and only if there is no disclosure veto, will they be given a copy of their original order of adoption. Therefore adoption laws will not be open for 18 years, not tomorrow.

Section 101, Court records are confidential, and it reads: "All records of the court relating to the granting of an order of adoption shall be confidential."

Section 101 should be changed to read: All records of the court relating to the granting of an order of adoption shall be confidential except for the parties named on the order of adoption, which is the adoptee and the adoptive parents. They were a party to the order. They should have access to it.

Section 102(2), Court may issue certified copy of order, and it now reads: "Despite subsection (1), the court may on written request issue a certified copy of an order of adoption to (a) an adoptive parent to whom the order of adoption relates; or (b) to an adult adoptee to whom the order of adoption relates; but where the original surname of the child appears on the order of adoption, the original surname shall be deleted from the certified copy and the birth registration number or other identification acceptable to a judge or master shall be substituted for the surname."

Section 102(2) must be deleted and the following substituted: The court shall on written request issue a certified copy of an order of adoption and a copy of the original birth registration to an adoptive parent to whom the order of adoption relates or to an adult adoptee to whom the order of adoption relates.

Disclosure Vetoes, under Section 112 of Bill 47 pertaining to disclosure vetoes, violates Section 15 of the Canadian Charter and must be deleted in its entirety. It is giving the birth mother discriminatory rights over the adoptee and the adoptive parents, who do not have that right to withhold anybody's name, and now you are giving it back to the birth mother to withhold it. That is absolute discrimination.

Sections 30, 101, 102 and 112 are in direct violation of Section 15 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 15, Equality of Rights, subsection (1) reads: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Subsection (2) reads: "Subsection 1 does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Sections 30 and 102 violate Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by discriminating because of age. Bill 47 provides for children adopted in the future to receive a copy of their adoption order with full birth name thereon, unless there is a disclosure veto, upon request when they become an adult. Adult adoptees, born and adopted prior to Bill 47, are being discriminated against by refusing to give them a copy of the adoption order with birth name in full. That is age discrimination. The adoptee at the time of the adoption was physically disabled and was disadvantaged by not being able to participate in the adoption process and to claim their rights. By the use of a disclosure veto, the birth mother is being given more rights than either the adoptee or the adoptive parent.

Sections 30, 101, 102 and 112 of Bill 47 also violate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified by Canada in December, 1991, and the government of Manitoba signed a letter of agreement. Article 1 of the Convention states: Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members.

Article 7 says: 1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth, and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality, and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. 2. Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Article 8 states: Parties undertake to respect the rights of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality; name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, the parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection with a view to speedily re-establishing his or her identity.

Where is this contract we hear so much about between the birth mother and the agency guaranteeing privacy? There never was a written contract. There is no such contract. Form 16, consent of parent or guardian to the adoption of a child through the director or an agency, does not guarantee privacy. Nowhere is privacy mentioned. From our experience, we have helped reunite 151 adoptees with birth mothers. Of that number, seven birth mothers did not want contact. That is 5 percent. Are adult adoptees being discriminated against because of the circumstances of their birth? To protect the privacy of 5 percent of the birth mothers, 100 percent of the adoptees are being discriminated and sacrificed.

* (1950)

As an aside, I would like to ask you one question, and you do not have to answer it, if any of you have adopted children who were born after 1967 who do not know their name, what will you tell that child, that he or she is not intelligent enough, mature enough to know their birth name, that they are not equal with their peers, and that they are particularly not equal with their parents' biological brothers and sisters who do know their names? That would be a pretty difficult question to tell my son or my daughter that they do not deserve their name.

Adult adoptees in Manitoba are the only class of people who are deprived of their birth name in full. Our question is: How can this type of discrimination be legislated in good faith? Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Kading, for your presentation.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Kading, for your presentation. I am wondering if post-adoption LINKS would consider going to court perhaps on your own or with your national organization and, if necessary, go to the Supreme Court in order to challenge the sections that you believe violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Kading: Yes, I feel that we would, but, of course, the question again comes up to money. Can we afford it? I think this is what all governments bank on, that people cannot afford to go to court to fight their legal battles, whether they are discriminatory or not. If the opportunity arose, yes, we would be there.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Kading, as you know, I have been to your support group meetings, and I found them very interesting. In fact, I found the stories that people told quite poignant, including stories of adoptees who found their birth parents and birth parents who found their children and people who found their siblings, and I have some personal sympathy for some of the points of view you are putting forward.

However, one of the problems that I see as an individual on this committee is that we are hearing one point of view, and although we are not finished and we have more presenters on Bill 47, I suspect that we will not hear from people who want total confidentiality, because people are not going to come forward and identify themselves and argue for confidentiality.

I am wondering what you would say to this argument from silence, I guess. Do you believe that a disclosure veto protects their rights to confidentiality?

Mr. Kading: Mr. Martindale, I do not believe a disclosure veto has any place in an adoption law. That, again, is giving total control to the birth parent who gave up control of that child when they were adopted. Now we are giving it back to them with a disclosure veto? That does not make any sense at all. There are certain birth mothers, and birth fathers, no doubt, who do not want to be known, like 5 percent. Are we sacrificing all the adoptees for 5 percent of the people who do not want to be known?

They also could have made a written presentation. They do not have to appear in public. They could have written a presentation. Maybe some of them did, but they are asking for privacy. They never asked for privacy when they were 16 years old and 15- and 17-year-old birth mothers. They did not ask for privacy. They never said that they did not want their child to know who they were, what their background was. They never said do not give my child my name. They never said that.

This privacy business was instilled in their head at the time by somebody saying, you know, no one will ever come and look for you; the records are sealed; do not worry about it. It was a verbal statement made by a social worker that had no basis in fact at all.

So if anyone comes forward and makes a presentation about privacy, fine, that is their prerogative, but as far as we are concerned, they are definitely in the minority.

Mr. Martindale: What do you think, Mr. Kading, the minister would say if we asked her about the understanding about privacy at the time of an adoption?

Mr. Kading: Mr. Martindale, I would like to see something in writing that the government gave a birth parent, that there was privacy. I would also like to know how many court cases has the government of Manitoba received in the last 50 years that the records were supposedly so-called open.

From 1922 to 1968, they were open; that is 45 years. How many court cases did the government of Manitoba receive from people because of the invasion of privacy? I do not think one, not one. If there was, I would like to hear about it. Does that answer the question?

Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Kading, for your presentation. I appreciate the good work that LINKS does on behalf of adoptees.

Mr. Kading: You are welcome, Madam Minister. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Kading, for your presentation.

I call next Wayne Helgason. Wayne Helgason. Mr. Helgason, have you a presentation for distribution?

Mr. Wayne Helgason (Social Planning Council of Winnipeg): Mr. Chair, I have on Bill 47. I am here, and the time on Bill 48 will be shared.

I would like to indicate initially that the Social Planning Council, with other groups, has looked at Bill 47 from an operational sense and has some ideas, and Karen Linde will go into more detail on them, but to express our support for the kind of permanency planning opportunities that we think the bill and the new process should include, some practical solutions that at your leisure you will consider the support you may give within an amendment process or ensuring the bill meets, I think, some of its objectives.

Some good work has been done by Ms. Linde and others, so we defer in a sense at this point, and I will be back when you are attending to Bill 47 with a written submission.

Mr. Chairperson: We are on Bill 47 right now.

Mr. Helgason: I am sorry, Bill 48.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, so you will defer till 48. Is Ms. Linde--are you going to be making a presentation on their behalf or what?

Ms. Linde: Well, this is joint in a sense.

Mr. Chairperson: Well, then I would ask you that you have a bit of patience because you are No. 8 on the list. So I will call you when your name comes up. Is that fair?

Ms. Linde: Okay.

Mr. Chairperson: I will call next then Rosella Dyck. Is she not here? I call next then Luis Coelho. We will ask you to pronounce your name, so we all understand it.

Mr. Luis Coelho (President, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2153): Have a little education session. It is actually Luis.

Mr. Chairperson: Good. Have you a presentation for distribution?

Mr. Coelho: Yes, I have. It is being distributed.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Coelho, you may proceed.

Mr. Coelho: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. First, my thanks for the opportunity to speak to you this evening regarding the proposed changes to the child welfare act. I will limit my comments to Bill 47 while my colleague Mallory Neuman will speak to issues raised by Bill 48 when her turn comes up.

My name is Luis Coelho. I am president of CUPE Local 2153 which represents about 450 staff at Winnipeg Child and Family Services. These staff include social workers, clerical administrative staff and family support workers. I speak to you today on behalf of all of us.

On a personal level, I am a social worker. I have worked in child welfare for the last 15 years in a variety of capacities. Presently I work in one of the adoption units with Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

* (2000)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Family Services for her undertaking in reviewing The Child and Family Services Act. We were especially pleased with the discussion papers which talked about the need to strengthen communities and support families so that those families could better take care of their children. The minister also spoke about the sadness of too many children in care and the urgent need to address this.

Unfortunately, the proposed changes do nothing to address the issues raised with so much hope in the discussion papers. So for us the proposed changes are a disappointment, an important opportunity missed. After the implementation of the proposed changes, there will continue to be too many children in care, too many children in need of care and too many children without families.

Having said that, let me focus on Bill 47. We have a few concerns about what is the proposed legislation and what is not. What Bill 47 does not address is the plight of the majority of our permanent wards who are eligible to be adopted but for whom there are no adoptive homes. For a variety of reasons these children are not seen as desirable by adoptive applicants, and therefore, despite our best efforts, we are unable to find them permanency in a permanent family.

We have many aboriginal children who need permanent placements through adoption in culturally appropriate homes, but those homes do not exist. Native communities need to be assisted in developing these resources so that adoption can be a reality for these children too. Unfortunately, Bill 47 appears to be silent on this major problem. It focuses on a very small part of the picture--there are not that many young moms considering adoption--and it neglects the real needs of most of our permanent wards. These are children who despite our best efforts will never know an adoptive home.

Focusing again on Bill 47, some of the proposed changes are reasonable, and they are a step in the right direction. For example, the 10-day waiting period while baby lives in a neutral location did not make a lot of sense if both parties are willing to proceed with adoption. The reduction of time for the adoptive parents to apply for an adoption after 30 days instead of six months is a step in the right direction, although we wonder if 30 days is not a bit too short. Perhaps three months or even 60 days would be more of a balance.

Making the post-adoption registry fully active is a positive step and long overdue. We would hope, however, that this expanded mandate is matched with appropriate and adequate resources. The openness of adoption records, again, is a positive step. We know how critically important families are. Families give a sense of continuity, connectedness and define who you are. Adopted children need and deserve this. Parents who choose adoption also need to know what happened to the child.

So the openness and sharing of information is good. I am not sure that providing basic, vital information through Vital Statistics is sufficient or appropriate. We would suggest that at a minimum adopted children and birth parents be afforded the opportunity to discuss any issues around the information they find and to clarify events if that is what they need.

We are very concerned about the privatization of some of the adoption services. Although we appreciate the reasons why this is being proposed, i.e., that timely service has been problematic in some areas, the proposed solution is unnecessary. It seems to be somewhat of an overreaction, and it raises concerns. The problem of timeliness should be fixed where it exists. If the system has been allowed to deteriorate to such a level, then the Minister of Family Services should have dealt with the situation before implementing such drastic measures.

The whole idea of a not-for-profit agency as something new in child welfare is puzzling. Child welfare agencies have always provided service on the basis of need. They are funded almost totally by government, and they do not make any profits except perhaps in the quality of families' and children's lives.

We are concerned that although these private agencies will apparently be regulated and licensed, we do not know at present what those regulations will be. We are concerned that there needs to be real balance between the wishes of adoptive parents and the wishes of birth parents.

If a young birth mom decides to change her plans regarding adoption of her child, who will be there to support her in that decision? Who will be there to ensure that her rights are respected? Minor parents probably do not feel very empowered. That would be one of the reasons why they would be considering adoption for their babies. For some, adoption is a good plan and a good adoptive home is a wonderful thing, but for others they may have more difficulty in making that decision. We need to be sensitive to this. We need to make sure that the needs of the adoptive applicants and the best wishes of the private adoption agency do not supersede the wishes of the birth mom. At a minimum, a child welfare agency should be involved with and available to the birth mom to ensure that her wishes and rights are protected.

In conclusion, although we support some of the changes proposed, we have some major concerns about setting up private adoption agencies. We are not convinced of the need for their creation, and we are concerned about the presence of real balance and how this would be regulated. We are disappointed that the changes do nothing to facilitate the process of finding permanent adoptive homes for the majority of our children who should be adopted.

Those are my comments. I will answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Coelho, for your presentation.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Coelho. You said that Bill 47 does not address the problem of the large number of permanent wards who could be adopted. I am wondering if you have some suggestions as to how to solve that problem.

Mr. Coelho: Yes, Mr. Martindale, I mentioned that the number of aboriginal children who are in our care are permanent wards for whom adoptive homes are not available. I also suggested that perhaps some work and resources should be allocated to that area, so that we can find culturally appropriate homes for those children.

For those children who are not aboriginal, some of the same solutions mights also apply. I think that we live in a society where there are not a lot of people who may want to adopt children, especially children with difficulties, with developmental issues, children who are older, and I think we need to look at ways to facilitate families who might be willing to provide a permanent home for those children. That is something that is not in the act, and that is something that should be done.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, you suggest more resources I think probably for agencies and for families. Do you think this is something that should be put in The Adoption Act, or could the government address this in their budgeting process?

Mr. Coelho: I am not sure that I am knowledgeable enough to talk about where it should be dealt with. We have identified the problem because that is my area of work. I know that those children need homes. How it is done, it does not matter much to me. I would think that some mention of it might be made in The Adoption Act. Where the money is allocated, that is up to the government. It does not matter to me where it comes from. The resources for native agencies and for families who might want to adopt just should be there.

Mr. Martindale: On page 2 of your brief you said that timely service has been problematic in some areas. I wonder if you could expand and tell us where you believe timely service has been a problem.

Mr. Coelho: You know, frankly, I am not sure. I think the reasoning behind that led to the creation of the private adoption agencies or possible private adoption agencies. It may be in the length of time it takes for adoptive parents to find a child that they may want to adopt. I am not sure what we can do about that since I believe that there just are not a lot of young moms who are prepared to consider adoption as an alternative these days.

I know that one of the areas where timeliness is an issue, and I can tell you that from my experience, is in the post-adoption registry, who are trying to find information for people who were adopted many years ago. I think that sometimes they need to wait a way too long to get the information that they are looking for, and that needs to be addressed as well.

Mr. Martindale: You also said that the system has been allowed to deteriorate. I wonder if you could identify where you believe the system is deteriorating.

Mr. Coelho: Lack of resources, I think, specifically in the post-adoption registry. If we are allowing and agreeing that people should have access to information about their birth family, that information should be available much quicker than we are able to provide right at the moment, so any step in that direction is a good thing. As far as providing young babies for couples who may want to adopt, I am not sure what we can do about that. I mean the babies just are not there.

* (2010)

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if you could spell out for us either more clearly or in more detail your objection to not-for-profit adoption agencies.

Mr. Coelho: Frankly, I do not understand the need for them. I think that if young moms think that adoption is a good thing for them, I know we have long lists of adoptive applicants who are waiting for babies, and it should not be very difficult to place that child. In fact, we can and we have reacted fairly quickly. When a young mom gives birth, if there is an adoptive couple who wants to adopt the child, I think the changes proposed by the minister make sense, and that child can be placed very quickly.

I am not sure why we need a not-for-profit agency, and I have some difficulty with the term, as I indicated, because as far as I am concerned all child welfare agencies have always been not for profit.

Mr. Martindale: Do you see a conflict of interest in private adoption agencies whereby they may be counselling expectant mothers on the one hand and lining up adoptive parents on the other hand?

Mr. Coelho: That is a very good question and I referred to that. If I was not as clear enough about it, I think that is what I was getting at. I think that we need to be very careful that if we end up setting up not-for-profit agencies whose interest is to try and locate babies for young couples or families who may want to adopt, we need to make sure that there is a real balance between the need of that unit who wants to adopt a child and the birth mom who may be having a difficult time making that decision.

I have had personal experience where young moms changed their minds after having birth to the child, when it looked like all along they knew exactly what they wanted to do. They wanted to give up that child because of very good reasons, and after the birth of the child, it did not happen. Those young moms need to be respected, and their wishes need to be respected. We need to make sure that they do not get caught in someone else's wishes to provide a baby for a very nice family that may want to adopt a child. We need to be very, very careful about that.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I want to thank you, Luis, for your presentation. I notice on page 1 of your presentation that you say that there are many aboriginal children who need permanent placements through adoption in culturally appropriate homes but those homes do not exist. I guess my question would be: How many aboriginal workers are there in the adoption area of Child and Family Services agency in Winnipeg?

Mr. Coelho: I take it in number, not very many.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, does the agency work really closely with some of the other non-main mandated and not-for-profit agencies that deal with aboriginal children to try to recruit those culturally appropriate homes? What kind of work is done?

Given that the issues in the Winnipeg agency are certainly a lot of aboriginal children involved as permanent wards--and I know that I get the statistics on a regular basis, and I know you deal and work in the agency on a regular basis--my question would be: If the workers working on adoption in the agency are not of aboriginal background, what work do you do with agencies that are aboriginal and deal with aboriginal children? How aggressive is the work that you do with those agencies to try to determine how we recruit the adoptive homes that might be necessary for children of aboriginal descent?

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Coelho, for a final response.

Mr. Coelho: I am not sure that we recruit native homes or work with those agencies. I know that in each case where a child is aboriginal, especially a Status child, and is ready for adoption we cannot even think about adopting that child without informing the band where that child comes from and asking them if they have any resources. Very often that is where the planning stops because we are told that, no, unfortunately, they do not have an adoption home for this child, and neither are they prepared to consider adoption in a not culturally appropriate home. I respect that, but it leaves the child in limbo.

So I do not know how we get past that, and that was my suggestion, that those particular agencies that tell us that they are not able to find an adoptive home for our child, those are the people I think we need to look at trying to assist so that when we let them know we have a child and we are looking for an adoption home, that in fact they say, yes, we have one, let us do it.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Coelho, for your presentation.

I call next Tamsin Collings--I almost called you "mister." Ms. Collings, have you a presentation for distribution? Welcome back to the building. You may proceed.

Ms. Tamsin Collings (Private Citizen): Thank you for the opportunity to present on the proposed Bill 47 and to voice my concerns about some of the impacts of this legislation. As a social worker with Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Central area, the primary area I looked at when reviewing the proposed bill was in regard to its impact on the permanent wards of our agency, the children with whom I have had the opportunity to work.

I wish to address three main areas of concern: the need for adoptive homes for permanent wards of the agency; concern about the increased privatization of adoptions; and proposed changes to the post-adoption registry.

The proposed legislation in Section 34 maintains the current practice of allowing for some limited financial assistance for persons adopting a child whose needs may present a financial barrier to the adoptive parent. This type of assistance is not new and has been offered in specific cases in the past in the form of payment of therapy costs, et cetera. Unfortunately, this has not provided an adequate lowering of barriers to adopting children to make the difference for a large number of children who are older, part of a sibling group, live with a physical or developmental disability, have a history of abuse or have treaty status.

The cost of maintaining these children in foster care is high, and it does not meet the need or right of these children to have permanent homes. I am disappointed that the proposed legislation does not address these needs in a substantive way. One way to begin to address this would be to continue community initiatives to increase awareness of the need for homes for these children. It would also be helpful to establish resources within the agency to provide ongoing supports to adoptive families, especially for those with children with higher needs.

I am concerned about the increased role for private nonprofit agencies in providing services for birth mothers signing voluntary surrenders of guardianship. The inclusion of the agency in this service in the past has meant greater attention paid to the rights of birth mothers, who are often not aware of the details of the legislation that impact them. I am concerned about the voiced intent of this government to pursue a fee to be paid by adoptive parents for a home study. I fear this would discourage people with lower incomes from applying to adopt. The other concern I have is that this move to seeing adoptive parents as consumers would have other repercussions, such as implying the right to choose which agency and worker did their home study. Surely the children involved are entitled to a more objective, impartial service.

My final concern is about the proposed changes to the post-adoption registry which would make it fully active. My concern is that there is no provision in these proposals to address the different situation between children who are voluntarily relinquished and those who are permanent wards of the agency. I have serious concerns about releasing identifying information on adoptive children to birth families in situations where they were removed because of protection concerns, and where the birth parent presented a risk to the child. This could result in dissuading people from being open to adopting children who are permanent wards of the agency, as well as being a possible risk to that child. I am also concerned that the changes proposed would no longer provide for the involvement of a social worker if needed to facilitate what is often a highly emotional process.

As I have outlined, my main concerns about the proposed legislation, Bill 47, are in regard to its failure to address the needs of children with higher needs for adoptive homes, the increased privatization of the system, and the move to a fully active post-adoption registry. I believe these proposals will have a negative impact on all of those involved in the adoption triad, but especially on children who are permanent wards of Winnipeg Child and Family Services. Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I hope you will review some of the concerns I have raised.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Collings.

* (2020)

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Collings. I guess my question is similar to a previous one. That is, if there is limited financial assistance for families, is that an issue that should be addressed in legislation, or could the government address it in their budget allocation to a Child and Family Services, and if so, which would be the best way to address this problem?

Ms. Collings: I think it could probably be done in both ways. I think obviously Section 34 does spell out that there can be some financial assistance, and I do not know if it would be possible within that section or within the regulations to perhaps go into a bit more detail about what that can cover. I think one of the main areas that has certainly been an issue for adoptive families has been because of waiting lists for therapy services. If families are able to be assisted in things like that, that has been very helpful for them.

Mr. Martindale: You are also concerned about a fee to be paid by adoptive parents for a home study. Are you concerned that adoption could become a privilege for the affluent few rather than an opportunity for all parents?

Ms. Collings: Yes, that is one of my concerns. The other is my fear that, if you are getting to pay for who does the home study, then presumably you are a consumer and you get to choose who does the home study. If you get to choose who, then do you go to, you know, the friend of the friend who runs this agency? You can go there, and you know you will get a nice home study. I have some concerns about the appearance of lack of objectivity in that.

Mr. Martindale: You anticipated my next question about being consumers, adoptive parents as consumers. Are you concerned that people might shop around and request a home study for more than one individual or organization until they were successful in getting the home study approved so that they could become adoptive parents?

Ms. Collings: Yes, that would be one of my concerns.

Mr. Martindale: Is there some way that we could address that in the legislation?

Ms. Collings: I am not sure if it is possible to. If you are asking people to pay for a service, then you are in a sense turning them into consumers. I guess the way I would see to address it would be to remove the fee for the home study, and I guess that is one of the reasons--well, I would have concerns around privatization, and I would prefer to see less privatization of adoption services.

Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Chairperson, I want to thank Tamsin for her comments and her brief.

When you looked at the legislation that was being introduced in Manitoba, are you aware of what other provinces have done when they have made changes to their adoption legislation? I guess the two that might stand out most in my mind would be Alberta and British Columbia that have probably, in some instances, gone further than we have in our legislation.

Are you aware of any of the instances that you cite about the payment of fees for a home study where, as a result of any experience that has happened in British Columbia or Alberta, there has been a hardship issue or if there has been a lot of concern around that fee being paid?

Ms. Collings: I do not really have a lot of background on that. I guess what I am more concerned about certainly in other areas of my work is that the issue around home study certainly for foster homes, for looking at placement of children, has been raised as an issue in the courts around who has done it, and so I would fear that that could become an issue in adoptive homes.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Collings.

I call next Karen Linde. Would you come forward, please. Have you a presentation for distribution? No? You may proceed.

Ms. Karen Linde (Private Citizen): I have to say that this heat is the greatest challenge to character I have had in some time.

I am speaking tonight as an adoptive parent of two boys, 15 and a half and 11, and also as a person who looks at the issues of adoption, I believe, as well as I can from every perspective. It is important to me and my children that my birth parents are healthy, and all of us are related.

There are actually five realities of adoption. It is a livelong process. Once you are into it, it does not end. It is not a cure for infertility or unplanned pregnancy. It is a second step. The actual placement of a child is separate from the relinquishment of a child. These are two things that children have to deal with, and neither is a cure. Adoption is not a cure for anything. It is based on loss, and adoptive families are different than biological families, and all people in the triad are linked forever, forever. That is a reality in adoption. So as much as we want to dispute the rights of one versus another, we belong to each other forever.

I have two parts to this, and I am attempting to figure out how on earth I can cover something as important as adoption is to me, which is my life, in five minutes for each topic, one being the support piece and how significant that is to have stakeholders involved in support, and, in fact, involved in this legislation at every step of the way. These are our lives, our children's lives and our birth parents' lives. The other is the open records and the significance of a name.

I would like to start with the support piece and challenge the legislation to include stakeholders as a significant player in support. I have been working with organizations that do provide family support throughout the province on a daily basis and for the most part might only need adoption sensitivity training. The Family Centre of Winnipeg, South Winnipeg Family Information Centre, the Social Planning Council with Wayne Helgason and Project O out of New Directions, everybody interested in helping and healing and all interested and wondering how on earth we can deal with the adoption piece of it, or how do we support families who are not being raised in biology. It is different. It is not second best, but it is different.

We have come up with a plan that takes a look at protection being separate from support and placement being separate from support, and it follows Tamsin's speaking to it quite clearly in that there is a worry that if a birth mom goes directly to placement without having a community support base and an advocate, whether it is approaching CFS, whether it is approaching a private organization, that they should have someone there who is a neutral person who understands the complete range of issues and the law to say that I will be there with you and you will understand completely what is happening and what your decision is has no reflection on me; it does not matter to me what your decision is; you have a right to choose.

One of the things in working with the Social Planning Council--and I should give a little bit of history. I was on the panel for the consultation review, and that was a complete eye opener. I could not believe how many channels were trying to work parallel to each other in trying to establish support. To listen to the presentation made by the Social Planning Council made me believe that we all want the same thing; just how can we do it, and we have to be smarter than this.

The point with all the children in care, over 3,000 children in care, and making permanency plans for children, the stakeholders need to be a piece of this, exactly as--I have forgotten the name that presented and talked about aboriginal and band representation. Is it not possible to have a review panel prior to the placement or decision of placement of a child and the outcome being either reunification or placement with a wide range of placement choices. If you have had community professionals involved in the child's life, it seems logical to me that they be part of a meaningful decision in terms of that child's future. So that is basically the essence of support and the hope that with the organizations already in place, that we could build a significant support model for Manitoba and the people who are making these choices.

Every step of the way until I received this draft legislation, I felt confident that we were being heard. I felt that this was a great process to have people to be able to speak and such good listeners, but the panic sets in right now to think that this is going to be decided now, and it is sort of a fait accompli.

Do we have any input anymore into some of the wording and the statements? I am a little confused even about some pieces of it in terms of, first of all, the application for international adoption, 71(1): "A prospective adoptive parent who has been placed on the central adoption registry may request that he or she be considered for the placement of a child who resides in another country and who is legally available for adoption."

If those are the only people who can seek international adoption--to my understanding, there are only a hundred families on the registry, and not very many are interested in international adoption. There are over 1,800 families, to my last piece of knowledge, that are interested in adoption of a variety of forms. I am not sure what that means.

* (2030)

The other piece that I question is 31(1), Status of adopted child: "For all purposes of the law of Manitoba, as of the date of the making of an adoption order, (a) the adopted child becomes the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent becomes the parent of the adopted child."

The child does not become anything. The child is the child forever. He is still the child of his birth parents. He is still the child of the adoptive parents. What has transferred is the legal responsibility and the right to parent. It is us who are making this. He has not changed one iota. That is scary, and then to say: "as if the adopted child had been born to the adoptive parent." It is not. It is not "as if" at all.

So there are just some pieces of this that just with minute changes give a perspective that is more real, and I ask if stakeholders could possibly be involved in the next steps that happen in terms of regulations or before this in fact becomes finalized.

There was the question that the silent majority is here because they believe in the status quo. I challenge you on that because I do not believe that people, for the most part, know what we are doing. In fact, we certainly do not know what we are doing tonight. This, I heard about last week, and I first got the draft legislation on Friday, so I have only had a chance to read it over the weekend and attempt to figure out what is happening. This is not something like land transaction and this is not MTS; this is life. This is a very, very important thing that we are doing here, to decide the future of people. I just do not want to see pieces of it rushed into if we are not absolutely sure of the fallout and who it is that we may be hurting in the process of this.

I also was thinking is it truly this prior contract that we are so afraid of with the birth mothers, so afraid of breaking, or is it these circulating myths that we have out there about who this birth mother is--she must be an awful, evil person--if she was going to be given information, or this adoptee must be some radical who is going to take down walls.

The four clear myths that circulate, not just here, by the way, internationally, that the birth mother obviously does not care about her child or she would not have given him away, that secrecy in every phase of the adoption process is necessary to protect all parties. I have had the fortune of being an adoptive parent in an open placement and a closed placement. There is nothing on this earth that is greater than to have the blessing of your birth family--nothing--to say, yes, you are the parents and support you in that. Secrecy does not support you; you never really know what the conditions of that birth mother were and did she really want adoption or did she really want you, and that is what I wonder. I have two and a half years before my son turns 18; I do not know any of those things about his birth mother.

Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry, your 10 minutes have expired. I will give you some time to wrap up.

Ms. Linde: Okay. The second thing with the birth moms, worries about the future and whether correct information is shared. Then, as my son said to me at the kitchen table one day, where did I come from anyway? Did I just drop from the sky? Interestingly, we did pick him up at the airport when he was born, so we have photos to say that he did drop from the sky.

The fourth thing, if an adoptee really loved his adoptive parents, he would not have to search for his birth parents. What he is searching for is a sense of who he is and his roots, and it is not to replace you. Every single search shows that adoptive parents who support their child in this the most challenging piece of their life are truly supported by their children.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Linde.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Linde, for an excellent presentation with many good ideas. I wish that I had time to draft amendments based on some of your ideas. However, this bill is probably going to pass clause by clause in the next couple of days, or tonight, if the government majority has its way, so there really is not time to write your ideas up as amendments to this bill, but it seems to me that having a review panel prior to placements is one of the many good ideas that you raised.

I am also interested in your concerns about support to adoptive parents. I am familiar with Project Opikihiwewin, and I believe that there should be a lot more cross-cultural education going on and awareness of aboriginal culture for nonaboriginal parents who adopt aboriginal children.

Do you know if some of the existing nonprofit adoption agencies or practitioners incorporate cross-cultural awareness for their adopting parents?

Ms. Linde: That is an interesting question, because you are talking about nonprofit agencies, and really there is only one nonprofit organization manned by one person who is paid part-time and volunteers. So, within training sessions, it is addressed, but referrals are made to supports that are already in place, to my knowledge, but I cannot speak beyond that.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Thank you for your presentation. I have an advantage. I could listen to the presentations downstairs in my office while doing paperwork, and I found yours so interesting I had to come up and listen to it a little bit more closely.

I have a question about process. You mentioned in your presentation about the lack of time to review this bill. Under the rules that we were working under in the last session, all bills were presented in the springtime, and they were not considered until the fall, which gave members of the public an opportunity--such as yourself--to review the bill in great process, consult with other people in the field.

Do you think that is a better process than this short notice on major changes to Child and Family Services or any other act, that it is better to receive the bills in the springtime and pass them in the fall so that the public has a chance to review them?

Ms. Linde: Well, I would certainly have liked to have had this on paper, because it is significantly different from what even the panel recommendations were, because I do not understand a lot of the legalese. Perhaps, my mind is put at rest if we could just go through some of it and it is better understood, but there are some parts that are not clear and I certainly would like to have had the actual bill before me. It was a comment made, like why did people not show up before tonight, and I think that is it exactly. Until you see exactly the direction that is planned, it is hard to know what you are speaking to or for.

Mr. Kowalski: There is a process of which a motion could be brought forward to in the third reading--it is called a hoist motion--that allows this bill to be taken off the table for six months and read again six months hence. Do you think that if that was done there would be any improvement in any of the input or in analysis of this bill? Do you think that is something worthwhile doing, to delay the passing of this bill for six months?

Ms. Linde: I am so unaware of this process. I would hesitate to agree with that. I mean, there has been such invaluable significant change in some areas. I could not even comment on that. I do not know enough about it to know what might happen.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, usually the government prides itself on listening to the public when they appoint a public review panel and then enacting legislation based on what they heard, and frequently government members will mention that in their speeches and brag about how they toured the province and listened to hundreds of submissions. However, is it your view that, in the areas that you are concerned about, the legislation does not reflect what the public was saying?

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Linde, for a final response.

* (2040)

Ms. Linde: No. That is unfair. No. I am contradicting myself. I am not sure how to respond to that. There are just some pieces of it that it would be nice to say, if wording was changed in terms of even the status of the child--like, I am not changing the content of what is being said, I am saying there are ways to change that are more accurate.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I will not take long, Mr. Chairperson. I just want to thank Ms. Linde for her presentation. I would like to offer, if at all possible, I know there were some issues that you raised around international adoption. We can try to answer them as we go through clause by clause. You might not have the opportunity to be here. It may be the wee hours of the night or it may be another day. If we could attempt to answer some of the concerns and issues that you have, I think it is probably clarification of the legalese, or the legal language, because it is something that I certainly need advice from those in the legal field to interpret from time to time exactly what legislation means. I have difficulty interpreting that personally, so you might feel some comfort in some of the explanations. I understand the issue around maybe a word change here or there or a phrase change that might be a little more sensitive to the issues. I guess we do our best to try to draft it in a way that does reflect our intent, so I would offer individual discussion, or if you prefer to be here at clause by clause, I am sure that members of the opposition will be asking questions on comments that are made through presentations. I just want to leave you with those comments and thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Linde.

I call next Ellen Peel. Ellen Peel, would you come forward, please. Have you a presentation for distribution? Thank you. You may proceed.

Ms. Ellen Peel (Winnipeg Child and Family Services): I am here as a member of Winnipeg Child and Family staff who has worked in the adoption field for many years. I am representing a number of the other staff who also work in this field. We have had the opportunity to review the legislation and also had the opportunity to present to the committee last fall. We were very pleased to be able to do that and, overall, most of the people in the agency working in the adoption field are generally very supportive of a number of the changes that are being recommended.

I am here today to speak to a particular issue and that is related to Section 34, regarding financial assistance for a person adopting a child. The proposed legislation is similar to the existing legislation where there is financial assistance available to people who adopt high needs children to attend to their particular needs and also to people who adopt siblings. We are very appreciative for those opportunities for adoptive parents and there have been several adoption subsidies since that legislation was introduced.

We are recommending an additional type of financial assistance specifically to do with financial subsidy for permanent wards adopted by their foster parents. Many children in permanent care have positive and long-standing relationships with their foster parents. The foster parents would like to adopt them and have these children as permanent family members. Many foster parents though certainly did not start down the path of adoption, and children were placed with them on a temporary basis, the planning was uncertain. The years go by and the child becomes a permanent ward, the family connections form, but the foster parents perhaps have other children, low income and are unable to look at assuming all financial costs for the child. We feel that a basic maintenance subsidy for foster parents would ensure an appropriate adoption for some older children, often high needs children, and at a significantly reduced cost to our province vis-a-vis maintaining them in the regular foster care system until they become adults.

So we are recommending that type of a maintenance subsidy based on the social allowances board-and-room rate. We think that it would increase, to some degree, the number of adoptions in the province, and it would be consistent with the best interests of children. It would also be fiscally responsible in that the costs overall, we believe, would be reduced. I have given you one example of the difference, taking a five-year-old child and looking at what the system would minimally spend on this child until age 18 in the foster care system vis-a-vis the kind of proposal that we have of a social allowances rate, and the net difference in the cost is in the neighbourhood of $45,000.

So that is our recommendation, and I thank you for the opportunity to present it.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Peel. Are there any questions?

Mr. Kowalski: I wonder if you could help me understand this. So if I am a foster parent and I have a child for a long period of time, if I understand your presentation I would be reluctant to adopt that child as opposed to having that child as a permanent foster child because I would lose, well, in your example, $81,000.

So it would be a financial burden to my family to continue with that child if it was not a foster child any longer, and what you are proposing is that there be a reduction in the amount of money that I would get from government, but that child would be adopted by me.

Ms. Peel: I think certainly there are some foster parents where adoption is not of interest to them and perhaps would not be appropriate. What I am referring to is a group of foster parents who would like to adopt the child in their care who are not looking at losing substantial amounts of money. They are asking us to have a basic amount of a maintenance subsidy to enable them to meet the costs of feeding, clothing, housing and so on the child.

Mr. Kowalski: But as far as the relationship, whether that child is in foster care or is adopted, between those foster parents or adoptive parents there would be no difference in the relationship, would there?

Ms. Peel: I think there is a significant difference to the child in believing and growing up as a foster child and with the differences and the uncertainties that come with that to being a person who is adopted and is a full member of the family. I think that is really where the critical difference is.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Ms. Peel, for your presentation. In reading Section 34, and I appreciate your pointing this out to us, subsection (a) says: "the child to be adopted has a physical or mental condition which will make caring for that child far more expensive than the care usually provided to a child."

Is the problem with this clause the word "far"? If the government were to remove the word "far," would that cover your concern that the child may be more expensive to care for than normal?

Ms. Peel: My concern and the agency's concern around this is the foster parent who does not have the income to meet basic needs.

So the degree of the child's difficulty is not really the focus of this proposal. I think, in general, it has been covered quite well by the existing legislation. This is more to do with families who do not have the funds.

Mr. Martindale: Your brief says, and I quote: "A basic maintenance subsidy to foster parents would ensure an appropriate adoption for some older, often high needs children at a significantly reduced cost to our province."

If my reading of the legislation is correct, the existing Section 34 should cover the part of your brief that says high needs children. Do you agree with that or not?

* (2050)

Ms. Peel: Well, it would cover and does cover the cost of some high needs children for therapy, for certain kinds of medical devices and so on. For children with high emotional needs, I do not think it covers that unless there is a need for a particular kind of therapy. For many children, what they need is to know that they belong in a family.

Mr. Martindale: Would it be correct to say that Section 34 does not cover your concern about some older children, that it is the expense of some older children that prohibits them from being adopted and that your amendment would cover this concern?

Ms. Peel: I am not quite sure how to answer that because my concern is for older children who are going to grow up in foster care who could be adopted. I am not sure I can comment beyond that. Sorry.

Mr. Martindale: Do you think that the focus of this section should change from the discretionary focus of the director to give more assistance to assisting low income parents to make adoption affordable?

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Peel, with a final response.

Ms. Peel: The focus of our concern would be people who are already parenting the children. These are people who generally have parented them for long periods of time and also have the low income that you mentioned. So the family relationship in a sense is in existence already.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Peel.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I just wanted to say thank you for your presentation and some really interesting comments.

Mr. Chairperson: I call next Dian Cameron. Dian Cameron. Not seeing her, I call Joan Wolf. Have you a presentation for distribution?

Ms. Joan Wolf (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. You may proceed.

Ms. Wolf: First of all, I would like to say good evening and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to give a brief presentation. I speak to you as an adoptive parent, and I feel strongly that our adult adoptees should be allowed to know their real identity, not just go through life with a number as their last name.

We have a law which states that relatives are not allowed to marry; however, on the other hand, we are not allowing our adoptees to abide by this law. Adoptees cannot search for their heritage as there is another law that prohibits them from having access to open files, which will disclose their biological last name.

Consider the feelings of so many young adult adoptees who are approaching the point in their life where they would like to be considering making a lifetime commitment of marriage but are left with inner thoughts: Is it a possibility that I may be related to the person I am choosing as a lifetime partner? What are the drastic consequences that would result if I were to discover at a later date that I am related to this person?

We need not destroy so many lives and relationships. Allow our adult adoptees the freedom of knowing their heritage and identity. Please amend this law from closed files to open files and allow our adult adoptees to have a life with an inner peace. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Any questions?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I, indeed, have had opportunity to speak to individuals that have--one couple I know personally who married. He was adopted at birth and had a very good life, but it was a dilemma for both of them when it came to the decision to start a family. Certainly, I know that he had much information on his health personal background, but he still to this day does not have any identifying information on his birth parents. It is an issue I know that does arise; I have had personal experience with that. I do know that she has just become pregnant, and they are looking forward to the birth of their child, and there still are no guarantees though. It is an issue. I hear where you are coming from when you make those comments. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I call next Linda Shapiro. Ms. Shapiro, do you have a presentation for distribution to the panel?

Ms. Linda Shapiro (Private Citizen): No.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. You may proceed.

Ms. Shapiro: I come as a parent of adopted children, and I come bringing their message for I have spoken to them before I present this. I have adopted two young women cross-culturally, and it is their wish that I speak and say that they want to know from whence they came. I am interested that the act says that the adopted child becomes one of the family, and I am sorry but somebody who has black hair and beautiful big brown eyes and very brown skin cannot be of me. The children know it, society knows it and people who are adopted need to understand from where they came. There is no discomfort with my children finding out their biological parentage.

We have wonderful rules in our society to know where our cars came from. We can trace a car back to the dealership, and yet we cannot do the same with a child, and a child is not a thing. A child is a human being with enormous emotional baggage when they cannot say who their biological mom was, that other lady who is in their life. It is a mysterious dark person--I do not mean "dark" in the colour, I mean dark in the unknown--whom they suspect is a part of them, and they may have been told is a part of them, but unless they can physically have some sort of attachment, it is a great void in their lives. For some children--one of mine in particular--it was a driving force that took her to the streets. It was a driving force that took her into a lot of places that I did not want her to be and that she has since left, but it is a place that she sought out to seek the answers that I and the agency could not provide for her.

I work in the field of health and if a new antibiotic is found today, we give it to people who were ill a month ago. We do not say, sorry, this was found after you got sick so we are only giving it to the people who got sick after we found the antibiotic, and this law says similar things to me. We are telling new people that we are going to open records more easily, but just because our kids were born at the wrong time, do they not have that same right to fit that last piece of the puzzle in? It is not a threat to me. If the biological parents cannot handle it, we have to be able to support our children in saying they are not ready, but they are adults. I am an adult and my kids are now adults; we need to be given the grace of choice. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Shapiro. Are there any questions? Thank you again for your presentation.

Ms. Shapiro: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: John Poyser. Is John Poyser here? Have you a presentation for distribution?

Mr. John Poyser (Private Citizen): No, I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed, Mr. Poyser.

Mr. Poyser: I do not have a written presentation to submit to the committee, but, at the same time, I am pleased and honoured to say that I am one of the four lawyers who was involved in the preparation of the legal arguments you have before you, which you will find in the position paper which was submitted by the first speaker. That was Ms. Vanstone, on behalf of Parent Finders.

In addressing the legal issues which this bill raises, I was able to build on the work of lawyers in Vancouver and Toronto, and I came away with a deep and abiding conviction that there are some real legal issues to address in the manner in which this bill has been structured. So I do not appear before you to make comment today as the lawyer for Parent Finders but, instead, as a private citizen who has come to believe that the statute has some serious constitutional questions in its current formulation.

* (2100)

I think, firstly, in terms of the access to information and the barriers this bill perpetuates, I think it goes without saying that we are, in this bill, fostering a discrimination, a discrimination against participants in the adoption process. If I want access to information relating to my birth, to my parentage, to my birth name, as a nonadoptee, as an individual who remained for my entire life with my biological parents, there is no barrier. That information is readily accessible to me. There is no government hurdle if I wish to research my past. As an adult adoptee or as a natural parent, this bill, in common with legislation before it, raises that hurdle and blocks the access to that information. Participants in adoptions are dealt with differently than I am and differently than the majority of people in this room.

Discrimination comes in many shapes and forms. Some of it is legally repugnant and some of it is not. The issue here becomes whether under Section 15 of the Charter, the particular discrimination that I have described is one which is prohibited. I think the judiciary in Canada are starting to move in that direction. There is a 1996 case out of Ontario, Schafer v. Canada, in which this very point was addressed. It was held by a federal judge that adult adoptees were a group, what is known as an analogous group, under Section 15 of the Charter. That means that they were capable of being a ground of discrimination, and the court there held that they were being discriminated against.

The great legislative rescuer in all of these instances is Section 1 of the Charter. That is the section which a legislator will point to and say, well, we may have trammelled on a Section 15 right, but at the same time we feel that the particular provisions, as drafted, can be justified against some objective and justifiable, reasonable, social purpose which is the basic reason why Section 1 is in the Charter. Here, if effort is made to prop up the bill with recourse to those Section 1 rights, I am afraid that the legislators will come face to face, and quite quickly face to face, with two decisions of Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada. He has discussed in two separate cases, one of which is fairly recent, he has pointed in two separate cases to the relationship between international law and Charter law. What he said is that if there is an international convention, an international right for a natural Canadian individual and a provincial statute affects discrimination and runs contrary to the terms of that international law, then the Section 1 protection or the Section 1 argument becomes very difficult to raise for the people defending the legislation. Here we have a ratified international convention put in place by the United Nations, which says in Article 8, in completely unequivocal terms, that a child in a country like Canada has the right to their identity, including their name at birth. The bill in its current formulation flies in the face of that right. If any effort were made under Section 1 to say that the provisions of this bill could be defended under Section 1, I am afraid Chief Justice Dickson, in any event, at least in the comments he has made in similar cases, would say that that is just not available here to defend this kind of legislation.

Often in drafting legislation, and it is by no means an easy job, the effort is made to balance the rights of different groups who have different competing interests. I think the case law referred to in the submission from Parent Finders makes it clear that because of the international laws that same balancing does not have to occur. But, even if it was the object of the game, even if that is what we were here to do, the position of Parent Finders and my position after having researched the issue are that this bill does a very poor job of balancing those competing interests.

It is all about power, if you will. At the time of an adoption, of all of the parties who are involved in the adoption, only one has no power. The child is not old enough to participate in the process. The child is not entering into any contract of secrecy or otherwise. The child does not choose to be an adoptee. That is something which is forced on the child or happens to the child by virtue of adult decisions. When the child becomes an adult, what do we do with the power? I mean, once the child is an adult and within the context of this bill, we get to carve it up. The effect of the balancing act which has been done in this particular legislation is to deny again the child the power that the child was denied at birth in the sense that the child cannot gain access to their personal identity without having to come across several hurdles which may prove insurmountable under this bill.

In closing, we would like to exhort the government to give careful scrutiny to this bill, to look at through the prism of both the Charter of Rights and the ratified international convention on children's rights and redraft it. Make those changes which are necessary to ensure that individuals are not barred access to their identity if they happen to have been through the adoption process. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Poyser, for your presentation.

Mr. Martindale: If you believe that the United Nations covenant is being violated, where would you go for redress? Would it be the International Court at The Hague?

Mr. Poyser: I like to travel. There is a short answer to that perhaps, but I am a lawyer and I will give you the lawyer's answer. If one wants to invoke, to try to sue under the international convention, you have to first exhaust your recourse within the laws of your own jurisdiction. That would mean that a case would have to go through here, the Court of Queen's Bench or a federal court. I guess here, the Court of Queen's Bench, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada, and only after you had exhausted all of your remedies there could you then send your lawyer on a nice trip to take advantage of an international adjudication. Even if you do get to the point of conducting an international adjudication, the result is merely directive. The International Court cannot force the government to do anything and cannot overrule legislation.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): When you were speaking about the balancing of the rights, how do you balance the right of the biological parent with the adoptee? I did not quite hear that response.

Mr. Poyser: It was intentionally absent, and it was absent because we do not believe that this is the sort of situation where balancing is called for. I say that because we believe there is a clear right for an adult adoptee or a biological parent to have that information, to get beyond the secrecy, if they choose to. They should be in no different position than I would be if I wanted to make inquiries about my birth, no balancing involved.

Mr. Laurendeau: So, in this instance, then, if the child did not want to be found, the adult child, and the parent came looking, he should still have under your system the right to find that child, the adopted child?

* (2110)

Mr. Poyser: I am going to defer on that question simply because the results of my focus have been in looking at the question primarily from the perspective of the adoptee.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Poyser.

I will call now the two names that were not here when I called them first. Rosella Dyck. Rosella Dyck, is she here? Not seeing her, her name will be dropped off the list. Dian Cameron. Dian Cameron? Not seeing her, her name will be dropped off the list.

That concludes the presentations, unless there are any other people who have since registered that I am not aware of. If there are any, would you please identify yourself? Seeing none, that concludes, then, the presentations on Bill 47.

We will next move to Bill 48, but prior to doing so, I would propose to the committee, if it is the will of the committee, to recess for five or 10 minutes to give us a bit of time to recoup our thoughts. Is it agreed? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 9:11 p.m.

The committee resumed at 9:32 p.m.

The first presenter is Louise Malenfant. Would you come forward, please? You have a presentation to distribute?

Ms. Louise Malenfant (Parents Helping Parents): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.

Ms. Malenfant: Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mrs. Mitchelson and the other familiar faces around the table, it is good to see you again.

I have made a written submission, but I wonder, Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a 10-minute restriction, and it has been my experience in the number of times that I have made presentations that very often there are no questions, and I wondered if I could use the 15 minutes because I have something very important to say for the people who are here. Is there any objection?

Mr. Chairperson: I think that is acceptable, yes.

Ms. Malenfant: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Louise Malenfant, and for the past two and a half years I have operated a family advocacy project known in the community as Parents Helping Parents. Basically, I assist families who are dealing with Child and Family Services or who are deprived of access through the divorce process. Often the two go hand in hand, as in Winnipeg CFS as many as 25 percent of all allegations arrive in the context of divorce.

I have spoken to the government regarding the problems in the child welfare system many times before, and it is usually my practice to provide a significant amount of research to substantiate the problems we have identified as we assist the families involved in the system. Today, however, I recognize that Bill 48 will be very difficult to change at this late stage, and so I have decided to speak from the heart in the hope that somehow the members of this committee will be moved to take a little more time to examine The Child and Family Services Act and ensure that we will all not have to return to this process again for many years to come.

I have been called the harshest critic of CFS, and I have worn that title like a badge of honour. To me it is a recognition of the commitment I have made to changing the child welfare system for the people of Manitoba. This critic, however, has some wonderful things to say about the new CFS. I am going to begin my comment on Bill 48 by noting some of the dramatic changes I have seen taking place in the child welfare system in the past year, for they have been nothing short of revolutionary.

In early 1996, the Minister of Family Services named Mr. Phil Goodman to the post of the director of child welfare. Not long after, Mr. David Langtry was named to the office of assistant deputy minister responsible for child welfare. What a team and what a difference these two men have made in the short time they have held these offices. If I may use a Hobbesian analogy to describe their impact on the system, I would say that Mr. Goodman has provided a new heart to the child welfare system pumping the blood of ideas throughout CFS in a dramatic and healthy way. Mr. Langtry provides the soul of the new child welfare mentality. With his thoughtful compassion, his refreshing honesty and hard-working commitment to change, Mr. Langtry has earned the admiration and respect of the family advocacy project right alongside Mr. Goodman.

What can I say about the Minister of Family Services Bonnie Mitchelson? Only that I credit her with the courage to address the long-standing problems of this portfolio with the fortitude to make the tough decisions which have been made over the past year and with the creative intelligence which has brought this revolutionary spirit of change to the child welfare system of Manitoba. In the eyes of this harsh critic, the Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson has achieved greatness as Minister of Family Services, and I reserve my highest respect and admiration for her and her accomplishments.

I am going to now, generally speaking, just summarize some of the points that I have made directly addressing Bill 48. I think the biggest point to make is addressing the problems of accountability and fairness. The report of the Child and Family Services review committee summarized the problem in the following way. From one end of the province to the other that repeated theme in child protection was that the mandated agencies were a force lacking in accountability to families and the communities they serve. The legal system which supports the apprehension of children at risk currently contains systemic impediments which sometimes work to the detriment of the children it serves.

Now we are going to take a look at Section 4(2)(d) which is basically stating that the director will "establish procedures to hear complaints under this Act." I would respectfully say that no matter how good the director is it is illegitimate for the director to simultaneously implement the act and at the same time to provide a complaint process to criticize the act. I believe that this is a problem with Bill 48. It is therefore illegitimate to invest his office with the responsibility of establishing complaint procedures to review the effectiveness of his own office. To do so abrogates the rules of natural law and invalidates the legitimacy of a review process.

On the positive side, we are very supportive of the increased powers provided to the director to investigate and review the conduct of the agency as articulated in Sections 4(2)(a) through 4(2)(b.2). The following recommendations are made with respect to these matters: that an additional paragraph be added to this section to provide the director with the authority to make recommendations to CFS agency offices; and, further, that the director's office should be invested with the authority to enforce the implementation of recommendations. Provisions should be made to provide a direct appeal to the minister's office through the deputy minister where agency offices dispute the director's recommendations.

Let us put a little force behind the words. It is also recommended that the responsibility to establish complaint procedures be retained by the Minister of Family Services who should give serious consideration to the establishment of an external review process for CFS complaints. This will not only be fair and just but will be seen to be fair and just.

I did make some comment with respect to Section 8, the foster caregivers section. I am just going to read the recommendations because it is relevant to the review process: The technical expertise available on the Social Services Advisory Committee should be enhanced with new members familiar with the investigative methods and assessment procedures required for child abuse allegations.

Second recommendation: Families who initiate a complaint process should be entitled to a written decision of the conclusions made just as are provided to the foster care community.

Finally, the Social Services Advisory Committee should be enhanced to provide a legitimate third-party review process for all complaints regarding CFS practice, and this should include complaints made by families in the community.

Now, with respect to the legal process, one of the most common complaints that I hear from families is that there is no review of the agency's decisions until a matter reaches trial. I note that Bill 48 tries to address this problem with Section 29(1) on page 16 of Bill 48. While it is commendable that CFS would have to bring a matter to its first court appearance within seven days of apprehension rather than the current 21, this measure will do nothing to improve the fairness of the court process. It is not the length of time a matter is returnable that is the problem in the legal process. The problem is that no court proceeding prior to trial provides a judicial review of the CFS decision to apprehend a child.

* (2140)

My recommendation on this section, that an additional paragraph be drafted which will allow for the review of the circumstances of apprehension at the first appearance in court, known as the returnable date, when viva voce evidence can be provided by legal representation for both the agency and the accused. It is further recommended that application for access provisions, pending trial, should also be heard at this earliest proceeding, so that families do not feel they are being coerced into agreement by the deprivation of access to apprehended children.

With respect to Section 19, I think, at the risk of stating the obvious, Parents Helping Parents is highly impressed with this section. The only concern we have in this regard is that the child abuse committees that are going to be making the referrals to the Child Abuse Registry, Section 19(3) states the following: The committee shall, in the prescribed manner, give to the person who is suspected of child abuse an opportunity to provide information to it. "Of child abuse" is my own addition there. In the prescribed manner, I would just like to know who is prescribing the manner, where is it prescribed and when do we hear about this. That is what I would like to know about that section.

My recommendations on this section: The prescribed manner for the provision of information to child abuse committees must be more clearly spelled out in the act, and it is further suggested that the accused be given the opportunity to face the committee in person in order to provide an opportunity to the committee to question the accused on specific issues.

Secondly, an additional paragraph should provide for a waiting period before a matter is referred to the Child Abuse Registry so as to allow for a decision by the court in either criminal or family court proceedings. This will eliminate the duplication of legal fees required to be paid by those accused of child abuse and further will respect the Legal Aid funding constraints for those who are represented by Legal Aid.

I am really very excited about 78(1) and 78(2), the new provisions for the ability of families and other people who care about children to apply for access. It is gorgeous; I love it. Section 75(1) and (2), you are merely amending the grammar there, but it is the secrecy of the CFS legal process that I object to. I recommend that public accountability for the family court requires the elimination of the secrecy laws.

Now, I am going to get to the most important issue for Parents Helping Parents, and I hope I will have the time to get through it. It should be noted by this committee that Parents Helping Parents views the subject of children being submitted to false allegations of abuse during divorce proceedings as its No. 1 priority. We have seen the horrible damage done to the falsely accused, and we have observed first-hand the damage imposed upon helpless children from this insidious problem. Eighty percent of all the cases examined by our organization have to do with allegations arising in divorce.

It is a shock to us that the Ministry of Family Services is refusing to deal with the impact of this problem in Manitoba. It has been acknowledged by Winnipeg CFS that as much as 25 percent of the allegations they investigate occur during the divorce process. Perhaps the greatest disappointment to us is that we have been advised by many people of authority within the child welfare system that this issue would be addressed in Bill 48. As well, in the documents preceding the implementation of the CFS act review, namely the consultation workbook, the Ministry of Family Services recognized the impact of a false allegation of abuse to the well-being of a child.

Manitoba CFS has serious investigative and training problems when it comes to child sexual abuse allegations. Even the competency-based training package recently implemented in the province will not address t