Archive | July 2013

Family Members Want RCMP to Do More for Officers With Post Traumatic Stress

Claims for PTSD-related disability pensions doubled in the last five years

By Epoch Times | May 22, 2013
Last Updated: May 23, 2013 10:14 am

VANCOUVER—Krista Bouchard was married to a Mountie for 13 years—a quirky, funny, chatty guy she’d met on a blind date.

Thirty-year-old Martin Bouchard was an RCMP officer in Manitoba and had a French accent and plenty of friends.

But three years into the marriage, Krista Bouchard started noticing symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder—apparently related to her husband’s posting in Shamattawa, a First Nations reserve that she said was resistant to outside policing.

“He’d show up at a call and end up having an axe thrown from the roof of a house at him,” Krista Bouchard, 38, said.

But most traumatic for her husband were the suicides. There were calls that changed her husband life forever.

“The biggest thing was the hangers, they called them. They were cutting people out of the trees weekly for attempted suicides and suicides,” she said.

Suddenly her husband was constantly negative, alienating friends and being confrontational at work—a change in behaviour she would have never predicted when the pair exchanged vows.

Over the next decade of his RCMP career, Bouchard said her husband became increasingly hostile towards her and their two daughters, to the point she feared for their safety and the couple separated.

Martin Bouchard continued working as a Mountie despite being diagnosed with depression and PTSD. On Nov. 8, 2012, just four days after handing in his gun and badge, he took his own life.

Bouchard linked her husband’s death to his largely untreated struggle with PTSD and believes it could have been prevented if the RCMP had helped him cope with the horrors he faced on the job.

As lawsuits emerge and claims for PTSD-related disability pensions climb, Bouchard and other spouses of current and former Mounties are asking the force to play a larger role in preventing and treating the work-related disorder.

“It’s the responsibility of the employer when PTSD is a result of the job, to ensure that those members are taken care of,” Bouchard said.

“They were aware (he) was diagnosed with PTSD and they never, ever, once promoted the idea of treatment for him.”

While company coverage for a limited number of counselling sessions was helpful, Bouchard said her husband needed much more assistance.

Counselling didn’t work for him despite visits to various therapists, Bouchard said. “He was never getting beyond the initial six-week appointment where they finally started to delve into things.”

But a national representative for the RCMP said members’ physical and mental well-being is top priority.

“Work-related health issues, whether physical or mental, are taken very seriously,” spokesman Greg Cox said in an email statement.

Mounties are screened for mental health issues every three years and offered treatment options, he said, adding those in high-risk duty such as undercover work or service in isolated regions receive increased focus and monitoring.

Officers showing signs of PTSD have their responsibilities “adjusted in accordance with their limitations and restrictions while supporting their treatment” Cox said.

Force Lacks Resources: Spouse

The seeming disconnect between what the force offers and what it delivers also has another spouse puzzled.

The woman, whose husband is currently on sick leave for PTSD-related issues, agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity.

She said she doesn’t want to jeopardize her husband’s career because he’s in the process of going back to work.

“There’s a fear that we’ll be penalized because we’re speaking out,” the Alberta resident said.

She said her husband has been dealing with PTSD since a traumatic event early in his career, and that it’s been compounded by many more incidents since then.

“He’s been to more deaths of children than I can count. They’ve had shifts where they’ve had six bodies in six days and they haven’t had any debriefing,” she said.

“I can’t count the suicides, I can’t count the violent assaults and murders. We’re not talking one car accident, we’re talking multitudes.”

While not all detachments are remiss in providing their members with treatment and debriefing, the woman said the force lacks resources and communication between departments, particularly in isolated areas.

“They’re not being debriefed after every critical incident because there’s not the manpower to go down every single day.”

She said RCMP health services might diagnose a member and tell the detachment there’s an underlying medical condition affecting the officer’s performance.

But detachment commanders essentially assume that officers left on duty are full acting members and there’s nothing put into place to support them, she said.

The woman said her husband’s strange behaviour led her to believe he had PTSD.

“He numbed out … I came home one day to pick something up from work and he was on a day off. He was standing near the kitchen sink. I came home three hours later and he was still standing there and couldn’t tell me why.”

She said that while her husband’s detachment failed to acknowledge his illness and provide help, that might not be the case for the entire force.

“We’re not trying to damage the RCMP,” she said. “What we’re trying to do is say, ‘This is a job that has inherent dangers.’”

“My husband wears a bulletproof vest and he carries a gun to protect his physical safety. I’m just asking them to give him some things … that are going to protect (his) mental safety as well.”

Policy Changes Slow to Materialize

But the tools to ward off PTSD are a ways off, said Dr. William Koch, a B.C. clinical and forensic psychologist who specializes in treating trauma survivors, including Mounties.

Despite families’ pleas for help, Koch said large employers such as the RCMP can be slow in implementing policy changes.

“They’re kind of like a large tanker ship that’s very hard to turn out in open water,” Koch said.

People who avoid coping with their feelings are most at risk of developing the disorder, and that’s a dangerous combination for officers who don’t discuss their trials for fear of stigma within the organization, he added.

Koch said counselling that involves a member sharing his woes isn’t effective and has proven worse in clinical trials than no treatment at all.

First responders who experience trauma react best to cognitive behavioural therapy, Koch said.

The treatment, over a period of weeks, involves officers reliving traumatic experiences repeatedly in a controlled environment until their responses normalize and they regain a sense of safety or calm.

Koch said it’s been shown 50 to 80 percent effective in most clinical studies.

“People who receive that kind of specific treatment get substantially better. They cease to be a clinical case. They have improved functioning.”

Last month, former Mountie James Ward filed a lawsuit in B.C. claiming the RCMP failed to provide adequate treatment for his work-related trauma.

Statistics from Veterans Affairs Canada show the number of disability claims for RCMP members afflicted with PTSD has doubled in the last five years.

Magna Carta Original Copies United for First Time – ‘This is a Message to Us All’

 

 

Magna Carta means (“the Great Charter” in Latin) and was originally issued in 1215.

 

 

 

It was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges.

The charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary.

It was an important part of the process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world.

In practice Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the power of kings.

But by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law.

It influenced the early settlers in New England and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.

Agenda 21 “Blueways / Wildlands” Land Grab Plans – for North America

The United Nations BIODIVERSITY TREATY (Agenda 21; Earth Summit in Rio- 1993) Land Grab in North America

See:

http://takingliberty.us/Narrations/MasterPlan/player.html

Before the white man brought civilization to North America, wolves, bears and other roving wildlife moved unobstructed from Mexico to the Hudson Bay. Although few people are aware of it, America came very close to allowing wolves and other carnivores to once again have supreme right of movement across America–by mandate of a warm, fuzzy treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Clothed in innocence, the treaty is in fact designed to radically transform Western Civilization into a society where wolves and other entities of nature have more rights than humans. Irrefutable evidence of this agenda was covertly obtained from the United Nations and made available to the Senate in a cliff-hanger race to the wire during the waning hours of the 103rd Congress.

White Man’s Cities

Environmentalists have long asserted that white man’s cities, highways, intensive agriculture, forest harvesting, and other activities have disrupted and fragmented natural ecosystems. According to environmental theology, earth’s so called fragile web of life is being destroyed as species become extinct by the thousands, and biodiversity, critical to the web’s survival, vanishes. As the 1980s dawned, a new age dream of sustainability and a world treaty to protect biodiversity began to take shape in the minds of those who would return us to nature.

The dream culminated in the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. Hosted by none other than proclaimed new age and United Nations leader Maurice Strong, the Summit gave birth to what was called the Convention on Biological Diversity. Less than thirty pages long, this treaty was promoted as a crowning achievement for man that would save the earth by protecting biodiversity through the application of vaguely scribed principles and theology.

But a horrible thing happened on the way to the signing ceremony at the Summit. President Bush balked. He believed it left the United States unprotected with too many critical issues undefined. In spite of global catcalls and hoots of disdain from the press, Bush stuck to his convictions and the United States refrained from signing this otherwise beguiling document.

Such mundane concerns were lost on the presidential green team that succeeded Bush. Overnight the treaty went from being a dangerous document to one destined to save the earth. With little fanfare, President Clinton signed the treaty in July 1993, and the convention disappeared into the bowels of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a full review.

Very Quietly Reported

A year later, at the height of the Health Care debacle, the treaty was very quietly reported out of committee, with a recommendation to the Senate for ratification. For a treaty environmentalists had repeatedly claimed to be the most important ever, almost no mention was made of it in either environmental literature or in the popular press. The silence for such an auspicious occasion was deafening.

Only one Senator in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms (R-NC), opposed the treaty. His concern centered on the troubling fact that the actual enabling and binding protocol for the treaty would be written after the Senate had ratified it. Furthermore, the treaty had no provision for additional Senate review once the protocol was written. The Senate would be, in effect, signing a blank check.

Worse, the draft enabling protocol was to be written by NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). Made up of primarily environmental and socialist organizations, NGOs are hardly the type of institutions that instill confidence in anyone who is pro-humanity and for economic development. Even so, by the time Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell scheduled the ratification vote for Monday, August 8, Helms only had four other Senate allies.

Senator Mitchell had expected no opposition to the treaty and doubtless he and other Senators were stunned when the Senate was buried in an avalanche of letters, faxes, and phone calls to Senators protesting the treaty. The staggering response was the result of an awesome fax campaign lead by the Maine Conservation Rights Institute through the Alliance for America. While the Alliance has had numerous fax campaigns before, this time calls were coming in from every walk of life.

It quickly became obvious that the effort to stop the biodiversity treaty had taken on a life of its own as citizens throughout America copied and re-faxed the faxes to their frustrated friends. Phone lines into Senate offices were jammed for four days.

Although the enormous backlash to the treaty received little press, it got action in Washington. The American Farm Bureau and National Cattleman’s Association worked with Minority Leader Dole to convince thirty-five Republican Senators to signed a letter to postpone the vote. Since any treaty must be ratified by two-thirds majority, thirty-five Senators was a mandate.

In spite of a frantic lobbing effort by environmentalists, accompanied by a massive effort by the State Department to assure the Senators that there was nothing in the treaty to cause concern, Mitchell postponed the ratification process until after the Senate reconvened in September.

The extra time permitted the National Wilderness Institute to commission Constitutional lawyer Mark Pollot to write a legal brief on the treaty’s implications. Although the brief was conservative, the implications were horrifying. Not only would the Senate be signing a blank check, the treaty would open a Pandora’s box of litigation and legislation by environmental groups and federal agencies seeking to use the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to meet the provisions of the treaty’s as yet unwritten protocol.

Pollot’s brief made it imperative to define what form the enabling and binding protocol would take. The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) was supposed to provide this information. The United States had already contributed $430 million for the treaty, so it was only reasonable for the Senate to want to see what it had paid for. But the only response the Senate received from the UN was a curt reply that the GBA did not exist.

Senators still had no supporting documentation when Senator Mitchell rescheduled the ratification for Monday, October 3. So once again the fax machines were put into action and once again Senate phones were jammed with calls from citizens outraged by the threat this treaty imposed.

The smoking gun surfaced on Thursday, September 29 when the American Sheep Industry covertly got a copy of Section 10 of the United Nations GBA. Copies were forwarded to the Senate Republican Policy Committee the following day.

As suspected, Section 10 of the GBA detailed an incredible set of plans to reorganize western civilization around nature. Property rights and other civil rights would be limited to only those activities that would do no harm to biodiversity. Political jurisdictions would be defined by bioregions. Unbelievable oversight powers were given to NGOs.

Worst of All

The Wildlands Project was named by the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment as the method to be used to protect biodiversity in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. An earlier version of this map was used on the US Senate floor to stop the ratification within hours of the scheduled ratification vote. Interested in purchasing this map? click here.

Worst of all, the basis for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems was to be centered on what is known as the Wildlands Project. This draconian plan calls for setting aside vast areas (about 50 percent) of America into reserve wilderness areas, interconnecting corridors, and human buffer zones where human use would be eliminated or severely restricted. According to the June 25, 1993 issue of Science magazine, such a system of reserves and corridors would create “an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas.”

The same Friday morning that Section 10 of the GBA was delivered to the Senate, the Chicago Tribune published a scathing front page article quoting the United Nations claim that the GBA did not even exist. The article also attacked the Sheep Industry, Republicans, and grass-root citizens for their paranoia.

In the meantime, unaware of the damning evidence now in Republican hands, Senator Mitchell brought the tension to a fevered pitch by notifying Senator Dole of his intent to petition to cloture the treaty that afternoon. If Mitchell was successful it would effectively eliminate debate on the treaty.

Race Against Time

Stunning color maps graphically illustrating the enormity of the Wildlands Project were already available through the Maine Conservation Rights Institute (MECRI), and the maps arrived in the Senate simultaneously with Section 10 of the GBA. It became a race against time as the Republicans put together this evidence before Senator Mitchell went to the floor to petition for cloture. Armed with a full set of four by six foot posters of these maps in one hand, and key excerpts from Section 10 in the other, Senator Hutchison (R-TX) marched onto the Senate floor on Friday afternoon, September 30 and dropped the bombshell on the treaty’s supporters — with devastating effect.

Senator Mitchell, who by now had also received a set of maps from MECRI, wisely withdrew his intent to petition to cloture the treaty. The Senate adjourned without ever voting on the treaty. Vice President Gore’s dream of reinventing the government around nature was dead–at least for now.

Reason has prevailed and our Constitution remains unencumbered. Humans will continue to be more important than wolves and grizzlies, and perhaps — just perhaps — if we manage to survive the next legislative session we will finally listen to those traditional resource scientists who are finding that we can preserve and enhance biodiversity by using sound natural resource management techniques. We don’t have to give half of America back to the wolves to save the earth after all.

© 2000 Michael Coffman, Ph.D., Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes

Explore for yourself what is coming concerning land ownership removal in North America through this very interesting slide presentation

FEMA “Floodways” Land Grabs

The Great FEMA Land Rush

September 24, 2010

Zachary, La. – Not since the Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 has there been such a massive grab of land. Homeowners of this small Louisiana city probably never heard of “Floodways”, but by the time they find out exactly what it means for their property, it may just be too late to do anything about it. Inside Louisiana News has been investigating “Floodways” and found that this is not just a problem in Zachary, but nationwide as well.

According to FEMA’s website, a “Floodway” is described as follows:

A “Regulatory Floodway” means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities must regulate development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations. For streams and other watercourses where FEMA has provided Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), but no floodway has been designated, the community must review floodplain development on a case-by-case basis to ensure that increases in water surface elevations do not occur, or identify the need to adopt a floodway if adequate information is available.

Just SouthEast of Zachary, Livingston Parish President Mike Grimmer simply told FEMA “no” when FEMA came to him with their plans of expanding “Floodways”. Zachary residents were not as fortunate when Mayor Henry Martinez agreed with FEMA.

FEMA has been moving around the nation, trying to expand “Floodways” to be inclusive of land that is in 200 year flood zones. While property owners still get to “own” the property and can still “build” on the property, the new zoning so significantly restricts new construction in flood zones that building on the property no longer remains economically viable.

The Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889 had a stipulation to land claims, that you had to improve the land, but in the Great FEMA Land Rush, ensuring that improvements do not occur on the property seems to be the end goal. If your property has been placed into a “Floodway”, you can no longer do anything that may “restrict the flow of water”. This includes building a wall, a fence, or even planting a tree. Even outside of these tough economic times, try selling property to somebody when they can’t do anything with it.

When the Louisiana Attorney General ruled that property owners were damaged, this meant that property owners throughout Zachary who had their homes placed into a “Floodway” by Mayor Henry Martinez at FEMA’s suggestion, the City of Zachary is liable to the home owners for the property value lost. Mayor Martinez hid behind an old Louisiana law that makes it legal for the City of Zachary to not pay for their debts, a familiar stance for the bankrupted Mayor.

Inside Louisiana News will continue to investigate the strict and complicated guidelines of “Floodways” and bring our readers our latest findings.

Status of Metis Children in the Children Welfare System – Part II

Critique of the Child Welfare System
It is our observation that those agencies mandated by the Province of
Manitoba to provide child and family services have done little to establish
helping networks within the Métis Community. First, their location is often
distant from the people served and they usually provide only itinerant
social work service delivered on a crisis basis. Second, preventive
services such as parenting courses and teen treatment groups are seldom
offered. Third, the intervention of these agencies is culturally alien and few
workers speak the languages common to the Métis population. Thus the
service offered (as with the youth justice system) is little more than
physical removal of the child from the home community.
In a study of child and family services commissioned by the Manitoba
Métis Federation, Ryant (1988) reported that although agencies were
aware of the fact that services should reflect the cultural and linguistic
heritage of the client there was an evident lack of priority given to this. The
number of Aboriginal workers on staff – if any – is minimal in most of the
mandated agencies, and “the apparent lack of priority for Native
awareness could imply a lack of cultural sensitivity when dealing with Métis
families. This affects the effectiveness of service and could mean that
more Métis children end up in care than necessary.” He went on to note
that if there were more focus on preventive and supportive services which
are culturally appropriate there could be a significant reduction in the
number of Métis children in care.
Ryant (1988) also found that there were many impediments (mostly
financial), to alternate care being provided to Métis children within the
Métis community. He recommended the following measures to rectify the
situation:
1. A greater use of special needs foster care rates thus
allowing more Métis families to provide foster care.
2. Implementation of Section 73 of the Child and Family
Services Act, which deals with subsidized adoption.
The use of subsidized adoption would assist Métis
families who wish to adopt but cannot do so without
financial assistance.
3. Section 5(1)(f) of the Social Allowances Act states
that financial assistance may be made available to a
child whose parents “are unable to contribute to his
maintenance and who is wholly dependent on
another person for his basic necessities.” Too often,
the income security workers ignore the fact that the
child
can be given the needs test for eligibility and
test the care-providers instead. Because the foster
family is not in dire straits, aid to which the child
Child Welfare System 43
would be entitled in his or her own right is withheld. A
different implementation of 5(1)(f) would permit more
Métis children to be cared for by relatives or
neighbours.
4. Another impediment to many Métis homes being
accepted for foster care may involve the standards
set for approval of provincial foster homes. Physical
requirements of space, availability of running water
and material resources may not reflect the life
circumstances of many Métis families and
communities. Often, those who design these
standards are not familiar with cultural and traditional
values of Native groups. Standards may be both
inappropriate and extremely difficult for many Métis
homes to reach.
Under these policies and this method of service delivery it is
estimated that, from the 1960’s to the early 1980’s, about 3,000 Aboriginal
children were removed from their homes in Manitoba and exported out of
the province for adoption. In most cases they were placed with urban non-
Native families. “The Indian and Métis children were submerged in another
culture, and their Native identity soon disappeared. They became a lost
generation” (York, 1989:206). At the beginning of the 1980’s from 40 to 60
percent of all children removed from their families in western Canada were
Indian or Métis. For Canada as a whole, five Native children were removed
from their families for every non-Native child placed. York states that in
1981 about 55 percent of Manitoba’s adopted Aboriginal children were
sent out of province while the rate for Caucasian children placed out of
province was only 7 percent.
Indian and Métis communities had virtually no control over
the children who were seized from their homes. Until 1976
there was not a single native-controlled child welfare
agency in Manitoba. Decisions about the future of native
children were made by white social workers and urban-
based bureaucrats (York, 1989:207).
In 1981, the Manitoba Métis Federation acted on the available public
information regarding the numbers of Métis children being exported to the
United States and to other provinces to non-Native families. It had been
learned that many of these children had experienced post-adoption
breakdowns that were having a disastrous effect upon them. Others had
become the victims of physical and sexual abuse. Therefore, the MMF
lobbied successfully for the Government of Manitoba to institute a
moratorium on out-of-province adoptions and out-of-province placements
for “treatment”. The MMF developed a rural and urban strategy for
implementation to ensure increased Métis involvement in the child and

44 Barkwell/Longclaws/Chartrand
family service jurisdiction.
In March of 1982 the government of Manitoba agreed to impose a
moratorium on out of province placements of Aboriginal children. The
province also established a Review Committee on Indian and Métis
Adoptions and Placements headed by Associate Chief Family Court Judge
Edwin Kimelman. After reviewing the file of every Native child who had
been adopted by an out-of-province family in 1981, Judge Kimelman
stated in the committee’s 1984 File Review Report: “having now
completed the review of the files… the Chairman now states unequivocally
that cultural genocide has been taking place in a systematic, routine
manner” (Kimelman, 1984:51).
The statistics given by Judge Kimelman were even worse than the
Métis people had suspected through anecdotal reports.
TABLE 3: STATISTICS OF MANITOBA CHILDREN PLACED
OUT OF PROVINCE IN 1981
The Review Committee noted that 53% of the children placed outside
of Manitoba were sent to the United States and 86% of the children placed
out-of-province were of Native ancestry. Meanwhile at the end of 1981 the
departmental statistical bulletin indicated that there were 145 adoption
homes in Manitoba which had been approved but were not in use and
there were 1,377 adoption applications which were awaiting study for
approval. Was it any wonder than that Aboriginal groups felt there was a
racial bias in operation?
Judge Kimelman was of the opinion that the political and
administrative acquiescence to these practises had served to delay the
development of Aboriginal resources and specialized services to
Aboriginal people. “Rather than providing the resources on reserves to
build economic security and providing the services to support responsible
Number Palced Percent of Total
Registered Indians 52 48%
Indian (other) 4 4%
Métis 37 34%
Non-Native 15 14%
Totals 108 100%
Source: KImelman, 1984:23

Child Welfare System 45

parenting, society found it easier and cheaper to remove the children from
their homes and apparently fill the market demand for children in Eastern
Canada and the United States.”
He also noted that under the guise of providing children with a family
of their own, children were not only separated from their parents, but were
also separated from their siblings. The study also revealed that for the
majority of older children who became wards, the chances of adoption
were remote, and the reality for most of them was to be placed in a series
of foster homes and institutions with the ” …real possibility of spending
some of their adult years as residents of the province’s correctional
facilities.”
In 1982, the MMF established a Board committee, which was to be
responsible for the operation of the Métis Child and Family Support
Program. The MMF also submitted a position paper to the provincial
government, calling for local control over child and family services for Métis
people.
The MMF immediately established local community-based Métis child
and family service committees. The committees assumed responsibility
for:
a) developing community awareness of needs of children;
b) assessing community needs and currently available resources;
c) developing resources and participating in training;
d) con-joint planning with social workers from mandated agencies, in
order to reach decisions on child and family services issues
respecting the community;
e) strengthening Métis families in the community;
f) reviewing and recommending changes to relevant legislated
standards, policies and practices to more properly reflect the
needs of Métis children, families, and communities.
The MMF readily identified the following difficulties involved in the
implementation phase of this specific mandate:
a) lack of an agreed upon definition of Métis people;
b) lack of access to existing child and family service files;
c) provincial regulations regarding foster home standards and
payment rates, which excluded potential Métis foster homes;
d) lack of knowledge of referral procedures within the mandated
agencies;
e) lack of MMF resources to respond to the volume of referrals;
f) referrals so late in the process that effective plans could not be
formulated in the time available.
The MMF began support service delivery under the terms of a
Over the two year time period the following referrals were received:
The mandated agencies have not moved with alacrity on this
standard. It is obvious that Policy Directive 18 (and its replacement, known
as Standard 421) are not meeting their intended purpose. It is estimated
that of the 3,803 children in the care of mandated child and family service
agencies, 1,027 are Métis children (27%), 1,235 are Indian children
(32.5%), and 1,540 are of other ethnic backgrounds (40.5%) (Longclaws,
1989). Given the large disparity between the number of Métis children
brought into care and the actual number of cases that are referred to the
MMF, one has to doubt whether the government has any commitment to
implement its own policy and standards.
An MMF survey of members (University of Manitoba Research Ltd.,
1988) found that child and family services were a key concern for 90% of
those surveyed. Eighty-three percent stated that they would like to see
child welfare services provided by a Métis organization. Over 7% of the
respondents indicated that they have a child under the age of 18 placed
away from home. Ten percent of the families indicated they were raising a
child who was not one of their own. This is convincing evidence that the
Métis community is carrying the bulk of the burden for child and family
services without payment and out of its own resources through custom
adoptions and placements with relatives. These matters are not being
referred to the “official” agencies. Thus, Métis people are not receiving
their fair share of government resources.
Manitoba Community Services rivate Mandated
Regional Services Child & Family
Service Agencies
Eastman 0 C&FS Central Manitoba 0
Interlake 0 C&FS Western Manitoba14
Norman 2 C&FS Eastern Manitoba 3
Parklands 5 C&FS Winnipeg West 2
Thompson 2 C&FS Notheast Wpg. 2
C&FS Winnipeg South 0
C&FS Northwest Wpg. 11
C&FS Central Wpg. 0
Total 9 Total 32
TABLE 4: REFERRALS TO MANITOBA METIS FEDERATION
48 Barkwell/Longclaws/Chartrand
There are a number of reasons for reluctance to approach the
mainstream system, one of which is a survey showing that 71% of
Winnipeg Métis respondents feel that child welfare does not give enough
consideration to Métis culture (University of Manitoba Research, 1988).
Another reason is the previously cited finding that potential Métis
foster homes are often turned down because of a lack of material
resources. Since this has become widely known potential applicants are
now reluctant to come forward.
In a study commissioned by the MMF (Ryant, 1988) it was revealed
that:
a) Even with Directive 18, Native children are still being placed in
non-Native foster homes, because agencies, using existing
resources, have not been able to develop a sufficient supply of
Native foster homes.
b) There is an inappropriate concern with material standards in
approving potential foster homes in the Indian and Métis
communities.
c) There is unwillingness (or inability) on the part of agencies to
authorize special foster rates where these would clearly be
appropriate for Native placement.
d) There have been cases where the child caring agency has not
made use of a placement resource which was referred by the
designated group.
e) Oftentimes, notification of a Native child in care comes too late in
the process for the designated resources to locate a culturally
appropriate placement.
The deplorable situation described above has been made worse by
changes to Directive 18. A section which clearly identified procedures with
regard to non-status Indian and Métis families was removed. The current
standard, Native Child Placement, Section 421 (Manitoba Community
Sercies, 1984: 1-7) in the Child and Family Services Program Standards
Manual, effectively buries the reference to Métis children.
It is the current assessment of MMF child and family service staff
(Moar, 1989) that:
a) The majority of child and family services social workers in
Manitoba are poorly informed or uninformed regarding Directive
18 and Program Standard 421. It seems the only persons who
have a working knowledge of these are Native social workers and
field staff.
b) People are asked to declare as Métis only if the workers “think
they are Métis”.

c) It was only with much badgering that MMF began receiving
referrals.
d) When the MMF forwards names of Métis families wishing to foster
or adopt, many are placed on waiting lists and many are never
contacted for home assessment.
e) The MMF has not been able to push for more referrals due to lack
of staff and budget.
f) The 1982 moratorium has resulted in fewer Métis placements
outside the province, but has not reduced the number of Métis
children placed outside the Métis community.
g) The MMF was effectively left out of negotiations on the
development of Standard 421, and did not receive a satisfactory
reply to its submitted negotiating document.
h) As the proportion of Métis children removed from their homes
under the Child Welfare Act so closely approximates the
proportion removed from home under the Young Offenders Act,
there is strong evidence to support the MMF thesis that Métis
people are subjected to a high degree of social control while social
development needs have gone unmet.
Although the thrust of the Kimelman report,
No Quiet Place
(Kimelman, 1985), and the intent of subsequent child and family service
revisions to placement and adoption standards, was to ensure that Indian
and Métis children were either placed or adopted into culturally appropriate
homes, our research reveals that there are still significant numbers of
aboriginal children being adopted into non-Native homes, a practice which
Judge Kimelman had earlier denounced as “cultural genocide” (1984:51).
In the period between January 1988 and October 1989, 29.2% of
registered Indian adoptees went into non-Native homes and 55.8% of
Métis adoptees went into non-Native homes. Furthermore, 62% of all the
Aboriginal children placed by way of adoption during this time period were
Métis.
4
Clem Chartier has argued that under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982), the practice of
adoption of Métis children into non-Métis homes violates what should be a
recognized group right in addition to the child’s right to remain in the
group… “based on the section 7 security of the person provision (of the
Charter) particularly as it applies to cultural heritage. In the absence of this
right, and in the face of the continuing removal of Métis children from the
Métis community, Canada could be viewed by the international community
as committing ethnocide, which is basically a form of cultural genocide”
(1988:55).
An additional issue is the repatriation of Métis children who were

Child Welfare System 51
Camperville and surrounding area indicated that approximately fifty
children were missing, no known whereabouts. Remote communities
attending a meeting in Thompson where the subject arose “Where are the
missing children?” led one very quiet mother to say,” They took my boy a
long time ago, he would be fourteen years old now, they said they would
send me a picture, they never did” (Hourie, 1989).
Conclusions
It is our assessment that there are a number of factors which account
for the high number of Métis adoptions in comparison to the number of
children at risk and these same factors account for the fact that over one-
half of these adopted Métis children go into non-Native homes.
1. The Métis do not have an agency of their own mandated to provide
adoption services.
2. The Manitoba Métis Federation Child and Family Service is not
funded to provide province-wide preventive services.
3. Referrals to MMF Child and Family Services come infrequently or
too late in the process to make a difference. Although adoptions
account for only a small proportion of the Métis children removed
from their families, over the last two years MMF received only 41
referrals under Standard 421, while the provincial government’s
own figures show that there were at least 43 Métis children placed
for adoption alone.
These studies and material lead to the obvious conclusion that Métis
children and families have not been served well by traditional child and
family service agencies. In fact the consensus of Métis people is that they
have received inadequate and inappropriate services. The feeling of the
Métis community as a whole (at least as expressed by their elected
officials on the Board of Directors of the MMF) is that this disparity in
service is racially motivated. The MMF applied for recognition and funding
of a child and family service agency that would lead to a full mandate to
deliver these services to Métis people. They have received no positive
response to date.
NOTES
1. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not
necessarily represent those of their employers.
2. J. M. v. R., Manitoba Court of Appeal, October 2, 1986 (unreported).
3. A. L. v. R., Manitoba Court of Appeal, October 3, 1986 (unreported).

52 Barkwell/Longclaws/Chartrand
4. These figures and those contained in the table which follows were
obtained through interviews with departmental officials of Child and
Family Services.
REFERENCES
Chartier, Clem
1988
In the Best Interest of the Métis Child
. Saskatoon: University of
Saskatchewan Native Law Centre.
Desmeules, Larry
1988 The Métis Family and Métis Futures. Paper presented at the
Second National Métis Child Care Conference.
Winnipeg:
Métis Association of Alberta.
Hourie, Audreen
1989 Letter to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, re Métis Adoptions,
Winnipeg, unpublished.
Kimelman, Edwin
1984 File Review Report. Report of the Review Committee on Indian
and Métis Adoptions and Placements. Winnipeg: Manitoba
Community Services.
1985
No Quiet Place
. Final report of the Review Committee on
Indian and Métis Adoptions and Placements to the Minister of
Community Services. Winnipeg: Manitoba Community
Services.
Longclaws, Lyle
1989
An Implementation Strategy Proposal that Ensures an Orderly
Development Plan for Establishing Incorporated Métis Child
and Family Service Agencies in All MMF Regions.
Winnipeg:
Manitoba Métis Federation.
Manitoba Community Services, Child and Family Support
1984
Directive #18 Respecting Procedures of the Placement of
Native Children
. Winnipeg: Government of Manitoba.
Manitoba Métis Federation Inc.
1989
Research and Analysis of the Impact of the Justice System on
the Métis: Submission to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
Winnipeg: Manitoba Métis Federation Inc.

Canadian Feds retaliated against Cindy Blackstock after she filed complaint against them

| by | 0 Comments

APTN National News
A human rights tribunal hearing a case of alleged discrimination on

First Nations children by the federal government heard Thursday

from the person who filed the complaint and how the feds retaliated

against her. As first reported by APTN National News in 2011,

Cindy Blackstock alleged Aboriginal Affairs had been

keeping a close eye on her, including posing as “friends”

and having her accept them on

her Facebook.

They also followed her to conferences and looked into

her Indian status records.

Blackstock said she was also banned from a meeting with

department officials.

APTN National News reporter Annette Francis has more

on Blackstock’s testimony.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs Spying on Canadian Social Worker

By Annette Francis
APTN National News
The federal Aboriginal Affairs department has been spying on a high-profile campaigner for First Nations children, documents show.

The department has amassed a large file on Cindy Blackstock, who heads the First Nations Child and Family Caring society.

The file contains emails and notes about Blackstock’s personal information and critical briefings on her activities.

“They have found it necessary to not only put one employee onto tailing, but if you look at the records there are numerous employees on the government payroll who are being asked to comment on what I am doing or to violate my privacy by going on my personal Facebook pages,” said Blackstock.

Blackstock has for years been pushing for equity for First Nations children caught up in the welfare system.

In 2007, her organization filed a human rights complaint against the federal government claiming discrimination against First Nation children.

She says the lawsuit changed her relationship with the department. Soon after, Blackstock said she was barred from a departmental meeting she had attended with Ontario chiefs.

“They barred me from the room,” said Blackstock. “And had a security guard guard me during the time I was there.”

The incident led Blackstock to file an Access to Information request about herself, to see what information the department had on her.

It took a year and a half for her to receive the file and, to her surprise, they watched her every move.

“Not only had they been on my personal Facebook page, but they had a government employee go to their home at night and log in as an individual, not as the government of Canada…and go onto my Facebook page and take a snapshot of it and then have that in a government of Canada log,” she said.

Aboriginal Affairs staffers also monitored Blackstock as she made presentations about the state of First Nations child welfare across the country.

The file contains briefing notes with critical details of the topic and her speeches.

APTN National News contacted the department.

The department refused to comment on the Blackstock file and instead issued a statement saying Aboriginal Affairs “routinely monitors and analyses the public environment as it relates to the department’s policies programs, services and initiatives…social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are public forums, accessible to all.”

afrancis@aptn.ca