Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, we will now proceed to Private Members' Business for one hour. Leave was granted that the Speaker put the question at 10:55 on Resolution 35.

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), that the following be adopted:

"WHEREAS during the infamous sixties scoop over 3,000 Aboriginal and First Nations children were removed from reserves and other communities and sent out of Manitoba for adoption, often in the United States; and

"WHEREAS the sixties scoop was a massive failure on a personal level and a family level and was effectively a form of genocide for many children and their families with the percentage of children who experienced a cultural identity crisis as they grew up extremely high; and

"WHEREAS there were also a significant number of cases of abuse and neglect arising from this practice; and

"WHEREAS in 1983, the then NDP Government commissioned the Kimmelman Report which recommended the ending of adoptions of Aboriginal and First Nation children out of province; and

"WHEREAS the long term effects of the sixties scoop continue to be felt in every community in this province as parents and children deal with the problems of lost relatives and ensuing social problems; and

"WHEREAS a 1995 study of 100 Manitoba Aboriginal children who were adopted in Pennsylvania found that half had experienced identity problems and a third had lost all touch with their adoptive parents; and

"WHEREAS on February 17th of 1999 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a four year old Aboriginal child who had lived with his grandfather for three years would be better off in a home in the United States largely because of a higher economic standard of life there; and

"WHEREAS this decision is disturbing in regards to this particular case as well as being a decision that should not be used as a precedent for other cases.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record as affirming its opposition to adoptions of Aboriginal and First Nations children out of province except in extreme circumstances; and

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada."

Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I will not speak in great detail about the resolution. I believe that the resolution speaks for itself, and I understand that my colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) may want to amend the resolution as it is now currently written.

I want to briefly talk about the problem of out-of-province adoptions, particularly with aboriginal children, and even though we do not have an exact number of how many children were adopted out of the province of Manitoba during what is regarded as the sixties scoop, but onward to the early '80s, Madam Speaker, I believe that it has been regarded oftentimes by the aboriginal leadership in this province and nation-wide as being a form of genocide, because it took away the children from their homes and their parents and their loved ones. The result has been where we have had to have these children be reunited.

There is a reunification program, as we all know, in the province of Manitoba and the task for these two individuals, Eva Wilson Fontaine [phonetic] and Charlene Parisien [phonetic] is quite challenging in the work that they have to do because many times they have to reunite children who have been taken away from their communities and also their families. The work that they have to do is tremendously hard and challenging, as I said, so we must end this practice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of sending our children out of the province.

What is contained in the resolution is a particular matter that came up on the 17th of February of 1999 where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this young child be moved with his adoptive grandparents in the state of Connecticut near the city of Hartford in the United States. This troubled a lot of people. Manitobans were told that such out-of-province adoptions were ended more than a dozen years ago. During what I called earlier, the '60s and the 1970s, it is estimated–and the only figure we can up with is that there is no actual record of the number of children who were taken out of this country, out of this province. I know other provinces experienced similar circumstances, but I know in Manitoba the only estimate that has ever been found has been contained in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry which took place in the province of Manitoba between 1989 and 1991. Of course, a report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was tabled in 1991, and they estimated at that time that over 3,000 aboriginal children from this province were shipped out of Manitoba, often ending up in the United States but also in other countries, in Holland, Germany and other countries in Europe. We feel that that is not appropriate.

Now, this poses a further problem because Native Canadian Children in American Adoptive Homes, the name of a study of 100 Manitoba children adopted in the state of Pennsylvania, found that as adolescents the adoptees had far more problems than any other racial group under similar circumstances. Half the aboriginal children studied had identity problems, and a third had lost all contact with their adoptive American parents. So that tells us that this experiment does not work.

I am grateful to the government of Manitoba and the current Premier (Mr. Filmon). In my letters to him, he responded positively in becoming involved with this current matter that I was talking about, the decision reached at the Supreme Court of Canada level on the 17th of February, and also the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) I know directed her staff to see if, indeed, this child, this four-year-old child particularly, who was shipped out to the state of Connecticut, is, in fact, in a safe environment in his current home with his adoptive grandparents, because there were reports that his own parents, who were adopted by these same people, including his aunt and his biological mother, had a strenuous upbringing as children. So I thank the Minister of Family Services who has intervened and has directed her staff to ensure that there be a study done on the home that this young child has been taken to.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not only disturbing because of the principle, it is disturbing on a personal basis, because I have spoken to the relatives of this young boy involved, and we find it difficult to understand the basis, which we feel to be economics. Because it appears that the Supreme Court ruled that because of the economic circumstances of the biological grandfather, who does not have a whole lot on the reserve that he belongs to, which is the Sagkeeng First Nation, they felt that the love that was to be offered to this child would not be there. That part of it was overlooked, is what I am trying to say. Also a keen sense of who he was as an aboriginal person was entirely overlooked with the decision. So therefore the family went through all legal avenues available to them in the country of Canada and the province of Manitoba. I know that the Manitoba court's hands were tied because of the decision that was rendered in British Columbia.

* (1010)

So we are faced with the problem of this young child, which has gained national attention, who is now living in the state of Connecticut. I know that his biological grandfather, whom I regard, simply because of anonymity, as Buddy, is tremendously hurt by the decision that was made and is still doing his utmost to ensure that this boy retains connection with his biological family here in Canada at the Swan Lake First Nation and at the Sagkeeng First Nation.

So I know efforts are being made for the initial visit, the friendly visit, as they call them in terms used in the state of Connecticut, for the biological grandfather to meet and also to visit his grandchild and maintain that communication so that we will not have another case where this child will be returned in the years ahead, having to again deal with the social problems and the growing up problems that he may have experienced while in the care of this family, although they may be well meaning, but nevertheless it amounts to nothing less than cultural genocide.

With those few words, I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the members of the Legislative Assembly, whom I anticipate will support this resolution, and again reaffirm the strong position taken by Manitobans and the Manitoba government as legislators, even in opposition, that they will support this resolution and again reiterate the position of Manitoba that such experiments as out-of-country adoptions will not be tolerated by this province. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I am pleased to rise today as the Minister of Family Services and speak to Resolution 35, which was brought forward by my honourable friend the member for Rupertsland, and thank him for the resolution that we see before us today.

I am pleased also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak on the important subject raised in the resolution regarding the large number of aboriginal and First Nations children who were in the past sent to adoptive homes outside of Manitoba, often in the United States. This matter is one which affected many families and individuals and which has had long-lasting effects among those families directly and indirectly involved. It is certainly an issue which knows no political boundaries and is one in which all members of this Legislature can come together in agreement that the widespread adoption of children of aboriginal and First Nations origins out of Manitoba was a very regrettable part of Manitoba's history.

The Manitoba government has recognized the concerns of First Nations and other aboriginal groups regarding the placement of aboriginal children. In response to the concerns which have been raised and the recommendations to end out-of-province adoption of aboriginal children put forth in the Kimelman report of 1983, the Department of Family Services has taken a number of steps to ensure that the actions of the past are not repeated.

In 1984, a directive was issued to the Child and Family Services system regarding the placement of aboriginal children in care and included guidelines for permanent placements. This directive was replaced in 1988 by a standard in the program standards manual which became known in the field by its section number, Section 421. These standards have required aboriginal children to be placed in accordance with priorities which respect their cultural and linguistic heritage.

The Adoption Act recently passed by this Legislature maintains the provisions of The Child and Family Services Act of 1986 to ensure that Manitoba children are not placed outside this province without the approval of the director of Child and Family Services and that children cannot be placed for adoption outside of Canada without the approval of cabinet. The act also includes provisions to ensure that services are provided in the best interest of the child involved and are delivered in a culturally sensitive manner.

The Department of Family Services has introduced standards which require Child and Family Services agencies to place high priority on ensuring that aboriginal children are placed with family or extended family, other families within the child's community of origin, or other families of the same tribal council or region as the child. The department is currently reviewing these standards with the view to further strengthening them to ensure full compliance.

The Department of Family Services has been working closely with the leadership of the aboriginal community to develop the Urban Aboriginal Strategy on Child and Family Services. The department continues to support the work of the Urban Aboriginal Strategy committee to develop an action plan which addresses the issue of the large number of aboriginal children in the care of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency.

In carrying out this important work, it is important to note that Winnipeg Child and Family Services will be guided by a recently appointed board of directors. I am pleased that this agency, the largest of the Child and Family Services agencies in the province, now has a significant aboriginal membership on its board for the first time in history. These members include Yvon Dumont, Manitoba's 21st Lieutenant Governor and chief executive officer of the Louis Riel Institute, also former president of the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Metis National Council and member of the Manitoba Aboriginal Economic Development Board; and Wendy Whitecloud, who is the director of the academic support program, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, who chairs the Winnipeg First Nations Local Area Management Board and is past board member of the Elizabeth Fry Society; Sidney Garrioch, vice-chief of MKO, the aboriginal political organization representing 25 northern First Nations communities, former chief of Cross Lake First Nation from 1989 to 1997 and a past executive council member of Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba; and Joy Fontaine, Child and Family Services advisor to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs.

In addition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Josie Hill is returning to the board for another term. She is the executive director of Ma Mawi Aboriginal Family Resource Centre in Winnipeg and former executive director of the Native Women's Transition Centre, who has extensive volunteer and professional experience in aboriginal social services.

Those are five members of the nine members appointed by government that will have background and have shown leadership in the aboriginal community, and I think that all members would agree that these people are of very high calibre and will contribute to trying to resolve some of the issues that have presented themselves in the Winnipeg agency, and we are hopeful that they will be able to provide some policy direction and some leadership to ensure that the 70 percent of children that are involved in the care of the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency will see the appropriate supports and services provided through that agency.

I want to make a few comments regarding the specific case which has caused this resolution to come before the Manitoba Legislature. It arises from court action that was initiated and decided upon in British Columbia. On February 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada set aside a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and restored a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is the equivalent to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, giving custody of a four-year-old boy to the adoptive grandparents. The boy had been in the care of his biological grandfather who resides at Sagkeeng First Nation in Manitoba. On March 17, 1999, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered that the child, now four years of age, be turned over to his adoptive grandparents.

* (1020)

The biological grandfather initiated several legal actions regarding this matter. On March 17, 1999, the grandfather filed a notice of motion for rehearing the case before the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that proper notice was not given to the Sagkeeng First Nation and the failure of the Supreme Court to require a psychological assessment to determine whether the harm caused by a transfer would outweigh the benefits. On April 1, 1999, counsel for the adoptive applicants filed a brief in response to the rehearing motion.

On March 18, 1999, the grandfather's lawyer in Vancouver filed for leave to appeal the decision of Mr. Justice Bauman to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On March 19, 1999, the grandfather brought an application in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench pursuant to The Child Custody Enforcement Act requesting a variation of Mr. Justice Bauman's decision as to the transition process and an order requiring a psychological assessment.

Mr. Justice Carr held that, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada, the transfer was to return to the trial judge in British Columbia, and accordingly the transfer was to take place on March 20, 1999, as stipulated by Justice Bauman. On May 3, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to rehear its decision of February 17, 1999, which resulted in the boy in question being returned to the custody of his adoptive grandparents in Connecticut. The biological grandfather of the boy requested that the court review its decision because of questions about whether Sagkeeng First Nation should have been an intervener and whether a psychological assessment of the child should have been part of the proceedings. The court denied a rehearing on the basis that the grandfather could not show there was a potential failure of justice at the original hearing.

Resolution No. 35 calls upon members of this Legislature in Manitoba to: "go on record as affirming its opposition to adoptions of Aboriginal and First Nations children out of province except in extreme circumstances;".

It also calls upon the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to: "be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada."

I would recommend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all members of this Assembly support this resolution with one minor amendment. I believe that when this resolution is forwarded to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is important for the record to note that the court action originated and was decided in British Columbia. I would therefore propose a friendly amendment, which I think members of the official opposition would support, to the seventh clause in the resolution.

I will now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, move that amendment.

I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson),

THAT the motion be amended by deleting the seventh WHEREAS clause and substituting the following: WHEREAS on February 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada, on appeal from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ruled that a four-year-old aboriginal child who had lived with his grandfather for three years would be better off in a home in the United States, largely because of a higher economic standard of life there; and

I encourage all members to support this and send a strong, united message from Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), seconded by the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson): WHEREAS on February 17, 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada–

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Dispense? Dispense.

It is in order.

It is the will of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? [agreed]

Is the House ready for the question on the main motion? Is it the will of the House to adopt the resolution, as amended?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you could call bills in second reading stage in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper for continuation of debate on second reading. Followed by that, if you could call the following bills for second reading: Bill 29, Bill 34, followed by Bill 30, Bill 31, and then Bill 28. If you could do it in that order.