B.C. child protection system slammed for lack of accountability, leadership, funding - British Columbia - CBC News

Find the CBC article with this titled link - B.C. child protection system slammed for lack of accountability, leadership, funding - British Columbia - CBC News

Read the full report

You can download and save the entire PDF of the Plecas Report

IT NEVER STOPS

It never stops.

Cases of parents neglecting or abusing their children; cases of parents being accused of neglecting or abusing their children; cases of children being removed justifiably from misbehaving parents; cases of children being removed unnecessarily from responsible parents; cases of children not being held long enough to protect them and cases of children being held excessively long from their parents.

WHY TEACH AND WORK IN BC?

I am altering my focus from child protection to education, specifically, the teachers' and the BC government. I may speak about this for a while.

Why Teach and work in BC?

This is the lead of a web page entitled ‘Make a Future’ which is recruitment initiative by the BC Public School Employers’ Association and 60 BC public boards of education, the First Nations Education Steering Committee, and the Ministry of Education. It’s a job board that presents a glamorous description of BC’s beauty, lifestyle and location and compels the reader with, “If you and your family are looking to move, now is the time. Need a little more convincing? Here are a few other reasons to live here:

• BC has some of the lowest income tax rates in the country both for individuals and families
• BC’s healthcare system has some of the best statistics in Canada, including the longest life expectancy of any Canadian province
• The province has a world-class public education system; in fact other countries are looking to BC as a model
• As the world economy shifts to the Asia Pacific region, BC will be (and has always been) the gateway to the Pacific

There has never been a better time to live and work here. Come and see for yourself!”

The last statement should be questioned and the first question should be asked once again and both of them tested with the present negotiation impasse in mind. Has there ever been a better time to live and teach in BC? Why live and teach in BC?

There must surely have been a better time to be a teacher in BC than at the present moment. One would be hard-pressed to expound convincing reasons to teach in BC right now. The most emotional justification from 550,000 public school teachers in this province might be comments such as “This is my home;” and “I love teaching;” and “teaching is honourable.”

A BOURNE LESSON ABOUT CHILD PROTECTION

That's Ayn, 14 months in custody & away from family

Christine and I and our two great friends watched the Bourne Legacy last night. I loved it and I am eager for yet another sequel. The action riveted my attention and the volume was certainly cranked enough to compensate for my hearing deficit. I am fascinated by the story-line of the Bourne series - a government agency gone rogue. I pay attention to the movie script. One line struck me flat in the face as an explanation for the criminal activity of a government funded, well-resourced, unaccountable, secretive agency. “What we do is morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.” It struck me instantly that this must be the same injudicious rationale used by Child Protection agencies to justify their actions against parents like Derek Hoare and Aime Van Dyk and with children such as Ayn.

In Ayn's case, it is the Ministry of Children and Family Development in British Columbia that is responsible for this indefensible and entirely unnecessary heart-ache.

PARENTAL LIBERTY (Part One)

Dispute About Government and Parental Roles

simply an image of a dispaasionate agency leading a child away from family

History tells the story. Historically there has been a vigorous dispute about the relationship between government and the family and certainly with the function and responsibilities assigned to each. Contingent upon the political philosophy, either the family has been seen as servant to the state or the state has been expected to provide for families the required security to accomplish their work as primary caregivers to these citizens of the future.

Tension always exists between the state and its parts. Government institutions should be obliged to be careful to facilitate the function of the family without usurping its proper role. Of course federal and provincial governments have a role to play to ensure children are not threatened by poverty, neglect or abuse but the state must be careful not to trample on the independence of the family. Theoretically the government exists to aid and assist the smaller units rather than to take over their places in a society.

CONFIDENCE

 Ayn Van Dyk could have and should have been returned to her capable and intelligent father’s care long ago instead of being kept away from her parents and siblings for more than five months.

The Liberal Party in British Columbia may not remain in power past this current mandate. If the rebuilding of public trust in the child protection division of the Ministry of Children and Family Development were as simple as changing political party I would advocate a change to New Democrat or Conservative. However, clearly the issues that have eroded public confidence over the past forty years are trans-political. Even when the cabinet composition changes, the Ministry personnel that affect the lives of children, parents and families remain the same. And if there is some personnel turnover, there is a continuum of the policy/practice DNA. Regardless of which party is in power, if confidence in this Ministry is ever to be regained, that party will need to prioritize a love invested definition of a helping relationship.

AYN’S STORY WENT GLOBAL / 573

In a quality news story, Global TV with Ted Chernecki aired Ayn Van Dyk’s plaintiff story and her father Derek Hoare had opportunity to express reoccurring criticisms about the practice of the Ministry of Children. This is Ayn’s story, Ayn pronounced Eyen. Ayn is Derek’s nine year old daughter who has been removed by the Ministry of Children. (Sound quality is poor for the first few seconds)

THE TERRIBLE COST IS BORN BY PARENTS AND CHILDREN/ Part 414 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Frankly I don't know what it costs to fight the MCFD to regain custody of your children once they have been apprehended by the Ministry. I know that it has cost the Baynes very much. They had a home and property. Zabeth had a grand piano. That all became tinder in the inferno of conflict for which the Ministry has unlimited monetary ammo.

A number of you will be able to tell me how much it has cost you. And the horrible truth is that in most cases the apprehension is for temporary care. Yet in order to establish your ability and stability as a parent it will cost you money, which is so frequently that of which the parents have the least.

The entailed costs are customarily legal fees paid to a lawyer who knows the protocol and the legalese to converse in court and advise you about next steps. The truth is that the parents usually cannot afford the battle. (Look at the terms I am forced to use to describe this, “fight' and “battle”. )

Then there are other complications for these parents. The BC provincial shelter allowance policy is flawed because some parents require this to care for their family but when the children are removed even for temporary care, part of these monies is held back. The Ministry of Housing and Social Development (MHSD) cuts it off immediately, or at the end of three months, depending on the discretion of social workers assigned to the case. The dispiriting result is that parents are sometimes unable to retain their present housing and then the home to which they move is substandard and is not fit for children. Well guess what, the the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) is charged with helping parents safely receive their children back from temporary care, so when SWs advise the dropping of the shelter allowance, there is a significant contradiction happening here as in so many other areas of MCFD practice.

And then what? Well, the MCFD objective no longer is the return of the children to parents in that case.

Even in the cases where parents of children in care are granted a three month extension of the shelter allowance, that amount of time is inadequate for resolving the issues that MCFD has with the parents. Delays in process within child welfare and the courts are so common that before one knows it, six months, a year, eighteen months have gone by. Only the deprived parents and their children care. If it is a single parent, a mom on income assistance, just think how difficult it is for her to find housing. She cannot have her children back without good housing. It typically takes two to three years to locate adequate housing. It's around 35% of children taken into care that come from families receiving income assistance and get this, the majority are Aboriginal or single mother families.

With regard to MCFD, Family reunification should be this government’s number one priority. The Liberal Party over the past number of years has not prioritized this, has not funded it and therefore MCFD has diminished staff and resources and increased caseloads and a backed up court schedule has guaranteed that children will stay emotionally and psychologically disoriented within a foster care system for much longer than is either necessary or humane. I guarantee that unless some of you put this to Liberal and NDP party candidates they will not even be thinking about child welfare and protection and family unity.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree no later than January 19th. Stay posted.

MCFD-Phobic / Part 347 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

To presume is to take something for granted or as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary; to suppose something to be true without proof. When it comes to law, that definition applies in Canada. That is the inherent right, at least expectation of everyone who lives within our democratic British Columbian legal system. The citizen lives within a state of presumed innocence. It shouldn't be any other way.

A child afraid of MCFD

It is understandable that someone who is suspected of a violation of law should be temporarily restrained until a timely investigation establishes that either no evidence of infringement exists or, there is enough evidence to proceed to a trial using the pertinent facts. It is even appropriate in a serious criminal offense, to hold such a person in custody until trial when that person poses a risk of flight or further offenses.

When in a trial no evidence or insufficient evidence of a violation has been exposed either through discovery or confession by the defendant, the presumed innocence is confirmed by an acquittal of charges against the person. No penalties will be ruled against the person as a result of that trial.

Because Paul and Zabeth Bayne's ordeal has not been a criminal case the presumption of innocence does not seem to apply. Something is different. I am telling it like it is not how it should be. The Ministry of Children is authorized to act 'in the best interests' of the Bayne children as interpreted by MCFD social workers and director of that specific case, and that empowers MCFD to presume, if not guilt, then parental liability, certainly responsibility, even criminal probability. That's what MCFD can do. It can operate from presumption of guilt. And the inequitable entitlement which is afforded to MCFD consists in that the Baynes, rather than being protected within a canopy of presumed innocence, are made vulnerable as in a gladiatorial arena, because they, defenceless, must somehow validate their innocence. And their word, their protestations are not enough. Isn't it true that anyone, everyone says he or she is innocent, even vile murderers maintain, “I didn't do it.” Why should self-professed innocents be presumed innocent?

And then this imbalance. Long before the Baynes were required in a court of law to prove their innocence, MCFD could exact the penalty upon them of removing and holding on to their children and imposing restrictions upon the parents' access to the children and involvement in any decisions that pertain to their lives. And of course, MCFD has been doing this for three years, an anniversary marked in memory on October 22^nd. Yet because MCFD forced a trial by its application to retain the children forever, the Baynes were compelled at great personal cost and financial expense to demonstrate that they are innocent of harming their child or posing a physical risk to any of their children. Any reasonable person can appreciate the challenge resident in such a demand.

This case is only one illustration of the many that have been introduced over many months by your comments that support your collective premise that the Ministry of Children's Child Protection division should at all times be presumed a risk, and presumed to be guilty of error. What an alarming indictment of a government ministry and a fearful atmosphere under which our population must live. I know hundreds of people who are MCFD-phobic. Mr. Premier you must not permit this to continue or dismiss these concerns as the rants of a fringe minority.

IS THERE ANY SIMILARITY? / Part 208 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Another catalyst for conversation and concern. You see, this bothers me. I watched this. I will allow this video to speak for itself but you will have to take the time to click and watch it. Granted, it speaks to cases and jurisdictions removed from our Pacific turfside home so my question evolves like this. This report begins with a social worker speaking out. She lost her job because she refused to cooperate with a directive from her supervisors to place a child in a high risk care facility.It proceeds to telling stories about retaliatory actions by child welfare against parents who oppose publicly what the welfare agency is doing. Are some of those reported abuses and repugnant motives and conduct cited in this video news clip happening within our own B.C. system of child care and protection? I'm asking. If so, don't you think that some social workers must become whistle blowers. And about what will they blow their whistles? As for our journalists at Global, CBC, and every news organization in the province, we have to trust that will prioritize these whistle blowing stories relentlessly to generate the needed changes.

If you want to Encourage Reform to our Child Welfare / Part 207 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Many of you have expressed in various tones your conviction that serious changes must be made to the protection component of our B.C. child welfare system. Some of you write from a personal experience of great anguish. Living through months and even years without your children, or worse, never having the children returned. I do think that you have an opportunity to make a difference. You have a story. I don't. I merely have a sensitive sympathy meter and a ready pen. I believe that if you are going to take the challenge there are some things that must be done well. Some of you cannot do this. You are still too angry. This is about affecting change not merely scoring your point. Someone has to do the following and perhaps that someone is you. If enough someones become involved in a proactive movement, perhaps the needed changes can occur.

1.Contact your Member of Parliament. The members comprise the body that has created the framework within which the Ministry of Children operates. When you have identified the primary solution that mean the most to you and will benefit most children and parents affected by Ministry involvement, approach one of these lawmakers.
2.Contact the Media. MCFD is sensitive to media coverage as we have discerned even recently when the Representative for Children and Youth took the government to court. MCFD responds predictably with over zealousness when there has been a child fatality while in care or some abuse in a foster care facility. A change in media coverage, like more of it, more scrupulous investigative journalling can change MCFD operations. For that reason among the people you may want to contact are (1) reporters who regularly cover child welfare items; or (2) the news editor for network stations or news magazines; or even (3) the editorial board of these outlets.
3.Capitalize on Media Opinion Pages. Letters to the editor opportunities invite the kind of comment you desire to make. Make sure you work smartly, writing only 100-250 words. That means thinking clearly about one central point regardless of how many points you could or would like to make. Pay attention to news/media guidelines and stick to them. Enough of these over time makes a point. And if you write to correct a prior statement, simply set the record straight rather than question the journalist's motives.
4.Use the Comment Section of News Agency Websites. News organization welcome comments at the end of stories. No one knows how many people read the comments, and of course because anonymity conceals the writers, some deliver vile and personal attacks. When you find a discussion that is civilized, enter in to make a comment. Keep your focus on the issues.
5.What to Seek in Respect to either MPs or Journalists. Ask for a personal face to face meeting. Make an initial approach by e-mail preferably but it can be by letter and in this explain how the system is harming those whom it is intended to help. Ask for a meeting to speak about possible solutions. Don't get lost telling your own story or accuse anyone in the system of being immorally motivated. Simply give an overview of how your child(ren) are being harmed. When a reply is not forthcoming within a few days follow it up with a fresh email and if time passes again make it a phone call in the morning. If you obtain a meeting it will be brief, at most fifteen minutes. You must be well prepared with your most important points. You can have a written organized document ready to hand to the host.
6.Whatever you do avoid the 'gestapo' references or anything that blows your credibility out of the water and in fact makes legislators and reporters angry.

For Love and For Justice / Part 116 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

A PROVINCE WITH AN APPETITE FOR CHANGE

What is the potential for parents to create social change in British Columbia’s system of child protection? In a system of child protection like ours which is a mandated design based on power differentials against parents, wouldn’t it be an extraordinary step for parents to be given a voice in reforming what we have? If it were possible to create a research team comprised of parents as co-researchers with professionals associated with child protection, the results might be more beneficial than any of us can imagine. This collegial approach would represent an elevation of the parental voice in the reform process and at the very least would predictably adjust how the child protection group views parents, as more of a resource rather than an obstruction. A transformation seems assured in my ideal world when parents could be seen as colleagues in such a project.

Wouldn’t this make an attention-grabbing study team? Wouldn’t it be a step in the right direction if parents in British Columbia became involved as co-researchers in pivotal decision making steps to enrich the performance of various levels of child protection in our province?

What advice might parents give for crafting a less bureaucratic system of child protection? How might professionals engage in working with parents to effect recommended changes? If you were one of the appointed parents what changes would you seek to make to the child protection system?

A study group of this composition was actually assembled in Ontario. A full description of the rationale, the methodology, the findings, the limitations, a discussion of the implications and a summary are available here, on a site called Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies Journal. The article is called ‘Adjusting the Lens: Parents Create Change in Ontario’s Child Protection System.’ The account of this study was written by Dr. Betty Gallagher who is the Director of Education Services at the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. I have used some of her phrases to write this blog post.

“Parents were qualified to participate in the study: (1) If they had previously been ordered to participate in child protection services through a court order known as a supervision order. (2) If the supervision order was six months in length or longer. (3) If the family file was open after the amended Child and Family Services Act, 2000. (4) If they had maintained a one-year period free from child protection services. In total eight parents participated in the study.”

“Parents suggested eleven recommendations, all of which were supported by the professional participants. These findings suggest that parents and professionals in this study are like-minded in terms of making changes to the child protection system. Further, the study findings suggest there is a need for social workers and parents to continue their discourse about the protection of children.

Parents made the following recommendations for change to the current child protection system:

1. Have two social workers assigned to a case to avoid prejudiced perceptions about parents.
2. Compile a Parent’s Rights booklet.
3. Engage in cultural diversity training for social work staff.
4. Hold fathers more accountable for family issues.
5. Locate extended family quicker when looking for foster care placements.
6. Design a program to help teen parents and their parents raise children together.
7. Educate young girls early about self respect to prevent involvement in violent relationships.
8. Teach parents about life skills.
9. Put a package together that outlines all of the support programs available to parents and highlight the ones you expect parents to take.
10. Develop a support group so parents can meet to discuss their experiences with other parents.
11.Create safe chat rooms where parents, children and youth can communicate with others who have similar situations.

This was a study and only a study. Did it go anywhere? Ahh, there is the snag.
To have legs, something like this must have the authorization and ownership of the legislators that put the present system into operation.

For Love and For Justice / Part 93 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This is a family of five. It is not the Bayne family. It is however, the way the Baynes dream of living, hand in hand, happy, together, walking away from a nightmare.

Paul and Zabeth are road warriors already. After all it has been two years and three months that they have been deprived of their children. You read that length of time correctly. Their youngest child, Bethany was two months old when she was removed from her home and from her parents' custody and care. That inordinate length of time will factor surely into the case their attorney makes against B.C.'s Ministry of Children and Family Development. Some within the Ministry assume a level of authority beyond even the seeming excessive power that has been granted to the Ministry in order to protect children. It will be shown that the Ministry has strided far past its generous permissions in its hard treatment of the Baynes.

Paul and Zabeth have steeled themselves to the indignities they suffer on a weekly basis so that they will not jeopardize the little amount of time that they are permitted to have with their own children. They have to be so careful. Their time with the children, three hours on each of two afternoons per week, is closely scrutinized. This scrutiny comes from the person who drives the vehicle that transports the children. This driver is not a Ministry employee but works for an independent company which is contracted by the Ministry. The driver makes notes throughout the three hours while watching the five Baynes play, pray, sing, laugh, embrace. The driver has been carefully instructed to record conduct and behaviour of parents with children, attitude, comments made. These notes will be provided to the Ministry for their file on these parents. This driver employee polices the Bayne parents by censuring harmless actions or activities under threat that non compliance will result in removal of visitation privilege.

An example occurred this past week and the Baynes have sent a letter of complaint to Kimberly Grey MCF/EX. They wrote, "We have just left the visitation with our children and while we were saying goodbye our children made a hand sign at us again, which we returned. The driver (not named here) quickly stated "no, if you do that the visits will be stopped." There have been numerous other unwarranted and unnecessary restrictions imposed upon the Baynes over many months. During the first days of this court case MCFD employee Berhe Gulbot was questioned by Bayne lawyer Doug Christie with regard to these restrictions. Berhe Gulbot agreed in cross examination that these were not Ministry policy and that they would be unreasonable. The Baynes wrote in this written letter, "If these restrictions are a direct instruction from the Ministry I then request that you submit a list to us to refer to, but if Berhe Gulbot's testimony on cross examination was correct then these restrictions are not Ministry policy and are unreasonable and therefore we should not consider them a threat to the continuation of our visitations." BRAVO!

This court case is active. Court sessions have been scheduled allowing for breaks. The next series of Court Days are scheduled for February 2-5 at the Chilliwack Court House.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 52 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

I can’t stand it.
The Bayne family of five should be together permanently. They should be together for Christmas. It should one of the innumerable family sleepovers until those three children are responsible adult children.

This is not merely an emotional response for me. This is a deeply felt sense of what is right. I am horrified by the perceived if not real callousness of some public servants involved with this case.

Understand this please. I believe that with sincere professionalism, a medical practitioner made an informed diagnosis about Bethany’s condition and the cause. I surmise that this doctor may no longer be convinced it was the right call, particularly when the Baynes can call a medical expert for each of the twelve days of Christmas to contest the diagnosis as faulty.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne have borne an undeserved penalty far too long now – over two years without their children living in their home. They have endured the suspicion of a government ministry the power and authority of which is offloaded down so many layers of bureaucracy, the crown doesn’t know what the foot soldiers are doing. In stark contrast to the paper policies and media pronouncements of disclosure and openness, the decisions about the childhoods of three Canadian children remain concealed in a secrecy that is guised as protection of privacy. Those who have directly affected this injustice against an entire family rarely communicate with the parents; seldom provide the courtesy of an acknowledgement to correspondence. Officials higher up the agency chain refuse to comment because they can refuse. In order to protest their innocence, a Canadian couple can be compelled by this fat citizen funded system to forfeit all economic collateral in order to hire legal representation. They have.

Nothing specific or verifiable in Paul’s and Zabeth’s personal or family history supports prolonged suspicion. There is no incontestable evidence that either parent injured their baby daughter. Police abandoned that investigation hours after it was first reasonably conducted. The Ministry’s own lawyer has informed the Ministry many months ago that the two boys should certainly be returned to the parents because there is no defensible ground to keep them. This is a ministry that affirms that one of its principal objectives is to restore custody of children to parents.

Paul and Zabeth are fit parents. They have demonstrated this valiantly under the most trying circumstances, with just a few hours of visitation privilege each week, and with understandable calls and letters regarding their children’s health and well being when they flag concerns that are missed within the foster parenting program or ignored by MCFD that do not want to fund further medical examination. All three children should be returned to Zabeth and Paul.

Tap this line & Please sign this Online Petition.
As soon as you provide your name, it is recorded.
When the Donation page appears, EXIT the program. DO NOT DONATE to the Baynes on this site since as it clearly states, donations here go to the site designers.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part Three - the Alarming Case of BC Government’s Miscarriage of Justice.

It is difficult to define justice but reasonable people always know when justice is missing.

Justice is presently absent from the way in which the BC Ministry of Children and Family Development is handling the case of the Bayne family. Government becomes so large and predictably bureaucratic at times that even good-spirited people become mired within a complex system of protocols and legalities. Even our premier whose life is full of important decisions must courteously and vaguely promise to look into a specific case when in fact he has ministers and departments who will first filter and report and recommend and take action. I have seen him respond to this particular Bayne appeal.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne have not had their now two year old daughter living with them since she was two months old. She knows Zabeth as this loving and kind woman who visits often each week. Can you appreciate how this stabs into the heart of a mother?

Injustice is the lack of justice. At times injustice is opposition to justice. The more I learn about this case the more convinced I become that both senses are true in the Bayne case. A justice system is installed within a society like ours to insure justice is not misused, abused or neglected. Injustice simply put is manifest unfairness.

Here is the way either the already printed facts or undisclosed facts seem to me:
• MCFD seems to have contravened the Family and Community Services Act which stipulates that children under five years of age must not be kept from family for a period exceeding twelve months. It has now been two years.
• MCFD has not disclosed publicly or to the parents any conclusive evidence to warrant keeping these children from Zabeth and Paul.
• MCFD pursues an unsubstantiated allegation that Baynes have shaken their baby girl.
• MCFD certainly has no evidence that justifies holding the two boys from their parents.
• MCFD’s own legal counsel in June 2008 recommended to MCFD to send the boys home.
• MCFD’s medical professional's conclusion of baby shaking is challenged by ten prominent medical experts who have communicated with the Baynes.
• MCFD treatment of Paul and Zabeth appears to demonstrate an intention to permanently remove the Bayne children from their birth parents.
• The validity of SBS Shaken Baby Syndrome is being questioned in courts internationally.
• SBS is unproven among biomechanic specialists and pathologists as a valid scientific finding.
• Some courts are banning the use of SBS as a prosecutorial cause and are overturning previous convictions.
• It appears that without further disclosure by MCFD, there are no other grounds for MCFD to hold the Bayne children and disrupt this family any longer.
• MCFD has not publicly or to the parets acknowledged that Glutaric Aciduria may explain the child’s injury, though the suggestion was raised by a medical professonal of MCFD's choice.
• The Baynes have an avalanche of supporters speaking to their character and reliability.
• The Baynes know credible medical professionals that contradict the MCFD opinion.
• The Baynes believe that their children have been left in inappropriate care environments, exposed to television shows and movies of which Paul and Zabeth would not themselves approve, have been subjected to discipline, neglect and even abuse and while lodging concerns they have not received any responses form MCFD.
• The Baynes have been denied protocol hearings that are mandatory for such cases to listen to birth parent concerns.
• The Baynes have been afforded no opportunity in the past two years to present their case and their evidence.

Justice to be real must be more than a concept but even as a concept it speaks to that which is morally right in the realm of law, ethics, fairness.

Paul and Zabeth would hold day jobs but have now employed themselves as night janitors so they can be free in the day hours to visit their children which is the window allotted by the MCFD. They have in every way possible outside the actual daily physical care of their children demonstrated a genuine love and responsibility for their children whom they regard as gifts from God.

Our government whom we elected must be urged to do the right thing, now. Get ready to write. I will tell you how tomorrow.

April 3 2009 News Video
http://www.mediascrape.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=46203

Photo credit: CBC