CANADIAN IMMIGRATION AND SHARIA LAW

Symbol of Sharia. crescent moon & Venus star

I said yesterday that Canada as a culture has made a perceptible shift to the Left and this is demonstrated with the election of the current Liberal federal government. The Liberal policy agenda became attractive to a majority. This government will make decisions from the Left of Centre on vital issues in 2016 and beyond. Furthermore I vaguely expressed apprehension about some issues and the choices to be made. Today I am expressing one specific area of uneasiness.

It is an Immigration and Sharia Law item.

SOCIAL WORKERS NEED CHILD-PROTECTION TRAINING

This is an opinion piece by my colleague and guest writer, Ray Ferris appeared in The Times Colonist. Ray sent it to me after it was published there. whom you know as the author of 'The Art of Child Protection,' and as a frequent contributor here, as well as an advisor to countless parents as well as lawyer and members of parliament. You can order the book at rtferris@telus.net

The Walker judgement and several others have made it evident that an adversarial and even hostile culture permeates the ministry responsible for child protection. There are probable causes for this. One is that provincial social workers used to be responsible for both financial assistance and child welfare. The deep-seated antagonism to assistance applicants rubbed off on child welfare cases, often the same cases. The three children’s aid societies were kinder, because they handled no assistance. All services were amalgamated by the first NDP government.

The courts used to function well. In the late seventies I studied about 200 cases which went through the Victoria court. No cases exceeded statutory time guidelines and judges were vigilant in demanding proper notices and other parental protections. Only four cases went to contested hearings. Most cases were settled by negotiation. There were many registered social workers and there was a sense of professionalism among the staff members.

JOHN BAIRD - Not Easy to Replace

(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

It caught everyone by surprise, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. His motivation appears entirely personal. He didn't want to become a "lifer' in federal politics, and at the age of 45, John Baird, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister announced his resignation in the House of Commons on Tuesday February 3, 2015. MPs of all parties respect him and yesterday they expressed rousing thanks and best wishes to him with applause, handshakes and hugs as he leaves to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

Baird is highly marketable and sources say he has received a specific job offer but he has not disclosed what his next chapter will be. The larger question for us is what will the Conservatives next chapter be? Baird's departure is a huge loss for Harper and the Conservative government. PM Harper, last summer, rebuilt his cabinet to carry the party to the next election. Baird is not easy to replace. He was one of Harper's most reliable and effective communicators. While Baird has kindly stated that Stephen Harper is "his friend and mentor," Baird did not genuflect before Harper. He has strong opinions and he spoke loudly on matters of conscience if needed at the Cabinet table. Harper needs people whom he respects who can disagree and dissent when making decisions. Together with the resignation and sudden death of John Flaherty last year, Harper has lost two such voices. Further, Baird was a trusted political ally with whom Harper has been able to safely speak about strategy and political matters.

Where does Harper find someone to seamlessly move into Baird's critical portfolio? Canada faces challenging foreign affairs issues including the role of Canadian Forces in the battle against ISIS and most immediately, a decision on whether to extend Canada's mission in Iraq.

Some of my family and friends hope Conservatives will lose the next election - badly. My politics are conservative but I am concerned about aspects of policy and personality. I will be watching carefully.

Baird was interviewed yesterday by Peter Mansbridge following his announcement. Watch Mansbridge One on One on CBC News Network, this Saturday at 6:30 p.m. ET and on CBC-TV Sunday at 1 p.m.

CAN BINDING ARBITRATION WORK?

Resolving the Contract Impasse between Federation of Teachers versus Provincial Government

The BCFT and the government are in the midst of negotiating a new collective agreement. Negotiations have not gone well. The two parties are far enough apart and each is resistant to further accommodation that potential mediator Vince Ready walked away from the stalemate. Think about it. Over the past three months, both sides have not even met in the same room around a table yet. What kind of collective bargaining is that?

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.”

DEFENDING PARENTAL FREEDOM

We have academically agreed that both state and family have roles and bear responsibility. What is the appropriate role of family within a free and democratic society? What is the appropriate role of the government with respect to families? The questions are multi-faceted because of our numerous divisions of governance, local, federal and provincial, and our legal systems and law enforcement.

Tensions subsist within our government and the sectors that comprise it when it comes to converting theory into practice. The discussions surrounding these questions has become increasingly louder with each questionable and contested administration of government intervention into family affairs.

DEFENDING PARENTAL FREEDOMS IN A CHILD-CENTRED SYSTEM

Strain exists between the state and the parts which comprise it. As it pertains to the family issues aired for the past four years on this blog site, the question has become multi-faceted. What is the appropriate role of family within a free and democratic society? What is the appropriate role of the government with respect to families?

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.

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? / 525

The ‘interests of a child’, the very best interests of children should naturally be the concern of each one of us. Parents in particular are expected to care for their children according to this standard. In societies like ours, the collective, the people, citizens, have elected representatives to institutionalize this standard of care for children. When parents or other caregivers appear not to be acting in the best interests of a child, then government authorized social workers intervene.

Curiously, ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a virtual dogma within our courts and child protection systems, yet there is no standard definition of ‘best interests of the child.’ Notwithstanding, this phrase customarily refers to the court’s consideration of the kinds of orders, actions and services that will best serve a child, as well as taking into consideration the person(s) best suited to care for the child. The child’s fundamental safety and welfare is the principal concern.

THE SILENCE OF THE PARENTS / Part 407 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

While we have referenced this before on this blog, it bears a repeat reference. The opening paragraphs of the 2008 “Broken Promises” report by Pivot Legal Society say what many of us have been writing from personal experience as parents or close friends of families affected by MCFD. The paragraphs say:

“In 1996 the Child Family and Community Services Act (“CFCSA”) came into force, promising a new direction for child welfare in British Columbia. This forward thinking legislation promised a different style of service provision dedicated to supporting families to care for children in the home, improving services for Aboriginal families, using apprehension only as a last resort, and reunifying children as quickly as possible when temporary placement is necessary.

This report examines whether child protection practices are living up to the principles set out in the CFCSA – the foundation of B.C.’s child protection system. Our conclusion is that current child protection practices in B.C. violate the guiding and service delivery principles that are set out in law. We find that the system, despite legislative reform, internal reorganization and changing governments, is failing to follow its own mandate and keep its promise to keep B.C.’s children safe.

This report looks at the child welfare system from a number of perspectives, including those of service providers, social workers, and lawyers representing parents in child protection cases. However, the major focus of this report is the experiences of parents whose children are or have been involved with the child protection system. These voices have often been silenced in the debate surrounding child welfare reform. This report highlights the important and unique insights that these parents have into the strengths and weaknesses of B.C.’s current system. Their participation in this project is a testament to their commitment to helping improve the system for families.”

For access to the entire report, press this link.

http://www.pivotlegal.org/pdfs/BrokenPromises.pdf
'Broken Promises' is the research product of 

Pivot Legal Society
678 East Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1R1

DEMOCRACY AND CHILD PROTECTION / Part 374 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

We can knock the involvement of the Ministry of Children in the lives of families and parents but we had better understand the philosophy that drives it.

We appreciate and applaud the democracy in which we live. We therefore need to understand it. As democracy pertains to the welfare of children, parents possess substantial rights as well as responsibilities with regard to the care of their children. Yet we have opted within our democratic society to provide a safeguard to children whose parents cannot or will not provide them adequate care. The government also owns responsibility to insure that children's needs are met.

Autonomy does characterize parental rights to decide for their children with regard to educational opportunities, religious heritage, discipline, cultural and recreational activities. Yet within this freedom lies an awareness that when concerns arise about physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect, then the government by way of a mandated child protection agency may become involved with the family. Sometimes this involvement is voluntary, which is to say that the agency upon request offers parents support and counsel to more effectively care for their children, and this may include monitoring and accountability. Other times the agency's involvement with a family is involuntary and even unwelcome. Of course a child protection agency must protect children from parents whose conduct constitutes physical abuse or neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse or neglect, or failure to provide adequate care. It is never justifiable to interfere with a family merely because the agency believes it can do a better job of care or provide more developmental opportunities. Justification of involvement occurs only when the level of care received by children has fallen below a standard which no child in the country should experience.

The social worker's struggle and the parent's conflict arises from the vagueness of definitions for child abuse and neglect because this requires assessment by a particular worker as to what that minimal standard for care should be and whether or not these parents have missed it.

This is certainly one of the dilemmas of our child protection system.

What is occurring presently with Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the repeated attempts by MCFD SWs to schedule a meeting to discuss the support and care of Paul and Zabeth Bayne's fourth and unborn child and Zabeth herself may be viewed technically as fulfilling the MCFD mandate. In light of the years of pain that MCFD involvement has delivered to the Baynes, these recent overtures might be interpreted as tantamount to harassment. Paul and Zabeth have always been trustworthy people. As young parents, they were responsibly caring for their three children before they were removed and under the gloomy forecast of the past three years have conducted themselves admirably well. While they wait now for news from Judge Crabtree as to whether they will be awarded custody of their three, they have characteristically prepared for their newborn. They are employed, have excellent medical support through family doctor and obstetrician, are registered at a hospital that is equipped with a special care nursery to handle deliveries 24 weeks and over, and they have the great benefit of incredible support from family and friends. Rather than playing by the book now, it would be advisable for MCFD to desist. It should be clear that confidence in MCFD motive and conduct is expended.

VIRTUAL VISITATION / Part 370 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This is something which perhaps in a short time will become actual in divorce settlements, and I see no reason why parents embroiled with the Ministry of Children and Family Development should not already move forward to gain this privilege as well. I think that every parent whose child has been removed should consider making this request to the judge, not only for scheduled visitation but for scheduled 'virtual visitation'.

I am using the information provided in an article written by Misty Harris of Postmedia News November 16, 2010 at 9:15 AM and published in the Ottawa Citizen and Vancouver Sun and a host of other news sources.

Photograph by: File photo, Postmedia News

Today, parents whose children have been removed into care by the government are often awarded visitation privileges consisting of a number of hours per week. Perhaps in the near future, parents may request a judge's order to the Child Protective unit to include 'virtual visitation' each night before bedtime, so that mommy and or daddy may say goodnight to their child or children. It can be a virtual tuck them into bed at night. MCFD and CPS will hate and oppose this innovation since an aspect of the removal agenda must necessarily be to reduce the child's reliance upon and affection for the biological parent(s). Foster parents will find this troublesome to a degree. But it will come.

Ms. Harris' story calls this a “digital leap in parental rights.” She writes about it in the context of divorce settlements and video chatting may soon become the right and not merely a privilege for some Canadian parents. Six American states already include virtual visitation in their legislation and in Canada, courts are routinely ordering this plugged-in parenting option on a case-by-case basis across our country when a divorced parent lives some distance from the child's residence. It is anticipated that 'virtual visitation' will become enshrined in the language of divorce settlements so that broken families will be subject to court orders that facilitate parent-child Skype calls and instant messaging at scheduled times. It will become a fixture in custodial agreements.

As we hear so often, the compelling factor is the best interest of the child. The visual immediacy of a web-cam chat is very beneficial to a child. Clearly, if a parent has abused a child and a child is fearful, a judge is not going to order a regular web-cam visit. But where the contest is clearly between a protection agency and the parents and a child thrives by actual visits with parents, a virtual visit will be viewed as constructive for the relationship and the future of the family. Shouldn't that be what MCFD and any CPS agency is concerned to achieve?

WHAT WILL THESE CHILDREN BECOME? / Part 359 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Sample children, ready to achieve their dreams - carefree & happy

These three children, the three about whom I have been writing for over one year, the three children who were born to Paul and Zabeth Bayne will be engaged in the future of our country. In some way they will find a place. They will be educated. They will love and be loved. They will choose careers. They will perhaps make a significant and positive mark on a community in this country.

Their formative years are far from exhausted quite yet. The truth is that three of those years have been squandered in unnecessary disorder, bewildering confusion as a matter of fact. Even the two boys, the eldest of the three siblings hardly know what normalcy is. Or at least the definition for normality has been written by a government agency that flipped them around for a while into different foster homes. The little boys into whose lives their sister had come only briefly when they were almost too small to understand, and then she left (was taken) when she was only weeks old, didn't see her again until this past year when she joined them in one foster home. There is still time for their lives to be shaped well, influenced effectively, nurtured lovingly.

How can immature minds cope with this invasion of life and of memory development? How do they process living in one place most of the week and visiting mommy and daddy twice per week? Do they differentiate the affections they must surely have for both foster care givers and mommy and daddy? As they go to school, do they experience thoughts and feelings of being different from other children?

A boy who was three years old, is now six. A girl who was weeks old, is now three years of age. And all the while Paul and Zabeth have grown ever more stoic. I watched the emotion pour from them in year one and year two. They wept. They still do cry but what you see most of the time is a determination not to be crippled emotionally by a government agency that has completely lost its way in this case. Sure this is merely one region of the Ministry of Children but similar cases are occurring elsewhere.

These young lives will be shaped well, influenced effectively and nurtured lovingly in their own parental home with their mommy and daddy. That is the way it must be. A prudent MCFD regional staff would see that and advocate that. It would relinquish this commitment to an irresponsible risk assessment, would acknowledge the quality character of these two parents, would surrender the control of these children's lives to these parents and let them get on with the business of living and growing up and being happy. This is not too much to ask. It is simply too much to expect from this outfit that has pressed this matter all the way to a court decision three years after the presenting incident.

What will these children become?

THE WAY IT WORKS / Part 341 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Natural parents have full rights over their child unless mitigated by an agreement or court order to the contrary. These rights, known as parental rights are also referred to as custody or guardianship.

Occasionally a parent is unable to cope with parental responsibility and voluntarily turns a child over to the government. By law, in all jurisdictions of Canada there are child protection, sometimes called child welfare services. On this blog we tend to highlight the cases in which the government has take initiative for a child protection order. The term 'apprehension' is applied to the government intervention by which a child is removed from the natural parent(s) care, and this is affected by the extraction of all or most of the parental rights from the natural parents, through a quick confirmation by the Court.

British Columbia's legislation is entitled Child, Family and Community Service Act. In Ontario, the related legislation is the Child and Family Services Act, and, in Alberta, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The BC CFCSA is unique in that it personifies the role of the government in child protection cases by a reference to the Director who is a senior public servant who interestingly seldom becomes involved in individual cases and never appears in court. So 'Director' means the child protection office or social worker responsible for the file.

In BC a child apprehension is followed promptly by a presentation hearing where in court the social worker discloses the facts for the apprehension and also provides a plan and the court makes an interim ruling. Much angst and criticism from parents and lawyers results from the brusque and summary process of this presentation hearing. The threshold for custody by the the Director is startlingly but predictably very low because the system is designed for the parent's challenge to be deferred until a later date, the later protection hearing. It is profoundly crushing for parents to know that their child will remain with a stranger while false suspicion or anonymous allegations of abuse are investigated.

In some cases the Director and the court may consider a supervision order which returns the child to the parents subject to the Director’s terms and conditions. Sometimes, the Director will come to agreement with the parents as to what should happen next. Other times mediation or judge-presided conferencing is scheduled. Nevertheless, for parents who have unjustifiably lost the care of their child, compromise or negotiating becomes an extremely difficult proposition, specially if admission to abuse is pressured or required from a parent who is innocent.

The protection hearing is a more substantial hearing that results when the Court has endorsed the Director's opinion that the child needs protection. This can then proceed to the Continuing Care Order and once a child is engaged in the cycle of protection hearings, the child may remain in the custody of the Director until the age of majority. Well intentioned parents may not survive and some will acquiesce to litigation fatigue or impoverishment due to legal costs. That attrition is predictable for all but the extremely hardy or well supported because the government has limitless resources and a bottomless bank account.

It is apparent by now in the posts I have written and in the unsolicited comments subsumed under them, that the office of social worker in child protection proceedings is a very challenging and thankless job. Given the demand to respond to every report concerning a child, opportunities abound for error and misjudgment. We are told by the government that in the vast majority of cases, apprehension decisions are not made lightly and are submitted to thorough and careful analysis and ruling of an interested and unbiased judge. There are many who read this blog who do not agree and refuse to see anything inherently good within the present Ministry of Children and CFCSA. Personal pain and loss when wed to helplessness against what appears to be authorized brutality does not readily result in forgiveness.

Advocating for the return of Paul's and Zabeth's three children, in MCFD care since October 2007.

THE MAJORITY PUBLIC / Part 321 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

What does the public think?

Well the public has only limited information that is true.

Customarily the public has only what comes from a public news source like CBC.

Kathy Tomlinson has completed videod pieces on the Baynes' story well over one year ago and of course much of her information was supplied by the Baynes. They did provide her with verifiable documentation which she had opportunity to review and evaluate. Her videoss were exposes of a sort and critical of the Ministry of Children.

The public does not generally approve of the State removing children from their parents so when a story like this breaks, the expressions are predictable.

CBC encourages comments to its online stories and other readers can approve or disapprove, that is, thumbs up or thumbs down the comments. You should hear a few from,

The April 3, 2009 article called 'Ministry Disregarded Legal Advice to Return Seized Children', which received 102 comments and thousands of hits. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/04/03/bc-surrey-parents-fight.html

Trees Are Good wrote: “ This is a disgraceful example of how this government deals with the best interest of our most vulnerable citizens. Even after overwhelming testimony by their own legal counsel, they have still resorted to the political safety of rigid procedure. Return these children to the protection of the people who care about them most now!! Anything less is child abuse by the state!!” 174 thumbs up / 18 thumbs down

Deputy Dawg wrote: “Now if this isn't a winnable lawsuit I don't know what is.. being the father of a two year old I know what I would do to any bureaucracy that kept me from her on an unsubstantiated whim.” 121 thumbs up / 13 thumbs down

Rayser 213 wrote: “The Inmates are Running The Asylum! They can run but they can't hide! Justice Delayed is Justice Denied! When is this Agency going to think of the best interest of the Family & not protect itself from Courts?” 63 thumbs up / 7 thumbs down

ramont wrote: “paul & zabeth, i feel for you sooo much. i went through a painfully similar ordeal in the late eighties. it was horrible. our family has never completely recovered. we all paid a price. we temporarily lost our children, then regained them but with restrictions. we all still cry from the pain and memory. during that era it felt like a witch hunt. our lawyers at the time told us not to go public with it and I've always regretted listening to them. you are better having as many people aware and on your side. when these situations are kept 'private' there is more opportunity for further abuse of authority. all the power to you. do not back down. do not be intimidated. your love and the truth will win out eventually.” 50 thumbs up / 3 thumbs down

Mighty Rearranger wrote: “Wow! These two are getting a lot of airtime on CBC, I think I am getting fed up with the oh so obvious fake looks of concern and please pity poor old me from the mother!” 7 thumbs up / 55 thumbs down

Raphael Alexander wrote: "I hope that the parents get their kids back, and then sue the government for millions. And I hope they get every penny, even if it does come from our tax dollars. Perhaps they can heal after all this is over by suing the incompetence out of the government and squeezing them for every gut-wrenching penny of bureaucratic idiocy. The nanny state has become the child abusers. Hands off Big Brother!" 49 thumbs up / 6 thumbs down

Child Welfare Enterprise in B.C./ Part 320 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Child welfare is not important to the general population. Young families live and love life and generally get on quite well. Why would they pay attention to the trouble we discuss here? It is only when one ordinary family ends up in the child welfare system that these few individuals learn how difficult life can become. Child welfare is also tough I believe for those who must work within it. Be patient with me here. The work load is increasing for each worker. From among B.C. children approximately 1 to 1.5 percent are in the care of the government. There is some ammunition for a few of you. After years of leadership upheaval it may appear now that the Ministry has achieved a turn around but who really knows. After all, from 2004 to 2006 there were four different ministers and when the Hughes Report was launched the Minister's position was being transitioned from Stan Hagen to Tom Christensen. Four deputy or acting deputy ministers served during this same period.

Build a Better Future - Reform MCFD

While government care most certainly is a safer place for some children than leaving them in their homes that is most certainly not true of the majority of removals. I am not going to back these remarks with footnoted references. Avid students can look up details as well as I can. My reading however leaders me to these conclusions. When the government is the sole guardian of children, the children's health is substantially worse than the health of children not in care. Childhood health concerns are common among children whether in or out of care but the rates of health issues for those in care is 1.2 to 1.4 times greater than those of the general population children. More alarmingly, 65 percent of children in continuing care suffer from mental disorders and that is where this Ministry of Children want to keep three Bayne children. Who can't see the connection here? That percentage is four times greater than that of children and youth in the general population. There are higher rates of both intentional and unintentional injuries for children in care and higher death rates as well.

I harvested some of these observations from a UBC publication. While published in 2007, if you want a comprehensive resource, access the “People, Politics, and Child Welfare in British Columbia.” Scroll to the index to select data.

IDEALISTIC IMAGINATION IN TORMENTED TIMES / Part 198 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Read the Comments that follow the post

In my ideal world, the employees within a government ministry paid by the people of British Columbia and charged with the responsibility of caring for a sector of the population are humbled by an awesome sense of obligation. Each treats the task as a privilege to make a difference.

From the moment that the legislation comes down to inaugurate a ministry as crucial to societal well-being as assisting families and protecting children, that Ministry becomes a symbol or radical change. This Ministry becomes a virtual new and emerging movement of humanitarian love and economic aid and physical and emotional security. Its representatives inspire confidence and hope and trust runs deeply among all levels of the ministry and between the personnel and the public. Any established patterns and methods from a prior initiative are abandoned. The dreamers and designers of the Ministry determine not to attend international symposia or family and child welfare conferences in the United States or the UK. They choose to reject the formulae of other provinces and countries where the results are suspect. The philosophy of ministry and the practical logistics are newly dreamed, designed and implemented. Critical to the design and implementation of the services that will be offered is an engagement with the multi-faceted culture that is British Columbia. A decision is made early not to transform distinct cultures into one homogeneous identity but to respect the various expressions of family and values and life. There are negotiables and non-negotiables. Among the non-negotiables are the self-evident values of the worth of individuals, of children and of families, the paramount commitment to protect children, and the resolute determination to make families work. In everything that is negotiable, that is, how parents raise their children, whether protectively or with liberty, with or without conventional diets, with religious instruction or not, with trendy clothing and hairstyles or simplicity, this Ministry determines not to make it difficult for those who are seeking to do their best. The Ministry becomes willing to adapt for the sake of helping parents and families to succeed. Child removal becomes a true last resort after every effort to equip parents is exhausted. The Ministry takes the approach of being as pliable and adaptive as possible so that confrontation and competition disappear when dealing with parents and caregivers and families.

This future cannot be experienced without embracing and experiencing change. The reality of change is the promise of altruism. In my ideal world, the Ministry is staffed by an army of selfless, self-denying, public-spirited, self-forgetful, considerate and generous public servants. Only in this way can the future of British Columbia become better than the past that we have been experiencing over the last several years and witnessing in the news these last several weeks . I watched Premier Campbell's enthusiasm during the Olympics. I loved the spirit of the Olympics and thoroughly enjoyed the images of competition and success and the stories of athletes and teams and countries. I would endorse Campbell for another term if he could become enthusiastic about comprehensive transformation as I have described. That would be a more lasting legacy than fourteen gold medals, an Olympic Cauldron and an Athlete Village.

I know: "When the spark of brilliance meets the cold stream of reality, idealism is often the first casualty."