Does Nunavut need a child’s rights advocate?

Quttiktuq MLA Rebekah Uqi Williams deserves much praise for raising an issue in the Nunavut legislative assembly last week that growing numbers of Nunavut residents have also been discussing.

In a member’s statement, and in a series of questions, Williams lobbied Nunavut’s minister of health and social services, Ed Picco, for the creation a children’s rights advocate for Nunavut.

The Nunavut Association of Municipalities first raised the idea about two years ago, for a variety of reasons. Those reasons include the large numbers of abused and neglected children in Nunavut, the often shaky system of foster homes called upon to take care of them, and the absence of any independent advocacy groups capable of speaking up for children.

Earlier this year, social services officials in the Baffin region admitted that some children at risk were required to stay with potentially abusive families because of a shortage of foster homes. Although that problem was rectified later in the year, it demonstrates that there may be times when the system may be powerless to protect children at risk — even when officials know they are at risk.

And any trip to a court house will tell you that too many Nunavut children are sexually and physically assaulted by parents or other family members.

We also know that roughly one of every four children in Nunavut is now growing up in a lone-parent family. About a fifth of those are led by men, and about four-fifths by women. While it’s probably safe to assume that many enjoy the support of large, extended families, it’s likely that at least some of those children are in need.

We have no way of knowing how many Nunavut children are malnourished, and how many don’t have proper clothing and housing. But given Nunavut’s brutally high cost of living, and our longstanding shortage of social housing and affordable private housing, it’s fair to assume that at least some of them are in need.

So there are many good reasons, it would seem, for creating a children’s rights advocate in Nunavut.

But the government of Nunavut might be well-advised to study the idea carefully first before jumping into it with too much haste.

First, they should develop a clear understanding of what they mean by “children’s rights.” Everyone is likely to agree that all children have a right to be physically safe and secure, and should enjoy a right of access to education, health care and the necessities of life. But does a child have the right to sue his or her parents? Or a teacher, minister, or some other authority figure? If so, under what grounds?

There are many people in Nunavut who will be nervous about any government measure that appears to weaken the authority of parents and other extended family members, especially those who seek to maintain traditional values. The government should, at the very least, anticipate the possibility that the rights of children may conflict with the perceived rights of parents, and should think carefully about how to resolve those conflicts.

Second, if the government does decide to create a children’s advocate, whether in the form of a commissioner or some kind of appointed committee or tribunal, it must be set up at arms-length from government. It must be immune to political interference, especially from cabinet ministers or MLAs. Any other kind of arrangement would have little credibility with the public.

That’s why the government of Nunavut’s Children’s First Secretariat is not suited to the task. It may or may not turn out to be a useful tool for generating new policies, and better coordinating the work of territorial government departments whose work concerns children. But its staff work directly under the control of various deputy ministers, and through them, work directly under the control of cabinet. It’s highly unlikely that this group will ever speak out against the government — it is the government.

Although the idea of a children’s rights advocate still needs more thought and study, the government of Nunavut should at least study it seriously. And if the government concludes that it’s not a good idea, it should at least explain why.

JB