Recently, the MGEU (through its legal representatives) filed a motion to the Manitoba Court of Appeal to request the Commission of Inquiry ask the Court to rule on whether it has the power to conduct certain phases of the Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry. Today, a Manitoba Court of Appeal judge dismissed the motion.
Many MGEU members and members of the public have had a number of questions throughout this process. Here are some of the most common questions being asked:
Q: What happens now?
Today’s decision, and the rationale for it, were prepared by Justice Martin Freedman in a thirty-three page document, which the MGEU and its legal team must now carefully review before deciding whether or not to appeal the decision.
Q: Why did the MGEU originally file this motion?
Reason #1: Ever since the government called a public inquiry, the MGEU, on behalf of its child welfare social workers, has opposed full media access to the Inquiry. We believe that "trial by media" of social workers will not make our children safe; in fact, it’s probably the reverse.
Every day, child welfare social workers must make complex and difficult judgement calls on behalf of Manitoba children and families in crisis. If social workers believe their judgments in these terrible situations could be subject to unfair media scrutiny and breach of confidence, the system cannot function as it should. As Evelyn Wotherspoon, a social work specialist in infant trauma and maltreatment, put it in a recent Op-Ed for the Calgary Herald, “Fearful Social Workers Can’t Save our Children” (September 4, 2011):
“Instead of fewer mistakes, the result is demoralized, secretive employees who flee from challenging situations, avoid decisions and withdraw from responsibilities. … Instead of quick, decisive action from competent professionals, you get nervous employees who blindly follow procedures. … People shy away from very high risk cases because the prospect of being blamed in the event of a tragedy (fairly or unfairly) can destroy careers. Everyone feels vulnerable because most of us recognize that hindsight has a way of bringing things into sharp focus that were not nearly so clear cut beforehand.”
Those who work in child welfare must feel free to reflect on why they took this or that particular course of action without fear of a public lynching. This same lesson has been learned in the fields of health care and aviation, where it has been found to dramatically reduce the likelihood of making the same mistakes in the future.
Reason #2: It’s always been the union’s position that the legislation currently in place to protect the confidentiality of both workers and their clients, even in the case of a child death, is there for very good reason. It serves to maintain the hard-wrought trust parents must place in the hands of professionals who have the power to take away their children. By contrast, the Phoenix Sinclair Inquiry, as it is currently planned, would divulge case file details, individuals’ names and personal confidences.
Q: Is the MGEU opposed to the entire Inquiry?
From the beginning, the MGEU has maintained that the work for Phase 1 of the Inquiry has already been completed. Four investigations have been completed into how and why the system failed to protect Phoenix, three of them conducted by independent investigators, including the Children’s Advocate and the Ombudsman. All four investigations yielded similar findings and nearly 300 recommendations have been made. Phase 2 of the inquiry is intended to deal with if and how such recommendations have been implemented, while Phase 3 is intended to assess what other improvements are required.
It is our view that Phase 1 will simply be a public airing of what’s already been said, which is what our motion was all about. It was never to put an end to the Inquiry in its entirety.
Q: Why didn’t the MGEU file the motion when the Inquiry began?
In short, the union did not have enough information to make its case until recently.
On December 22, 2011, Commissioner Hughes made thousands of pages of documents available to the MGEU’s legal team. These documents include key reports which have already assessed the circumstances concerning the death of Phoenix Sinclair and have resulted in hundreds of recommended changes to the CFS system. After reviewing these reports and recommendations, the question was raised as to why a full public inquiry was necessary when 3 independent reviews have already been conducted.
Q: To many, this just looks like an attempt to avoid accountability. What are your members afraid of?
It’s not that workers don’t want to be accountable for their actions. All workers involved have been extensively interviewed about their role in the tragic Phoenix Sinclair file through a number of previous investigations.
Getting at the truth and achieving accountability is possible without vilifying those who have committed their professional lives to keeping children safe.