It’s a little puzzling that a replacement has yet to be named for Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, B.C.’s representative for children and youth, given that everyone knew her second five-year term would end this fall.
The first person to occupy the office, Turpel-Lafond is using up vacation time, so effectively ended her tenure this week. Her duties are being carried out by her deputy, and an interim representative will likely be appointed until the legislature can approve a permanent replacement next spring.
It’s understandable that the legislative committee charged with finding the new representative would want to look carefully, but we hope the criteria involved have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the welfare of children.
Turpel-Lafond has not made things easy for the B.C. government. During her decade in office, she has issued nearly 100 reports about failures in the child-welfare system and has made nearly 200 recommendations for improvements.
Her reports and comments are often grist for the opposition’s mill and fodder for editorials, letters to the editor and other public reactions the government would probably rather avoid. She has not hesitated to skewer the Ministry of Children and Family Development or other government entities when she thought it necessary.
She has not been bashful, nor should she have been. She has had to deal with the deaths and injuries of children in government care. The stories she has told have been horrifying. Not much room for sugar-coating there, or stepping lightly so as not to offend political sensibilities.
We hope the B.C. Liberal members of the all-party selection committee are not looking for someone a little more tractable, a little easier to get along with. As University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff points out, the appointment of a new representative offers an opportunity to reset relations, but it would be a mistake for the committee to try to find a more malleable representative.
It would be helpful if Turpel-Lafond’s replacement were skilled in bridge-building — co-operation is usually more constructive than confrontation — but that doesn’t mean the new representative should be a pushover. The office was intended to be immune to the ebb and flow of political tides, and it needs to retain its independence.
The appointment of a children’s representative was one of the recommendations made by retired judge Ted Hughes after he reviewed B.C.’s child-welfare system in 2006. His review had found that the system was weakened by a constant churn in leadership, major policy shifts and budget cuts.
Hughes says Turpel-Lafond has proved the need for and the value of the office. Many deficiences she has spotlighted have been remedied, he said.
When he made his recommendations in 2006, Hughes foresaw a time when independent oversight of the MCFD would not be necessary, that the government would be able to report on itself, but he says that time has not yet come.
As the first children’s representative, Turpel-Lafond has been aggressive and outspoken. Her replacement might adopt a different style, but should be no less assertive.
Turpel-Lafond’s efforts have resulted in some progress, but too many children are living in nightmarish circumstances, their lives and their futures at stake.
Much of what happens in the political arena is adversarial, but this issue should not be about winning or losing. While opinions as to solutions might differ, there should be a common concern, and that is the welfare of children.
The focus should not be on finding blame, but on finding solutions.
