"There is no provision for me to investigate the death of a child unless asked to do so by the Attorney General."
Child and Youth Officer in an email dated January 11, 2005, answering a question on whether she will investigate the death of Cody Fontaine.

On Thursday January 17th, 2002, the Campbell government stunned BC with its announcement of massive cuts to everything except health and education. To the surprise of most observers the cuts included the Ministry of Children and Family Development which was originally slated to lose over $360 million over three years, a cut of 25%. That was eventually reduced to a cut of 11%, after failed reorganizations and internal scandals put the Ministry in chaos.

The Campbell government disappointed British Columbians with many broken promises, but it is hard to find a bigger betrayal than the reversal from what Campbell said when he was in opposition compared to what he did in government on the protection of children. Justice Thomas Gove was appointed to report on child protection services when five year old Matthew Vaudreuil died after a life of neglect; he and his family were well known to child welfare authorities. In a recent article in The Tyee, Judith Ince put the death of Matthew in perspective, following the death of Cody Fontaine who was mauled to death by dogs in his own home as adults slept. Ince wrote that Gove made it clear that the Children's Commissioner should "comment publicly if the child welfare system does not respond adequately to a death or serious injury review."

The Children's Commission was established in 1997 as part of the implementation of Gove's recommendations. At the time, Gordon Campbell was Leader of the Opposition, an Opposition that took every opportunity to personally fault whoever was the minister responsible for child welfare for the death or injury of every child. In response to the Gove report on July 25, 1996, Campbell rose in the legislature said that Gove "said quite clearly that a body should be established which will receive every report of a critical incident -- children who die or are seriously injured -- which should include any children who are in the care of the ministry or otherwise known to the ministry through a protection report or a request for services. Deaths and serious injury reviews should proceed promptly and should be coordinated with other investigations or proceedings."

As Premier, Campbell oversaw cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development; not only did he make cuts but he simultaneously pulled the teeth of the watchdog established as a result of the Gove report. Bill 43, Office for Children and Youth Act, abolished the Children's Commission and replaced it with the Child and Youth Officer. The rhetoric from the Campbell government over firing the Commissioner, government apologists say they merely eliminated the position, was heavy on eliminating duplication and big on how many officers, including their new one, are "independent".

The former Children's Commissioner had the authority to investigate the death of every child; no minister had to approve any investigation. According to Section 6 of the Campbell legislation, "At the request of the Attorney General, the child and youth officer must undertake an investigation into any matter within the scope of this Act". When such a request occurs "The child and youth officer must make a confidential report of the results of an investigation under subsection (1) to the Attorney General, who may determine whether the report should be made public." In other words, the Child and Youth Officer is dependent on the Attorney General and cannot independently undertake an investigation; as she wrote in her email, she needs the permisson of the Attorney General.

In the case of Cody Fontaine the Child and Youth Officer stated that "in order to avoid duplication the review of children's deaths are appropriately left to the Coroner." She went on to say "In the case of Cody's tragic death, the coroner will be doing an investigation. There will also be an internal investigation within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, a copy of which I will be given in due course. If there are serious systemic issues raised by the Coroner's investigation process or the internal MCFD process, I will be made aware of them and if I feel it important to formulate advice to the government or to comment publicly about the issues raised, I will do so." It appears that the Child and Youth Officer overlooked the comments of Gordon Campbell, who in his July 26, 2002, response to the Gove report said "we're not questioning the expertise of the coroner, but let's go back and look again at what we heard about review mechanisms external to the ministry. The coroner is specifically referred to on page 136 of Justice Gove's report. The coroner is no substitute for reviews. In 1993, 535 children in British Columbia age 19 or under died. The coroner, acting under section 9 of the Coroners Act, examined 312 of those deaths. In Matthew Vaudreuil's case, the report was a one-page report from the coroner."

In 1996, Campbell was right to support what became the Children's Commission, but as Premier he combined cuts to the Ministry with the elimination of the watchdog. That level of hypocrisy makes the sale of BC Rail and the expansion of gambling look like child's play. Unless Attorney General Geoff Plant directs the Child and Youth Officer to conduct a review into whether the Ministry, who knew about Cody, failed to provide adequate protection, we may never know exactly why he was exposed to fatal danger.

On April 1, 2002, the Victoria Times Colonist quoted then Minister of Children and Family Development, Gordon Hogg, as saying: "Even with the best risk management tools an 80 per cent success rate is probably the most that can be achieved." Lets hope that 20% failure is not what the Campbell government is willing to accept in order to achieve its budget targets. In her 2003-04 report the Child and Youth Officer wrote "Sufficient resources are a prerequisite for an effective service delivery system. Yet there is never enough money to fund health, education and welfare needs, including the needs of child welfare systems." That is especially true when a government decides to put budget cuts ahead of child protection.