Hagen on the Hughes' Report

April 10, 2006

Hagen on the Hughes' Report

You wouldn't know it by clicking on the top level government website, but deep in the recesses of government news releases is one from Minister of Children and Family Development, Stan Hagen, in which he responded to the Hughes' Report. It is difficult to determine whether the release was circulated to the media, and it is impossible to determine whether the author of the release read the Hughes' Report. It quoted Hagen as saying: "On balance, the report provides a blueprint that builds on the fundamental vision, direction and changes government implemented since 2001 to improve child protection and reporting."

Spaceship to Minister Hagen, the Hughes' Report said:

"The strongest impression I have gleaned from this inquiry is one of a child welfare system that has been buffeted by an unmanageable degree of change. There has been a revolving door in senior leadership positions; emphasis in practice has shifted between child protection and family support; functions have been shifted out to the regions and then pulled back to centre; new dispute resolution processes have been introduced. And much of this has gone on against a backdrop of significant funding cuts, even though it is commonly understood that organizational change costs money."

It is tempting to call on Hagen to resign but Hughes has made it clear that the system has suffered from too much change. How can Hagen be educated so he learns from the Hughes' Report and doesn't repeat past mistakes? What hope can children and families have when he is quoted as saying that the Hughes' Report "builds on the fundamental vision, direction and changes government implemented since 2001"? Hagen must admit that he and his government were wrong; they cut too deeply in 2001. On January 17th, 2002, Black Thursday, government introduced major structural changes by announcing the elimination of one third of the public service, including significant cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, followed by the elimination of the watch dogs for child protection. Hughes concluded that those cuts went too far for the protection of children.

Hughes said that the additional funding provided for the Ministry in the 2006-2007 budget might be adequate, but if it is not, the government must "belly up". It is reasonable that Hughes encouraged Government and the Opposition to work together to address the challenges facing the child welfare system, but it must be remembered that government has the power to make decisions while the Opposition has the duty to hold the government to account. Hughes called on the media to hold the government accountable. The Opposition has a duty to do the same. Look for that when the Legislature returns from a two week recess on April 24th, with just 16 sitting days remaining in the Spring Legislative session.