Why is Ontario's children's aid society shrouded in more secrecy than CSIS?

Why is Ontario's children's aid society shrouded in more secrecy than CSIS?
Posted on May 16, 2017 | Derek Flegg | Written on May 16, 2017
Comments
Letter type:
Blog Post

Author's Note:

Author's Note:

Because, if anyone has more skeletons in the closet than CSIS - it's the Ontario CAS. But seriously, if the truth of what's happening in the dark places child protection and the family courts have become  the good citizens of Canada and outraged taxpayers would end it. 

SEE: STRANGE DEATHS

Even CSIS is subject to the freedom of information act and oversight. If I made a FOI request to CSIS and they denied it I could appeal it - if they blacked out any of it I could appeal it. If I make a FOI request to the CAS and the CAS deny it there is no one you can make an appeal to provincial or federal.

Then top off the secrecy with the way the society is divided up like terrorist cells.

The basic principle behind cell organization is simple: By dividing the greater organization into many multiperson groups and compartmentalizing and concealing information inside each cell as needed, the greater organization is more likely to survive unchanged if one of its components is compromised and as such, they are remarkably difficult to penetrate and hold accountable in the same way the mafia families or terrorist organization are.

AT A CERTAIN POINT, COINCIDENCE BECOMES PATTERN.

No level of the government has that kind of power to hide what they do and the society only have it because laws that should include the society (like they do everyone else) don't. Well, they do but the people that should be enforcing them are letting it side instead of creating new legisation to deal with it. A recent example of what's wrong with that,  Mistaken identity blamed as CAS take 6-year-old out of school. There are a lot of laws that make us feel proud to be Canadians that the society don't feel obligated to follow, like giving Canadian citizens a file disclosure before the family court judges start rendering life altering decisions. The society claim they don't recieve enough funding and therefore can not afford the manpower necessary to ensure due process for their alleged clients. You can't call them clients when there's a gun pointed at heads of their children.

The society's position seems to be if a law doesn't specifically include them it doesn't apply to them.

According to Premiere Wynne the public should just assume the school boards would work closely with the children's aid society without any kind of legislation or regulation or even a legal right to enter schools and needlessly interrogate children in secret hoping to meet the agency's funding goals, so then by the same token (and as a sign of good faith) why can't we just assume the children's aid society would consent to be investigated or willingly register with the College of Social Work or work closely with the Ombudsman's Office and the Privacy Commissioner without legislation or accept the findings and recommendations of Ontario's Auditor General unless the societies have something to hide. A lot to hide.

When the Ontario's government required all social workers in Ontario to be registered the children's aid society took it upon themselves to quietly reclassify themselves "child protection workers" and as such are actually literally outside the law and Wynne's liberal government failed to do anything about it and considering the society has decided not to require registration it doesn't matter if a worker is registered or not even if the College removes them from the College. 

How ethical is it to avoid all oversight let alone refuse ethical oversight by the college of Social Workers and Social Service Workers?

The Former Privacy Commissioner, Anne Cavoukian, wrote in her 2013 annual report.

As the law stands now clients of the Ontario children's aid society under Wynne's fiberals are routinely denied a timely (often heavily censored) file disclosure before the court begins making decisions and the clients can not request files/disclosure under the freedom of information act nor can censored information reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario or the federal counter-part.

“I am disheartened by the complete lack of action to ensure transparency and accountability by these organizations that received significant public funding and as part of the modernization of the Acts called on the government to finally address this glaring omission and ensure that Children’s Aid Societies are added to the list of institutions covered in order to guarantee that the sensitive data being managed by these agencies was being properly handled and secured. She was ignored. In her 2004, 2009, and 2012 Annual Reports she recommended that Children’s Aid Societies, which provide services for some of our most vulnerable citizens – children and youth in government care, be brought under FIPPA.

HEADLINE: "Mistaken Identity Blamed As CAS Takes 6-Year-Old Out Of School." Now Reads, "Students Were Manning Office When CAS Volunteer Picked Up Wrong Child."

HAS WYNNE DONE ANYTHING TO ENSURE CHILDREN THAT DON'T NEED TO BE IN CARE AREN'T BEING PLACED IN CARE?
 
WHY YES SHE HAS!
 
BEFORE CLAIMING SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO BLOW UP THE CAS TO SAVE JUST ONE CHILD WERE THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING SHE....
 
KILLED OMBUDSMAN OVERSIGHT OF THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY AND REPLACED IT WITH AN AGENCY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME MANDATE OR AUTHORITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN AND HAS ALWAYS WORKED IN TANDEM WITH THE SOCIETY IN THE PAST. 
 
REFUSED TO ENFORCE THE SOCIAL WORKER REGISTRATION ACT AND WILLFULLY REFUSED TO UNDERSTAND OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT.
 
IGNORED THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORTS REGARDING THE SOCIETIES MANY FAILURES TO PERFORM THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES IN A PROFESSIONAL AND COMPETENT MANNER. 
 
IGNORED THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER'S REPEATED CALLS TO INCLUDE THE CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT.
 
(COULD THIS LAST ONE BE AN OVERLOOKED PERFORMANCE INDICATOR?)
 
WYNNE'S LIBERALS REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILTY FOR TAKING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SOCIETY LEAVING TO THE SOCIETY TO POLICE THEMSELVES.
 
AND THE REAL KICKER HERE IS THE SOCIETY CLAIM THEY HAVE MORE OVERSIGHT THAN ANYONE ELSE HAS.

About The Author

Advocates for family preservation against unwarranted intervention by government funded non profit agencies.

comments powered by Disqus