PHOTO DAVID BOILY, LA PRESSE ARCHIVES
“How can the fact that the Curator was aware that around fifty of his pupils were living in a homeless situation be reconciled with his duty to protect? asks our columnist.
When the organization that is supposed to protect the most vulnerable in society fails to do so, there is a serious problem.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
The file of our colleagues Katia Gagnon and Caroline Touzin shows that several wards under the responsibility of the Curateur public – we are talking about fifty in total – live in a situation of homelessness in very precarious contexts.
It also reveals that the delegated curators, numbering 121 for all of Quebec, are overwhelmed. Responsible for more than 100 files each, they do not have time to meet people under curatorship whom they should meet at least once a year. Without the intervention and assistance of community organizations on the ground, the situation of these people would be even more disastrous.
The Public Curator is responsible for approximately 13,000 people deemed unfit in Quebec. The organization must play the role of a benevolent parent by ensuring that the person lacks nothing. He can manage his money, for example, or in more serious cases, ensure that the person is housed, that he receives adequate care, etc. The more complex cases are often people with mental health problems or intellectual disabilities struggling with addiction issues.
The Curateur public is, in a way, their last resort, the tool Quebec has adopted to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society live in dignity. However, what our colleagues reveal is that the organization does not always succeed.
This is not the first time that the Curateur public has found itself in the media for the wrong reasons. Since its creation in 1945, it has been criticized on several occasions.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1997, the Québec Ombudsman and the Auditor General were already denouncing shortcomings in devastating reports. Then, in the early 2000s, the Québec Ombudsman called the Curateur to order and required the organization to visit its wards at least once a year. In 2019, the Québec Ombudsman denounced the delays in certain files. In short, it seems that the safety net for vulnerable people has big holes that we have struggled to repair over the years.
How can the fact that the Curator was aware that around fifty of his wards were living in a homeless situation be reconciled with his duty to protect? If the organization is unable to find housing for them, or if it is unable to manage the files of people with mental health problems, it must say so loud and clear and find the appropriate resources to do so.
Because if the Curateur public is not there to protect them, who will?
What our colleagues’ survey also revealed was the lack of communication between the various stakeholders: health, social services, community organizations, DYP… All these fine people need to talk to each other more and better. It will have taken the publication of a file in The Press to remind them.
This is all the more important since a new law will be implemented next June which will profoundly change the mode of intervention of the Curateur public.
Law 18, adopted in 2020, will favor an approach based more on supporting the person and promoting their autonomy when possible.
This approach is inspired by the best practices observed in European countries, such as Sweden, where the notion of incapacity does not exist.
This new law, less paternalistic and much more respectful of human rights, is welcomed very favorably by the community, and with good reason. We are talking about a real revolution.
But the means must still be there to apply it and respect its spirit and its objectives.
The Curator ensures that he has received adequate budgets and that he has additional resources to meet the demand. So much the better if that’s the case.
But the organization must also remember that beyond bureaucracy and paperwork, there are vulnerable people who rely on it. This time, he must respond.