Today is National Child Day. It's an important date for people concerned about children.

It's the anniversary of two historic United Nations events - the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 and the adoption of the Convention of the Rights of the Child in 1989.

The Convention on the Rights of Children is one of the most comprehensive international human-rights agreements.

Canada is a signatory.

The agreement looks at all aspects of a child's life from birth to 18, including rights to food, shelter and clean water.

It also looks at health care, leisure and education, protection from exploitation and abuse, and opportunities for children to speak and be heard according to their age and maturity.

I can almost hear Lord Shaftesbury, the saintly aristocrat who freed children in Victorian Britain from long hours of work in factories, coal mines and sweeping chimneys murmuring, "About time - and only 150 years late."

Modern-day Canada is a far cry from mid-Victorian Britain. Or is it?

It's true that we don't need to rescue children from factories and coal mines, but how does Canada measure up against the UN convention?

Not very well, according to the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children.

The most vulnerable children are aboriginal children, children with disabilities, abused and neglected children and refugee children.

The coalition's assessment of abused and neglected children is particularly chilling.

"Abused and neglected children continue to fall through the cracks in our child welfare systems.

"Inquests and inquiries into the deaths of children who were killed by their parents speak of inadequate risk assessments, insufficient training for social workers, a lack of service co-ordination and information sharing, a shortage of placement facilities, failed foster placements, a crisis orientation, and the lack of long-term planning for children who are in the care of the state."

Just in case you've forgotten, the writers of the report are referring to 21st-century Canada and not 19th-century Britain.

And that's not all that's wrong with our child-protection systems.

Recent research into child maltreatment and abuse concludes that much is hidden as Canada has no way of collecting national statistics.

Without national statistics it makes it very hard to know the extent of the problem or whether our provincial and territorial child-welfare systems are fulfilling their mandate.

Other researchers indicate that the highest priority, child protection, is being overshadowed by administrative and organizational concerns.

In other words, the needs of children take second place to the needs of the bureaucracies.

Surely, it can't be all that bad? There must be some bright spots?

Ontario's one of them. On the heels of inquiries into the deaths of children in care, Ontario revised its legislation to ensure the best interests of the child were paramount.

They even have a Children's Secretariat and a minister for Children.

BC is trying too. It took the death of a six- year-old, and the subsequent Gove Report, to wake people up.

BC re-organized its services to children. It also created a Children's Commission to assess government services to children and youth and to advise the government on improving those services.

The commission is independent of the ministry and reports to the attorney general.

BC also has a Child, Youth and Family Advocate, an independent officer of the BC legislature who is responsible for protecting the rights of children and youth and their families.

The advocate doesn't pull any punches. In her most recent report, Not Good Enough, she lets the government have it.

She finds the ministry focused on reducing costs, which has led to the reduction in services.

She is concerned about the long-term impact on society of such a short-sighted approach.

What's the situation in the Yukon?

Our Children's Act trumpets that "the best interests of the child shall prevail."

Sounds good, modern even. But let's look a little further.

Children in care are under the control of the director of family and children's services.

Let's be clear about this. Children in care are under the authority of a bureaucrat.

To what extent can a bureaucrat make decisions that are in the best interests of a child, especially when those interests might run counter to the self-interests of the bureaucracy?

Recent research suggests that they can't.

Child welfare bureaucracies in Canada are more concerned with measuring easily quantifiable administrative outcomes than they are with measuring the more complicated clinical outcomes for individual children.

This is one good reason why children in care need a watchdog.

BC children have a child advocate and she's finding it an uphill battle to get the government to do its job.

Yukon children in care have no one, independent of government, to represent their interests. Yukon children, especially those in care, need an advocate.

In 19th-century Britain, Lord Shaftesbury pricked the consciences of politicians. Where is Yukon's 21st-century Lord Shaftesbury?

We need someone who will prick the consciences of our politicians, help them see beyond party politics, and rally them to a cause that will benefit children.

We need someone to help our elected representatives realize that it is in the best interests of all of us that Yukon children have an independent child advocate.

On National Child Day, hopefully that someone will turn out to be all of us who care about children.

Part of a series.

Janet Webster is an educational psychologist. She is a researcher and consultant in private practice in the Yukon.