(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During question period, Mr. Gargan's question requested other departments to look into the possibility of investigating this whole matter. I mentioned to him that I would go ahead with the investigation because on March 24, 1994, the letter that was written by Jane Groenewegen stated the following. (End Translation) "(Inaudible)...the contract have caused a lack of communication, no support, and the actual

sabotaging of our relationship with the children in our care. This made it very difficult for us to effectively do our job."

This, to me, is a very serious allegation and I am taking it very seriously. Mr. Koe's suggestion of what should be included in the terms of reference, they are good suggestions but for programming for foster homes. In fact, what we are doing here now, I feel, we might be jeopardizing the actual investigation. We are talking about the children that came into the care of Social Services. There is a certain element of confidentiality and I tried to maintain that by agreeing with the Member for Deh Cho when he asked for an independent committee investigation. I agreed. Later on, when the terms were drafted I did meet with him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're saying all the things I said but yet they're not reflected in the terms of reference. The issue is, again, I don't understand why the whole terms of reference are on the termination... the contract has been terminated. We want to look at future contracts, future foster parents, future group home contractors and the types of care and responsibilities of both parties. I'd like to see that in these terms of reference.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll let my deputy minister respond to Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The terms of reference were designed to look into the allegations made by the contractor about the treatment of the contractor by the staff of the Department of Social Services. The terms of reference for this investigation were designed to avoid a situation casting blame, or the intention of casting blame. It was intended to look into the circumstances behind the terminating of the contract to see if the termination was justified. In looking at the termination of the contract though, it was always the intention that the investigator would look into the quality of the care of the children, the quality of the supervising of the administration of the group home. You'll see in the elements of these terms of reference that there is reference to doing interviews of people in the community and organizations in the community to do just those things; to find out how effective the care of the children was by talking to the children, by talking to people in the community who are aware of the care that was being provided and by talking to the contractor and the social workers.

At the same time, it was important for us to assess the quality of the administration of the contract. In other words, how effectively did the Department of Social Services fulfil its responsibility for administering this contract? Discussions about lack of case planning and those kinds of things have to be looked into because, again, they are serious allegations. The bottom line in the terminating of this contract was that it wasn't working. It was costing the government a lot of money in terms of the expenditure of public funds, and in that kind of situation it wasn't in the best interest to either the children or the contractor to continue. Now that questions have been raised about it, it's our view that the independent investigation by contacting these people who have been involved in administration, and in contact with the group home itself, we'll be in a position to provide insights that will allow a person, a third party, a disinterested third party, who hasn't been involved, to make a judgement about whether the Department of Social Services did the right thing. I think that through the interviews though, we are going to get the answers to the questions that were raised in the contractors letter of March 24. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that happened with regard to this whole process is that the government has decided to go with a process which doesn't go under the Public Inquiries Act. I think that by doing so it has allowed the Members to address it in this House in some form. Also, I can recall several years ago when there was a doctor in Fort Smith that was in question, we proceeded with an inquiry under one of our acts and it cost this government $500,000 to do that. We ended up with no answers at all because it was still sub judice. It was still under investigation, there was jeopardy here. In this case, I thought that when the Minister consulted me, and I appreciate that the best way to do it was for the department to initiate the whole thing. I have no problem with that. I don't know whether or not, by discussing it further we are resolving anything right now. I think we should allow the investigation to be carried out right now and allow the department to respond to it by the end of this month, as they said. From there, it's still not going to be a closed case after that. I would think that Members will be allowed the opportunity to look at the results of the investigation as opposed to doing it through one of our acts.

Most of the stuff that was on the terms of reference, and what I told the Minister at that time was that we not only look at the department itself but we also have to look at the services. I would hope that at that time, in order for anybody to carry out an investigation, you have to look at both sides of the story. I thought they did that. I have no problem other than... I guess the children are going to be the ones... Mr. Ballantyne, I believe, was going to say something about it, but it's the children's welfare that is at stake here. I think the investigation can carry on without it jeopardizing or tormenting the children, as it is. Can we allow the government to carry out their investigation and at the same time ensure that those children are in care?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was my understanding when I went to see Mr. Gargan in his office with the draft independent review terms of reference. I welcome his comments.

Are the terms of reference still in draft form where we can make some small changes to it so that the investigation is carried out to its fullest?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My deputy informs me that the terms of reference have not been given to the person that we hired. There is still room to make some changes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to think I am a neutral person in this matter. It is far away from my riding and I am not familiar with any of the details. However, Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Member for Deh Cho. I am alarmed to see the children in care are going to be interviewed about an issue that has received significant publicity. I understand these children are adolescents. It would be fair to say that being in care and being subject to the views about the department about issues like whether and when they will be returned to home could be described as being vulnerable and easily influenced.

Mr. Chairman, in my understanding of the situation, I thought that the main dispute was involving adults, the operator of the home and officials of the department. It was described as a relationship which had completely broken down. I would have hoped that the terms of reference would be clearly focused on the relations and the breakdown of relations between these adults who were responsible for this contract.

I do not believe that the children can provide helpful advice. If I know anything about teenage children, they may provide comments about their own parents or about those who are acting in loco parentis, that are actually critical, but maybe for the wrong reasons. My children are critical of me, but it is sometimes because I have taken strong stands on issues that I believe sincerely are in their best interests, such as curfew, et cetera.

Mr. Chairman, my strong view is that it would be unfortunate if the children are drawn into this matter and subjected to the stress of having to take a position in a highly publicized case, when I think it is well known that the children are probably aware of how the department feels about the contractor, namely that the department has seen fit to terminate the contract. I think this is an unfortunate emphasis in the terms of reference. My advice would be keep the kids out of it.

Mr. Chairman, just looking at the facts and listening to comments of other Members, I have some doubts about the independence of the investigator. I note that the investigator is a registered social worker and a principle in a private firm in Yellowknife, who has been in the private sector for the past ten years completing a variety of consulting projects in the social services field.

Mr. Chairman, we all know the government is the big game in town in all parts of the Northwest Territories. I suspect that this individual has had to rely on the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Department of Social Services to survive for ten years consulting in the social services field. Directly or indirectly, I suspect there is a strong relationship there. I actually have received some information that corroborates what other Members have said. The individual described in the Member's statement is, in fact, a principle of a company called Muskox Program Development and this company either has a standing offer agreement with the Department of Social Services or has a relationship with officials in the Department of Social Services -- specifically, Mr. Andrew Langford -- which sees that firm regularly being asked to do work.

The mere fact that the contractor has done work for the department in the past, coupled with the fact that there is not a lot of work outside the government sector for a firm in this very specialized field, indicates to me that there is, at least, an interest on the part of the investigator in not offending the department in undertaking this investigation. I welcome some further comment. We have been told there isn't a standing offer agreement, but perhaps there is a working relationship, understanding or pattern of working relationships. I would have to question whether someone more independent, such as a lawyer, might have been found to do this work.

If we are going to solve what is probably a matter of human relations between the contractor and the department, we should hope that the parties have confidence in the investigator and that both parties feel that if the job will be done, they will participate and cooperate with some confidence that the outcome will be fair. I would like to ask the Minister and/or the deputy minister if they know whether the contractor has confidence in the investigator. I see the department does. Does the contractor? If the contractor doesn't, I question whether it is going to be a complete investigation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I stated during question period on this matter, I have tried to keep things on a confidential basis, because there is an element that has to be kept confidential. However, what has transpired during question period should not be discussed in a public forum because of the nature of what we are talking about.

On the matter of the person who is hired, the person whose contract was terminated had not come to me and told me whether she is comfortable or not with the person hired. However, my feeling is this, Bill Zarchikoff is professional and can act professionally when he looks into this matter. I don't feel he has any ties to the department. Although he has been hired in the past, it is because of his professionalism and his knowledge or background in social services and pieces of legislation especially pertaining to children. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think sometimes, although it is great to hire north, in order to get independence, you need to go outside the community and outside the milieu to get objectivity. The bottom line here is, as I see it, the department has devised the terms of reference. The department has appointed an investigator with whom it has had a working relationship with in the past and it just doesn't look like an independent review to me. It looks more like an internal investigation, albeit not by a departmental staff person.

I want to say as well that I'm completely puzzled by the Minister raising the matters of confidence and confidentiality in response to my question. I think I've been asking questions of principle about the process. I have no interest whatsoever in raising matters about the details of what went on in the home or any of the identities of the children involved. Forgive me for saying I thought they were adolescents. I don't think that's a great breach of confidence, if I did mention that.

What I was referring to when I used the word confidence, Mr. Chairman, and maybe the Minister didn't quite understand me, was I wanted to know if the contractor has confidence in the investigator. I don't expect the contractor would have the courage to go and discuss this issue with the Minister, with it being under investigation. I'm not surprised the contractor hasn't approached the Minister.

Perhaps her deputy and officials can indicate whether or not the contractor has been approached or has indicated a willingness to cooperate with this investigator and this investigation. My information is that the answer is no. So, it isn't going to work. I would respectfully suggest that, if that's the case and if there's a true desire to hear both sides of the equation, then the department should go back to the drawing board, find someone in whom both parties have confidence and get on with it, in a way that's going to have a credible result and in a way in which the participants are going to participate and buy into. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could take the Member's suggestion and go outside of the territories to look for a person who is independent but I would like to go on the record that in my Minister's statement I stated that the report would be made available to me by April 25 and it would probably take longer than that now.