Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Social Programs held public hearings on Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, on Wednesday, August 28, 2002, and also on Thursday, October 10, 2002. This bill proposes to substantially amend the Child and Family Services Act by:
Addressing the gap in services that exists for 16 to 18 year olds;
Clarifying and expanding the grounds on which a child may be considered to be in need or protection;
Clarifying the duty to report and requiring that all reports are investigated;
Restricting membership on plan of care committee for persons charged with or convicted of offences against the child, or another member of the plan of care committee;
Providing that the applicable aboriginal organization be informed of and be allowed to make representations on a plan of care for a member child;
Clarifying the release of information under the act as it relates to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
Providing for the appointment of deputy directors and also, Mr. Chairman, making other minor amendments.
Members heard from a wide range of stakeholders involved in the delivery of programs to children and families, and would like to thank all presenters for taking time to let their views be known to the committee.
The majority of presenters' concerns related to clarifying and expanding the grounds on which a child may be in need of protection. Committee members shared many of these same concerns and proposed three amendments to the government. Presenters and committee members were concerned with the bill's proposal to replace the phrase "substantial risk" with "is likely to." Committee members believed that the phrase "is likely to" was not objective enough, and that the phrase "substantial risk" was sufficient to meet the needs of child protection workers in determining whether the child is in need of apprehension. Presenters were nearly unanimous in expressing concern over the proposed use of the term "is likely to." Many presenters believed that the child protection workers already have enough power and that the new term "is likely to" would shift the onus of proof from the child protection worker to the family. The committee discussed this issue with the Minister and his officials. The proposed use of "is likely to" is meant to provide clarity to the child protection workers. The department did not believe that the use of "is likely to" would result in increased apprehensions, or a change in how child protection workers carried out their duties.
Committee asked for the wording to be changed back to "substantial risk," Mr. Chairman. The department agreed with this request.
The amendments to the Child and Family Services Act also propose to add domestic violence as a ground for protection with the following clause: The child has been and continues to be exposed to domestic violence that has caused, or is likely to cause, physical or emotional harm to the child. While in no way condoning domestic violence, presenters were concerned that the adoption of this particular amendment could result in the apprehension of children for one isolated incident of domestic violence. Presenters also stated concern that the Child and Family Services Act had many provisions on breaking families up but no provisions for keeping families together.
Members of the standing committee examined the proposed wording relating to domestic violence. While agreeing that the wording did not provide for the apprehension of a child after exposure to a single incident of domestic violence, committee did agree that the wording could be made clear to the public and to the child protection worker. The committee examined the wording related to domestic violence in other Canadian jurisdictions and favoured language used in Nova Scotia's legislation. The Nova Scotia legislation also had provisions relating to the apprehension of children if the offending parent or guardian refuses or fails to obtain treatment or services respecting ongoing violence.
The committee is aware that there are a limited number of available programs specifically related to domestic violence, and that most are offered through the corrections services. However, members see the majority of domestic violence cases having root causes that can be treated through programs that are available in the communities or in the regional centres. Treatment and counselling for addictions and residential school abuse is available.
The committee was of the view that including this ground of finding children in need of protection, the government is obliged to ensure that services and treatment are available to assist families. The Standing Committee on Social Programs proposed the department changed the amendment relating to domestic violence to reflect the wording contained in Nova Scotia's legislation. The government agreed with this approach and the amendment will now state, Mr. Chairman:
"The child has suffered physical and emotional harm caused by being exposed to repeated domestic violence by or towards a parent of the child, and the child's parent fails or refuses to obtain services, treatment or healing processes to prevent the harm. The child has been exposed to repeated domestic violence by or towards a parent of the child and there is a substantial risk that the exposure will result in physical and emotional harm to the child and the child's parent fails or refuses to obtain services, treatment or healing processes to prevent the harm."
Mr. Chairman, the third amendment the committee proposed to the government is related to the proposed amendment dealing with children who have been abandoned or who parent or parents have died, or if the child's parents are unwilling or unable to provide care. These children will be apprehended if the child's parents have not made adequate provisions for the child.
This amendment is essentially worded the same as the existing legislation, with the exception of the removal of the words "or the child's extended family" before "have not made adequate provision for the child." The Minister and his officials stated that first priority of the child protection worker involved in a case like this is to involve the extended family, and that this was understood to occur automatically and did not need to be in legislation. The committee did not agree with this and asked for the child's extended family to be reinstated in the legislation. The committee is pleased that the government agreed with this request.
Members of the standing committee noted that the involvement of the extended family is only mentioned in cases where a child is abandoned, has had parents die or whose parents are unwilling or unable to care for them. Even though it is beyond the scope of this bill, Mr. Chairman, the standing committee believes in all cases where a child is apprehended, regardless of the reason, the first priority of the child protection worker should be to place the child within a safe environment, provided by a member of their extended family. The committee recommends that the next amendments to the Child and Family Services Act accomplish this.
The standing committee would also like to comment on three other issues that are beyond the scope of these amendments that we would like to see addressed in the next amendments to the child and family services act.
The standing committee, along with other stakeholders making presentations, expressed grave concerns with the government's initial proposed amendments to expand the timelines on issues such as presenting child apprehension orders to the courts for approval.
Using this one example, the government had proposed to increase the timeline from 45 to 50 days before a child protection worker must have an apprehension order reviewed or upheld by the court.
This was not acceptable to committee members. It should be pointed out that regardless of court travel schedules, opportunity exists using modern technology to review the decisions of a child protection worker in a timely fashion.
The committee reviewed practices in other jurisdictions and found that the Canadian trend was actually moving in the other direction in reducing the timelines before a child protection worker had to present his or her apprehension orders to the courts for validation.
The oft-stated adage that "justice delayed is justice denied" certainly applies in this case. The committee expressed this concern to the Minister and stated that if anything, the timelines should be reduced rather than expanded.
The Minister acknowledged that the department had erred in proposing the expansion of timelines and that there were additional concerns relating to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs, with the understanding that the Minister would be bringing forward amendments in the February Session setting realistic timelines, moved during the committee clause by clause review that clauses 13 and 14 be deleted from the amendments contained in Bill 22.
Section 69 of the present act provides immunity for a social worker or director who is carrying out provisions of the act in good faith. However, some members of the committee were concerned that this immunity also extended to workers who knew or ought reasonably to have known that his or her actions were improper. The members would like to have the consequences of improper actions on the part of workers clearly spelled out in legislation.
Committee members, while agreeing with the intent behind the legislation's "must investigate" any report of child abuse, are concerned there are no consequences for persons who make false reports of a suspected grounds for apprehension.
The most serious thing you can do to a family is to threaten to take their children away from them. To maliciously cause an investigation to occur should be a serious offence and addressed in the act.
The members recommend that this be addressed in the next amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs has completed its review of Bill 22, an Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, and commends it to committee of the whole for discussion.
Individual members of the committee may have questions or comments for the Minister as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.