The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee has another motion that is extraneous to the clause by clause. It did not really fit specifically into any of the clauses, but we felt it was important. One of the things that we heard from a number of presenters on was the fact that there needs to be equal access for those who need to bring a complaint forward to the commission. We did allow for, in this legislation, allow for the commission to appoint an independent advocate where they see fit. Initially, our committee felt that would be adequate and we did not contemplate this process hopefully being an overly legalistic process, but I guess we can never have any assurances of that, Mr. Chairman. In other jurisdictions, it does seem that when you go to the adjudication panel, it is legalistic and most people do expect that they will have legal representation with them and in fact seem to need that, Mr. Chairman.

Our concern was that not everybody can afford counsel, not everybody can afford legal representation, and we thought that it would be a good idea for our government to look at our legal aid system to see if the current legal aid band-aid could be expanded to allow for human rights complaints. Currently, it does not contemplate that, Mr. Chairman. I guess obviously because we do not have a Human Rights Act. We felt that this was something that the government needed to explore to ensure that everybody had access to this process, regardless of your income level.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman,

I MOVE that this committee recommends that the government consider the possibility of amending the Legal Services Act to allow for the funding of human rights complaints for parties who qualify under the legal aid plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The department took a look at this issue during consultations on the bill. We are quite strongly of the view that this would not work. The legal services program primarily assists people charged with criminal offences and people with pressing family issues. These are matters that address pressing social needs and they relate to matters heard in court.

The human rights program under the bill sets up a scheme to help complainants through a complaints process. A significant amount of resource will likely be allocated to this program, and we are reluctant to support an additional load on legal aid resources for a particular kind of matter that will already be resourced in another way.

This could also confuse the mandate of the legal services board and could affect our federal funding arrangement.

To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up on Mr. Braden and Mr. Bell's comments, again we heard during the public consultations, a number of people asked us to consider an amendment to clause 5 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of a criminal conviction that was unrelated to the employment, service, or accommodation, or that we alternatively consider deleting the current reference to criminal convictions for which a pardon has been granted.

Mr. Chairman, the committee agreed that many of our residents may have criminal convictions for which a pardon has not been granted. However, we were concerned about the implications of expanding this protection to include criminal convictions "not relevant to the job or service." We spent a lot of time discussing this, but were unable to come to a consensus on the information that we had received.

Mr. Chairman, what we were hoping to do is to ask the Department of Justice to study the implications of expanding what is currently found in Bill 1 to protect people with criminal convictions, and come back to us with a discussion paper outlining whether or not Justice finds it necessary to amend this legislation to allow for some of those...to allow for the amendment that was requested by people making presentations to committee. Therefore, Mr. Chairman,

I MOVE that this committee recommends that the Department of Justice study the implications of expanding the current protections with respect to criminal convictions and submit a discussion paper to the Legislative Assembly outlining whether or not it is necessary to amend the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Does the committee agree that Committee Report 10-14(5) is concluded?

That concludes our review of Bill 1, Human Rights Act. I would like to thank the Minister and his witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses out?

-- Applause

We did agree to deal with Bill 22 as the next item. At this time, we will take a short break and then come back to Bill 22.

-- Break

I will call the committee back to order. Prior to a short adjournment, we agreed to move on to Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act. At this time, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for introducing the bill if he has opening comments. Mr. Miltenberger.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with the Members of the committee about Bill 22, which proposes changes to the Child and Family Services Act.

The Child and Family Services Act was passed in 1998 to replace the old and seriously outdated Child Welfare Act. As with any piece of legislation, there is always a need to assess issues that arise from implementation. These amendments address several issues that have been identified in the four years since the Child and Family Services Act came into force. They reflect the paramount objective of the act, which is to promote the best interests of the child.

The need for these amendments was identified by department and authority staff, front line workers and individuals or organizations involved in the provision of services to children in care. In addition, the review of child welfare services conducted by the Child Welfare League of Canada supported the need for amendments. The amendments include provisions that:

Provide that voluntary support services agreements may be entered into with persons who are 16 to 18 and who reside with their parents;

Provide that a court order may be made with respect to a person who is apprehended and who attains the age of 16 years before the protection concerns that led to the apprehension have been dealt with;

Expand the grounds on which a child may be considered to be in need of protection;

Clarify the duty to report that a child may be in need of protection and require that all reports be investigated;

Place some restrictions on who can be on a plan of care committee;

Provide for the service of certain court documents on the applicable aboriginal organizations where an application is being made for a declaration that an aboriginal child is in need of protection;

Provide that the applicable aboriginal organization may make representations respecting a plan of care for the child;

Enable a child protection worker and a person who has been granted access under the terms of a temporary or permanent custody order to apply to the court for a variation of the access provisions;

Clarify the provisions relating to confidentiality and disclosure; and

Provide for the appointment of deputy directors of child and family services.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for their consideration of the bill and, in particular, for their assistance in making some amendments to the bill.

I will be making an additional motion today to amend paragraph 1.2(1)(d) in clause 3 of the bill, proposing a wording which would describe the nature of the court order being referred to in that paragraph. A parallel motion was carried with respect to paragraph 1.2(1)(g) at the standing committee's clause-by-clause review of the bill.

I would now be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. At this time, I would like to ask the committee responsible for reviewing the bill if they would like to make any comments at this time. Mr. Bell.

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.

At this time, I would like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing any witnesses in. Mr. Miltenberger.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will.

Does the committee agree that the Minister may bring in his witnesses?

Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witness in? Mr. Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Dave Murray, the deputy minister of Health and Social Services; Rebecca Veinott, legislative counsel for the Department of Justice; and Virginia Reid, senior policy advisor on legislation for Health and Social Services.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. General comments regarding Bill 22? General comments? Clause by clause?

Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, clause 1.