Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Child and Family Services Committees
The committee’s 2010 report included a core recommendation to set up and fund child and family services committees in every community, as set out in the act. Only one community, Fort McPherson, has ever had a child and family services committee, although provisions were first made for them in the act nearly twenty years ago. The lone Fort McPherson experiment was fragile and short-lived.
During the public review, the Minister clarified that these expanded roles in communities would be performed on a voluntary and unpaid basis. Members were uniformly displeased to hear this and their dismay was shared by scores of private residents. The committee concludes that the unpaid and voluntary status of child and family services committees would be an impediment to laypeople’s involvement and would not make the committees more viable.
In the midst of the review, the committee wrote to the Minister and asked if serious consideration had been given to allocating meaningful resources toward this important community-based work. Regrettably, no reply was received. Concluding that the proposed provision to expand roles is empty of substance, the committee prepared a motion to eliminate it. The motion received the concurrence of the Minister.
The committee wishes to note that the motion to eliminate an expansion of duties for child and family services committees was initially a gesture of protest. Upon further deliberation, however, Members concluded that the model has never proven to be viable. The committee is therefore urging the department to introduce a separate bill to remove all provisions pertaining to child and family services committees in the act and, further, urging the department to investigate viable alternatives for involving community members in the child protection process. The committee notes, for example, that New Zealand and a number of Canadian jurisdictions have had success in their use of family group conferences.
Notifying Aboriginal Organizations
Bill 47 includes a new provision which requires Aboriginal organizations to be notified in advance of an apprehension hearing or youth protection hearing. While the Information and Privacy Commissioner expressed concerns about the privacy implications of this provision and called for tighter restrictions, the committee did not agree, noting that companion provisions already exist in the act.
A number of representatives from Aboriginal organizations expressed confusion over the purpose of the notification provisions and, specifically, what they are expected to do with the information once it is received.
The committee therefore urges the department to establish a protocol with Aboriginal organizations for handling sensitive information. The goal should be to strike a balance between the rights of Aboriginal governments to know what is happening to their children, on the one hand, and the privacy rights of children and family members, on the other hand.
Right to Legal Counsel
The committee commends the Minister for the new provision requiring the director of child and family services to inform clients of their right to legal counsel. However, the committee wanted to see stronger obligations. The Minister agreed to a motion to amend which places a positive obligation on the director of child and family services to facilitate clients’ access to legal counsel and, where appropriate, the services of an interpreter. In the committee’s view, this additional provision merely codifies what should already be happening in practice.
Mr. Speaker, I will now turn the report over to Mrs. Groenewegen.