Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Moses.

Alternatives to Apprehension

The committee commends the Minister for including a new provision requiring an application for an apprehension order to be accompanied by a sworn statement listing the alternatives to apprehension that were considered. The provision is meant to curb the frequency of apprehensions and to ensure that child protection workers have availed themselves of the least intrusive measures. All too often in the Northwest Territories, families lose their children instead of getting help.

The committee approached the department about an additional provision which would clearly identify the measures taken to facilitate kinship care, including any provision of financial support, and why those measures proved insufficient to prevent an apprehension. The Minister concurred with this motion at the clause-by-clause review.

In addition, responding to a query from a front-line worker, the committee confirmed that any statement listing alternatives to apprehension would be supplied by affidavit and that the rules of evidence would apply.

Kinship Care

During the committee’s public hearings, residents stated repeatedly their desire for a “family first” approach that will give extended family members, especially grandparents, the right of first refusal whenever a child is in need of protection or care. A companion request was for extended family members to receive financial compensation when they care for children on an informal or temporary basis. According to one wearied grandmother who has fostered several grandchildren, “I’m tired and I’m angry. This government is actually going backward. When are things going to change for the better?”

In a similar vein, community residents strongly and repeatedly expressed their desire to see more children remaining in their families and communities of origin and within their cultures. To this end, the committee noted Section 2(f) of the act, which states that child protection measures must promote family and community integrity wherever possible, and Section 3(c) of the act, which states that determining the best interests of the child must include consideration of the child’s cultural, linguistic and spiritual upbringing and ties.

In an attempt to address residents’ concerns within the scope of Bill 47, the committee sought an amendment to the provision that requires an application for an apprehension order to include a statement of alternatives that were considered. The amendment will require that the statement also include a list of any financial supports provided to extended family members to help maintain the child. It is the committee’s hope that this provision will, in appropriate cases, result in the courts rejecting the application and ordering financial support be provided to family members who are willing to care for the child. Recognizing that this amendment does not mandate the provision of financial support for kinship care, the committee noted that these statements will have extra weight because they must be supplied by affidavit.

The committee feels it cannot overstate the degree of concern over perceived deficiencies of the current arrangements, especially when grandparents step in to care for grandchildren and find themselves drained of their personal and financial reserves. Indeed, the discussion surrounding kinship care led Members to conclude that the Child and Family Services Act should be completely revised in the 18th Assembly. Specifically, Members want to see comprehensive new provisions to address kinship care and family-preservation strategies. Potential amendments could include revisions to the preamble so that kinship care is given a prominent place throughout the act. Another example would be a new provision authorizing the court to place a child with a member of the extended family as an alternative to temporary custody.

Youth Services

The committee recalled one of its core findings in 2010: that young people aged 16 to 19 are disadvantaged in our system, to the point where their human rights are compromised. The gap in services for this age group was first raised in 1977 and remains to this day. The changes proposed in Bill 47 allow the director of child and family services to offer the same services to youth as are offered to children, and to extend the director’s parental responsibility for permanent wards to the age of 23.

Like many stakeholders, the committee was pleased to see new provisions for youth services. However, the committee notes, the provisions are largely discretionary. Members are therefore unconvinced that the department will actually follow through on the provision of these services. As a case in point, a number of discretionary provisions to provide youth services already exist in the act and yet these services have largely been denied to young people as they age out of the system.

The committee noted that youth who have been through the child protection system are at a much higher risk of becoming homeless, developing addictions and mental health issues, becoming involved in crime and committing suicide. Accordingly, Members would like to see a much broader range of services offered to these youth. Multi-departmental teams should be set up to support these high-risk youth, and the teams should be comprised of experts in areas such as psychiatry and mental health, literacy and career counselling, nutrition and crime prevention.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the reading of the report to my colleague Mr. Yakeleya. Thank you.