Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to talk about the response of the Standing Committee on Social Programs report of the review of child and family services that was recently tabled by the Minister of Health and Social Services.
I’m happy that the report was tabled earlier than suspected. I was a little surprised, but I’m happy that it’s here because it gives an opportunity to talk about it early in this session, especially when the health budget is before us.
I have mixed feelings on the response, Mr. Speaker. There’s a lot of good stuff in the response, a lot of positive direction that the department is taking, and the department has accepted 22 of our recommendations full on. They’ve also accepted 13 recommendations in principle and 28 recommendations conditionally, which is good. I’m a little disappointed at the 10 that were, in fact, rejected.
One area of concern that I have is when it comes to the accepted in principle and accepted conditionally recommendations. I’ve read through all of them several times now and there’s some wording in there that concerns me. Often the department will respond, especially when we’re talking about legislation mostly in the areas where they’ve accepted in principle, that what we are asking is already implicit in the act. If it was implicit in the act -- and we’ve all read the act -- we wouldn’t have had to make the recommendation. What we’re looking for is for certain items to be explicit in the act so that it’s hard and fast. I’ll be asking some questions to the Minister about that later.
Often, especially in the conditionally accepted areas, you’ll see where the Minister or the department, or the government I guess in this case, indicates that they agree with the intent of what our recommendations were, but when you actually get into the information and action column, it explains why they can’t or won’t do anything on those particular recommendations; not all of them, some of them. They often indicate within the conditionally accepted area that what we are asking already exists in policy. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn’t have been asking for the recommendation if we had seen it in action. So it may be in the policy but let’s see some of these things on the floor.
This afternoon during question period I will be asking the Minister some questions on this and seeking a commitment to work with committee as we move forward. The department is planning to do a strategic plan around this area and I think it’s important that we, the Social Programs, sit with the Minister and her department to work out some of our differences in those areas to reach common ground on each of those recommendations in moving forward. That’s what I’ll be talking to the Minister about later today. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I today, too, want to comment on the government’s response to the Child and Family Services Act review report. On first reading of those responses, I was disappointed. Although the majority of recommendations are accepted, they are not accepted unconditionally. To paraphrase Mr. Bromley, those responses indicate, yup, we agree, but can’t do anything because there is no money; and yup, we agree, but there is no change required.
The government’s response was determined by examining each recommendation in light of two criteria. One, will it improve service delivery and make a difference to children, family and youth? Two, will it strengthen community and stakeholder confidence in the system? After using these criteria, several extremely important concepts reflected in the Child and Family Services Act review report’s recommendations have been ignored by the government or they have chosen not to act on them.
Firstly, the principle of prevention and early intervention is basic and crucial to improving child and family services in the NWT. Yet the government’s response to that recommendation is do not accept. I am unable to understand how this principle fails the test of the criteria I already mentioned.
Secondly, the concept of having child and family service committees in our communities is also basic and crucial to improving the implementation of the Child and Family Services Act, but a recommendation to actively pursue establishment of these committees is accepted only if and when money is available. The department did not indicate any willingness to begin work on establishing these community committees in the 2011-12 fiscal year. What value accrues to our child welfare system if we wait 15 months until the start of the 2012-13 year? I say none.
Lastly, most of the committee’s recommendations to make amendments to the act are rejected by the government. Committee suggested the amendments because we felt certain aspects of the child and family services system needed to be mandated, not just implied or allowed. The changes to the system are important enough that the act must require them, not just say they can be done.
Mr. Speaker, I’ve got many other specific concerns with the government response but not the time to speak to them. The CFSA review report was a good one and the recommendations properly implemented can have significant impact on the NWT child and family services system. I hope the government will reconsider its approach to our recommendations and implement some of them in the upcoming budget year, not leave them all for the next Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
