Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services and relate to the response that the Minister released on Monday on the Standing Committee on Social Programs Report on the Child and Family Services Act.
The recommendations within the report needed to be considered in the context of the entire report. There was a lot of information in the report that helped us form the recommendations we had.
Unfortunately, when I’m reading through the responses and the information and action items, I don’t always get the sense or feel that the context of the report was considered. It seems to be more specific responses to the recommendations out of context in some cases.
Having said that, the responses and the information and information action items seem pretty vague to me. There’s not a lot of information there. I’m assuming that there must be some greater level of analysis. I was wondering if that analysis exists for each of the recommendations, and if it does, can the Minister share it with us so we have a better understanding of how they came to their conclusions and the recommendations they came up with.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government’s response lays out our response where we say that we have accepted 22 recommendations and on the whole we’ve accepted 61 out of 73 recommendations. In reading those recommendations, we have explained what our responses are. We have made the effort to include as much information as possible. I understand and I am encouraged by the Member’s statement earlier and other Members saying that we have a good start. They like some of the things that we have said. They are happy with the fact that we have accepted so many of those recommendations. I understand that they would like to work on some more of them. I’d be willing to sit down with the committee and go over some of the details if the Members or committee would like to do that.
I would have thought given that these responses and the information and action items, if you actually read through them, they do seem vague. They’re not always clear. I’ll just give you a real quick example.
We asked the government to mandate prevention and early intervention and include a presumption of prevention and early intervention in the principles of the act. They responded by saying the presumption of prevention and early intervention is implicit. This is what I talked about in my Member’s statement. We read the act. We’ve identified the sections that they’ve identified in their response. We also felt it was implicit. But it’s not being done in the communities. It’s not happening on the ground. What we’re looking for is explicit action. If we make it explicit in the act, then it will happen.
Going to the Minister’s agreement or commitment to meet with us, I understand that they’re also developing a strategic plan. It’s identified in this. My question to the Minister is: will she commit to meeting with us and sitting down with us and going through each of the recommendations and the suggested responses to find some common ground so that both sides understand what is going on here? We know what we expected. We don’t fully understand the recommendations, but I’m not sure they fully understood our recommendations. I’d like to sit down with the Minister and have a meeting going through point by point. Will the Minister commit to doing that prior to developing a strategic plan?
I’ve already agreed to do that on many occasions and I’d be happy to meet with Members and the committee. The example that the Member presented here is a good example. I want to state that the department and government took every recommendation very, very seriously. We approached it in a very positive way. Our responses are about how do we make this happen. The Member raised a question about the way the law is right is it’s implicit. We would like to make it explicit. The example he gave is under section 7 of the act. It already states very explicitly that child protection has to, it must, it shall consider cultural implications. It must. It’s as explicit as we can get.
I think there’s a philosophical debate about how much force and power do you put into legislation. Our government’s position is we understand what the committee is saying. We agree with what you’re saying. We were there when the committee met with the people. We’re suggesting different ways in which we can do that. Legislating and making it explicit in legislation is only one way. But you know, laws can only go so far. I think what they’re asking us to do is do things differently. Our suggestion is that we can do that.
I’m encouraged by what the Member said. We have a common ground. We want to work together. We should look at the report as water being half full rather than being half empty. I think there’s a lot of ground for us to move on. I think we may have a difference of opinion about whether we should do it by mandated legislation or by policy change or attitude change, but I am definitely willing and prepared to work with the committee and Members.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For just a point of clarity, this question, this example that I gave was about prevention and promotion. The response that she gave me when she quoted section 7, if you actually look at their response, their response only refers to sections 2, 5 and 6 and there’s no reference to section 7. I think she’s talking about a completely different area than I am.
The other thing I want to point out with respect to that example is after they say it’s implicit in the act, they also go further to say basically no amendment is required so no action is required. So they’re not planning on actually doing anything. This is the problem. Implicit is fine if it’s being acted on. Unfortunately, a lot of these things are not being acted on which is why it needs to be explicit.
Going back to the other part about the commitment to meet with us, great, fantastic, thanks. We hope, and I was wondering if I could get the Minister to commit to having the strategic plan done before the life of this government comes to an end.
The section 7 I believe is the interpretation clause which helps us within the legislation to interpret the other clauses. Anyway, we could have this discussion.
The other example that the Member mentioned, it is true. I just want to make sure that I put it on record and that I just want to express to the Members again, which is what we spoke about yesterday, yes, I would like to work with the committee. I am committed to work with the committee. We need to find a common ground. We have to work it on the basis of mutual respect and understanding. I need the committee to know that we are approaching this in a very proactive, positive way.
When the committee suggests that a legislation should be amended to get to the result that they would like, I need the committee to entertain possible options of other options as well. Amendment and legislation and law making is just one option. It’s a very blunt tool and there are other things that we should be able to consider. I just wanted to confirm again.
The strategic plan, yes, we hope to get that done within the life of this Assembly and we will work with the committee to get that done.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just for the record, I believe the committee does have an open mind but we do want to see action. A lot of it is back-and-forth debate on points. It’s not really adding much value and it’s not really helping the people of the Northwest Territories, from my point of view and from her point of view. No question.
May I remind Member’s this is not time for...
---Interjection
The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
