Debates of May 16, 2007 (day 8)

Clause 27.

Agreed.

Clause 28.

Agreed.

Clause 29.

Agreed.

Page 9, clause 30. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the annual report, I’m just wondering, will that come out as a supplement to the Power Corporation’s annual report or will it be separate and distinct from the Power Corporation’s annual report?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. There will be two acts tabled, one dealing with the Hydro Corporation Act and one dealing with the Northwest Territories Power Corporation Act. So there will be two separate filings at the same time.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Clause 30.

Agreed.

Clause 31.

Agreed.

Page 10, clause 32

Agreed.

Clause 33.

Agreed.

Clause 34.

Agreed.

Page 11, clause 35.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 36 of Bill 4 consequentially amending the Public Utilities Act by adding proposed section 2.1 be amended by deleting proposed section 2.1(2) and substituting the following exception:

This act shall not apply to the supply and sale of energy generated by the Twin Gorges hydroelectric generating facility on the Taltson River and any expansion of, addition to, or replacing of that facility and distributed to customers over transmission lines that have not been constructed on the day this section comes into force unless those lines connect with and branch off transmission lines that had been constructed before that day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 36, as amended.

Agreed.

Clause 37.

Agreed.

Bill as a whole.

Agreed.

As amended.

Agreed.

Does committee agree that Bill 4 is ready for third reading as amended?

Agreed.

Bill 4 is now ready for third reading as amended. Thank you, committee. That concludes Bill 4. I’d like to thank the Minister responsible, and the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort the Minister and witnesses out please? Thank you.

Alright, the Minister responsible is Mr. Roland. Okay, Members, we’re onto now Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act. I would like to ask Minister Roland if he would please introduce the bill. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to introduce Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act. The current act allows the Department of Health and Social Services to apprehend children under the age of 16 in specific circumstances where the safety of a child may be jeopardized, including the denial of proper medical attention. The proposed amendments to the act are required to meet constitutional obligations ensuring the rights of parents are protected and consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments will ensure parents receive a fair and prompt hearing.

After the apprehension of a child, it is proposed that notice of a child apprehension be filed with the court within four days and an apprehension hearing be held within nine days of filing. The court may either make an order confirming the apprehension or dismiss the application. In medical emergencies, the process can be expedited to ensure timely treatment of a child.

Bill 5 also recommends a statement in the preamble of the act about the important role the extended family can play in a child’s life. The proposed amendments support the current system of a plan of care agreements used in the NWT in child apprehension situations. This system provides an alternative method of dealing with child protection concerns outside a court setting and promotes community and family involvement in child protection decisions.

That concludes my opening remarks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. At this time, I would like to ask Ms. Lee if she would please provide the committee's report on the review of Bill 5. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee held public hearings on Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, in Yellowknife on April 20th and on May 14th; in Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik on April 23rd; in Ulukhaktok on April 24th; in Colville Lake on April 25th; and in Behchoko on April 26th, 2007. The committee would like to thank the Minister and all of the presenters for appearing before committee. The proposed amendments will provide for a prompt court hearing after the apprehension of a child, that is consistent with the rights of parents under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the simplest terms, the amendment to the act requires that a hearing be held within nine days of a child being apprehended. As the act is now, the department has up to 45 days to hold a hearing. As the committee understands it, the requirement or the amendment falls out of recent court cases in southern Canada where it was ruled that the hearing process in child protection matters was not timely enough to satisfy Charter requirements related to the rights of parents.

In Yellowknife, the committee heard from Mr. Brad Enge, a lawyer in private practice, who stated that Bill 5 was a good amendment, as currently there is no way for parents to contest the actions of a child protection worker prior to a full court hearing, which can take up to 45 days to occur.

Mr. Enge also had concerns, which are shared by the committee, on the strains that these required amendments to the Child and Family Services Act will have on the justice system in the Northwest Territories. It was pointed out that this will increase the workload of the Territorial Court, and Mr. Enge wondered if the NWT has enough Territorial Court judges and if we should not hire considering another judge to deal solely with child and family law matters.

Mr. Enge also raised the issue of the ability of the legal aid system to absorb the workload that will result from the implementation of the amendments. He stated that that the system is hard pressed to respond to the current workload, that parents who wish to consult with their lawyer prior to initial hearing on the apprehension of their child may not get that opportunity. Mr. Enge also made the committee aware of a number of other concerns he has with the Child and Family Services Act that are outside the ambit of this bill.

In Tuktoyaktuk, we heard from Mr. Saeed Shesheghar, a social worker who understood the intent of the amendments but was worried about the practicality of the hearing process and the ability of the Territorial Court to hold the required child protection and apprehension hearings in the communities within the timelines proposed in the bill.

In Inuvik, we heard from Ms. Alana Mero, who has worked as a child protection worker in another jurisdiction. Ms. Mero expressed concern over the use of justices of the peace and wanted assurances that justices of the peace will only be used at the first stage hearings and not for hearings on temporary or permanent custody.

The majority of other presenters that we heard from were generally pleased with the new hearing timelines and the opportunities that this provided parents to contest the apprehension of their children.

During the clause by clause, Members heard from the Minister that he was working with the Minister of Justice on the implementation plans in order to roll out for January 1, 2008. It should be noted that, like Mr. Enge, the majority of presenters that spoke to this bill raised concerns with the application of the Child and Family Services Act that were outside the purpose of the proposed amendments.

Committee heard about the lack of interpretation services for parents who have had their children apprehended; the fact that non-custodial parents are often not considered as a suitable placement option where the child has been apprehended; concerns with how the present two-year temporary custody term imposes an arbitrary deadline that may set some parents up for failure; that there are no consequences of people who make malicious accusations under this act; that there is a requirement for the Department of Health and Social Services and its authorities to do a better job in developing and supporting child and family service committees in all communities in the Northwest Territories; that the extended family is now always acknowledged and utilized in providing care for a child who has been apprehended; that there is a need to ensure that aboriginal children stay in their home communities whenever possible, close to their language and culture; and, finally, the department and the authorities need to do better in recruiting, encouraging and training people to be foster parents in all communities.

To deal with these concerns and recognizing that they are outside the privy of the proposed amendments, the committee has prepared a report on matters relating to the Child and Family Services Act. This report will be read into the record on Thursday, May 17th, 2007, and a number of recommendations will be debated in Committee of the Whole at the appropriate time.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 5 to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole.

Madam Chair, this concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 5. Individual committee members may have questions and comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. At this time, I'll ask Minister Roland if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber. Mr. Roland.

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Is committee agreed?

Agreed.

Agreed, thank you. I'd then ask Mr. Thagard, our Sergeant-at-Arms, to please escort the witnesses to the table.

Mr. Roland, could you please introduce your witnesses for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With me at the table I have to my immediate right, Mr. Chuck Parker, deputy minister, Department of Health and Social Services; further to my right is Mr. Dean Soenan, director of child and family services; and to my left is Patricia Gall, legislative counsel. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. I'll now turn to Members. Are there any general comments on this legislation? Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, something that's not mentioned in this report as I'm presenting this is the fact that we do recognize the important and difficult work that the child protection workers do, and we do, just in case there is any sense out there from hearing our report that we are only pointing out perhaps the problem areas, it's probably due to the fact that our committee hearing process, in our process we are just reporting what we heard in our public hearing process. But I do understand that there are children in our communities that find themselves in a position where they have to be apprehended in order to protect their interest and keep them safe, and we do appreciate and honour the work that child protection workers do. It is difficult work and we wish that a lot less of that would happen. But when they do happen, we need to have a system in place and we know that the child protection workers take care of that. So I just want to add that to the statement that I presented here.

As a Regular Member, I'd like to know if I could ask a question to the Minister about the role of justices of the peace. Once again, we know and we appreciate the work that justices of the peace do. They perform an important function in our judicial system, but their scope of work and practice is different than what the judges do. The witness we had in Inuvik spoke to us, and I think she had a valid point in saying that she would have a problem with a justice of the peace doing a court hearing on child apprehension matters, but that it would be okay for them to get involved in the initial stage. So could I ask the Minister to clarify that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.