June

7, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 33

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome the president of the provincial

Pensioners and Senior Citizens 50 Plus Federation of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Robert Rogers.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear the following members' statements: the

hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the

Member for the District of Terra Nova; the hon. the Member for the District of

Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise in this hon. House today

to congratulate the Grade 12 graduating class of Mary Simms All-Grade School in

Main Brook.

I had the honour this past weekend of attending the graduating ceremony of

Mary Simms All-Grade and was very pleased to watch as four wonderful young

ladies, Nikita Patey, Ravyn Elliott, Chealse Pilgrim and Kayla Wilcox, received

their graduation certificates - a special moment that will surely be etched in

their minds forever.

The theme for the evening celebration was: Do whatever it takes because you

can't rewind a moment in this life. Mr. Speaker, these students have indeed done

everything it takes to reach this milestone in their education. I want to

commend them for staying the course and achieving this wonderful goal.

Special congratulations are also extended to Ms Nikita Patey, valedictorian

for her graduating class, whose words touched all of those who were in

attendance.

These graduates are an important part of our future and I wish them much

success in whatever path they choose, whether it is furthering their education

or entering the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating the Grade 12 graduating class of Mary Simms All-Grade School in

Main Brook and wish them well in all their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable

individual from my district, Mr. Robert Rogers of Glovertown. On March 4 of this

year, Mr.Rogers became the Acting President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Pensioners and Senior Citizens 50 Plus Federation.

Mr. Rogers was born in St. John's on August 7, 1940 and married Lillian Lowe

of Shoal Harbour in 1965. He has spent much of his life giving back to the

community and providing an outpouring of public service.

Mr. Speaker, when I reviewed past community involvement by Mr. Rogers I was

simply overwhelmed. His involvement included, and is not limited to: Northeast

Youth and Recreation Committee, Boy Scouts, Parent Teacher Associations in

Gonzaga, Holy Heart, and Roman Catholic Schools, Knights of Columbus, Mary Queen

of Peace Name Society, St. Paul's Parish Pastoral Council, the Right to Life

Association, and the Alexander Bay Public Library Board.

In addition to his presidency of the provincial Pensioners and Senior

Citizens 50 Plus Federation, Mr. Rogers currently holds the title of Treasurer

at the Terra Nova Regional Goodwill and Alexander Bay Lions Club in Glovertown.

He is an executive member of the Sacred Heart Church Committee in Cull's Harbour

and Secretary of the Alexander Bay 50 Plus Association.

Glovertown recognized his community involvement and commitment when he was

named Citizen of the Year in 2002-2003. Mr. Speaker, people such as Mr. Rogers

are the glue that holds communities together. He is such a tremendous asset to

the people of his town and his Province.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking my good friend Robert

Rogers for all that he has done and all he continues to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Dale Cameron and Todd Warren

of Dildo. On February 21 of this year, Dale and Todd received the Tourism

Atlantic Technology Award from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for

their operation of the George House Heritage Bed and Breakfast.

George House is a historical landmark of the community of Dildo. This award

recognized Dale and Todd for their outstanding incorporation of technology and

new media into their business practices. This award was presented to them at the

Tourism Summit 2010, the annual convention and tradeshow for Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Dale Cameron and

Todd Warren, owners of the George House Heritage Bed and Breakfast in Dildo,

Newfoundland, as this year's recipient of the sixth annual Tourism Atlantic

Technology Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

Towns of Appleton and Glenwood for receiving a regional watershed award. The

award, announced by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in partnership with the

Federation of Canadian Municipalities, recognized Canadian municipalities that

have taken proactive measures to reduce their vulnerability to storm and

wastewater damage.

The awards were part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Sustainable

Community Awards, and were presented at the federation's annual conference and

municipal expo in Toronto on May 29. Regional awards were presented to five

regions the Towns of Appleton and Glenwood received the award for the Atlantic

Region.

Mr. Speaker, Appleton and Glenwood were recognized for their Abydoz sewer

treatment system a plant-based sewage treatment process which is shared

between the towns. The Abydoz system is an innovative, low-maintenance system

that does not use any mechanical systems. Treatment relies on the roots of

plants to do the work, and the system is a natural, environmentally sound

solution for sewage treatment. This community-based solution provides good

levels of treatment in a reliable, cost-effective manner. The project was a

cost-shared initiative between the provincial and federal governments, and the

participating towns.

This project was also recognized by the Association of Professional Engineers

and Geoscientists of Newfoundland and Labrador at their annual conference on May

Mr. Speaker, town officials should be commended for their efforts to work

together in support of this technology and their proactive measures to reduce

wastewater damage in their communities. I ask my hon. colleagues to join me in

congratulating the Towns of Appleton and Glenwood for their recognition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

Certainly, I want to add my congratulations and those of the Official Opposition

to the Towns of Appleton and Glenwood for their innovative sewerage treatment

centre that has resulted in this award and, indeed, a national recognition.

Sewerage treatment is not something most people spend a lot of time thinking

about but these systems are critical to the proper functioning of municipalities

and to the general health state of our environment. So, we really cannot talk

about our pristine coastlines and our tourism ads and then dump our sewage in

our waters off our shores and so on.

This will continue to be an important issue in the future as both the federal

government and the provincial prepare to impose new, stricter rules to

wastewater treatment.

Perhaps more communities in this Province can use a similar system as the

Towns of Appleton and Glenwood have done - a natural, organic system. As more

communities find themselves having to commit resources to wastewater treatment,

then I certainly would encourage the Province to lend a hand where possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I am delighted to

congratulate the Towns of Appleton and Glenwood because they have certainly

showed a tremendous amount of initiative in doing the research that led them to

the Abydoz sewer treatment system.

A few years ago at an annual general meeting of Municipalities Newfoundland

and Labrador, they had a workshop on this system, and I was really quite amazed

both by the ingenuity that involved as well as how low maintenance it is and how

economic it is as well. It certainly is a model that I think should be prompted

both by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as by the Minister of

Environment. There could be areas where towns may not have the money to do it,

but this system would really give us something that would be really a healthy

way of dealing with their waste. So, I encourage both of these ministries to

look at how what has happened in Appleton and Glenwood can not only be promoted

as a model but also see how it can be put in place where the communities

themselves may not be able to afford it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, usually when a piece of legislation comes before the House of

Assembly we reserve our questions for the debate and committee stages. However,

today, government will move forward with Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Care And

Protection Of Children And Youth, a topic that has been raised many times in

this House of Assembly and of vital importance to the people of the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will ask some questions regarding that bill during Question

Period today.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many stories over the past several years related

to tragedy involving children in our Province, the most public being the death

of Zachary Turner. I ask the minister today: How will the new legislation ensure

that we have greater protections for children like Zachary Turner in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult, I guess, in a couple of seconds or in a minute to try to

outline what safeguards and why we think this new legislation is progressive.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that we can speak about in this new legislation is

that we have expanded the criteria for protection intervention one, being the

risk of emotional harm.

The other thing that we brought in that I guess would be significant in the

Zachary Turner case and as well recommended in the Turner report that we

received in 2006 was to bring in criteria when we are doing a risk assessment

regarding propensity towards violence and be able to use in our risk assessment

whether or not a person killed or allegedly killed another person. So, in

essence, that type of information that we would now use when we screen in a case

through protective intervention would certainly be different from what we used

since 2000 and, I think, will give us a better idea of how to actually assess

risk in some of these cases.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We raised the issue of children being housed in local hotels and apartment

complexes under the supervision of people without the proper training to often

deal with their complex emotional and behavioural issues.

I ask the minister: Will this legislation ensure that caregivers have the

appropriate levels of training and supports to deal with these children's

issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is certainly an interesting question by the Leader of the Opposition,

but this legislation will not address that level of operational work that

happens in the field. The work that we will be doing as a department to focus on

residential options for children, which should include foster homes, therapeutic

foster homes, or residential services if there are specialized needs, will be

developed and we will do a continuum of care.

This legislation, in and of itself, will not dictate or prescribe the types

of residential options that we will need as a department. Because it is not

included in the legislation in no way belittles or demeans that type of work. It

is extremely important work that we need to do. There is certainly noted a lack

of foster homes in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something, as a new

department, that we need to address in the upcoming year so that we have

available to us the necessary options that we need when a child comes into the

care and custody of this particular department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Amanda Duggan was a babysitter who lost access to her own

children after allegations were made that she harmed a child who was in her

care. Charges were never laid and no evidence was provided that she was

responsible for harming a child, yet months went by without her being allowed

full access to her own children.

I ask the minister today: Under the new legislation, how will the process be

improved so that people like Amanda Duggan and her children are protected

against extended delays in resolving these types of matters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing that this particular bill does - and whether or not it pertains, I

guess, to any particular, or any individual's case in Newfoundland and Labrador,

and I prefer not to discuss any individual cases here in the House of Assembly.

What this bill will do will reduce the number of temporary custody orders that a

child would have to go through in the court in order for continuous custody or a

return to the family home actually happens.

So, at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, one thing that we noted in the

current legislation that we work under, a child or a youth could actually be in

the custody and go through a number of temporary court orders for temporary

custody for up to twenty-four months. This new legislation will roll that back

so that the longest period of time that a child will be going through these

temporary orders would be eighteen months.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly progress for the children in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we also asked questions about a house fire in

Labrador that the took the life of a boy who was under the protection of the

child welfare system in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where concerns were reported to

authorities before that tragic night but were not properly investigated.

I ask the minister: Are there any improvements related to the investigation

function that will ensure that complaints are followed up and fully reviewed

once they are brought forward by concerned citizens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what is important to note, whether we talk about

any case in Newfoundland and Labrador, is that when a complaint or a referral is

made to Child, Youth and Family Services in relation to the fact that a child

has been abused or is at risk of being abused or maltreated, that each and every

referral has to be followed up. That has nothing to do with the new legislation.

That is how the work is done and how it needs to be done in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

What is important to note, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many referrals that

come in but not necessarily all these children who are referred or who may have

suffered any type of abuse come in and actually go on a protection intervention

caseload or go into temporary care after the initial assessment and go into a

foster placement. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a whole range of options or things

that can happen once the referral is made but I want to stress that any referral

that comes into the department that makes any referrals or says there is any

potential abuse, that each and every referral has to be acted upon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: Under this particular legislation, once the

manager makes a decision is there a mechanism in place to allow for an appeal to

that decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there are I guess a number of options as a case

moves through probably from the time of a referral until potentially a

continuous custody order or an adoption, and there are many ranges of activities

that happen at any point in between. What can happen is that if things change or

there are significant changes at any point in the case, whether it is under a

temporary order or a continuous custody order prior to an adoption that the case

can be reopened and referred back and decisions can be changed or rescinded

based on the new information.

It is also noted that in this new act that it will be incumbent upon managers

that we have a process available that allows us to review the cases of all our

children who are in care or in custody or continuous custody of the department.

That is important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to be able to make sure that

once children become wards or go into continuous custody, that we do not forget

about those cases. We need to ensure that there is ongoing monitoring and review

to make sure that the permanency planning and the plan of care and how we treat

these children never falls through the cracks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that there is a mechanism here, or the process of a

continuous review by the department. Is that what she is referring to in terms

of the care plans that are being put in place for each of the individual

children? Is that the process you are referring to here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it gets into somewhat of the detail within

the department, how a social worker manages a case. A plan of care, which is

outlined in the new legislation, will be provided to the courts regarding each

child that comes under the protective intervention caseload. In addition to that

plan of care, there will also be a review to review those plans of care, plus

the ongoing case work that is going to be for children who are in temporary or

continuous custody of the department.

Mr. Speaker, what that particularly means is that we no longer will have

children who become wards in continuous custody, that their cases are closed,

they are no longer reviewed or monitored. It will be incumbent that we continue

to have an appropriate review process set up so that if there is any significant

developments or anything that needs to happen with that particular case, that,

as I said before, it does not fall through the cracks and that we are

continuously reviewing these cases, updating them, and making sure that we serve

the best interest of the child.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister did indicate that under the legislation there was a process

whereby a case can be reopen or rescinded, but I would just like to clarify: Is

there a process whereby once a manager makes a decision that there is an

automatic appeal mechanism open to these individuals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in this particular legislation or with regard to

any families that are involved with Child, Youth and Family Services, as we go

through temporary custody orders or through continuous custody, there is a court

process attached. Families have access to lawyers and go through the court

process, and a social worker within the department, or a manager, would present

a particular plan of care and a plan to the courts. It is then the court's

decision, basically, to decide what would be the most appropriate for a child in

any given circumstance. The family or the parents would have access to appeal

any decisions through the court process and through their lawyers, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems, previously, with the legislation was that once a child

went into care, the plan of care was completed the same as what is being

proposed today but not necessarily followed up on or updated or often adhered

to, because there was no provision in the act to carry through with the process.

Under

section 81 of the new act it requires that the minister undertake a

mandatory process to monitor these children.

I ask the minister: When will this be done and what will be put in place to

ensure that the necessary due diligence is completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important part of this new

act, because we can no longer have a situation where we have plans of care that

are being developed that are not being followed. We have outlined more

definitively within the new act that we will be debating today, the outline for

the plan of care. We will also be ensuring that we have a more appropriate

internal audit function within this department to help us assess cases and get

the appropriate feedback we need to either refine policies or develop new

policies.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process of how we are going to monitor and review

these cases is not yet defined. It will be defined in policy but it will be

incumbent upon us a department to ensure that that process is in place because

this whole new department is set up for one reason, and that is to make sure

that we serve the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and we keep the best

interests of the child at heart at all times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree with the minister, that this is one of the critical

components of the new legislation and I guess it is the reason why I fail to

understand why there is no process of monitoring outlined directly in the

legislation and why it is being left to the minister to undertake at a later

date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the whole process to ensure that we monitor and

review these cases needs to be developed, and it can be developed in policy as

we move forward. As we say that, there is also other functions and other review

functions that are happening within the department that we will need to do hand

in hand. One is making sure we have the policies developed that are reflective

of the legislation and it is also ensuring that as we move forward with the

audit unit which will be a very different component as to what we have right

now with our quality managers spread across the different regions. As we develop

that we will certainly be in a better way to make sure that we understand what

we are able to audit, review and analyze and what types of information we need

to effectively review the cases that we have of the children, whether in

temporary or continuous custody.

Mr. Speaker, until we start developing the policy and bring it together, we

will not be able to define the review process at this time. If down the road the

review process is written and it is in policy and if it needs to be amended into

legislation so that it is set up a certain way, we will certainly do that. Mr.

Speaker, as it stands right now, the legislation gives the minister and the

department the discretion to develop that policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: I guess the only concern that I have is because it is such a

critical component of the new legislation and the new act, is: Why, minister,

would the department not see it necessary to have this as part of the

legislation and have done this work previous to bringing the bill to the House

of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question, because it

certainly lies in the fact that right now we are developing this legislation, we

have it developed, and we are debating it, but there are other functions going

on as we build this new department and as we build the policies and the

processes that need to be followed for us to deliver the appropriate services in

the Province.

One of those processes, as I outlined, is certainly the way that we are going

to perform an audit or a quality control function within the department. At this

point in time, as we develop that unit and the policies attached to that, we

will be in a better position to further define how we will review the cases.

There is still significant work that needs to be done with this review

process. If it was completely written and defined today, I would have no problem

outlining it, explaining it, but there is a significant piece of work that still

needs to be done.

What is important, Mr. Speaker, is that this government recognizes that that

review function is absolutely necessary and it is not a paper function, it is

not something that is going to look good on paper, it is going to be something

that is real to this service delivery and something we can follow through on and

gives us the results we need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand from the minister's comments as well that there will be an audit

group within the department that will review case files on permanent and of

temporary placed children.

I ask the minister: Why wasn't this audit requirement placed in the

legislation as a means of continuous quality control?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, quality control and ensuring that we do a good job

is certainly paramount in any type of government service, and many departments

have what would be referred to as auditors or internal auditors to review the

work.

Mr. Speaker, we do have quality control managers as it exists right now in

the regional health authorities tied to Child, Youth and Family Services. I am

not convinced that we have the appropriate set-up to give us the best possible

results that we can get from these services. When we look back at the report

written by Susan Abell in 2009, the Clinical Services Review, when she did an

audit across Newfoundland and Labrador of approximately 400 files we had a far

better report sometimes than what we received from individual cases being

reviewed.

Once we set up our internal audit system and the people, and they work

together, we will certainly be able to use that group of workers then to help us

identify shortfalls whether it be in policy with individual workers, teams,

areas or, Mr. Speaker, be able to examine trends across Newfoundland and

Labrador to help us further refine our policies. I think we certainly need to

define that group, how they are going to work and, in turn, that will help us

determine our scope of work as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker,

section 80 of the new legislation requires that the minister

conduct a statutory review of this act every five years.

I ask the minister: How will this statutory review take place and will it be

through public consultation, an internal review process or some other method?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the intent of having the statutory review every

five years ensures that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services,

under this legislation, are able to review best practices across Canada and

within the Province, we are able to examine other legislation that has been

active, whether in Canada or in other countries, to make sure we are current.

Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate that any real statutory review of these

services would mean a review of the most current research and literature in this

field, it would examine other pieces of legislation and it would engage

stakeholders because, sometimes, we go back to the current legislation, some of

it looks wonderful on paper, but if it is not operational in the field it is

really not worth the paper it is written on. So, we would certainly have to

consult with stakeholders and there would be an internal review as well because,

sometimes, the people from within the system who have to work under the

legislation and the policies are able to give us some very valuable feedback.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the department has completed any assessment of

the number of social workers or other individuals that will be required in order

to carry out the new legislation that is being enacted today.

At the same time, I would ask the minister if the vacancies in social work in

the Province have been filled because we know that some positions are harder to

fill than others, and if government has a strategy to address that in light of

the fact that we are introducing some very new legislation here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, again, a very important question that was asked by

the Leader of the Opposition. As a parallel piece of work, as we have been

creating the new department, we have also had to look at a new organizational

chart because, right now, we have all of our workers in different organizational

charts in regional health authorities. We also had to develop an organizational

chart that reflects the line department of government. As we develop that

organizational chart, at the same time developing the legislation, we are

probably in a better position to determine the number of resources that we need

to be able to assign effective caseloads to the front-line staff as well as the

number of supervisors we need.

When we did the full scope of the new organization chart, in light of the new

legislation and based on our budget this year, we feel that we are probably

short about twenty-seven positions in the department and we were funded in this

year's Budget to be able to create those positions as we roll out the new

organizational chart and begin to implement the new legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would assume that new organizational chart will soon be available to the

public. I do not think it has been released yet, to my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also confirmed this morning that the legislation

would not be proclaimed for at least another year. I ask the minister: Why the

delay and what will be done in the meantime to address the gaps in the current

legislation and the child protection system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is a very exciting week for people who work

in the area of Child, Youth and Family Services to see this new legislation.

This took a long time to develop. We met with numerous stakeholders. We have

social workers, who helped us in focus groups, here today to be part of this

process and to see how it unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that when we enact this legislation, when

we proclaim it and we begin to work under this act, a number of processes have

to be in order. One is the policies need to be reviewed or developed or refined

that reflect the legislation. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, we also have to

update our training programs for social workers to ensure that they are trained

and they understand so when this legislation is proclaimed that people are ready

to work under it. This is not a race against time to make sure we get it in as

quick as we can, this is for us to ensure that we do our work, we do what is

necessary, and when it comes in, it not only serves the children of Newfoundland

and Labrador, but the people who have to work under this legislation day in and

day out are prepared with the appropriate policies and training to do just that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also stated that the Department of Child, Youth and Family

Services was still in the process of being fully established and transitioning

would still be taking place for a period of time.

I ask the minister: When will the department finally be established?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, anybody who understands organizational change

realizes that it takes quite a bit of time in order to do a full change of an

organization. We have spent the first year looking at staffing, organizational

chart, the logistics of doing a transition, developing the new legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I anticipate that later this month, or certainly in July, we will start

the transition of one of the regional health authorities into the new department

and throughout the fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, each and every regional health

authority should transition so that the employees become employees of the

department, as opposed to the regional health authorities.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the organizational chart has been developed. It

has not been released publically yet because we are still, certainly,

introducing it to the staff, and staff who may see some changes in their

positions. As we roll that out and the workers come into the new department that

should take us through this fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the federal government announced its $35 billion shipbuilding

strategy. One of the shipyards considered to be a contender for some of this

work is the Marystown Shipyard. Since 2006, Marystown has been lobbying the

provincial government for financial help to build a graving dock, which would

improve the town's chances of winning these contracts. They have met with three

successive business ministers, their two local MHAs, Cabinet apparently looked

at this as early as 2006, four years ago, and yet we do not have any commitment

on this issue.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to provide financial support to

build a graving dock at Marystown, and when can the people of Marystown expect a

definitive answer on this subject?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, we joined people from Newfoundland and Labrador with some delight

as we celebrate the federal government's announcement of an opportunity for

Marystown to be involved in a very competitive process that we believe they will

be successful in to secure some of the shipbuilding work that will be moving

forward in the next well, government's announcement I think is a thirty-year

plan.

We believe that Marystown is well positioned to be able to secure some of

that work. They have a history of doing some fine work. They have tremendous

potential. They have a great infrastructure in place. Yes, they have had some

discussions with our government around financial support that they may need if

they are successful in picking up that business and we have had some discussion

with them about what that might look like, the level of support that government

might be prepared to help them with.

Depending on what comes out of this process, this competitive process they

are engaged in now, they will need to more accurately define the kind of need

that they have and the kind of infrastructure improvements that they will need

to have to make sure they are able to carry out the work that they will be

successful in getting. We have indicated to them that we want to work with them

on that. We want to make sure that they are well positioned to get that work and

that the infrastructure should not be in a

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government persists in supporting deepwater exploratory

offshore drilling, in spite of evidence that we could not deal with a blow out

if one were to occur. Government instead is listening solely to industry rather

than other voices with relevant experience, such as other governments,

scientists and concerned citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government has declared a moratorium on exploratory

offshore drilling. The President of the United States has said that until he can

be satisfied that blow outs can be properly dealt with, it would be

irresponsible of him to lift that moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is his government bent on listening to

oil companies instead of listening to other voices of experience?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest over the weekend,

CNN, just to see the effects and the reaction from people in the Gulf. It indeed

is a very, very sad situation when you talk about the effects on the

environment, the effects on the fishery, the effects on the tourism industry,

but also interested in seeing the other side and some of the complaints now

coming from people who are no longer employed as a result of the oil industry.

So, there are two sides to the equation. With the moratorium, of course, the

oil industry gets shut down. So not only is there employment lost in the

fishery, in the tourism side, there is also employment lost on the industry side

as well as the essential revenues that do come to government in order to conduct

and implement the many social programs that this government has been very proud

of, poverty reduction, our health initiatives, our education initiatives.

If I may say, and if I may just have a moment. Over the course of last week

I was actually in Calgary last week and had the opportunity to have extensive

meetings with Husky and with Chevron. I spent a considerable amount of time,

together with Ed Martin, the CEO of Nalcor, cross-examining, for want of a

better term, Chevron on exactly what they were doing and what initial procedures

were taking place. I did satisfy myself at that time that not only was this

company exceptional on the safety side, that they were in fact implementing a

lot of safeguards even before the Gulf of Mexico happened. I also asked them to

elaborate for me on what additional measures have been put in place and actually

in the process of preparing a list and would only be too delighted to provide a

list of the safeguards that were in place, the additional safeguards that are

being put in place, as well as their

interpretation and their reaction to the

safeguards that have been put in place by the C-NLOPB in conjunction with the

Department of Natural Resources.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am satisfied, after some very, very serious

questioning, that a lot of extra things and precautions are being done in the

Atlantic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the fact that the Premier was in Calgary last week and seems

to have gotten additional information. I would be delighted to receive a list of

what he learned out there, especially if it adds to what we learned from C-NLOPB

last week and it sounds like there may be more. Mr. Speaker, all the oversight

in the world does not change the fact that technology to deal with an oil spill

in the Orphan Basin is limited and experimental and drill ships contracted in

the Gulf of Mexico in case of a blow out is an insufficient measure.

So I ask the Premier: Why wouldn't he take a leadership role with the C-NLOPB

in demanding at least the drilling of a relief well during the exploratory phase

to protect us in case of a blow out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, any government is in a very difficult

position in a situation like this because we do have to strike that delicate

balance between risk and reward, for want of a better term. This government has

been very, very vigilant and diligent in looking at what is being done, the

extensive list of procedures and training procedures, redundancy initiatives

that are being undergone by the Chevron group.

In addition, with regard to relief wells, I specifically asked if any rigs

had been identified from the Gulf of Mexico or from anywhere else, in order to

dig the necessary relief wells. I was told categorically that two rigs had been

identified, that they would be available for relief wells.

I think from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi's perspective, that if in

fact we demand at this point in time that additional rigs be put on site, the

cost will probably not double but they will increase dramatically and we will

probably end up terminating any further exploration in the Orphan Basin out of

deep water. I think the trade off for that, if we take the billions of dollars

that could be lost, would the loss in social benefits and social programs for

the Province and I think that is a risk that we are

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: I know he wants to be in my district, but he cannot.

I move, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave, a private member's motion

for Wednesday.

Private Member's Motion Interim Fishery Compensation & Support Program:

WHEREAS there is a crisis in the fishing industry of our Province; and

WHEREAS government's focused strategy to address these escalating problems

has been to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with only two key players in the

industry; and

WHEREAS it has been nearly a year with no significant and practical progress

on this MOU and there are concerns about its ultimate effectiveness; and

WHEREAS the process does not include a community voice or the federal

government; and

WHEREAS the Province failed to allocate any funding to launch strategies of

the MOU process; and

WHEREAS restructuring is occurring now, including fish plants closing and

license transfers occurring, affecting people's livelihoods and the economic

viability of rural communities;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the

provincial government to launch an interim program and action plan that would

assist fish plant workers and communities affected, which would include an early

retirement package, a workers adjustment program and a community investment

initiative to assist in this transitional process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Architects Act , 2008. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will call from the Order sheet, Order 7, second reading of a bill,

An Act

Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The

Care And Protection Of Children And Youth shall now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection

Of Children And Youth". (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General,

that Bill 1, The Children and Youth Care And Protection Act be now read a second

time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the new child protection

legislation which will serve to better safeguard our most vulnerable children

and youth and to provide a strong foundation on which to build a new child

protection system in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this will be a

system that is going to be based on a culture of accountability and excellence.

Mr. Speaker, as a social worker and being a member of government, I have the

honour and the privilege to have this unique opportunity to be the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services at a time when a new department is being put in

place, and this legislation will be the foundation document or legislation to

help us build that particular department.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly take the responsibilities and duties associated with

this work very seriously. Over the last year, we have done a significant

legislative review, we have looked at best practices in research, we have also

looked at the legislation across Canada and in other countries, and we did an

extensive consultation with the stakeholders to ensure that, as we come forward

with legislation, it is rooted in what we consider to be the most progressive

piece of legislation and best practice that we can offer the children of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the current Child, Youth and Family Services Act will be

replaced and named the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act to better

reflect the intent of the act and to distinguish it from the name of the

department, which is also responsible for other legislation. The Children and

Youth Care and Protection Act provides the authority to intervene when a child

is the victim or at risk of harm or neglect from a parent. Mr. Speaker, that is

extremely important that we understand that we are talking about neglect or

abuse or maltreatment inflicted, or the risk of that being inflicted on a child

by their parent.

The new legislation, which we are debating here today, focuses on keeping the

child in child protection. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the new child protection

legislation strengthens the principle of the best interests of the child. That

means we will ensure a child-centred approach that is also culturally responsive

and evidence-based.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of a child or

youth's family and other people significant to them in attaining the best

interests of the child. The previous act included the best interests of the

child principle, but it was part of a full list of other general principles. The

best interests of the child, therefore, were one of many considerations.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Turner review that we received as government

in 2006, and we look at the Clinical Services Review, completed by Susan Abell

in 2009, we were certainly tasked, at that time, to review this legislation and

to ensure that our legislation reflects the best interests of the child without

any other competing principles.

The new act clearly states that the overriding and paramount consideration in

a decision made under this act shall be in the best interest of the child. A

separate

section ensures that relevant factors will be considered when

determining a child or youth's best interests, including cultural connections,

emotional, physical and developmental needs, the importance of stability and

permanency, relationships with family or someone significant, as well as a child

or youth's own opinion regarding her or his care. Furthermore, the new act now

clearly sets out its purpose, which is to promote the safety and well-being of

children and youth in need of protection. The old act did not include a purpose

statement. So, Mr. Speaker, this is also extremely important as we move forward

with this new legislation.

The new legislation contains significant updates and changes which are more

child-centred, reflect best practice in clinical work and promote better

permanency planning. This includes reducing the number of court orders for

children in the care of the Province, requiring a detailed plan of care for

children to be filed with the courts, establishing a process for monitoring all

children in care, increasing the age of continuous custody and supporting youth

in need of protection longer as they transition into adulthood.

This is the first review of the current Child, Youth and Family Services Act

since it has been proclaimed on January 5, 2000. That legislation, at that time,

replaced the Child Welfare Act which was over fifty years old before it was

replaced.

Issues that were recently reviewed and updated in the act are ones that have

been highlighted over the years by key stakeholders, including clients, CYFS

staff, and community groups, and through a variety of reports. Mr. Speaker,

after the new department was formed last year in 2009, I had the opportunity to

visit all of the offices of Child, Youth and Family Services. There are

fifty-two offices. I was able to attend and meet with staff in fifty of the

fifty-two offices. I did not visit the Fogo office or the Conne River office,

and the reason I did not visit those offices is because it is a one person

office and they were not staffed at that time. So, to go to a vacant office, I

guess, and sit down and talk to myself was not something I was prepared to do.

I had the opportunity to visit fifty offices and meet with the staff and

receive significant feedback from the staff. From those consultations, we have

developed a focus group of staff, primarily social workers and some supervisors

who have helped guide the whole process as we moved through this legislative

review.

Mr. Speaker, the social workers or the staff who have participated in the

focus group are able to be here today. I certainly want to thank them for their

interest in helping us and certainly their commitment to this field of work and

to be able to be here today to witness this legislation as we debate it in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: I certainly appreciated the ability to be able to meet with the

staff and I tend to think they also felt the process was something that was

worthwhile. I remember, on a number of occasions, some staff came into the

meetings that we were having and indicated that they were on annual leave but

wanted to come in because there was something they wanted to say about Child,

Youth and Family Services and how we were doing work and they wanted to be

heard.

Mr. Speaker, here in the House I have been criticized by the Opposition. My

consultation and my visits to meeting with the social workers, I was criticized

about traipsing around the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is not what I was doing.

To even say that or suggest it, it is so demeaning to the social workers; it

almost like their voice is not heard or they are not important, and it certainly

is. To be criticized for that, to be out traipsing around, I think, was nothing

but an insult to the social workers of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will consult

and I will continue to consult with the social workers and the front-line staff

to ensure that we have the best services possible in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the death of Zachary Turner in 2003 raised many

questions about the practice of child protection in the Province and the

legislation from which it is derived. The subsequent Turner review and

investigation in 2006 identified weaknesses in the current legislation and

recommended a review.

Further to the recommendations in the Turner report, we also had one of the

key findings of the Clinical Services Review released in 2009, which was an

independent report commissioned by government on child protection practices

across the Province. In that report, it was recommended that the current

legislation requires review and updating in several areas in order to achieve

greater clarity of purpose with a more child-centred focus. Mr. Speaker, I

believe that this legislation does achieve that goal.

The new provincial department solely dedicated to the priority needs of

children and youth was created under Budget 2009 and we made the legislative

review of child protection legislation a top priority. Mr. Speaker, it takes

significant work to do a legislative review of this magnitude. We certainly,

like I said, engaged our stakeholders and our staff, we looked at best

practices, reviewed the literature, looked at other legislation across the

country, and we felt that we have come up with a piece of legislation that we

are quite pleased to put forward in the House of Assembly today.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a sequence of work that needs to be done as we

build this new department, and we will often hear questions or criticism, in

particular from the Opposition, about: You have been around for a year, now;

what are you doing?

If anyone truly understands organizational change, and the magnitude of

change that is required as we build this new department, and if you read the

Clinical Services Review by Susan Abell, it indicates that a series of quick

fixes is not going to create the new department or the service delivery level

that we need in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will take, as Susan Abell

indicated in her report, three to five years. Mr. Speaker, having already gone

through the first year, building the organizational chart and reviewing the

legislation and getting to the point where we are right now, I think it will

take the five years before we truly can say that we have built the department

that we need. We need to take the time, and the commitment of this government

has been to create this new department, and we will certainly do whatever it

means or whatever it takes to build it in the appropriate direction.

The new provincial department is solely dedicated to the priority needs of

children and youth. We created it in 2009, and one of the first things we said,

as we created it, was we would do this legislative review. The extensive

consultation has certainly led us to where we are today. Mr. Speaker, we

certainly encouraged any interested individuals or groups, including youth who

are consumers of our services, to provide their input to us. We were interested

in getting the feedback from our former clients and current clients of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

We also contacted numerous Aboriginal leaders and we held focus groups

through community-based groups, and we also met with advisory councils within

the women's community in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we held focus groups

with youth as well, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to make sure we had a comprehensive

evaluation and assessment of the current legislation to help us build the best

possible legislation that we could. We also reviewed the current legislation and

included an examination of comparable legislation across the country. We looked

at new child protection developments and best practices in the field.

I am pleased to inform the House that there has been a high degree of support

by stakeholders during the consultation process, for their proposed amendments,

and I would like to take a moment to thank all those who helped in this process.

As a result of our collaborative efforts, I believe that the general principles

of the act have been updated to better reflect child-centred practice, and to

provide greater clarity to the field and to the courts. There are many new and

revised provisions in this act, and I will focus on some of the more significant

changes here today.

First of all, we have extended the continuous custody of youth from sixteen

to eighteen years of age. There was a high level of support during the

consultation process for this change, in order to remove pressure currently

placed on youth to make a decision concerning their custodial arrangement at age

sixteen. Under the current act, children who are under the continuous care of

Child, Youth and Family Services had to leave their custodial arrangement at the

age of sixteen, and then, in order to continue to receive supports, had to

reapply under the Youth Services Program. Under the new act, the age has been

raised to eighteen so that youth can continue their current custody arrangement

if they wish. This new provision provides youth in care with a gradual and

extended transitional period of support.

It is generally accepted that parents are responsible for their children

until at least eighteen, when they are expected to be finished high school. This

is an important consideration for youth who have limited, if any, family or

community supports. Raising the age of continuous custody to eighteen removes

pressure from these youth to exit our care or to make key decisions about their

future at sixteen. It will align Newfoundland and Labrador more closely with the

rest of the country, as currently we are the only jurisdiction in Canada which

emancipates youth prior to their eighteenth birthday. This will also allow our

youth to transfer to other jurisdictions in Canada and receive similar services.

Currently, our sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are not considered in care

and legally limits other jurisdictions to service them as children in care if

they decide to relocate to another province; however, youth will still have the

option of ending the custodial arrangement and continue to receive services

under a voluntary youth service agreement if they so wish.

We have introduced an opt-out clause for youth aged sixteen to eighteen in

recognition of the fact that there are some cases where forcing a youth to

remain in the care of the Province is not the best option. These youth can still

have the option of a voluntary youth services arrangement. Research shows that

strategies which seek to engage youth rather than forcing them to accept

custodial or other conditions are much more successful. The ultimate goal is to

support youth in making better choices.

Extending the age to eighteen will also make the care of youth in continuous

custody who do not have the capacity to sign a youth service agreement a much

smoother process. Under the current act, Child, Youth and Family Services must

make application to the court for a further continuous custody order if a youth

is assessed as incompetent to sign a youth services agreement. This ties up

unnecessary time for Child, Youth and Family Services and the courts. What we

have introduced in this legislation eliminates an unnecessary process that was

rooted in the current legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just explain a little bit about what we are

actually talking about with the youth who are in continuous custody prior to

their sixteenth birthday. If a child comes into the foster care system and they

then go into continuous custody, it means they are not returning home to their

parents. As the current legislation indicates at this time, once they turn

sixteen the continuous custody or the foster arrangement that has been set up is

over and they then have the option to sign a youth services agreement where they

can be provided with financial and clinical services, but it is certainly far

less structured than the continuous custody.

When we held our focus sessions with youth and with stakeholders who work

primarily with that age group, it was indicated that the current legislation

puts an onus on a sixteen-year-old to make a very important decision regarding

their future: whether they are going to opt out of services or sign a youth

services agreement. It was felt that asking a sixteen-year-old to do that was

premature and was a major life decision that they may not be ready to make. So

we have given the option that they can stay in their current arrangements until

they are eighteen, which allows them to finish school, or, Mr. Speaker, they can

come out and go into a youth services agreement as currently exists, or they can

opt out and have no arrangements whatsoever.

What is also important to note is if they make the decision to opt out when

they turn sixteen, the door is always open and they can come back and sign a

youth services agreement. So, at sixteen, if they make a decision that they do

not want us, they do not want continuous custody, they do not want a youth

services agreement, and they get out but they find it is very difficult and they

need the supports that are in place, they can come back and sign a youth

services agreement. So, because they may opt out at a point in time does not

mean that they can never come back and we will not provide services for them.

Another change in the act which is significant and affects youth who are not

in continuous custody previously but came to the attention of Child, Youth and

Family Services after their sixteenth birthday and it was determined that they

were in need of protection from a parent, is introduced as changes we will also

bring in.

So, I want to clarify. The first group I talked about were people youth -

who were in continuous custody prior to their sixteenth birthday; they can

continue until they are eighteen. There is also another group of youth who are

unknown to Child, Youth and Family Services prior to their sixteenth birthday

but, while they are sixteen or seventeen, it comes to the attention of Child,

Youth and Family Services that they are a youth who is in need of protection

from a parent.

At this time, Child, Youth and Family Services can currently assess these

individuals for clinical and financial help up to their eighteenth birthday

under a youth services agreement, but not beyond. Under the new act we have

extended the age to nineteen years of age or until the youth finishes high

school or an equivalent program, whichever comes first, in recognition that this

is an important factor in their future success.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, for the youth who come under a youth services

agreement who are not in continuous custody prior to their sixteenth birthday,

what happens at this point in time is once they turn eighteen they are dropped

from the caseload. This new change will allow them to stay in that youth

services agreement until they finish school or until their nineteenth birthday.

So that means, in essence, if we have somebody who is in a youth services

agreement who we are supporting, who turns eighteen while they are in Grade 12,

that we will be able to provide the level of intervention that we provide up

until they finish school that year. That is important, Mr. Speaker, because if

they were a child who was not in need of protection or in a youth services

agreement and had a stable home environment with their parents, they would be

supported until they finished school. Not many parents tell their children once

they turn eighteen, while they are still completing their last year of high

school that they have to leave the House, there is no longer any support

available. So this provides youth, who do not have that support, certainly the

supports that they need to finish school.

Stakeholders unanimously expressed their support for increasing the age limit

from eighteen to nineteen, to allow Child, Youth and Family Services to provide

extended clinical and financial assistance. This extension is a key step towards

assisting those youth who are trying to complete their education without having

to go to the income support system to support themselves. According to Child,

Youth and Family Services data, 375 youth were serviced through youth service

agreements over the past five years. Approximately 50 per cent of those youth

were not in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services at age sixteen, but

came to the attention of the director after this age and were determined to be

at risk of maltreatment. This amendment is a positive step, given that education

is an important factor in future success.

To move on to other important changes, previously, the risk of emotional harm

was not grounds for protective intervention and Child, Youth and Family Services

would have to prove that emotional harm had already taken place. This was in

contrast to other grounds for intervention in the act which acknowledged risk of

physical harm, risk of sexual abuse, or risk of neglect before it happened. So

we had the risk factor tied to all the other aspects that we would look at.

However, when it came to emotional harm, if a child was deemed to be at risk of

emotional harm, we could not act. We would have to wait until emotional harm

actually took place. There is now a provision for emotional risk, and this is in

keeping with the majority of Canadian provinces and territories. So as we read

through the present legislation, we have outlined what it means to be at risk of

emotional harm, and there has to be a causal link between the behaviour of the

child and the parent in order for us to determine risk for emotional harm.

While we were doing the consultations, there was agreement that risk of

emotional harm should be included. However, there were a variety of options on

how to define it. The new act provides a clear definition of the behaviours

exhibited by the parent and the child or youth which could lead to this

assessment. Under the new amendments, we have provided the courts with clear

indicators of emotional harm and the types of parental behaviour that can lead

to emotional harm. The new act states that there must be a causal relationship

between the behaviour of the child or youth and the behaviour of the parent.

Judges in particular were supportive of this addition in the legislation.

The proposed new legislation will now provide a broader definition for

protective intervention when a child or youth is living in a situation where

there is a risk of violence. I think this is an extremely important part of the

legislation as well, Mr. Speaker. This addresses situations in which one or both

parents, or a new step-parent, have a history or a propensity to violence inside

or outside the home. This violence may not be currently directed against the

child but should be considered a risk factor for future violence against the

child.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be more adept at assessing risk or potential for

violence. We are also aware of the longstanding impacts on children who witness

violence during their childhood. Mr. Speaker, just because sometimes the child

is not the victim of a physical assault does not mean that witnessing violence

does not provide harm to a child or long-lasting negative impacts.

The new legislation provides greater clarity for information sharing and

better communication between agencies involved in child protection by providing

new parameters and requirements around the access and disclosure of information.

For example, Child, Youth and Family Services will have easier access to

information from the RNC, schools, health authorities, RCMP, and other staff

that may be necessary to protect children and provide services during our

involvement with the child or youth. Under this provision, Child, Youth and

Family Services will also share relevant information with agencies that are

providing services to our clients.

There is also a provision that allows for the sharing of information with

Aboriginal governments regarding members of their community. The Nunatsiavut

government had requested the provision regarding information sharing respecting

members of their community to enable them to participate and support plans for

children in care. This provision will permit the sharing of information which

would be developed and guided by a policy to ensure the appropriate use of the

information and consent of the parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, at some point in time in the future the Nunatsiavut government

would like to evolve the area of child protection or child welfare to their

particular government. In order for us to be able to be in a position to do

anything like that we need to make sure we work closely as we develop polices

and that our policies that may be reflective of what we feel are the best

interests of the children also need to be routed in the cultural differences

that we may see in Coastal Labrador. We are certainly committed to working with

the Nunatsiavut government in ensuring that the best practices are in place in

Coastal Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I also had the opportunity not too long ago to meet in person

with Michelle Kinney, the Deputy Minister of Social Development for the

Nunatsiavut Government, and with the minister at the time, Diane Gear, as we

discussed some of the child protection needs in Coastal Labrador. I also had the

opportunity, while I visited the offices last year, to visit the communities in

Coastal Labrador, meet with the staff, and certainly we acknowledged there are

some significant challenges we have there but we are also very much committed to

working together to improve the lives of children in Coastal Labrador.

Another key change is the act now sets out different time frames for

protective temporary custody intervention orders and the number of orders

allowed in a child's lifetime. The new act will reduce the number of temporary

custody orders that can be issued for a child from four to three. This will

minimize court time and facilitate earlier permanency planning for children.

Under the new act, the maximum time for combined orders is eighteen months as

opposed to the previous twenty-four months. The current legislation allows for

all temporary orders to be of different durations, depending upon the child's

age.

So, the current legislation says three months for under five years, four

months for five to eleven years and six months for twelve and over. A total of

three temporary orders can be issued before an order of continuous custody must

be granted or the child returned to the parent. A fourth order is available in

exceptional circumstances when ramification of the child with the family is

expected to occur but has taken longer than normally anticipated. This provision

is used in rare circumstances.

A first temporary court order of three or four months offers a family little

opportunity or time to resolve issues which had to be of significance to warrant

the removal of a child in the first place, so that they can address the safety

issues required to regain custody of their child. Frequently, services required

by a family to regain custody have wait times and involve intense intervention

for change occurs over time. Three months is an unrealistic time frame for these

changes to occur.

Under the new act, all first orders will be six months, regardless of the age

of the child, to provide enough time for a family to address issues that can

place them in a situation where they can be protective parents. It is also

proposed that the second order be of varying lengths, depending upon the child's

age: three months for under six years, and six months for six-year-olds and

over. The exceptional orders or third order would be consistent with the second

order in terms of time frames. If reunification is possible based on an

assessment by Child, Youth and Family Services at any time during the life of a

temporary order, Child, Youth and Family Services immediately plan for the

return of the children to the parents, and seek the court's approval to

terminate the temporary custody order after they return home.

I would like to point out here, and to stress, that removal of a child from a

family is always the last option of all other alternatives. Once we look at all

other alternatives and they have been exhausted, only then do we look at the

removal of a child from the family home.

As of April 1, 2010, there were 7,758 children receiving protective

intervention services in total across the Province. Of this number there are 644

children in care of the Province and 379 children living with relatives or

significant others, known as the Child Welfare Allowance. This means that about

13 per cent of children receiving protective services are not in the custody of

the parents. Most of the time we work with families in their own homes to

resolve issues. There are times, unfortunately, when children cannot remain

safely with their families and we must find stable and permanent options as

quickly as possible.

We have also taken the opportunity to examine and clarify terminology in the

act. We have replaced, for example, the use of the term "caregiver" with "foster

parent". The Foster Family Association of Newfoundland and Labrador has said

that this change will avoid title confusion and improve the image of the foster

parent by instilling a sense of identity and pride.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last week to meet with the board of the

Foster Family Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and we indicated at that

time that this legislation would change the term "caregiver" to "foster parent"

and they certainly applauded that change, welcomed that change, and felt that

there was no negativity or stigma attached to using the words "foster parent" or

"foster child" and they felt it clearly reflected the work, and the most

valuable work, that they do with children.

In addition, we have made the duty to report standard the same for

professionals and the general public. The clause has now been revised to remove

the reasonable grounds clause for professionals. This is because it created

confusion among some professionals who have interpreted this

section to mean

that they can determine whether information received constitutes maltreatment or

risk of maltreatment to a child. This decision needs to be exclusively assessed

by Child, Youth and Family Services.

Under the proposed change, professionals will now be expected to report to

police or a social worker when they have any information that a child may be in

need of protective intervention, and not make a judgement call themselves.

Certainly this change, Mr. Speaker, was supported by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association of Social Workers.

I am pleased to note that new accountability mechanisms are being put in

place, which will boost the level of accountability of Child, Youth and Family

Services and staff, and replace the current mechanisms, such as the custody

review committee and the minister's advisory committee. The new act obliges the

minister to put in place a process for monitoring all children in custody and

filing a plan of care with the court. The department will develop standards for

these plans of care and monitoring mechanisms, including file audit review

processes, and regular data collection and reviews of permanency planning.

The new act also provides for a statutory review every five years to ensure

timely review of legislation, to keep in line with best practice and public

accountability. This process will include a public and stakeholder consultation

process. On top of these legislative measures, the department will also

establish a provincial Child, Youth and Family Services quality or audit unit to

develop an advance policy and publish a strategic plan and report on performance

annually.

Mr. Speaker, our policies will be revised to reflect this new legislation,

and staff will be carefully trained in the new provisions, which will be

formally proclaimed next year. These changes have been introduced to be more

progressive and to better serve our children.

The new Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, which I consider the

cornerstone legislation of this session, will help ensure that every measure we

implement in the new department is designed to strengthen the child protection

system. Our policy and decisions, as well as the clinical work of our social

workers, as we move forward, will be rooted in strong legislation. Most

importantly, the best interests of the child will now become the overriding and

paramount consideration in any decision made under this act, while still

recognizing the importance of the family and significant others in a child's

life. This is the first step toward a major transformation and ultimately

creating the best child protection system in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I know sometimes there has been some confusion over the

Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the services that were

devolved to the regional health authorities under Health and Community Services,

when the former Department of Social Services was split. That department no

longer exists, although sometimes we still hear that name of a department,

particularly around government, although the department has been gone now for

almost fifteen years, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to make sure that people understand that the

changes that have happened in Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the

new computerized system that came into play, and the fact that some of the

offices twenty offices across the Province - closed in order to support the

new computerized system, I want to make sure that people understand that at that

time there were no offices of Health and Community Services, or no offices where

child protection was delivered or continues to be delivered, that have closed.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the fifty-two offices across the Province, I

want to make sure that everyone understands that they are no longer linked with

the former Department of Social Services or the current Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment.

That is certainly an important distinction. I have heard it here in the

House, and I want to make sure that we clarify that. I am sure the social

workers who are here today and the new ones who have been in since the new

department, in the regional health authorities, their jaw would probably drop if

they felt that at this level of government we still felt that they were part of

the offices of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, I am not for defending the present system; I am not for standing

up and trying to defend any practice or what is happening. I am here, as the

minister of this new department, to acknowledge there are issues and to say that

we are committed to change and we want to bring about these changes. As

government since 2006 we have certainly been doing what we can to bring about

changes, and we have invested over $24 million in Child, Youth and Family

Services which created 200 new positions.

Despite our investment and despite the new positions we still, through the

Clinical Services Review done by Susan Abell, did not necessarily feel that we

were getting the results that we absolutely need in this field. As a result, we

created the new department and we have taken all of the reports and all of the

reviews. We have acknowledged they are there, and the issues. This whole

legislation, what we are unrolling today and as we debate it today, is certainly

a beginning step to make sure we have the cornerstone legislation we need to

strengthen the new department and make sure it operates most appropriately.

I also want to be clear that this new department is not a dumping ground for

everything, and we are not everything to everyone. We have a clear purpose, we

have a mandate, and we are there to help work with and protect children who are

being either abused through neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional

harm, or at risk of any of those factors by a parent. That gives us a clear

direction and purpose and clearly outlines the caseload and the people who we

serve in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want just to thank everyone who has been

involved in the process, and certainly our focus group who have taken time today

to follow the whole process, to be here in the House of Assembly to see how we

debate this legislation. They have put considerable time and feedback into this.

We feel we have a sound piece of legislation.

I am interested to hear from other members in the House of Assembly as we

continue this debate, Mr. Speaker. I think that as we finish and conclude the

process in the House of Assembly and down the road we are able to proclaim this

act with the appropriate policies and training for our social workers, I think

that we will indeed be able to meet the best interests of the child in this

legislation in the department, and we will certainly be in a better place to

serve the children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to speak to Bill 1, which is

An Act Respecting The Care

And Protection Of Children And Youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is no easy task for any government who takes on the

responsibility of the children of their province. It is obviously a huge

responsibility and undertaking that requires the best of skills, the best of

individuals and the best of legislation to ensure for their protection on a

daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I know all too well the difficult task that social workers in

this Province have in delivering these services on the front lines. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, back very early on when I was just out of school, my two roommates

happened to be child care workers, Mr. Speaker, with the Department of Social

Services at that time. I can remember just being young women, all three of us,

and many nights having the RCMP knock on our door looking for one of those girls

to go out to be able to respond to an incident in a home in the community, Mr.

Speaker, or a nearby community. It was a daily practice. So, I saw first-hand

the kind of stress and strain that it puts on an individual every day in their

life and oftentimes their lives are not their own because of the responsibility

that they take on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that and recognize that because, unfortunately,

when I was out of the House I understood that the minister did make a comment

that the Opposition had showed disrespect to social workers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the minister, it is about the children of our

Province, it is about protecting the children in this Province and it is about

ensuring that those people who are entitled and enlisted with the responsibility

have the resources to do their jobs and to do them properly. So, Mr. Speaker, I

think the minister's comments were certainly not necessary or certainly not

accurate in the context in which she used them today, and I take offence to

that.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose today is not to debate with the minister over the

comments that she has made regarding how we feel about social workers because

nothing could be further from the truth. I deal with social workers every day in

my job as an Opposition Leader. I have dealt with them, Mr. Speaker, on many

high profile cases in this Province, many cases which have been the catalyst for

reform in child welfare legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador. I know

first-hand the difficult job that they have, the undertaking and the

responsibility that they are entrusted with and I know all too well, Mr.

Speaker, the need to ensure that they have proper human resources and that they

have the tools they need to do their jobs appropriately. That is one of the

areas where we have seen deficiencies within our system.

Mr. Speaker, when the consultation was ongoing around the new act we were

asked if we would like to review the consultation document and to give feedback,

and we did that. We actually did a full brief - of which I have a copy here - to

the focus group and we responded to all of the questions that were in the

consultation document based upon the experiences that we have had, however

limited, compared to social workers, psychologists and other people within the

system, but certainly from our own experiences in dealing with families, in

dealing with youth, in dealing with others who were impacted, we did respond to

all of the questions that were outlined. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that

some of it was addressed; however, there are some areas that have still not been

incorporated into the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, government states that this bill is repealing and replacing the

previous act in hopes to modernize and clarify the law protecting children and

youth in the Province. The purpose of the act is to promote the safety and

well-being of children and youth who are in need of protective intervention.

Mr. Speaker, as we submitted to government in the legislative review, good

legislation is important but alone it cannot guarantee a quality service for

children and families. The effectiveness of legislation concerned with the

welfare of children is dependent upon a number of factors. One of them is the

interpretation and actions engendered by it to ensure that there is clarity,

that it is not open for debate and that, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is clear.

The timelines for intervention has always been an issue that has come to our

attention and whether those timelines of intervention has to do with planning

care for a child, whether it has to do with accessing the courts in a timely

manner, or whether it has to do with any other circumstances that could arise,

it has certainly been one of the issues that have come to our attention.

The quality and qualifications of those responsible for carrying out its

mandate, which includes judges, social workers, and foster parents, are very

important, Mr. Speaker. As I said, ensuring that all of these have the tools to

do their jobs appropriately and effectively is very important and it will be one

of the cornerstones that constitute the effectiveness of the legislation and the

level of service that is provided to children and youth in this Province. The

degree to which these various individuals understand the developmental needs of

children is very important. Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we feel have

definitely been in need of addressing.

When government assumes the care and custody of children and youth, it is

incumbent upon its agents to provide the same quality of care as that provided

by an adequately resourced and responsible parent. The government exercises what

is termed in contemporary research, Mr. Speaker, and policy and practice

literature as corporate parenting. The responsibilities of the corporate parent

are exercised through the agencies of a number of people, including the director

of child welfare, managers, supervisors and front-line workers, foster parents,

teachers, health personnel, and ideally the children's own family.

Having the resources to be able to do these jobs and act on those

responsibilities are very important. That means ensuring that there is access to

professional services, whether that be psychological services, Mr. Speaker,

whether it be through other health care professionals, but the access needs to

be there and it needs to be in a timely manner. It means that we need to have a

full complement of social workers in our system at all times. We cannot allow

social workers to be taking on more responsibility, more clients, Mr. Speaker,

than they have the human ability to be able to handle.

Often, in cases in this Province in the child welfare system, that has been

the situation. Situations especially in the more rural and remote areas where

there is an abundant caseload, where you often have trouble filling positions.

More often than not there are vacancies in the system and a few people are left

to carry on the responsibility of providing the front-line services to children

and to families. We need to ensure that those gaps do not exist, and whether

that is ensuring that there is proper salaries in place, proper benefits in

place, proper incentives to attract people to these regions to work, Mr.

Speaker, then that has to be a necessary component as well in order for this to

work effectively. You cannot just bring in a new act; you cannot just bring in

new regulations which could probably add more clients to the case in terms of

extending the age but not attach the financial resources and tools that are

necessary to carry out those jobs. You cannot expect for the system in this

Province to continue to work while we have vacancies that go unfilled. So, Mr.

Speaker, those issues as well need to be addressed.

The general principles of the act, Mr. Speaker, state that the overriding and

paramount consideration in any decision shall be in the best interest of the

child. Now, that was the same in the previous act. I guess the only difference

is that in this particular act there is a purpose statement and the best

interest of the child does have its own subsection within the act. So it is not

just part of the other orders of the act or just outlined.

So, I guess it really takes it out and it highlights it a little more than

has been done in the previous legislation. I certainly cannot say that we have

had legislation in this Province that did not look at the best interest of the

child because to say that, Mr. Speaker, would mean that all aspects of it would

have failed and we know that is not true. We know that there are certain parts

of the act that needed to be changed. We realize that the new legislation is

going beyond what was currently there and will give greater clarity and greater

security to children in this Province, but it certainly does not mean that

everything that was in place, or is in place today, and will be in place for the

next year according to the minister, because we will not proclaim this act for

another year. It does not mean that all of those things were necessarily not

working and bad, because a good lot of what is in the new act actually came from

the old legislation.

Mr. Speaker, just to carry on, the principles also acknowledges that the

family is the basic unit of society and responsible for the safety, health and

well-being of the child. The challenge is in balancing family preservation while

reducing risk of harm to a child and developing a reasonable plan to achieve a

paramount home for this child.

As we indicated in the legislative review, Mr. Speaker, the first principle

is and always should be that of the safety of the child. Where the child's

safety can be assured, necessary supports to preserve the family may be required

and should be provided. Even when a child is taken into care, the family can be

preserved. There is considerable literature available on what is termed

inclusive care, maintaining links with the family to the degree possible. Mr.

Speaker, in situations of divorce, the non-custodial parent does not cease to be

a parent and children in foster care should not be deprived of parental and

extended family contact.

Mr. Speaker, those are a number of the issues that definitely came out in

some of the cases that we have dealt with. We all realize the reasons why

children are often taken into custody in the first place, whether that be into

permanent custody or into temporary custody, but the objective should always be,

wherever possible, wherever the safety of the child can be upheld, to look at

how you bring the family and the child back together. How you can rehabilitate

that relationship, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the members of the Legislature, it is becoming a little difficult

to hear the member recognized to speak. I would ask for your co-operation.

MS JONES: I can try and talk a little louder, Mr. Speaker, if you want

but I would not want to override all the conversations going on in the House of

Assembly right now while we have Bill1 on the table, an important piece of

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, just a quick

summary of the key points that are being addressed

in the new legislation and the minister did outline a number of these particular

points. I will outline them as well, Mr. Speaker, because I want to speak to

each one of them individually. One of them is the legislation extends the

custodial age from sixteen to eighteen. It clarifies the conditions of use for

alternate dispute resolution. It expands the grounds for children in need of

protective intervention. It clarifies options that are available to social

workers or managers when the child may need protective intervention. It requires

a plan of care for children in need of protective intervention to be filed with

the court. It sets out time frames for protective intervention orders. It

establishes new processes for review of permanency planning for children. It

establishes new parameters around disclosure of information and it establishes a

statutory review process for the act. Mr. Speaker, a couple of those I will

speak to, and there are a couple of issues or concerns that we raised that are

not addressed in the act that we feel should have been included, and I will

certainly speak to those as well.

Mr. Speaker, government has changed the age of the automatic termination of a

continuous custody from the age of sixteen to eighteen. In our submission to the

legislative review, we certainly supported this and we recommended that the age

be extended. Mr. Speaker, we feel that responsible parents should provide care

for their children at least until they have finished their schooling, and beyond

if they are not ready for independence. Every attempt should be made to

encourage and support success in the school system. Indeed, every attempt should

be made to establish early permanency planning to provide continuity and

stability so that children do not have to worry about where they will be living

next year or about changes in their social worker or in their school. Their

needs, including that of being parented and protected, should be met at least

until they have finished school.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that in today's society any child who is in school, who

is part of a family living at home with their parents, are always under some

protective care and supervision of their parents until they at least finish

school, or at least until the age of twenty-one. We certainly felt that it

should be no different in the child welfare system in this Province. Where a

child is in permanent custody, Mr. Speaker, they should have the ability to be

able to continue on with their education. Their education is one of the greatest

supports that we can give them in moving forward with a very successful life and

that mechanism should be there to continue to support them until they have at

least finished school, or in this case I think it is to age twenty-one. So, Mr.

Speaker, we see that as a very positive piece of the legislation.

One of the things that we did raise as well was with regard to alternate

dispute resolution, and I think that is in

section 13 of the act. It allows for

a director or social worker to use alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to

resolve a conflict, including family group conferences, pre-trial settlement

conferences and mediation. Mr. Speaker, we indicated in our legislative review

submission that parallel family supports be put in place to assist families who

struggle with addictions, behavioural problems, and so on. In fact, any issues

that have contributed dysfunctionally in the home, this does not and I think

that is very important, because in a lot of the cases, Mr. Speaker, in the

Province, and only a few that I am aware of, so I would be assured that there is

more, oftentimes there are cases where the parents need to have rehabilitation

as well. Whether the problem in the home is an addiction problem, whether it is

an addiction to alcohol or an addiction to drugs, or whether it is behavioural

problems, anger management problems, some of these particular issues that are

not uncommon oftentimes in some homes, we feel that should have been a parallel

component in terms of rehabilitating parents as well. Unfortunately, it is not

addressed in here, but we all know that in child welfare in providing for and

the protection of child welfare and the stability of children in the Province,

it also involves oftentimes working with the families that are impacted as well,

Mr. Speaker.

We see this a lot primarily, Mr. Speaker - I do not know about primarily, but

we see it more often sometimes in Aboriginal communities or in Aboriginal

families. I say that because we have dealt with in this Province some issues

around things like fetal alcohol syndrome and some other things that have been

more commonly associated with Aboriginal communities. We really feel, Mr.

Speaker, that in rehabilitating a lot of these families we can provide for

greater stability for the children on a longer term with their actual parents if

the supports are in place to ensure that they get the services that they need

and they get the rehabilitation that they need.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things in this legislation as well, as the minister

outlined in her opening comments, is expanding the grounds for protective

intervention and emotional harm. The previous act outlined the cases in which

children were acknowledged to be harmed and in need of protective intervention;

however, emotional harm was not indicated to be a reason for intervention.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that this has changed in the current act. In

our submission to the department, we said that it would be wise to extend the

need for protection to those at risk of emotional harm. Domestic violence, Mr.

Speaker, constitutes risk of emotional harm, but female victims are sometimes

reluctant to report for fear of losing their children. I, myself, have dealt

with incidents like this. That is why, still today, we have a number of cases of

domestic violence not being reported, going unreported to the RNC and to the

RCMP in this Province because in lots of cases there is a fear of reporting, a

fear of losing their children if they were to report.

It is important to note that because a child may be suffering from emotional

harm it does not always mean, Mr. Speaker, that a parent will lose their

children. There are other means of possible intervention and I think that is

very important, and again, it speaks to the situation of rehabilitation within

the home.

Mr. Speaker, not to get off on a tangent regarding that support service, I

want to speak directly to the emotional harm piece because the act itself

defines emotional harm. I think it is important to point out how it is defined

within the legislation so that it can be identified, and so that people know

that today, or at least a year from now when the act is proclaimed, that in

Newfoundland and Labrador a child that is in need of protective intervention is

not just limited to being at risk or is at risk of physical harm or of sexual

abuse, but also of emotional harm. An emotional harm, Mr. Speaker, that can be

caused as a result by a person or the child's parent or by someone else where

the parent does not protect the child but has a responsibility to do so.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of indicators that outline and identify

emotional harm. They are listed here. One is depression; the other one is

significant anxiety; significant withdrawal; self-destructive behaviour;

aggressive behaviour; or delayed development. These are things that will be

looked for or observed, I guess, in the case of looking at whether protective

intervention is required in the case of emotional harm.

Of course, these things are not just identified, Mr. Speaker, by social

workers. There are oftentimes when social workers may never come in contact with

those children,

whereas teachers would be in direct and daily contact with

children within the school system, within the daycare system, or maybe a child

is actually seeking the services of a psychologist or other health care

professionals in the Province. These people, Mr. Speaker, who identify those

particular signs of emotional harm, would certainly have responsibility as well.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the act, parental conduct or living

situations that may lead to emotional harm or risk of emotional harm to the

child is also included. The living situations that are referred to and that

would be looked at in considering whether it contributes to emotional harm or

risk of emotional harm of a child includes: rejection; social deprivation;

deprivation of affection; deprivation of cognitive stimulation; subjecting the

child to inappropriate criticism, threats, humiliation, accusations or

expectations; living in a situation where the mental or emotional health of a

parent is negatively affecting the child; and living in a situation where a

parent is an abuser of alcohol or drugs; or living in a situation where there is

violence. So, Mr. Speaker, these are the factors that first of all could be

indicators of emotional harm, and secondly, factors within a living condition

that could contribute to emotional harm or the risk of emotional harm.

Mr. Speaker, the act goes on to say, "Where a person has information that a

child is or may be in need of protective intervention, the person shall

immediately report the information to a manager, social worker or a peace

officer." That is what I am referring to when I say that these things could be

identified by other people, other professionals and other individuals. We have

often heard of cases in fact, I cited a case in the House of Assembly today

that I had dealt with where there was a situation in Goose Bay where reports

were being made to Child, Youth and Family Services regarding a child, but it

was felt that the reports were not necessarily followed up on or investigations

conducted. Because there is no disclosure to the person who reports it, they

cannot call up and say: I made a complaint three weeks ago. Did anybody act upon

it? The information is not given to them, they are not told, and I guess it is

because of privacy issues that they are not told, but there could be a process

or a format at least whereby an individual who makes complaints, discloses their

name, their address, whatever, and then reports back with the same incidents a

few weeks later, they should be at least told if someone has followed up on the

case or if they have not followed up on it, Mr. Speaker. So there should be at

least that limited information being provided.

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a very important piece because it does allow for

greater clarity within the legislation and it certainly provides another level

for people who work on the front lines in providing child care protection in

this Province, another avenue under which they can assess and determine if a

child is in need of protection or if they are not.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the minister said this when she made her

opening comments, but it would be interesting: I would think that most of the

people who were consulted with regard to the new legislation would have

certainly supported that addition to the legislation, and expanding it in that

particular way.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things it does within this act is it sets out time

frames for protective intervention orders, and it establishes a new process for

the review of permanency planning for children. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the

issues that I want to speak to, as well, because one of the things, I guess,

that we have often heard is with regard to the planning for care for children in

the Province. Mr. Speaker, one of the issues, I guess, that was often raised

with us is how often are the plans followed up, and what is included in the

review, and who makes sure that the plan of care is being met, and all of these

kinds of things. Mr. Speaker, we wanted to see, in this particular act, a

process to ensure that the plan of care was a continuous process that was seen

right through to completion, or until the child was back with their family, or

another arrangement was made, or whatever the case may be. Mr. Speaker,

unfortunately, the act does not speak to that.

What the act says is that it requires the minister to undertake a mandatory

process to monitor the plans of care of these children, and it is in

section 81

of the act. Basically, Mr. Speaker, to read directly from the legislation, it

says, "The minister shall develop a process to monitor plans for children who

are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we would have liked to see that monitoring plan

incorporated into the legislation, because we certainly feel that this was one

of the critical components of the act that needed to be addressed. We certainly

felt that there needed to be tighter legislation, more obligation, and a

continuous process to ensure that monitoring was being done and that proper

supervision was being provided.

I do not know why the government chose to make it a condition that the

minister should develop a process as opposed to developing a process that would

work, and incorporating it in as part of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is

unfortunate, and it is not that I have any doubt that this will be done; I think

it will be done. I am not questioning that particular fact, but I would question

why it was necessary to be done outside of the act as a set of policies as

opposed to being a part of the legislation. I think that is an important

question and one that would certainly warrant an answer, Mr. Speaker, because I

do not think we should limit ourselves or we should kid ourselves in terms of

what actually happens sometimes within the system and the need for providing for

greater clarity and ensuring responsibilities are met. That is the reasoning and

rationale, Mr. Speaker.

So, while the old act did not have a process to monitor these children and

the plan of care that was in place, neither does the new act; but the new act

does have a clause that certainly requires the minister to undertake to put a

process in place.

I can only hope, Mr. Speaker I can only hope - that process would be in

place when the act is proclaimed, which will be a year from now, and I think

that would be an adequate time frame for the minister to undertake to do that

particular work and ensure that those policies are included.

Mr. Speaker, there are some new parameters in the act around the disclosure

of information. I will not get into all of that right now, but I guess one of

the things that we did outline is with regard to the Zachary Turner case, and I

asked a question today in the House of Assembly. In fact, it was the first

question that I asked. Mr. Speaker, there has probably been no other case in the

Province that has highlighted the need for certain changes and reforms to occur

within our child welfare system. Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the

saddest, most unfortunate cases to ever occur in our history, or certainly in

our recent history. Mr. Speaker, could legislation have prevented what actually

happened?

Well, one of the things that we could have done was provide for greater

protection for the child. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of recommendations

outlined in the report that certainly spoke to effective ways and means to which

that could be accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is any legislation that can totally

ensure that these things never happen again, but I think best attempts always

have to be made to ensure that proper legislation is in place to the greatest

extent possible to ensure that it never happens again. Mr. Speaker, I just hope

that this legislation and the new components and assessments of risk within this

legislation right now will be able to fill a gap that was not there previously

in dealing with cases like this.

Mr. Speaker, there have been other cases as well. We outlined one of those

cases; it is with regard to children who are in custody. I think the minister

has stated today there is something like 644 cases of children in custody in the

Province right now. One of the issues that we have raised is with regard to

children who are placed in independent living arrangements, or assisted living

arrangements, Mr. Speaker, children who are either being put up in hotels or in

apartments and we understand the reason for that. Do not get me wrong; we

understand the reason for that. There is a shortage of foster homes in the

Province, or foster parents, to provide the care and these children need to be

put into a safe environment. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, this is the last option

that is available. So, do not get me wrong in terms of saying that we should not

be doing it, but I am sure it is not the preference to do it. I am sure this is

not where the government wants to go, where society wants to go, certainly not

where we want to go as an Opposition. We want to see more foster parents out

there. We want to see more foster homes. We want children to have the stability

to the greatest extent possible while in protective care. We also know that some

of these living arrangements, while they provide protection, they do not always

provide a lot of the other supports that are required or a lot of the stability

that is necessary.

One of the issues that we have raised around this is the fact that the level

of training that some of these caregivers have. I speak to that, Mr. Speaker,

not to cast aspersions upon the work that is being done, but I can only speak as

I know and this is what I know. I have met with people who work for an

organization called CareGivers, I have talked to people who have worked

independently in providing care in some of these apartment buildings and hotel

facilities over the last number of years, and I have also spoken to the agency

who actually provides this service in the Province as a last resort, I guess,

for Child, Youth and Family Services in providing protection to the children.

One of the things that we have learned is that many of these individuals do

not have the appropriate training to provide services to some of these youths.

Many of these young people or children who are put into these living

arrangements have certain behavioural issues, they have emotional issues, and

oftentimes there are incidents which transpire that these individuals are not

adequately trained to be able to deal with. That is an issue that we have raised

and we had hoped that government would, at the very minimum if we have as a

last case resort, Mr. Speaker, to use independent living arrangements or

assisted living arrangements in the Province, then they at least should be a

regulated process. They should at the very minimum, Mr. Speaker, be a regulated

process and right now that process is not regulated.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with CareGivers, and they are a great

organization and they have taken it upon themselves to do certain amounts of

training with their own people. They certainly meet Canadian standards in terms

of providing this service. However, it is not required or regulated within our

own Province, and we think that needs to happen. We really believe that is

important. For example, tomorrow someone else could go out in another part of

the Province and decide they are going to provide that level of care. There is

nothing which says they have to obtain certain licensing requirements or

permitting, or training and skills, and services and professionals that they

have to provide to participate in that level of care to children in the

Province. That is the only thing we have been asking in the last couple of years

in raising this issue, is that if we are going to have a new department, if we

are going to have new legislation, well, let's take it a step further. Let's

incorporate these particular pieces into it as well.

I was somewhat disappointed to know that nothing regarding this issue is

being addressed in the legislation. In fact, the minister said today they see it

as an operational piece and not something that needs to be incorporated, but at

the same time, Mr. Speaker, it is those facilities and those individuals who are

being used at the end of the day as a last resort to provide for child

protection in the Province, and nothing changes that. Nothing changes that. In

doing so, there should be at least some regulations and some requirements that

they would have to meet in providing for that very, very fundamental service,

that very important service to our children in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker,

that was one of the other pieces that I certainly wanted to address.

Mr. Speaker, I guess some of the other high-profile cases around Child, Youth

and Family Services in the Province, outside of the Zachary Turner case, has

certainly been the case of Amanda Duggan. I know the minister keeps saying she

does not want to talk about personal cases, but oftentimes personal cases

determine where systemic problems exist within our system. This is a case that

has certainly done that, to my degree of knowledge that I have about it. I have

had a number of consultations with this family, a number of discussions. I think

I have probably read all the documents that they have provided to me with regard

to this case. They did ask for a review internally within the department. Mr.

Speaker, it does not have to do with an individual case. It has to do with a

circumstance. It has to do with the fact that if there are systemic problems

existing within Child, Youth and Family Services than that needs to be

addressed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the review into the Amanda Duggan case was

ever completed. I know the Child Advocate was undertaking to do a review. We

certainly did not see any report with regard to that. So, Mr. Speaker, I have no

idea where this particular file is right now in terms of a full investigation or

full review into identifying if there were problems but I would think today if I

was going to be amending the child welfare act in this Province, it is cases

like that that I would want to know what went wrong. I would want to know what

happened, why this woman was kept from her children for as long as she was when

there was no legal case, when there were no charges in the court and no evidence

under which to convict her. I could see initially, Mr. Speaker, being actions to

protect her children but when all the reports were done and the information was

submitted there was certainly no reason why those children should have been kept

from their parents. So, Mr. Speaker, if I was doing a review today I would want

to know what went wrong in this case in terms of being able to correct it, in

terms of wondering if it is a legislative problem, if it something that needs to

be tightened up within the act. As I said, we have no idea where that is.

The other case, Mr. Speaker, that was somewhat high profile is in the case of

the house fire in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of angles I guess to

this particular case. I have met with all of them, including the mother of the

young boy. Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad, sad and tragic story that has

happened. I can only go on the information that I have been told, but when you

are being told by a parent that you were concerned about your child and that you

made calls to child welfare, you made calls to the hospital, you made calls to

the RCMP, to have those calls followed up on to ensure that your child was safe

and it did not occur, that causes me a great deal of concern. This is another

case where the mother of the boy had written and asked for an investigation into

the death of her child, and the circumstances. I do not know where that

investigation is, but again I would say to the minister, if I was bringing in

legislation, as you are, I would want to know what went wrong. I would want to

know if any of the things that are being said are founded or if they are not. I

would want to know if there is a systemic problem that has contributed to the

death of this particular child at that particular time. I think that is only

responsible to do that, Mr. Speaker. Again, that is another case in which we

have not gotten any particular response in terms of what the government will do,

if they will carry forward with an investigation, if they will not, if they will

grant the wishes of the mother whose son tragically died in that house fire, or

if not.

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is a fairly complex bill. It is complex, I guess,

for a reason, because you are dealing with the protection of children in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there could never be anything more important than

securing a good future for all of our children. Whatever the circumstances they

may find themselves in toda