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 15.

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 today, it is up to us, as leaders in the community and in the Province, to ensure that we have legislation that protects them at every stage of their lives.

In providing for that protection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it goes far beyond legislation that is written and tabled and passed in the House of Assembly. It goes beyond all of that and transpires all of that to what happens on the ground every day in every area of this Province, on the front lines of delivery to each of these children. Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we have the best protection of our children in our Province we need to ensure that we have the best people working in the field and that we have enough of them working in the field to do the job appropriately. We need to ensure that there are not continuous vacancies in the human resources that are required to be able to assist those children, uplift those children, and protect those children in our society.

We have a responsibility in this House of Assembly, and government, as the person who controls all spending for this Province, to ensure that the financial requirements are also met. Mr. Speaker, that is not only in the cases of providing for the professional tools and the human resources, but it is also in the case of providing for children who are in foster homes and in foster care, to ensure that a child who grows up in a foster family has the same privileges as every other child in society, that they have the financial means, Mr. Speaker, to be full participants in society as they go through and grow through the years and that they have what is required for them to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of the Opposition that we will be supporting the legislation that is tabled here. While I have outlined a number of things that I would have liked to have seen in the legislation, I would uphold it as being far better than the act that currently exists in the Province today. We would be proud to support it, but we will continue to lobby to ensure that there is greater clarity and that there are other amendments that are made or additions that are made as we go forward in the protection of children in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. In this session of the House, there probably will not be a more important bill to be debated and, indeed, probably not a more important bill in some time to compare with this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this government, last year, recognized the importance and the significance of the protection of children, especially children who are vulnerable or at risk. Our children, Mr. Speaker, are our future and the government took the lead in bringing about measures to protect children and to develop a new department: the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Our Premier took the lead in establishing that department and that was a decision that has met with the positive support of just about everybody in the Province. He also made the wise decision of appointing the current minister in charge of the department. Her competence and dedication over the last year has been evident every day as she moves forward to try to get this department established.

Budget 2010, as well, reflects the government's commitment in the investment that it has made to help get this department established with the multi-million dollars of investment that was made in this present Budget.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this new bill will not only strengthen the child protection system in this Province, but it is designed to better protect the children of our Province from risk of maltreatment while at the same time being responsive to the transition of youth from children in care to independent living.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as well, acknowledges the use of family group conferencing as a method of resolving child protection matters and allowing parents to be part of the solution in a less adversarial setting.

Mr. Speaker, the Turner review and investigation not only commented on the action of Child, Youth and Family Services, but it also commented, made recommendations pertaining to certain actions taken by the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner which falls under the responsibility of the Department of Justice and the justice system. It is, without a doubt, that the children and youth in our Province, particularly those who come into contact with the child protection system, are a priority of our government.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has undertaken a number of initiatives in the past number of years and consulted with stakeholders to ensure that the necessary changes occur to strengthen the Province's child protection system. The Department of Justice has allocated four new lawyers, one for each of the regional health authorities in order to provide complete legal services to the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services and the social workers, including representing the director in court. They also represent these people in case conferences and they provide training to social workers on certain legal issues. This is a very important initiative that helps those people in their work. The initiative comes at an investment of over $484,000 and was a direct result of the Turner review and investigation.

Mr. Speaker, we followed this up in the most recent Budget by allocating an additional two lawyers for Child, Youth and Family Services, one for Eastern Health and another for Labrador-Grenfell Health. As well, we have created a Child, Youth and Family Services project within the Legal Aid Commission. This project uses a team approach to cases. The team involves a lawyer, a social worker and a paralegal. They work as a team, Mr. Speaker, to assist families where there is intervention by Child, Youth and Family Services workers. There are three teams, Mr. Speaker, one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, one in St. John's and another in Corner Brook. So, in terms of legal services, Mr. Speaker, we have initiated two major projects to provide six new lawyers to help social services work, and as well, to provide the project within the Legal Aid Commission that allows for a team approach to those people in their valuable work.

Mr. Speaker, we have also extended the Family Justice Services system to Coastal Labrador. Family Justice Services is a component division of the Department of Justice. It does great work. It places emphasises on families experiencing separation and divorce. It performs various services, Mr. Speaker, to those families. It provides various programs, information resources and it generally promotes dispute resolution outside of the court process.

In 2010, in this new Budget, Mr. Speaker, we budgeted to put in a more effective management system, an organizational system within our Family Justice Services division and the provision to hire four new managers for that division. In addition to this work, I would also like to point out that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has an officer with the Child Sexual Assault Unit. That officer is dedicated to referrals pertaining to abuse of children. This position, Mr. Speaker, has been active now for five years. As well, the RNC has an Internet Child Exploitation Officer which our government funded, along with other officers who are dedicated to computer related crime.

Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2010, we also budgeted for an extra RCMP officer to join the already existing officer attached to the crime unit in Gander to deal with child exploitation. Mr. Speaker, child exploitation, especially Internet child exploitation is disturbingly a growing issue. It cuts across many jurisdictions and provides an ever growing amount of responsibility and work and concern for our police forces.

Mr. Speaker, the Turner review and investigation contained fifty-eight recommendations. Twelve of which dealt with matters falling under the responsibility of the Department of Justice and thirteen of which dealt with matters related to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. The Department of Justice recommendations fall mainly into two headings, Mr. Speaker, the surety process, and two, the terms of appointment of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and his ability to conduct child death reviews. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has made a comprehensive response to both of these recommendations because the issues raised by this report were of great importance to the department because they focus on the provincial delivery of justice services in this Province.

The recommendations raised by the Turner review and the investigation with respect to sureties were addressed almost immediately through consultation with the courts. Current practice, Mr. Speaker, has improved the knowledge of persons posting security for those on bail. Now, Mr. Speaker, we remember from the Turner review and the issue involving Zachary Turner that quite a discussion occurred around bail proceedings and the availability of bail in the case of Mrs. Turner. Before Turner, Mr. Speaker, sureties for bail could simply appear before a clerk at a wicket and sign. They were not questioned on their ability to pay nor was the risk that they were taking explained to them. So things were pretty loose with regard to sureties prior to this particular issue.

The new changes, Mr. Speaker, with respect to sureties were made to ensure that those who wished to pledge themselves as a surety, first of all are qualified, they understand the duties of a surety and they are aware of the possible consequences. The process now includes questioning by the judge involved in the case, questioning about the individual finances, his ability to pay, questions about his personal character, or her personal character, and background.

Following this, Mr. Speaker, a comprehensive multi-step process is followed by the court, which includes explaining the surety process to the individual. Again, asking the individual if he or she understands the process and whether or not he or she would like to continue, as well of course, the signing of the documents. That individual is also provided with information which outlines the responsibilities and processes to which they have agreed must be followed. This process was updated as recently as March of this year. So, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the sureties, the Department of Justice acted immediately after the Turner review and put these processes into place that now guarantees a little bit more stability with regard to sureties and guarantees that the sureties as they sign and take on the responsibility know, in effect, what they are doing.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the recommendations relating to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, we have had much discussion with the Chief Medical Examiner and have conducted a review into the operations of similar offices across other Canadian jurisdictions.

While these recommendations with regard to the Chief Medical Examiner raise key issues, Mr. Speaker, the department, upon completion of its analysis, felt that many of the recommendations were already in place or they were not compulsory as the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner fulfills his mandate in the manner recommended. One of the directions coming out of the Turner review is that we conduct an investigation, do a review of provinces that conduct investigations into child deaths under the age of two years of age. We did that, Mr. Speaker. We undertook to do a full review of child death systems in this country, particularly with child deaths under the age of two years of age.

Mr. Speaker, we found in our review, that currently there is no province in Canada which has a mandatory review of deaths of all children under two. There were two provinces, Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Ontario, which have raised that limit to include the review of deaths of all children under five. Nunavut requires a review of deaths of all children under six, but nobody had review of deaths strictly for two years of age.

One of the things we found, Mr. Speaker, in our review is that out of all the provinces and territories, there exists no universal standard process for child death reviews in Canada. Of all the provinces' jurisdictions across the country, there is no universal standard for child death reviews. We found various models of child death reviews across the country, and these included reviews by various government departments, particularly those with responsibility for providing services to children. We found situations where the review was conducted by the Chief Medical Examiner. We found situations where the review was conducted by the Coroner's Office, other situations by the Child and Youth Advocate, other situations by the police, and in other situations by an external multi-disciplinary committee, or some combination of both, but no universal standard.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, the Chief Medical Examiner reviews deaths in accordance with the provisions of the Fatalities Investigations Act. This act, Mr. Speaker, requires that investigations be conducted in certain circumstances which include deaths of children while in the custody of a Director of Child, Youth and Family Services. It also requires an investigation be conducted into deaths that are unexpected, or that are the result of violence, accident, or suspected negligent treatment. In fact, this requirement captures the deaths of all children under the age of majority, which in this Province is nineteen years of age.

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our review of this recommendation to determine what child death system or process would be most appropriate for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very sensitive issue because we have to keep in mind that an investigation into the death of any child could be very invasive upon a family going through such a difficult time. This is especially true for an incident which is clearly a death of natural causes. Obviously, government helps to balance all aspects of this recommendation as it makes it decision.

Mr. Speaker, the recommendations related to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate were dealt with by this government in 2008. Consultation with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, at that time, revealed that some of the recommendations should be implemented but that all were not necessary. In the spring of 2008 we brought to this House of Assembly, amendments to the Child and Youth Advocate Act, which addressed the recommendations that were set out in the Turner review and investigation, and which were supported by the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of these amendments the Child and Youth Advocate, today, has the same authority as currently held by the Office of Citizens' Representative to investigate matters, the same authority to compel individuals to provide verbal and written information under oath or affirmation, they have the same authority as the Citizens' Rep to compel the production of documents. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, Mr. Speaker, can also commence contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court against any individual who fails to comply.

Mr. Speaker, in the news release today by the hon. minister, the focus of the release was on the best interest of the child. Mr. Speaker, these initiatives support the best interest of the child principle and are adhered to in practice. I can assure you that the standard guides the decision making process followed by our government respecting the safety and well-being of children and youth in our Province. It is a progressive piece of legislation. As I said, the best interests of the child are at the crux of it.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, with the progress we have made as a Department of Justice in response to the Turner review and the initiative we have undertaken and the progress we have made as a government. With the death of a child, any child, it is unfortunate, as it was in the case of Zachary Turner, but I believe the justice system has responded in a manner appropriate and which addresses the concerns of that unfortunate circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2010: The Right Investments For Our Children and Our Future, provided $167 million for the development of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. It also provided $134 million for the Poverty Reduction Strategy to fight poverty in our Province, and made an unprecedented investment into the Department of Health and Community Services. These investments, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrate the commitment of our government to provide a safe and healthy Province for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to work, to grow and to live.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth is another important step forward in this plan and one that certainly meets our goals of protecting the children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador and ensuring a bright future for them. I look forward to all members of this House unanimously passing this very important piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very pleased this afternoon to stand and to speak to Bill 1 which is before us today, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

This is an important act and I am really glad to see the focus that the minister is giving to the act. It is an act that is certainly been overdue, long overdue, and the minister has recognized that. It certainly does bring long awaited improvements to the child protection system. It lays out a blueprint that will be very important for the work of the Child, Youth and Family Services department.

There will be some questions that I will raise around a couple of the clauses and present them to the minister as I speak this afternoon, but those questions will not, in any way, take away from my supporting this act. It certainly does deal with the issues that I have heard identified by many front-line workers in CYFS.

One of the issues that we have to deal with – and I am going to deal with some broader ones first before I speak to the individual sections that I have some questions about – is that no matter what we put on paper, and no matter what we put in a piece of legislation, we also have to make sure that we have an organization that is so structured that people in the front line in particular, the front-line social workers, have all the resources they need to do their work and to do it, not just in the spirit of the legislation that is before us today but also according to the dictates of the legislation that is before us today. That is something that is very important.

I have consulted with a number of social workers with regard to the piece of legislation, just to get some input from front-line workers, as I did my own analysis of the bill. I think in what I have to say here today, I will be reflecting some of those thoughts that have been brought to me and some of the analysis which has been brought to me by front-line workers. I think they are the ones that we need to listen to because they are the ones that deal with the issues on a daily basis and on a daily basis have to try to work within the dictates of legislation.

One of the things for sure that we are still hearing – I have been hearing it ever since I have been in this House and continue to hear it - is the caseloads that social workers are trying to carry and the difficulties they have in doing both the administrative work that is demanded of them, as well as the work they need to do with families. There is not one social worker I have spoken with who does not believe that the child is the focus of his or her work, and the protection of the child or the youth is the focus of his or her work. They know that requires from them regular contact with the child or the youth, regular contact with the family when the child or youth is with their family and continuing to be with the family as the family and the child or youth try to deal with the issues that have been identified, that the amount of work that has to be done is quite extensive. As a lot of us know, we have people in the House of Assembly, some of us have been teachers - I myself was a teacher for over twelve years - and some have social work experience. There are different experiences in this room that allow us to understand that working with people, and especially working with people who are in difficult situations, as children in care are, and as their families are, takes time. It is not something that can easily have timelines put to it. You cannot say that you are going to visit a child one day and you can allot yourself a half-hour and that is all that you are going to give, because very often your visit can turn into needing you to be there for an hour.

It is not an easy thing that the front-line workers have to face, and in speaking to this bill I am thinking both of the children, of their families, and of the front-line workers, because they all are affected by this new piece of legislation.

We need more resources. I know the minister has spoken about reorganizing, and reorganizing will take care of some things, but more resources is also something that is needed, and some of the sections of this piece of legislation are going to require more rather than less. One interesting point that was brought out, for example, by one of the front-line workers with whom I spoke - and I am just going to find the specific example here - had to do with section 33.(1) in which there will be - let me see if I have the right section now; yes, this is it - section 33.(1) which deals with the number of orders that may be taken on a child being reduced from three to two, and there will be less time before a final verdict on whether the child can be returned to the home.

Now, this is quite positive. Currently, families get three tries to make changes to keep the child, and social workers can get help for the children and the families during that time, but some of the social workers I have spoken with - a couple of the front-line workers I have spoken with - say that one of the reasons why they sometimes are not able to deal with the issues that are relating to that family and to that child or to that youth is not because of the length of time itself; it is because they do not have enough resources to support the parents during the time that they are working with them. So, very often you do not see the results of working with a family as quickly as you would like to see them, but it is because the social worker, the front-line worker, cannot spend as much time working with the family.

So, for example, something that is good, which is trying to keep the child in temporary care, or the youth in temporary care, for a shorter period of time, and the eighteen months certainly is a good operational length of time, but if the social worker or the front-line worker cannot have adequate time to work with the family during that eighteen months, this may end up being something that is not going to work. So, hearing that voice of the front-line worker, I think, is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

The families need more ongoing support services and the minister, I understand, did say this morning in the briefing that was done, that even though the word "family" has been taken out of the act because of the focus on youth and children, it does not mean that families are going to be ignored and that they will not get support services, but they will have to be assessed in order to determine whether or not they are going to get support services. That is fine and dandy, but the family is the unit where, if possible, we want the child to be. If a child has good family connections in spite of what might be going on at that moment, working with the family is just as important as working with the child, and sometimes also for the sake of other children who are in the family, because sometimes you may have only one child out of a group who are being affected. Sometimes it is a whole group of children because of the size of the issue.

The thing of having more resources is going to be an extremely important issue, and I know that the minister has said that this act will not come into effect probably for about a year's time. One of the things that I will be looking at is the Budget for 2010-2011 to see if there is going to be a reflection in the Budget of the more needed resources that are going to be required, because it cannot happen without extra budget. There is no doubt about that.

The minister has further work to do on the regulations and the policies that have to go with this legislation, and we certainly have had a lot of reviews and studies to help, with the most recent ones – I will not mention all of them – but the most recent ones, of course: first of all, in 2008, the Clinical Services Review. The Clinical Services Review found contacts with clients that are significantly below what is necessary for maintaining a clinical relationship to support client change. That is one of the things that I am talking about: having adequate time to work on the relationships between the front-line workers, the families, the children and the youth, in order for real change to happen. The Clinical Services Review also found low levels of monitoring in case management, so another issue. I think that is also something that happens because of inadequate resources, inadequate people working inside of the department. The Clinical Services Review of 2008 also found improvements were needed in case planning, documentation, social worker contact, policy standards and risk management.

I know the legislation will speak to some of this, but an ongoing theme is the whole thing of having the time to make sure that the personal contacts are in place between the front-line social worker from the department and the families, the children and youth.

The same thing with Lost in Transition, which was the report of 2009, it revealed problems with the way children are treated when moved from one placement to another. Again, some of that had to do with having adequate people involved with the child when movements take place.

Then, a third report, the one in 2010, which was the Auditor General's report, found that the protective intervention program carries a risk of harm to children due to poor delivery and monitoring, backlogs in referrals and investigations, and the alternative living arrangements not being satisfactory.

I know the minister is certainly aware of the backlogs, and she is certainly aware of the alternative living arrangement issues, but these are not going to be solved by the legislation. I would hope that the minister, in putting the policies and the regulations together, that I suspect will be done over the next year if they have not already started, that she will consult with front-line workers; because I really believe it is the front-line workers who have to speak to these issues.

I know that the minister, when she did her consultation over the past year, and especially last summer, did go to fifty of the fifty-two offices, et cetera, but I have had front-line workers say to me the whole story still did not come out in those meetings. That is not the minister's fault - I am not blaming the minister - but front-line workers still did not feel free to say everything that they felt they needed to say in those meetings. That is something that the minister will have to think about as she goes into getting the regulations put in place.

What I am going to do now, Mr. Speaker, is take some of the sections - I have made some general comments, and I could make more, but I think it is important that I look at some of the individual sections that I am concerned about, or have some questions about.

The first one is section 9. In section 9, I am looking particularly at section 9.(1)(d) – subsection (2)(d), I am sorry. Subsection (2) of section 9 says, "In determining a child or youth's best interests, all relevant factors shall be considered, including", and I will not read the whole list. I will just read the one that I am concerned about, "the child or youth's identity and cultural and community connections".

Now, when I was reading the act I was looking for reference to Aboriginal children, because certainly the protective care of Aboriginal children, especially children from Labrador, but not only Labrador, is an ongoing concern. The cultural and community connections issue and the child or youth's identity is a major issue when it comes to Aboriginal children.

In a general way, certainly section 9.(2)(d), in a general way makes reference to that but there are no specifics around what some of the issues have been. I understand legislation cannot get at everything but it seems to me that this is going to be an area where regulations and policy are going to have to spell out a lot of detail with regard to how we make sure Aboriginal children who are under protective care, that these needs are considered for them. As well, now that we have a much larger immigrant community in Newfoundland and Labrador, I am aware of situations here in St. John's where the background of the family which was quite different culturally from the background of our Province, where that became issues with some of the protective care cases that I have been aware of.

So it is a big issue which is covered by 9.(2)(d) in a very small sentence. As I said, while I can understand why there is no more detail in the legislation, I really hope that there is going to be more detail in the regulations themselves and in the policy that dictates those regulations. I would like to hear more from the minister about that, whenever we get to the point where the minister responds. We will have committee discussion on this, so that is a place where this can be explored.

Another section I have a question about is section 10.(2). This is excellent. It is an excellent section. It talks about - the big issue under this section of course, under section 10, is times when children are in need of protective intervention. One of the important things about this section is that we have included here, which is really important, the fact of children being at risk emotionally. There is a lot who have paid attention to the need to protect children who are being harmed emotionally. It is really important that this is in this new bill.

Under subsection (2) of section 10, it says, "For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and (f), the indicators of emotional harm exhibited or demonstrated by a child may include" and then we have a list that is under may include. My question is - this is excellent, that there is an attempt at defining but obviously this is not an exhaustive list, and that is indicated by the fact it says may include. I am just wondering: Could it make it clearer if it said: may include but are not limited to, and then have the list so that there is not a focus on – even though it says may include, that this is an exhaustive list. So I would ask the minister to consider: Could not we put in after include: but are not limited to, just to make it absolutely clear what we are talking about?

Another one that I would like to speak to is – just let me get it here now. No, changing my mind on that one. Section 26, and section 26, Mr. Speaker, has to do with timelines, "Where a child has been removed, the manager or social worker shall, within 24 hours after the removal of the child, file an application with the court for a protective intervention hearing, which shall be held not later than 30 days…" Now, one front-line worker I have been speaking to in particular is concerned about this. She works in Labrador and she has worked on the North Coast of Labrador and her concern is that even now it is almost impossible to impose the deadlines right now. That even the deadlines that are in the current act do not get followed, not because of CYFS, not because of the social worker but because of the need for more dedicated supports inside the justice system.

So I am going to end on that note by saying, Mr. Speaker - as I see my time is coming to an end - that the things that are in this act, there are a number of places where the comment I have just made apply, where what the act is asking for, what the act will be asking for, what the bill is now asking for is for things to move more quickly within the justice system. If the justice system, especially in places like the North Coast of Labrador, is not designed in a way to respond speedily than no matter what is on paper it is not going to happen, because it is not happening now with the current act because of that reason. I would like to hear the minister speak more, Mr. Speaker, in committee in particular, speak more to how she sees things changing inside of the justice system to support the demands of the bill. I know the Minister of Justice spoke to it but I did not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I could just clue up, one sentence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?

MS BURKE: To clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: To clue up.

MS MICHAEL: Just to say that, though I heard what the Minister of Justice said, I did not think it was adequate to answer the concern that I am raising. So I look forward to hearing what the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services will have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege and an honour to speak on this very important piece of legislation today. This is the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act. It is a full piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. While we have dealt with some bills in the House, there have been amendments to some of the different pieces of legislation that we have, this is an actual new act, the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act. It replaces the Child, Youth and Family Services Act that was proclaimed in the year 2000. Prior to that, of course, we had the Child Welfare Act for some fifty years prior to that.

I have spoken several times in this session, Mr. Speaker, and I always count it a privilege to be able to stand in the House of Assembly and to speak. I spoke on the Budget and I spoke on the Throne Speech and the Provincial Court Act, the insurance act and some private members' bills. There is nothing and there is no piece of legislation that I have spoken on that I count any more significant than this piece that we are talking about today.

I have worked with children and with youth most of my working life, spending fifteen years as a school principal and eight years or so, prior to that, as a teacher. Particularly in my role as a school principal, I heard some pretty sad stories. I saw some pretty sad stories, and I heard a lot more, of children out there in our Province that are in need of our protection. While most of the children that we encounter on a daily basis are doing well and they are well cared for, there are a number who do not enjoy that same level of security and comfort.

Our children are certainly the group of most vulnerable citizens. They do have a right to live in an environment that is free of threat, free of violence, and free of emotional, sexual or physical abuse. They have the right to grow up in a nurturing and caring environment and to have their needs provided, and most do, but unfortunately some do not. It is these children that we have the duty and the responsibility as a government to provide the maximum protection for, Mr. Speaker.

That is the whole purpose of this piece of legislation that we are introducing today. The whole purpose is to ensure that when the safety nets that are in place and when the families who are there - when security is not provided and when children are at risk that we, as a government, do our part to make sure that we provide for the security and the comfort of these children.

The act defines a parent – and I thought it was important that I bring that out today. The parent in the act is defined as: the custodial mother of a child; the custodial father; a custodial step-parent; a non-custodial parent who regularly exercises or attempts to exercise rights of access. It is a person to whom custody of a child has been granted by a written agreement or a court order, or it is a person who is responsible for the child's care and with whom the child resides, other than with a foster parent. Foster parent is actually defined at another place in the act.

One of the very sad stories in our history, Mr. Speaker, was the death of Zachary Turner in 2003. The ensuing Turner review raised many questions about the practice of child protection in this Province and the legislation from which it is derived. All major legislative recommendations in the Turner report have been included in the new legislation. The Turner Review and Investigation report in 2006 identified weaknesses in the current legislation, and then that went on to recommend a review. That review was completed in 2009. On May 13, 2009, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services did a media release, which announced her intention to adopt the recommendations put forward and to begin working on them right away. I guess this is why, ever since the new department has been put in place and the new minister has been appointed, there has been an evolving process which brings us to where we are today.

Compiling this legislation did not happen overnight, but we are at this very significant milestone in the department's history already. Citing the need for change, the minister, at the time, said this, "The issues outlined in the report underscore why a new department has been created to focus solely on the needs of children, youth and their families. This government is committed to a transformation from the ground up. We are determined to make the necessary changes to ensure the safety of our children." She went on to say, "I accept in full all of the recommendations in the report," and "I am appointing a leadership team to ensure the recommendations are carried out. The clinical review will be used as a guiding document as we move forward to a new era" - a new era, Mr. Speaker - "in child protection."

Of significance as well in that release, I thought very interesting, the minister said: This is not about a series of quick fixes. We have a ways to go. There are more systemic issues and we need to ensure front-line staff have the tools and supports they need to protect our most vulnerable children. So it is not a series of quick fixes. It is not about doing something today that we can enact tomorrow, but the progress that we have made at this point in our department's short life, Mr. Speaker, I would say is admirable.

The media release finished by saying this, "I truly believe that we can create the best child and youth protection system in the country," said the minister. "As the Clinical Services Review notes, the lives of the children of Newfoundland and Labrador depend on it.

One of the key findings of the Clinical Services Review released in 2009 was that the current legislation requires review and updating in several areas in order to achieve greater clarity of purpose that is more child-centred.

Some of the things that we see in this piece of legislation are: the new child protection legislation, it strengthens the principle of best interests of the child. The previous act included a best of the child principle but it was part of a full list of other general principles. The new act clearly states that the overriding and the paramount consideration in a decision made under the act shall be in the best interest of the child. So, everything is guided by what is in the best interest of the child. I guess in any scenario there is always mitigating circumstances and situations that might come in and cloud the real issue, but the lens that must be put on, according to this legislation, and I am sure that will follow as policy is developed from this legislation, policies will be developed that will ensure that the best interest of the child is always the lens through which we see the different decisions that are going to be made.

In fact, the act clearly states this, and I quote, "The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in need of protective intervention." It goes on to say in section 9 of the act, "This Act shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that the overriding and paramount consideration in a decision made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child or youth."

That is not always as simple as it might sound. How do you make a decision that is the best interest of the child or the youth? I would say, Mr. Speaker, it does not always mean that what the child or the youth says is exactly what should be done. In fact, there are a whole set of circumstances that are outlined in the act, a whole set of things that should be considered. In determining a child or youth's best interests the following factors should be considered. First, the child's safety, health and well-being; secondly, the child or the youth's physical, emotional and developmental needs; considered as well, the youth's relationship with the family or persons significant to the child or youth; the youth's identity, the child's identity and the cultural and the community connections. You should also consider the child's opinion regarding his or her care, custody and the provision of services, and the importance of stability and permanency always in the context of what is in the best interest of the child. So, I guess a front-line worker, a social worker would consider all of these things when they make up their mind: What is in the best interest of this child in this circumstance?

Some other things that this particular piece of legislation builds on, it extends the automatic termination of a youth subject to a youth services agreement from eighteen to nineteen. The big benefit that I see there is that it allows the youth enough time to complete high school. Now eighteen is normally enough time for somebody with a good, academic record and probably no problems and all of that kind of thing or very few, say your normal child developing through school. Eighteen is time enough for them to be finished their high school grades, but sometimes you have children who are nineteen years of age before they actually finish high school. Some of the educational plans that are put in place actually for some children require them to maybe take four years to complete their senior high years as opposed to the normal three. This act means that age now is extended from eighteen to nineteen is the determination of a youth subject – subject to a youth services agreement is extended from eighteen to nineteen.

Part III of the act is entitled Protective Intervention. What this part does is it outlines the circumstances in which a child is going to be in need of protective intervention. There are several, a circumstance in which a child "is being, or is at risk of being, physically harmed by the action or lack of appropriate action by the child's parent". That is one, or a child "is being, or is at risk of being, sexually abused or exploited by the child's parent". It adds a new ground for protective intervention in the home to include risk of emotional harm. It reads: A child is in need of protection if the child "is being, or is at risk of being, emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child or that may be suffered by the child results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child's parent". So this is a new piece, risk of emotional harm.

Previously, risk of emotional harm was not grounds for protective intervention and a social worker 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 the risk of physical harm, sexual abuse or neglect. Now there is a provision for emotional risk, and this is in keeping with other provinces in Canada and other territories, Mr. Speaker. We are not breaking new ground here. This is a piece that we are adding which other provinces before us have seen the need to put in their legislation and we also see the need now.

Other circumstances for which protective intervention might be required are when a child "is being, or is at risk of being, physically harmed by a person and the child's parent does not protect the child". So the parent is not the one actually doing the harm but the parent is aware of it and not taking any action to protect the child, whether it is physical harm, sexual abuse or emotional harm. There are others.

I am going to leave that section, Mr. Speaker, because I see my time is running down and there are another couple of points that I wanted to make before I sat down. One of them is that the act adds new grounds for protective intervention in the home to include "…living in a situation where there is a risk of violence".

The new legislation will now provide broader grounds for protective intervention where the child "is living in a situation where there is a risk of violence" even if the violence is not currently directed towards the child. This addresses situations in which one or both parents, or a new partner maybe, they have a history or a propensity to violence inside or outside the home. So, if the child is living in a situation where there is a risk of violence, then of course we know that if that is the case then that child could very well be at risk himself or herself. So intervention can take place.

It was interesting, I was at the media release conference today and one of the questions that was asked, and it was like, one of the reporters said: so that means that now social workers can take the child out of the home more often? The answer is, no. This is all about children, and what this will do is it will allow more incidents in which a social worker can initiate an investigation to make sure that the environment in which the child is living is safe, and that is what we want. Obviously, the best situation is for the children to be in homes where they are nurtured and well cared for.

Sometimes alarm bells go off and a social worker can do an investigation, they can come out and say: you know, there is no reason to be alarmed in this situation, things are okay. We have a message there that was not quite right, or it could be a social worker might come out and say: well, you know, we need to put something in place to help out that parent at this point in time, and the child can stay in the environment and things work out. There is a whole continuum of interventions that might take place, all with the best interests of the child in mind.

I am going to skip a couple of pages now, Mr. Speaker, I see I have about a minute left. The legislation that we are introducing here today is the base on which policies will now be developed and regulations put in place that will fall in line with this legislation. The minister has said it is going to be about a year before this is actually proclaimed because all policies now have to be reviewed to make sure that they do not conflict with the legislation that is in place. Once that is done, and everything lines up, then there has to be training of staff put in place to make sure that they are all familiar with the legislation and the policies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying, in the Throne Speech this year, a quote from the Throne Speech was, "There is no gift more precious than a child, and no duty more important than advancing the best interests of our children through the choices we make." Our Budget in 2010: The Right Investments For Our Children and Our Future. Mr. Speaker, this government cares for children, our Premier cares for children, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, certainly cares for children, I would say we all care for children. They are at the centre of this piece of legislation, and I think it is a momentous day, and I look forward to this legislation passing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words. We have had lots of speeches this afternoon. We have some important guests in the gallery, of course, people who have played a major role in seeing that we have this piece of legislation to deal with today. I would like to make some comments of an overall, general view first of all, and then I have a couple of specifics I would like to put to the minister so that by the time we get to committee stage we can have some explanation of it.

I am sure we have not cured every issue that we are going to have, when it comes to child protection matters, by Bill 1. We will go some way toward improving the system, but let's not kid ourselves; we are going to be back here again. Hopefully, we will be back here because if anyone thinks that we have achieved perfection with this bill, think again. That is the whole purpose of bringing in this new template now.

Hopefully, we have a great job done here, but hopefully, as well, once you start to implement it and put it in process, then you see that you miss things. That is only normal. You do not always, or very rarely, have a situation where you design something that works without fail. There are usually circumstances that you have not thought about. Those circumstances usually happen in a courtroom because there is a great interaction between Bill 1. We talk about it today in the context of social workers who are, no doubt, other than the child itself, the most important persons involved in the system when it comes to child protection, but another big player here, of course, is the courts.

We have not heard too much from our Minister of Justice as to exactly what the interplay is. I look forward to having his explanation of how he sees this new Bill 1, once it becomes law. We are going to pass it here, but we are a year away before it is actually implemented and gets proclaimed. A bunch of policies have to be written by the department around it. I would be interested in hearing how it is going to interplay between our social workers and our court system.

I have had some involvement in that area; I practiced law for thirty years. I was actually on both sides of the fence in the Southwestern Newfoundland, Port aux Basques, Burgeo, Stephenville, Corner Brook area and up the Northern Peninsula, and did numerous cases on both sides. First of all, from a prosecutor point of view – and that was the language that you used back then – representing the department when a child was apprehended, in the 1980s and the 1990s. Then, of course, also on the other side. When a child was apprehended and the parent retains you to say that apprehension was not appropriate for certain reasons and you had to go to court and have a hearing, and the judge would decide whether the child should or should not have been taken from the home. So, I have had a bit of experience on both sides. I dealt with a lot of social workers, and dealt with a lot of judges, and dealt with a lot of families who have been impacted by this.

It is monumental, but some of the concepts we are talking about here, they are not new at all. We heard about what is in the best interests of the child. It is spelled out, actually, in this new act when it talks about the purposes of this act, and it says, there is a specific section in here where we talk about the general principle, section 9. It says, "This Act shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that the overriding and paramount consideration in a decision made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child or youth." Great principle and it is great common sense, but it has existed since at least 1968 when we brought in our federal Divorce Act, and we dealt with provisions such as custody and access under our federal law.

That is another piece of this as well that we need to understand if we are going to understand Bill 1 totally. Not only is there interaction between the social workers and the families, those two groups interact with the courts. There is also a federal component to this. Quite often, the laws get interchanged. There is a provincial responsibility, but there are also some federal responsibilities. You have to understand how the full picture works here.

As we say, what is in the best interests of the child sometimes is a pretty easy thing to determine. Obviously, if a child is in a situation that it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child is being physically, emotionally hurt, injured, it is pretty obvious that you cannot leave that child in that situation, and you to remove the child from that environment. Maybe the child can go back again if you can provide the proper services and support structure, but at least the child has to be removed in short order so that the abuse does not continue. A child is in need of protection.

There are a lot of other pieces of legislation, by the way, that get impacted here as well. Even just from this act itself when you look at the tail end of it and they talk about the transition pieces, we have the Adoption Act. We have the Child Care Services Act. We have the Children's Law Act. We have the Family Law Act. Believe it or not, we have the Public Trustee Act and we have the Access to Information Regulations - seven different pieces of legislation which get impacted by this one bill that is going to be passed in this House in this session.

So, the principle is great – what is in the best interests of the child. It is not new, but it is a great principle to function under. Hopefully by now, everybody in the system – I am sure the social workers realize it, sometimes parents do not. I have had some parents who did not appreciate it, what was in the best interests, even of their own children. Sometimes that has to be gotten across to them by some people. I think the judges have a good understanding of what is in the children's best interests, and the social workers certainly do. That is a pretty noble and easy goal to strive for. Whether we get there or not is a different story. It is all about, as they say here, trying to make children – to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth.

The question is the detail. That is where there are some concerns here about the detail that is missing. For example, we are not going to have this – we have been for some time now with people saying we needed changes. I think the last major overall change we had was about 2000. We have been ten years now. Not a long time, but long enough to figure out that there were problems with it. We have had at least a year of consultation to get to this point where we bring the bill into the House. We also know we are at least a year off before we make this law. We are going to pass it here, but it is not going to be the law of this land until at least a year. Hopefully, we can get it done with a year. I hope we can get it done within the year. The minister says that is the goal, but we have a lot of training to do. We have a lot of policies to write. We have a lot of interaction that still has to take place between social workers and courthouses and judges before we are ready to do this.

We came out of this House some time ago with all kinds of good intentions when we talked about the Privacy Act. We passed the Privacy Act in 2001. We said we hope to have it in within a year. We did it two years ago, folks. So we are not always as quick as we would like to be, and hopefully that will not happen here. If we do have, sincerely, the best interests of the children at heart, I would implore the government to make sure that it gets done within a year. Whatever resources you have to get in place to do it, they should be put there. Do not come back two years time and say, we had it but we could not proclaim it because we were not ready. If it is that good, which it ought to be, it is good enough to get done right and good enough to get done in a timely fashion.

I can point out now to this House, I will not get into all the details, since 2003 we have ten, eleven different pieces of legislation that this government claimed was important, brought in the act to do it, passed it here in this House, and it did not get proclaimed. Now, that is not good enough. So that is my first comment. I would implore the minister, we have done the consultations, for God's sake, let's do the proper training now, get the policies written so that we can implement this in the timelines that we wish to do so.

Now, just a couple of pieces, and I put this to the minister so that when we get to committee stage, hopefully there will be a few answers. As I say, I have personally done a lot of these issues myself in the past. I am wondering if the minister could take the time when we get to committee stage, because I read it through under the sections here, in Part IV and Part V, I have difficulty understanding the difference between a protective intervention hearing and a presentation hearing. Particularly when you read them in section 25, when the child was not removed, versus 26, when the child was removed, and then it talks about the process that you go through after that, depending on whether a child was or was not removed.

Now, I do not want to get here in second reading into the nitty-gritty details of it but I think it is important that people understand that, because if that is what we are trying to do here is protect children – and this is an opportunity for the minister to explain to people in the public what happens here. We either did not remove the child, which it says under 25, or we did remove the child under 26. What is the difference in the two circumstances, vis-ΰ-vis the type of hearing that you have or do not have?

The other concern, I just noticed from the minister, maybe there is a simple answer for this. I have read it and re-read it and I cannot find it. It talks in 25 about: Where a child is not removed but "…a manager or social worker believes on reasonable grounds that (a) a child is in need of protective intervention; (b) the child's safety could be assured without removing the child with the provision of protective intervention services; and (c) a parent of the child is unwilling to accept protective intervention services for the child, the manager or social worker shall file an application with the court for a protective intervention hearing…". That is when the child was not removed but it was felt that there were some protective intervention services required. It talks about the manager or the social worker has to take an application to the court for a protective intervention hearing.

When you look at 26, if you take a child out of the home you have to make your application for such a hearing within twenty-four hours. So if the child is taken from the home, under section 26, the social worker or the manager must make their application to the court within twenty-four hours. Under 25, it seems if you have a situation where the child is still in need of protection but you did not take them from the home, but you did suggest that there would be support services, yet the parent refused. There is no timeline as to how quickly it has to go to a court. It just says that the manager or social worker shall file an application, but there are no timelines. I am just wondering, why would there not be timelines in that case? Maybe when we get to committee stage, I would appreciate it if the minister could educate us on some of those issues.

The other piece here is the plan. Lots of cases, of course, one of the trouble spots before was if a social worker had a plan, you would end up in a hearing, the social worker could explain what the plan was for that particular child, or youth, and there was very little oversight. There was very little oversight once the judge made a ruling one way or the other. He saw the plan, or she saw the plan, and the plan was adopted; very little oversight on a go-forward basis as to what would happen.

Now, I understand from our press briefing this morning on this particular Bill 1, that it was going to be different in the future. I am wondering if the minister, again, either when she concludes second reading or gets into committee stage, explain to us what procedures are going to be put in place so that there is assurance that the plan that is put in place is monitored, seen, and so on. That was one of the major, major concerns before. God knows, social workers are busy enough. I understand we have a pretty tough caseload. There are certain spots that we cannot get social workers in this Province, that we wish we could. We had a few years ago, I know, a major problem of recruitment and retention. Hopefully, we are getting that resolved. I would appreciate that explanation from the minister as well, when we get there.

The other piece is in section 81, and I understand that is a new one. We talk about accountability provisions, and 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 that is a pretty onerous thing to do and that is what concerns me again about the year, because if we are saying we are going to do that in a year, I mean it has taken us a year just to get to the point where we are going to make these amendments here or bring in this new act, and yet one of the major, major pieces that is going to make this act work or not is going to be a process to monitor the plans for the children. Has any work been done on that yet? If not, when will it start? Who is going to be involved in the process? Will there be public consultations on that or will it be just stakeholder interests, for example, judges and social workers? Will there be any public involvement in that? I would appreciate it if the minister could educate us on that.

The other thing is, I did not hear, maybe I missed it, but I did not hear in terms of the consultation here just exactly - I know there were a lot of interest groups who were consulted, but I am just wondering, for the record, if the minister could tell us what involvement the courts played in this system? Like, what judges were involved? Were judges involved? To what extent were they involved? What contributions did they make to this plan here? Because the system will not work, if you do not have the courts involved and sincerely concerned about it, this new law will not work in the best interest of children if the judges and the court system have not bought into it? It just will not work like it is intended and ought to work.

The other thing is: Have the police been involved in the consultation process and, if so, who was involved? If they were not involved, it would be interesting to know why not because quite often, certainly in my experience, the police are an important stakeholder in this as well. So it would be nice to know exactly, were they consulted in this process? Was it both police forces, the RNC, the RCMP? It would be nice to know that, and again, what their role was in the process. Was there any involvement between the different levels of court, for example, federal and provincials? I would be curious to know that because a lot of times you do get some cross over. It could be a marriage breakdown that is getting dealt with in one court, but in the course of all of that happening in that family's lives, of course, there becomes a need for intervention from time to time. So, has there been any consultation between the different levels of court here?

Now the courts have certainly, over the past years, taken a different focus. In my experience, thirty years ago the children's interests, that was not - all due respect to the judges, they dealt with it, but it was not given a special status when it came to courtroom stuff. There was the old Child Welfare Act of that day and things would happen, and yes, judges would deal with them, but the principal concern back then was criminal cases. The courts have come a long way too and they have modified. We have judges, for example, who sit on the provincial court now who do nothing but family law cases and cases involving children. That is a good move; it is a great move. I am just wondering has the minister had any consultations with those people as well.

I will not get into any further detail at this point. That is just my preliminary comments. I think it is a good thing to have, like the review of anything, but now that we have reviewed it, let's make sure we have it right.

I realize there are going to be a few amendments come, probably from the Leader of the NDP and probably even some from the Official Opposition, and I hope if they are sensible amendments that the minister does not reject them. Quite often, what happens here is you propose something with all the reason in the world, and yet it is met with resistance because the other side did not think it up. There is nobody in this room too smart to take a bit of advice from someone else.

Hopefully, as those amendments come forward they will be accepted and dealt with and debated in the spirit in which they are intended, which is: Are they in the best interests of the child? If it is not, I would hope that the government would be open to consideration of those amendments that would be forthcoming.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to continuing my contribution to this debate when we get to the committee stage.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today on Bill 1, which is, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

Obviously, in this Legislature we deal with all kinds of important pieces of legislation, but this is certainly one that is close to home for me for a variety of reasons.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, I spend the first number of months of my life in the care of this Province. I was in foster care myself. I was adopted and I have amazing parents and I have had a wonderful upbringing, but as a result of having been in care and having that perspective, I have certainly very much an interest in this piece of legislation.

I have had numerous encounters with Child, Youth and Family Services over the years in various capacities and I could tell you lots about that. In addition, professionally, I did spend six years working with Big Brothers Big Sisters where many of the clients who I worked with were, in fact, clients of Child, Youth and Family Services. I also have volunteered with a number of youth organizations that interact with youth and children and families that are clients of Child, Youth and Family Services. So this legislation certainly is close to home for a variety of reasons. In addition to that, over the last year or so, my wife and I have gotten involved in foster care, providing emergency short-term care for children in need. So, this is indeed a piece of legislation that I take very seriously as all members of this House do and one that I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to.

I was also pleased today to hear some of the comments from the Leader of the Opposition acknowledging the importance of this legislation. I was also pleased to hear that the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. I think this government is incredibly committed the area of Child, Youth and Family Services and I do want to talk about that a little bit today.

There is no greater asset to this Province than our children and than our youth. This government determined in our last Budget that children need to be an incredibly high priority amongst all of our officials and, in fact, over the last year this government has created the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and I think that demonstrates this government's commitment to addressing children's and youth issues.

As we heard from the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services today, she has been working incredibly diligently to develop this new piece of legislation. It will repeal and replace the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. It is going to modernize our legislation and clarify the law respecting the protection of children and youth. I do not think there is anybody in this Province or anywhere for that matter that would argue the importance of protecting children and youth. That protection, in some ways, begins in this Legislature by adopting appropriate practices and policies and putting legislation in place that ensures that we do everything we can to protect children and youth.

It was determined by this government that we need to get back to a truly child-centred approach, as has been referenced several times today, looking truly at the best interest of the child. We need to be proactive, not reactive, in our determination of situations involving children. We need to have standards. We also need to be human. We need to be compassionate. We need to be understanding. We, obviously, need to do what we can to help families and, most importantly, children that are in need.

Situations and circumstances involving children are delicate. We are dealing with lots of emotions. We are dealing with potentially changing lives forever. While we need to respect this, we also need to be objective and do what is best for the child or children involved first and foremost, and ultimately do what is best for families and others involved.

We need to ensure the policies and procedures are followed properly. We need to offer our staff support and training. We need everyone on the same page when it comes to doing what we can collectively to protect children and youth. While there are situations that are obviously unique in nature, we have to have standards and policies that provide and ensure consistency. We need to address and assess every situation. We need to be responsive, we need to be efficient, and time matters an awful lot when it comes to dealing with matters affecting children.

My colleague from the District of Lewisporte, as well as other speakers today talked about the Turner report, and nobody would argue that the death of Zachary Turner in 2003 was a tragedy in this Province. It is one that I think most people in this Province find difficult to forget. The Turner Review and Investigation report in 2006 identified weaknesses in the provincial legislation and there were a number of recommendations coming out of that review.

These recommendations have, in some ways, been a driving force behind this new act that we are debating in this House today. All major legislative recommendations in the Turner report have been included in this new legislation, which I think is great to see, but we have gone further than that, Mr. Speaker. All of the non-legislative Turner recommendations that relate to Child, Youth and Family Services are also being addressed. The creation of the new department has already addressed many of these recommendations and more will be addressed. Some examples of the non-legislative recommendations include the need for better documentation standards, better accountability and better training for child protection workers.

The minister has accepted these recommendations in full and they have become the guiding principles for the creation of the new department. I think incredible progress has been made since this government came to power, and particularly incredible progress has been made in the area of Child, Youth and Family Services over the last year or so.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one of a series of measures that we are undertaking to build a revitalized child protection system in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is all about accountability. It is all about excellence. It is all about doing what is truly in the best interests of the child and it is all about consistency.

I am very proud to be part of a government that has been truly focused on doing what is right and what is best for children. The creation of the department, the priorities of this most recent Budget certainly reflect our commitment to children and youth. We have made improvements to the Early Childhood Education program. Over the last year or so the program went on-line, for instance. We have done a great deal to support foster families in this Province who truly are unsung heroes. We have seen an increase in rates for foster families, but, not only that, we are engaged in finding innovative ways to recruit more foster families. Having been involved as a foster parent on a short-term basis, on an emergency basis a number of times over the last year or so, I would certainly encourage many families in Newfoundland and Labrador to consider getting involved with foster care. It is incredibly rewarding, it is incredibly important, and there is an amazing demand for foster families in this Province right now.

This government has done other things that are significant as well. The Clinical Services Review that was commissioned is certainly reflected in – and the recommendations of that review are reflected in this legislation. Since 2006, over 220 new positions have been created related to Child, Youth and Family Services directly in this Province. We have seen since that time over $24 million in new investments in training, in technology, in improving processes and program development. We recognize that the work is just beginning.

Mr. Speaker, in preparing to debate this bill, I was impressed to see how much consultation was done with clients of Child, Youth and Family Services, both past clients as well as current clients. The department reached out to advocacy groups, to groups that work with the Aboriginal community. The consultation process reached out to educators, to health professionals, to those involved with the judicial system, to community-based organizations such as Daybreak, Choices for Youth, and Waypoints, all of whom have interaction with clients that are affected by this legislation.

I would like to talk a little bit about some of the features of this new legislation and why I feel it is an amazing progress in terms of supporting and protecting children and youth. It is really about getting back to our core business of protecting children in need of protection. It is very clear to see that this legislation provides a lot of clarity. It certainly has a more child centred focus. Any decision that is made under this act must be in the best interest of children and youth.

The new act also reflects best practices in clinical work and, as the minister pointed out, extensive research has been done, not only in consultation with people in this Province but throughout the country and around the world as well.

I think an important highlight of this legislation that we are debating today is the fact that it promotes better permanency planning for children in care. It decreases the number of temporary court orders that children in care can be affected by. This legislation ensures that a detailed plan of care has to be filed with the courts. In the past, we have seen a lack of consistent practice in this area in the court system. So I think this is a really strong and noteworthy improvement. This legislation also ensures that processes will be established for monitoring all children in care, including those who are in continuous or long-term custody.

Another important highlight from my perspective, based on some of the experiences I have had with the system, is the increase in the age for continuous custody. We are really going to be supporting youth in need of protection longer than we have in the past as they transition into adulthood and extend that continuous custody age from sixteen to eighteen. Many organizations and individuals working with youth in that age group have found that in the past youth have fallen through the cracks and have not had the right kind of supports available to them. This change is an incredibly positive one and it is absolutely the right move from my perspective.

The legislation also adds new grounds for protective intervention in the home to include risk of emotional harm, as several speakers have alluded to today, and that is certainly consistent with other provinces and territories in Canada. This legislation defines that risk of emotional harm and also provides the court with clear indicators and defines the types of behaviours that that definition intends to address.

The Opposition in Question Period today, and again in debate, wondered why the act is not being proclaimed for a year. I think there are really sound reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely critical that we develop the right policy and ensure that professionals involved in Child, Youth and Family Services are fully prepared to embrace and to follow this new legislation once it is proclaimed. I think it is also very important to note that once complete, caseload sizes for social workers in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be significantly reduced as a result of the establishment of the Child, Youth and Family Services department and as a result of some of the processes that have been approved already, and processes that will be improved as a result of the adoption of this new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this act also clarifies the conditions that a judge may attach to an order that is made under the act. I think this is going to ensure that cases are dealt with in a more efficient and expedient manner through the court system, and hopefully some of the delays we have seen in the past will be reduced and ultimately eliminated.

The new act also provides for a statutory review every five years to ensure the timely review of legislation to keep it in line with best practices and also to ensure that we are fully accountable to the public. Just some notes on that, Mr. Speaker, the department will establish a provincial Child, Youth and Family Services quality and audit unit and a continuous quality improvement plan which I think will mean good things for the Child, Youth and Family Services system. The department is also committed to publishing a strategic plan and a report on performance annually. This is also required as a category one entity under the Transparency and Accountability Act, which members of this House are well familiar with.

There is also going to be a significant public accountability monitoring mechanism in place through the Child and Youth Advocate's office. That will continue, of course, Mr. Speaker, and it is important for the people of the Province and the members of this Legislature to know that as well.

The minister earlier today referenced the change of the term caregiver back to foster parent in the legislation. Having talked to the Foster Families Association over the years and having talked to many foster parents, I think this is a very positive move that has already been well received by foster families. I think it will instill a sense of identity and pride among foster parents, and I think that is great to see.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous practical benefits of establishing the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, which we have seen, and also in introducing legislation like this. As I said, caseload sizes are going to be reduced, which is great news for children, families and social workers. Not only are we bringing in the right kind of legislation to protect children, we are also ensuring that we are committing the right kind of resources to meet the needs of children, youth and families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure during this debate some will question why we are, in fact, removing the Custody Review Committees, and there are some very good reasons for doing so. This new act does remove the current provision for Custody Review Committees and there are some really compelling reasons why. There has been no evidence over the years to demonstrate that these committees are adding any real value in terms of improving permanency planning for children in care. There has also been a misconception that these are an interdisciplinary process for case management, and they are not. These Custody Review Committees do not provide any public accountability as the committee only reports to the director in region at the present time. These committees are administratively time-consuming, which means that there are less resources available to address the concerns of children, youth in care.

This new act obliges the minister to put in place a process for monitoring all children in custody. The department is going to develop standards for a plan of care development and monitoring, a file audit review process, regular data collection and also a regular review permanency planning. All of which means good things for the clients of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, this act also removes the provision for the minister's advisory committee. Again, there are some really strong and clear reasons for doing that as well. There have only been a couple of reports received from ministers' advisory committees since the current legislation has been introduced and there has not been a whole of value in terms of improvements coming in the system as a result. The mandate and process for these committees has been extremely broad. It has been general with regard to reviewing operations of programs and services. There has been difficulty recruiting members to participate in this process, and the legislative mandate of having a report every couple of years has certainly not been met.

It is also worthy to note that no other legislation or department in this Province has this standard. Nationally, there is only one other province, which is Nova Scotia, that has had the provision for the minister's advisory committee and they have experienced some of the problems and challenges that I have just mentioned as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in her remarks today raised the concern of alternate living arrangements and it is a concern that I share; I know it is a concern that the minister shares as well. I am very pleased to see that this government is taking steps to address this situation. Getting better legislation in place is one thing. There are a number of improvements that we will continue to make to make the system better for children, youth and families. I think we are going to see continued progress in this area in the years ahead – in the months ahead, I should say – and it is really important that more families in Newfoundland and Labrador consider getting involved in foster care because that will certainly make a huge difference in terms of the alternate living arrangement situation.

Mr. Speaker, this new legislation also ensures better access to and disclosure of information in a number of ways that I think are worth noting. This legislation clarifies information sharing and the processes around that, and it also promotes better communication between the agencies that are involved in child protection. These agencies include police. They include health officials. They include professionals that work within our school system. It is important that when it comes to doing what is best for children and youth that representatives of these various stakeholders are indeed in touch with one another and are communicating on these issues. Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a number of new parameters and requirements around access to and disclosure of information as a result of this new legislation.

The Leader of the New Democratic Party today emphasized the importance of listening to the voices of front-line workers. I am amazed at the commitment of our minister, Mr. Speaker, in visiting virtually every office of Child, Youth and Family Services in the Province since she has taken on this new ministerial portfolio. I know this government is deeply committed to ensuring that front-line workers, particularly social workers, have the necessary tools and supports they need in order to provide the best possible service to children and to youth and to families. I am confident that the department will continue to take the needs and concerns and ideas and the feedback from front-line workers incredibly seriously, and I think that is reflective in this legislation that we are introducing today.

The Opposition House Leader in his remarks pointed out that the principle of the best interests of the child is not a new principle and he is correct; however, I think it is safe to say that it will be more of a focus than ever before in history as a result of this kind of progressive legislation that we are introducing and there is no better demonstration of our government's commitment to that principle than the establishment of the Child, Youth and Family Services department.

Mr. Speaker, getting the right legislation in place is one thing, as I said, but I want to assure members of this House that from what I can see there is going to be numerous improvements continuing in terms of the Child, Youth and Family Services department. We are going to see the introduction of a new computerized case management system. Once that is implemented, I think it is going to enhance clinical practice of social workers and also allow us to monitor provincial standards to see just how effective some of these improvements are going to be.

Mr. Speaker, we will also be establishing an on-call system for child protection social workers, which I think is a positive step as well. There is going to be a stand alone quality unit created that will audit files and also implement quality standards across all program areas within Child, Youth and Family Services. Again, that is great news for children and for youth and families. We are also going to see a targeted training program -

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. KENT: Could I have leave just for a moment, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude. As I was saying, there will be a targeted training program for staff to ensure that we have the best possible and most highly skilled workforce interacting with children and youth and families through this department. We are also going to be developing a provincial adverse events policy to review significant events that occur in relation to Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, this is progressive legislation. It is clearly legislation that puts the child first. I think it will do great things for the Child, Youth and Family Services system in this Province and great things for children and youth that are in care and for families that are facing challenges. I am proud to be part of a government that continues to demonstrate such a strong commitment to supporting children and youth and families in this Province. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to speak in support of this bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being 5:21 this afternoon, we will adjourn debate on Bill 1 for today. We will resume this debate tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.