MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D8452B.8BFC07D0" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive. ------=_NextPart_01D8452B.8BFC07D0 Content-Location: file:///C:/2CE93AD5/35-1-55.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Yukon Legislative Assembly
Whitehorse, Yukon
Thursday, March 24, 2022 — 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: I w= ill now call the House to order.
We wil= l proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
Withdrawal
of motions
Speaker:=
195;The Chair wishes to infor=
m the
House of changes made to the Order Paper. Motion No. 346, notice of wh=
ich
was given yesterday by the Member for Lake Laberge, was not placed on
today’s Notice Paper as it is out of order; and Motion No. 349,
notice of which was given yesterday by the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, was =
not
placed on today’s Notice Paper at the request of the member.
Daily
Routine
Speaker:=
195;We will proceed with the =
Order
Paper.
Introduction of visitors.
Introduction
of Visitors
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I will ask my colleagues to help me welcome two visitors here = to the Legislative Assembly today. We have with us Stephen Ro= tstein, who is the president of the Canadian Bar Association. I can note that he is also the first‑ever public sector lawyer to be president of the Federation of Law Societies. With him is Sylvie McCallum Rougerie, who is the CBA Yukon branch president. Thank you for being here.
Applause
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I would also ask the Assembly to welcome Kelly Milner, who is = here with us today — a well‑known local producer and creator, as wel= l as director with the Screen Production Yukon Association.
Applause
Speaker: Are= there any tributes?
TRIBUTES
In recognition of the Nor= thern Canada Producer Accelerator program
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal government to acknowledge the contributions of the Screen Production Yukon Association to= our territory and to our economy. The association supports, develops, and creat= es Yukon’s screen media industry. They provide a broad range of professi= onal development opportunities for producers and all above‑the‑line = and below-the‑line crew members. SPYA was incorporated as a non-profit society in 1999 as the Northern Film and Video Industry Association. If you= are looking for a grip or electric equipment rental, crew members and/or produc= tion services, they are the people to talk to.
A high= -value, high-return-on-investment sector, Yukon’s media production industry i= s on a strong growth trajectory. This small but mighty sector is one of the anch= ors of our cultural economy and annually contributes an estimated $8 milli= on to the Yukon economy. One‑third of Yukon’s 20 production compan= ies are over 10 years old, creating about 86 full-time, private sector jobs. The industry generates over $400,000 in tax revenue for the Yukon.
I woul= d also like to recognize their executive director, Moira Sauer, and president, Ter= esa Earle, as well as Kelly Milner for their work on the creation of the Northern Canada Producer Accelerator program. This new undertaking has attracted the support of Canada’s largest national broadcasters, including CBC, APTN, Bell Media, Blue Ant Media, Corus Entertainment, and Rogers Group of Funds. The program offers training, mentorship, networking,= and market access to producers who reside in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.
The No= rthern Canada Producer Accelerator program will select 10 content producers from across the Yukon and the Northwest Territories for this opportunity. After completing the curriculum and mentorship components, the participants will = be offered customized pitch opportunities with national and international decision-makers. The deadline for applications is March 31.
This p= rogram will provide Yukon producers with the training and resources needed to adva= nce their careers in the media industry.
In clo= sing, the future of the northern media industry lies in supporting and training up-and-coming creators to meet their maximum potential. I’m very glad= to see that these partners could come together to create something truly speci= al that will pave the way for Yukon producers to tell their stories, and IR= 17;m excited to see the end results.
Applause
Ms. Van Bibber: I rise on behalf of the Yukon Party Official Opposition to pay tribute to a new initiative, the Northern Canada Producer Accelerator, or N= CPA. The growth of the film industry in our beautiful north is being augmented by this new program that was announced in early March. Between Yukon and North= west Territories, a call has gone out to apply to this amazing opportunity to gr= ow, to be mentored, and to learn more about the film and TV industry. The goal = of this program is to market some very polished northern content to the world.= The application period started earlier, on March 10, and runs to March 31, 2022.
There = will be a selection of 10 finalists from the two territories to participate. Through a series of time periods, finalists will take courses and will have completed= a project by November 2022. The final steps give producers direct access to t= he market.
All su= bmissions must adhere to a set of principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion and = must be a registered business. Films around Yukon topics have been around for ye= ars. Even Hollywood loved the idea. In 1925, Charlie Chaplin’s The Gold Rush is one such wonder. = Then Jack London had many of his stories made into films, such as The Call of the Wild. This definitely raised awareness of the north.
For ma= ny years, NEDAA produced local content and stories about the indigenous people of Yukon and the changes and the history. It is still gre= at to see some of those older films as the memory of people past resonates with many of us today.
The De= partment of Tourism and Culture originally housed a smaller film and sound portion w= here it provided funds to assist many local filmmakers and musicians with small amounts of funds. In 2004, the formation of our own Yukon Film and Sound Commission has made it more streamlined and accessible for artistic assista= nce. The goal then, as it is now, is to increase film and sound production, maxi= mize employment in the industry, create sustainable growth, and showcase our loc= al talent, be they musicians, filmmakers, crew members, or technical crews.
Now, a= n added level of national support for the industry is very welcome. So, those with aspirations to become part of the film and sound industry and have a busine= ss, get those applications in. We wish all who become finalists the best in the= ir next project. Big screen or TV access might be in your future. Thank you, M= r. Speaker.
Applause
Ms. Tredger: On behalf of the Yukon NDP, I would like to add our congratulations to everyone involved in the Northern Canada Producer Accelerator. It takes a lot of wor= k to get something like this off the ground, so thank you.
ItR= 17;s not always easy to be an artist in the north, often far from resources, mentors= hip, and broader audiences. This program will help fill that gap for northern filmmakers.
Yukone= rs have so many stories to tell. We all benefit from hearing them and the rest of the world will benefit from hearing them. We cannot wait to see the projects th= at come out of this program.
I unde= rstand that applicants have one week left to apply, so good luck to everyone.
Applause
Speaker: Are= there any returns or documents for tabling?
Tabling
Returns and Documents
Mr. Di=
xon: I have for tabling three =
letters.
The first is dated January 19, 2022. It’s addressed to the Minister of
Health and Social Services from the Child and Youth Advocate with a request=
for
consultation documentation on the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.
The second is another letter from the =
Child
and Youth Advocate to the Minister of Health and Social Services dated March
23, 2022 — yesterday — expressing concerns with Bill No. 1=
1, Act to Amend the Child and Family Serv=
ices
Act (2022).
I have, as well, a letter dated March =
11,
2022 from the Yukon Information and Privacy Commissioner addressed to the
Premier, the Leader of the Third Party, and me, with comments about Bill
No. 11, Act to Amend the Child and Family
Services Act (2022).
Hon. M=
r. Mostyn: I have for tabling a news=
paper
article and photographs from the Wh=
itehorse
Star dated September 7, 2011. The article and photos are
regarding a sod-turning ceremony for a new Dawson City recreation centre on=
the
eve of the 2011 Yukon territorial election — a recreation centre that=
was
promised and never built by the conservative Yukon Party government of the =
day.
Hon. M=
s. McPhee: I have for tabling a lett=
er dated
March 17, 2022 from the Council of Yukon First Nations Grand Chief Peter Jo=
hnston
in relation to Bill No. 11, Act to Amend=
the
Child and Family Services Act (2022).
I also= have for tabling a letter of response dated November 20, 2019 to the Porter Creek Secondary School Gender and Sexuality Alliance to correct information presented yesterday in Question Period.
I also= have for tabling a copy of an e‑mail that was sent to Mr. Jason Cook, who= was here with us yesterday, that had the response letter attached.
Speaker: Are= there any reports of committees?
Petiti= ons.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 11 — r= eceived
Clerk: Mr.&n= bsp;Speaker and honourable members of the Assembly: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 11 of the First Session of the 35th Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Member for Lake Laberge on March = 23, 2022.
The pe= tition presented by the Member for Lake Laberge meets the requirements as to form = of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Speaker: Acc= ordingly, I declare Petition No. 11 is deemed to be read and received. Pursuant to Standing Order 67, the Executive Council shall provide a response to a peti= tion which has been read and received within eight sitting days of its presentat= ion. Therefore, the Executive Council response to Petition No. 11 shall be provi= ded on or before April 6, 2022.
Are th= ere any petitions to be presented?
Are th= ere any bills to be introduced?
Are th= ere any notices of motions?
Notices
of Motions
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= his House supports the confidence and supply agreement.
Ms. White: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= he Yukon Child and Youth Advocate appear in Committee of the Whole prior to the end = of the 2022 Spring Sitting, with advance notice of the date of the witnessR= 17; appearance provided to the Legislative Assembly by the Government of Yukon.=
I also= give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= he acting chief medical officer of health appear in Committee of the Whole prior to t= he end of the 2022 Spring Sitting, with advance notice of the date of the witness’ appearance provided to the Legislative Assembly by the Government of Yukon.
Speaker: Is = there a statement by a minister?
Ministerial
Statement
COVID-19 relief and recov= ery fund for non‑governmental organizations
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Over the past two years, our government has delivered a range = of support programs to help Yukoners, local businesses, and organizations impa= cted by the COVID‑19 situation. The Yukon’s diverse non-profit secto= r is filled with thousands of dedicated individuals who care about making differences in the lives of Yukoners. Throughout this pandemic, non-profit = and non-governmental organizations have faced challenges in raising funds and d= elivering services. They have shown great determination by continuing to provide essential services and supports to Yukoners across the territory. = p>
That= 8217;s why I’m happy to announce that our government has teamed up with Voluntee= r Bénévoles Yukon to launch a short-term = COVID‑19 relief and recovery fund for non-profits and non-governmental organizations. The program will provide up to $10,000 to eligible non-profits and NGOs in = the territory to help them keep their operations safe for the staff, volunteers, and clients as they recover from the impacts of the pandemic.
Eligib= le applicants include Yukon-based non-profits and NGOs that have been affected= by the pandemic and have had to adjust their operations in order to continue delivering services to Yukoners. This funding will help organizations conti= nue to pay staff, keep their doors open, and provide valuable community service= s as they resume fundraising and return to more normal operations.
Organi= zations will be able to retroactively access this support for costs that were incur= red starting February 1, 2022. This program was designed in partnership with the Yukon Nonprofit Advisory Council and will be administered by Volunteer Bénévoles Yukon. This support program complements a number of programs being delivered through various levels of government to support the non-profit sector. Agai= n, through consultation with the sector, we found that a number of highly targ= eted programs rolled out over the past two years did help many NGOs and non-prof= its, but did not reach all organizations in this sector. The COVID‑19 reli= ef and recovery fund will fill the gap and provide the accessibility and flexibility needed to support Yukon’s NGO and non-profit sector while ensuring that Yukoners can continue to access the services that they rely o= n.
In clo= sing, I would again like to thank the Yukon Nonprofit Advisory Council for all their work, Volunteer B&eacut= e;névoles Yukon, and the Department of Economic Development for their hard work on th= is program. I look forward to seeing non-profits and NGOs continuing to thrive= in our territory.
Ms. Van Bibber: Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, do so much for our territory. They help the most vulnerable, they advocate for businesses, they support environmental initiatives, they organize and run many community eve= nts, and there are even NGOs that support NGOs.
As wit= h many industries during the pandemic, the non-profit and NGO sector has been hit hard. Many rely on volunteers to operate, and during the pandemic, those volunteers have had other items on their mind or have had to take care of t= heir own loved ones who are sick, so they haven’t been able to give more freely of their time.
Others=
have had
services reduced so much, employees have had to =
be
laid off. That is why we are pleased to see this government program come
forward and be run through the NGO that supports NGOs — Volunteer
Obviou= sly, like us, the minister heard reports that some NGOs were seeing funding shortfalls due to the pandemic. Hopefully, this new program addresses those issues. However, I’m wondering if the minister can tell us how the government plans to support NGOs that are also dealing with the rising cost of heating fuel and electricity. The minister says that this money will help keep the doors open. How much of this money is enough to help deal with those rising costs?
Ms. White: Like many, we appreciate yesterday’s announcement and today’s statem= ent on the new COVID‑19 relief and recovery fund available for non-profits and non-governmental organizations. We, too, acknowledge that the last two years have been difficult for all, and I’m sure that this initiative = will be a welcome relief, but I would like to suggest that the Yukon government = can and needs to go further in their support for what amounts to the social saf= ety net of the territory.
These organizations are the backstop that prevent many from falling through the cracks. This week, for the first time in a public way, I brought forward the concern of many of those who will qualify for this support about the human consumption of hand sanitizer. When the pandemic hit, alcohol-based hand sanitizer was available and given freely everywhere, including all Yukon government facilities. This availability is literally killing Yukoners. Alcohol-based hand sanitizer was never made to be safely consumed, but that’s what we’re seeing.
Had Yu= kon government stores still existed, we could have seen the Yukon government use its substantial buying power to support the purpose and use of non-alcohol-based hand sanitizers approved for COVID prevention by the Government of Canada. This action alone could have prevented what’s currently happening, and what’s about to happen, as this new addiction takes root, but the Liberal government shut down that valuable resource.
I can&= #8217;t imagine a single organization that won’t be applying for this emergen= cy funding, but I also know of at least two critical community supports at risk because of a lack of realistic core funding support by this government. The Humane Society of Yukon reached out to the Minister of Environment in early March, highlighting that operational funding for this organization has rema= ined fixed for years without any inflationary increase and is putting animal wel= fare at risk in the territory. The Second Opinion Society, after providing criti= cal mental health supports for 30 years, was informed earlier this month that t= heir funding was being reduced to a six-month contract — this after provid= ing valuable virtual mental health supports throughout the pandemic. SOS was in= the process of pivoting to an ongoing virtual service that had been supported by the Yukon government, which then changed its mind. These are just two examp= les of what some NGOs that provide critical services to Yukoners have gone thro= ugh during the pandemic and continue to go through.
This p= andemic has been hard on businesses and NGOs alike, but especially hard on NGOs that rely on government funding and fundraising to keep their doors open. Changes over the last few years have seen three‑year agreements reduced to a = one‑year agreement or even less. This is not the way the government should be fundin= g or treating NGOs that provide that critical safety net for Yukoners.
We are= pleased to see this program announced, but at the same time, we feel strongly that = this government needs to reconsider how they continue to support NGOs and non-pr= ofit organizations into the future.
Hon. Mr. Pillai: First, to the question from the Official Opposition concerning= cost escalators, I think that our approach on this will be to continue to work w= ith a group of individuals from the Yukon Nonprofit Advisory Council. They have done exemplary work. The leader in this has been Wendy Morrison, who has been the chair. She has done a phenomenal job. I wo= uld also just like to touch on the fact that Alex Jegier= span>, the vice‑chair, and individuals like Kristina Craig who have great visibility to what is happening with our communities and with our most vulnerable populations — Eileen Melnychuk, Tracey Bilsky, Lana Selby, and Lianne Maitland, as well as B= runo Bourdache from the Volunteer B&e= acute;névoles Yukon.
I thin= k that in all these cases, we are looking at a multi-year approach. This is something that we have heard from these groups. Again, we will look at what the impac= t is of the financial allocations that we are making. We will take into consideration how many individual organizations put applications in, and th= at gives us a good opportunity to see if we are meeting their needs. What is important to know is that this was something that was very supported by this group of people. They really helped us to define and build this program. We really appreciate their volunteer time, of course, helping us make sure tha= t we have the biggest impact.
I also= want to just thank the Minister of Community Services, who was there with me along = the way making sure that we built this program and was in those meetings with t= he organizations.
I won&= #8217;t get into too many specifics. I trust — and I think that all Yukoners = can trust after seeing the last two years that our public service does exemplary work. I know that the Department of Environment and the Department of Health and Social Services will engage with those organizations. And I am sure that those organizations, both of which have great leaders, will make sure that = they get to the table and we can come up with some solutions. I look forward to those particulars that I don’t have all the details on.
Again,= I truly appreciate the advice from the Leader of the Third Party, who has worked wi= th lots of NGOs. This is something that we are going to have to keep a very cl= ose eye on, and we are going to have to continue to watch how NGOs have been impacted over the last number of years, understanding that they fill very important gaps in service that we see in our communities. We really count on them to keep Yukoners safe and smiling and with the best quality of life th= at they possibly can have.
Speaker: Thi= s then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Chi= ld and Family Services Act amendments
Mr. Dixon: Since the Liberal government tabled amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, a range of stakeholders and offi= cers of the Legislature have raised red flags. Yesterday, the Child and Youth Advocate wrote to the minister. In that letter, the advocate said — a= nd I quote: “I am gravely concerned that your government intends to push B= ill No. 11 through to third reading in the Legislative Assembly without ma= king the amendments necessary to ensure the Bill upholds the rights of children = and is compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
How do= es the minister respond to these grave concerns raised by this independent officer= of the Legislature?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I am happy to see that the Yukon’s Child and Youth Advoc= ate has joined us here in the Legislative Assembly today. I look very much forw= ard to addressing all of the issues that have been brought forward to our atten= tion and to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Services during= the debate, which will take place later today, or at least begin later today, a= nd I look forward to that conversation very much.
The in= dividual issues brought forward deserve answers; they deserve to be discussed, and I look forward to that happening in Committee of the Whole.
What I= can say and should say about Bill No. 11, which is before this Legislative Assembly, is that it is innovative and it is groundbreaking. It has been developed in partnership with Yukon First Nations, and it is designed to address the overrepresentation of indigenous children in our child welfare system. That is a progressive piece of legislation, and I look very much forward to it passing this House and the debate that will happen before tha= t.
Mr. Dixon: Unfortunately, those answers and that discussion should have happened before the bill came= to the Legislature.
The le= tter goes on to say that over the past year, this minister has ignored repeated reque= sts from the office of the Child and Youth Advocate for the information and documents necessary to conduct their review of the bill. Here’s a quo= te from the letter: “… your Department of Health and Social Servic= es has essentially ignored our formal requests since May 2021 for a draft= of Bill No. 11 for the express purpose of conducting our = CRIA well in advance of the Bill being tabled…”
Why di= d the Minister of Health and Social Services ignore the repeated requests of the Child and Youth Advocate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you for the opportunity to stand. Once again, the member= s of the opposition prove unreliable with respect to the information presented h= ere.
Repeat= ed requests were not ignored. Our work was ongoing. The draft bill was provide= d to the Child and Youth Advocate as soon as it was ready. A number of other pie= ces of information requested by the Child and Youth Advocate were provided to h= er office for the purposes of her doing her work and her evaluation, and we lo= oked very much forward to that.
We did= , in fact, receive a report that has been considered very carefully by the Department = of Health and Social Services, and those individuals — all 14 representatives of Yukon First Nations in the territory, with 12 at the tab= le all the time and two who were kept informed throughout the process — = have looked at the concerns expressed in that report. We certainly look forward = to further discussion with respect to this matter.
The dr= aft Bill No. 11, as I have said, is groundbreaking. It will serve Yukon childre= n. It will serve Yukon indigenous children in a way that has never before been seen and certainly wasn’t seen in the bill that was brought forward by the members of the opposition in 2010.
I cert= ainly look forward to further discussion.
Mr. Dixon: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have simply read a direct quote from the letter that was tabled earlier that was addressed to the minister, sent yesterday by the Ch= ild and Youth Advocate indicating that her department had ignored repeated requ= ests for information.
Despit=
e ignoring
repeated requests over the past year to provide the necessary material for =
the
Child and Youth Advocate to conduct a child rights impact assessment, or CRIA, the advocate was able to complete one in time f=
or the
tabling of this bill.
The CRIA makes it clear that amendments are needed to the=
bill
in order to uphold the fundamental rights of children. Will the minister ag=
ree
to make the legislative amendments recommended by the Child and Youth Advoc=
ate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I think I have been clear. I’m very excited about the opportunity to debate Bill No. 11. It is on the legislative Order Paper for today. I look forward to having discussions with all members of this Legislative Assembly about any issues that they choose to bring forward, an= d I absolutely expect that we will also be discussing the issues raised by the Child and Youth Advocate. I certainly appreciate her doing so, so that we c= an have a full debate with respect to the impact and the importance of this legislation.
Question
re: Physician recruitment and retention
Mr. Cathers: According to numbers provided by the Minister of Health and Social Services, over one= ‑fifth of Yukoners do not have a family doctor. Fixing this is a top priority for Yukoners, and it should be a top priority for this minister. We have raised this repeatedly and urged government to take action, including reinstating = the physician recruitment position that previously existed.
During= the Fall Sitting, the minister was unable to point to any real action that she was taking to fix the doctor shortage. My question today is simple: What action= , if any, has the minister taken since the fall to encourage more family doctors= to move to the Yukon?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Once again, the members opposite have proven unreliable, and I don’t think it’s a service to Yukoners for them to be providing information that is incorrect.
The Putting People First report found = that approximately 21 percent of Yukoners do not have access to a family physician. As we implement Putting = People First to address that concern, we remain committed to expanding Yukoners’ access to primary health care services.
Our go= vernment is absolutely aware of the concern. We work with many Yukoners in relation = to their concerns about primary care practices or acute care facilities here in the territory. We have addressed these issues in a number of ways and conti= nue to work on this file every day.
The pa= ndemic has significantly impacted our ability to recruit physicians and other health c= are providers, as it has across the country — this being a national issue. There are a number of opportunities that we have taken here in the territor= y to reduce the individual’s concerns and to address having acute care professionals available to Yukoners.
I look= forward to further answering this question.
Mr. Cathers: The minister likes to effectively claim “fake news” if she doesn’t like the fact, but I would remind her that it was on this very issue last fall that the NDP were mocking her math.
Talkin= g points are not action, and that seems to be all the minister has on the issue of family doctors.
Yukone= rs who need a family doctor are looking for action, not talking points. This Liber= al government has the worst record in the entire country on doctor recruitment. According to a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the number of physicians per capita increased in 10 provinces and two territori= es between 2015 and 2019. Only one jurisdiction, the Yukon, got worse — under this Liberal government. We have the lowest ratio of family doctors p= er capita. The obvious cause is the lack of real action by the Minister of Hea= lth and Social Services.
Maybe = this is one of the reasons that the Third Party doesn’t think it’s safe= for the minister to be in Cabinet. Can she point to a single real action that s= he has taken to fix this crisis?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I’m happy to respond to this question, as I have on repeated occasions. We cont= inue to explore options to connect Yukoners, recognizing the concern with primary health care services. We have adopted Putting People First, which will dramatically change and shift the way in which medical services are provided here in the territory. We have initiated a “find a doctor” program, which has matched more than 1,100 Yuko= ners with a family doctor, and we have expanded access to virtual care alternati= ves here in the territory and throughout — the opportunities for individu= als to have access to virtual care alternatives.
I can = indicate that we have expanded our opportunities to contract and hire additional nur= se practitioners to have service — to expand some services at additional existing clinics. We are working to operate a bilingual health care clinic, which will provide primary care to individuals. We have also been working to access options for a professional recruiter or recruitment firm. We have be= en working with the Yukon Medical Association with respect to recruiting physicians and that concern.
I look= forward to more questions.
Mr. Cathers: Again, we heard talking points, but no real actions. If there are no doctors taking patients, a matchmaking service is not much help. This Liberal government, despite the Premier’s laughter, has the worst record in the entire country on family doctor recruitment. Yukoners take this issue seriously; <= span class=3DGramE>so should the Premier and his minister.
In fiv= e years, every other province and territory in the country had an increase in family doctors per capita. Only in the Yukon under this Liberal government has the issue gone so badly that the ratio of physicians per capita has gone downhi= ll.
Since = becoming Minister of Health and Social Services last year, the walk-in clinic closed. This problem is actually getting worse. Family doctors are leaving the Yukon and the population is growing.
Will t= he minister agree to actually make doctor recruitment a top priority, reinstate the physician recruitment position, and work with the Yukon Medical Associa= tion on an urgent strategy to encourage family doctors to move to the Yukon?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Actually, I can and will agree to all of those points by the m= ember opposite because they are already happening at the Department of Health and Social Services.
First = of all, let’s just talk about the walk-in clinic for a second, which is a pri= vate business that closed last year. Our response is to work with the Yukon̵= 7;s local health community to reopen a walk-in clinic, so that can serve Yukone= rs in the Whitehorse area or across the territory if they are here in Whitehor= se. Our work to open that walk-in clinic, which is unprecedented in this territ= ory, despite the fact that there have been other times when medical services have been reduced for Yukoners — but has never happened before.
The am= ount of $89,000 has been put aside for nursing education bursary and health profess= ion education bursary programs. It is something that the member opposite likes = to ask about a lot. It is available for 16 new health-related education bursar= ies here in the territory each year through the Department of Health and Social Services. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Services provides $150,000 to the Yukon Registered Nurses Association, which administers the continuing nursing education fund.
Betwee= n 2019 and 2020, Yukon’s supply of resident physicians increased by approximately eight percent.
Question
re: Support for seniors
Ms. White: The Yukon’s senior and elder population is growing every day and we see t= he need for a wide variety of services in place to support them, yet this government is constantly falling short. There are hundreds of seniors witho= ut a family doctor. There are seniors living in their cars because they have been priced out of the rental market and seniors who can’t afford hearing aids, dentures, or glasses, and the list goes on.
Aging = in the Yukon is only getting more expensive, and right now, seniors and elders are being priced out of basic health care. We need more support to allow people= to age in place, we need home care services across the territory, and we need better access to primary care and specialists alike.
Will t= he minister recognize the gaps in services for seniors and fix them?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: In September 2020, the aging-in-place action plan was released= . It was based on extensive public engagement with more than 1,200 people from across the territory.
Its vi= sion is to ensure that all Yukoners, regardless of age, income, or ability, have acces= s to the supports that they need to live safe, independent, and comfortable live= s in their own home or community for as long as possible. The first aging-in-pla= ce annual report will be publicly released in the very near future.
We wor= k with the individuals who are representatives of the aging and seniors and elders community here in the territory on a regular ba= sis. This is a top priority for us. We recognize that the Yukon population is, in fact, aging and that an aging-in-place action plan and all of the situations with respect to elders will continue to become more and more prevalent in o= ur community.
WeR= 17;re looking forward, we’re looking ahead, we’re working with the community, and I look forward to further questions.
Ms. White: Like so many problems in the territory, this government is happy to let someone = else deal with it. A new private senior facility in the Yukon has been in the wo= rks for decades, and the government has pumped millions of dollars into this project already. But it’s impossible to find out who will be operating it. The last time we got a clear answer from this government was in 2018 in= a tabled response from the then-minister when they said that it would be run = by Connecting Care.
Connec= ting Care is notorious for chronic understaffing and poor quality= care in their other facilities. At one of their Alberta facilities, staffing was so low that seniors went without showers for months at a time. Of the 1= 30 seniors who lived there, 93 got COVID. That’s just one example among many.
Can th= e minister confirm whether Connecting Care will still be operating this facility? If t= hey aren’t, who will?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I think it is incredibly important that we recognize the services that must be available for our seniors and elders in our community.
The aging-in-place action plan has been developed with Yukoners by Yukoners. I think one of my colleagues said yesterday that this is not our report; this= is Yukon’s report. That must be abided by and it must be considered.
The re= port summarizes the progress that has been made so far toward implementing the 56 recommendations. That’s the annual report that will be issued very quickly. The responsibility to implement the actions is shared across seven Yukon government departments and agencies. These departments and agencies a= re working collaboratively with partners — including First Nation governments, non-governmental organizations, and community groups — to implement the aging-in-place actions and to achieve our common goals.
Of the= 56 recommendations — and action plan — 45 actions, or 80 percent, = are complete, underway, or in the planning or development stages; 11 actions, 20 percent, have not yet been started. We look forward to continuing this work together to the benefit of seniors and elders here in our territory.=
Ms. White: It’s unfortunate that we didn’t get an answer. So, private senior care will make cuts to everything before cutting into profits. That’s literally their business model.
But sl= ashing basic care didn’t start with the pandemic. Every year, more seniors d= ie of neglect, dehydration, and preventable infections in private residences compared to public ones. Despite all of this, the minister hasn’t put= a single regulation in place to protect folks who will be living in the new private seniors assisted-living facility.
Regula= tions for public facilities won’t apply to this new facility, so we’re looking at a completely unregulated facility that will soon host seniors and elders.
Will t= he minister introduce regulations for this facility in the Yukon?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important= issue because seniors and the aging population here in the territory is something that absolutely is critical. I can note that, with respect to long-term care — I’m not sure about the allegations or the accusations made in= this question, but I certainly will follow up on them. Our government is committ= ed to culturally safe and responsive health and social services.
As par= t of this work, the Department of Health and Social Services is enhancing programming= to recognize, honour, and celebrate Yukon First Nation history, culture, and traditional practices and to support spiritual well-being of First Nation residents living in long-term care homes and their families.
I woul= d like to take the opportunity to thank those workers in our long-term care homes who have been front-of-line and kept our seniors and elders safe during the last two years of this COVID‑19 pandemic. It is not over; they have strugg= led on a daily basis to come to work to make sure that their patients and their= clients are safe and well-cared for, and they should be celebrated with respect to = that opportunity.
Our lo= ng-term care services here in the territory are second to none.
Question
re: Ross River School
Mr. Hassard: The school in Ross River is the heart of the community. Unfortunately, the scho= ol continues to be plagued with structural issues, but this Liberal government’s only solution has been to apply band-aid fixes. <= /p>
When a= sked in the Legislature what the government is going to do long term to fix this school, the previous Minister of Highways and Public Works talked about a n= ew roof and paving the parking lot. These do not address the fact that the wal= ls are cracking and the school is slowly sinking into the ground.
Since = the previous minister didn’t think fixing the Ross River School was important, what will the new minister do to actually fix the school in Ross River?
Hon. Mr. Clarke: The health and safety of students across the territory is, of course, a top priority for the Yukon government. The Ross River School continues to be inspected quarterly by a multidisciplinary team that includ= es an architect, a structural engineer, a geotechnical engineer, and a surveyo= r. I can advise today that the latest building condition inspection report was completed in March of this year and confirmed, as we expected, that the sch= ool remains safe for occupancy.
The ne= xt inspection will occur in May of this year. Work will continue on the existi= ng school to keep it safe and to help prevent structural movement. By way of background, the Ross River School has been undergoing quarterly inspections= to monitor for any structural issues.
Mr. Hassard: Again, no answer for the people in Ross River.
Over t= he last three budgets, the Liberals have budgeted roughly $8.5 million for the Ross River School, but they have only spent just over $2 million of th= at. The evidence demonstrates that fixing this school is not a priority for this Liberal government, and everyone knows that if this school was in the City = of Whitehorse, they would have treated this as a top priority.
Can th= e minister explain why the government has lapsed over $6 million in the last three years of funding that was supposed to go toward important remediation work = for the school in Ross River?
Hon. Mr. Clarke: The health and safety of students across the territory is a top priority. The safety of all school structures is a priority for this government. The member opposite will know that there are ongoing discussions with the community of Ross River and the Ross River Dena Council with respe= ct to a possible new site for a school at some point in the future. Those conversations are ongoing, but in the interim, there are these four-times-per-year inspections of this current school indicating that there are no substantial concerns.
Is it = built on impermanent permafrost? Absolutely, as is a lot of the community of Ross Ri= ver; hence the discussions about a redeployment of a possible school site going forward. Those discussions are going forward and we certainly hope that they bear fruit in the future.
Mr. Hassard: So, more talk about priorities, but no real answers. Yesterday, when we asked a= bout the new Dawson City rec centre, the Minister of Community Services said this about the condition of the building — and I’ll quote: “… it’s really awful. You wouldn’t believe the gaps= in the boards, and the work that the maintenance staff is doing to try to keep that facility operational…”
Well, = the Ross River School has cracks in the walls, the building is sinking into the grou= nd, the floor is twisting, doors don’t close properly — Mr. Sp= eaker, the conditions are deplorable, and these conditions would not be tolerated = in a Whitehorse school.
Why doesn’t the government feel that the Ross River School deserves the s= ame level of priority as a rec centre?
Hon. Mr. Mostyn: I’m happy to rise today and talk about — I mean, t= he members opposite are talking about recreation facilities now, and I’m happy to talk about all the work we’re putting into recreation facilities across the territory.
The me= mber opposite is absolutely correct. The Dawson City rec centre is problematic. = It has been problematic for a long time. As we saw earlier today, I tabled a document. In 2011, the Yukon Party dug a hole in the ground. Then, five yea= rs later, in 2016, the now Leader of the Yukon Party was still digging that ho= le. This is the party of band-aids and broken dreams. They promise things on the eve of election, and they don’t deliver. That’s what we’re seeing again and again.
This g= overnment is investing in our Yukon in a way that hasn’t been seen in decades. = We are building schools, we’re building recreation centres, we are build= ing the infrastructure that will drive the territory into the future, and IR= 17;m happy to talk about this all afternoon.
Question
re: Child Development Centre building
Ms. Clarke: Last summer, evidence of mould was discovered at the Child Development Centre building. As a result, the facility was closed, and the CDC was relocated a= nd bounced around into temporary spaces throughout the city. This has created a disruption for this important organization, as some employees have already relocated multiple times in the last year.
Can th= e Minister of Highways and Public Works tell us what the plan is for the old Child Development Centre building? Will it be remediated, or will it be demolishe= d?
Hon. Mr. Clarke: Thank you for the question from the member opposite. The safet= y and suitability of government buildings is a priority for the Department of Highways and Public Works.
As the= member opposite identified, in the spring of 2021, the Child Development Centre experienced extensive leaking from the extreme snow load last winter, leadi= ng to water damage in the building.
During= the remediation work last July, the walls and ceilings were opened, and the contractor found evidence of mould. Once evidence of mould was found, the building was immediately closed to facilitate the testing process. One week later, the tests confirmed mould on the main floor. The department has determined that extensive work is required to remediate the current buildin= g, and it will not be available for the Child Development Centre in this school year. We are currently working on next steps for this building.
Ms. Clarke: The Child Development Centre provides essential services and outreach to our community. Disruptions to their activities and services need to be dealt wi= th swiftly. We know that the government has hired a consultant to develop cost estimates with respect to dealing with the mould at the facility.
What i= s the current cost estimate for remediation or demolition of the existing Child Development Centre building?
Hon. Mr. Clarke: Thank you for the question. As the member opposite has accurat= ely identified, the work is ongoing. However, I can advise that the remediation contractor took appropriate measures to protect the safety of workers and t= he public once mould was discovered.
The Ch= ild Development Centre is an addition to the Education building, but does not s= hare the same ventilation system. The cost estimate for remediation of the mould ranges, depending on whether the building will be demolished or renovated. = If renovated, there will be significant additional costs, of course, for roof repairs, interior renovations, and building code upgrades.
The de= partment is currently reviewing all information in order to make a reasoned and financially and fiscally responsible decision on whether the building shoul= d be demolished or renovated to meet other Yukon government space needs. This process will take some time, and the Child Development Centre has been info= rmed that they will not be moved back into the building in the foreseeable futur= e.
This g= overnment recognizes the fantastic work that the Child Development Centre does, and a= ll members of the government on this side of the House have visited the Child Development Centre at various times to be briefed on the wonderful work that they do for all manner of children in the Yukon.
Ms. Clarke: Most recently, a large number of staff from the Child Development Centre were required to relocate from NVD place to Copper R= idge Place. Much of the rest of the staff are located in other buildings and off= ices throughout the city. It is untenable for staff to continue to be bounced ar= ound and separated from each other all over this city. A long-term space is required.
What i= s the government’s plan to provide a long-term space to the Child Developme= nt Centre, and when will it be in place?
Hon. Ms. McLean: Thank you for the question today. I certainly want to speak to= the Child Development Centre’s important work in helping families and you= ng children access early learning and therapeutic services. This is very vital work that they do, and I thank them for that.
It is unfortunate that the Child Development Centre had to relocate from their building. We appreciate their flexibility and ability to move and quickly resume their service delivery, including the therapeutic preschool. We have committed to supporting the CDC financially and logistically while they work through these moves. Department officials are in regular contact with CDC staff.
Again,= I thank them for their work. I think that the Highways and Public Works officials acknowledged the work that they have done to work quickly to find alternati= ves. We will continue to work with the Child Development Centre and find the best location and/or facility for them to continue their services. Again, thank = you to the Minister of Highways and Public Works for the work that he has done = to pay close attention to this very important matter.
Speaker: The= time for Question Period has now elapsed.
We wil= l now proceed to Orders of the Day.
Orders of
the Day
Hon. M=
r. Streicker: I move that the Sp=
eaker do
now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.=
Speaker:=
195;It has been moved by the
Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the
House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agre=
ed to
Speaker lea=
ves the
Chair
Committee
of the Whole
Deputy Chair (Ms. Tredger): = b>Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
The ma= tter now before the Committee is general debate in Bill No. 11, entitled Act to Amend the Child and Family Serv= ices Act (2022).
Do mem= bers wish to take a brief recess?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Deputy Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bill
No. 11: Act to Amend the Child=
and
Family Services Act (2022)
Deputy Chair:̳= 5;The matter before the Committee is general debate on Bill No. 11, entitled= Act to Amend the Child and Family Serv= ices Act (2022).
Is the= re any general debate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I am just welcoming two folks from the Department of Health and Social Services. Please have a seat. We have with us Geri MacDonald, who is= the director of Family and Children’s Services, as well as Caitlin Knutso= n, who has worked extensively on this Bill No. 11 and is here to support = us during this debate. Thank you both for joining us.
I woul= d like to proceed with some opening comments with respect to Committee of the Whole, = and I look forward to our discussion of Bill No. 11.
Thank = you for the opportunity, Deputy Chair, to rise today to speak to this Bill No. = ;11, Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act (2022), and to speak about it. This is my opportunity to indicate the importance and the critical reasons that we have brought this particular piece of legislation forward.
I shou= ld note that Caitlin Knutson, who is with us, is a senior policy advisor with the Department of Health and Social Services and has worked extensively on this bill. I really appreciate the support from both she and Geri MacDonald here today.
I want= to again take the opportunity to acknowledge the work and the dedication of Yukon Fi= rst Nations and the Council of Yukon First Nations in the development of this amending bill, as well as the recommendations put forward by the independent advisory committee in its final report, called Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.=
This government-to-government collaborative process on the amendments responds directly to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, specifically the call for all levels of government to work together to addr= ess the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care.
Over t= he past five years, we have been working hard to reduce the number of children in t= he care of the director of Family and Children’s Services. In December of 2021, there were 84 children in out-of-home care here in the territory, and= 72 percent of those were Yukon First Nation children.
A key = component of this work has been to shift toward working together with families and communities to find extended family members who are able to care for childr= en instead of bringing children into care and into the custody of the director. That is a key shift of the Department of Health and Social Services in collaboration with our work with Yukon First Nations.
As I n= oted at second reading, this history of this bill coming to the floor for debate is extremely important.
In 201= 8, the Child and Family Services Act Revi= ew Advisory Committee was established by the then-Minister of Health and Social Services. This independent committee determined the mechanisms for gathering information for its own review. Committee members completed 18 months of pu= blic engagement, travelled to all Yukon communities, and held meetings and interviews with Yukon First Nation community organizations and individuals. There were focus groups, community-specific meetings, individual meetings, written submissions by individuals, community organizations, experts, and k= ey stakeholders.
This e= xtensive consultation resulted in the Embrac= ing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report. That was tabled in this Legislature in October 2019. The Child and Family Services Act steering committee was established in July 2020 with representation from 12 Yukon First Nations. It was co-chaired by the Council of Yukon First Nations’ executive director, Shadelle Chambers, and by Geri MacDonald, who is here with us today, the director of Family and Children’s Services with the Government of Yukon.
The ma= ndate of this steering committee was to review all required actions from Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow. The committee also reviewed the federal act, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit= , and Métis children, youth and families 2020, = to address any discrepancies between it and the Yukon’s = Child and Family Services Act.
The Child and Family Services Act exec= utive partnership committee was established to provide guidance and oversight to = the steering committee. It had representation from three Yukon First Nations and two Health and Social Services assistant deputy ministers.
The am= ending bill that we present to you today is the outcome and the result of many mon= ths and hundreds of hours of concerted effort by all parties involved. <= /p>
I woul= d like to take a moment to speak about some specific provisions of this bill. The definitions, the guiding principles, the service delivery principles, and t= he best interests of the child have all been amended. They have been amended to update the preamble to clarify the Yukon government’s commitment to reconciliation, working government-to-government, family preservation and reunification, honouring cultural and community connections, and to acknowl= edge historical trauma caused within and by the child welfare system.
The gu= iding principles have been amended to update the service delivery principles and to update t= he guiding principles and to focus and strengthen the act’s foundational guidance, which centres on the best interests of the child, preserving and reunifying families, reflecting values that are fundamental to Yukon First Nations, and involving and connecting with communities and culture.<= /p>
It has= been updated with respect to the best interests of the child to more fully consi= der the child’s need to be protected from harm, the importance of family integrity and connections with community and culture, as well as to match t= he best interests of the child framework established in An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children, youth and families 2020 — the federal legislation.
It has= been updated to add a definition of “preventive” that clarifies the preventative services that are intended to preserve families that have an identified protection concern and to work to prevent further escalation of risk, which will prevent the potential need to separate children from their families.
It has= been updated to add a purpose statement that clarifies that the Child and Family Services Act is the legislated scheme for chil= dren who are in need of protective intervention and for adoptions.
Sectio= ns 6 through 9 outline the collaborative process to develop a case plan for any child in need of protective intervention. This process is child- and family= -led and intends to bring together important supports and people to collaborate = on a plan for the child. This amending bill will replace the phrase “family conference or other cooperative planning process” with “collaborative planning” as the preferred practice for developi= ng a case plan. This is truly innovative.
The am= ending bill will require the director to make all reasonable efforts to use a collaborative planning process when developing or renewing a case plan, including for interim case plans.
The am= ending bill will specify that the collaborative planning process and alternate dis= pute resolution mechanisms may include culturally appropriate approaches, such as peacemaking circles or family circles.
The am= ending bill will require the director to invite an authorized representative of ea= ch Yukon First Nation and indigenous governing body of which a child or their parent is a member. The amending bill will add the persons in whose care the child is to the list of invited participants and specify that counsellors a= nd social workers are relevant service provider participants.
Under = the current act, sections 10 through 20 outline the types of written agreements that a director can establish to provide supportive programs and services to child= ren, youth, families, extended family members, or others. These agreements cover= a range of care scenarios, including when a child or youth is residing with t= heir parents, extended family, or if they are in out-of-home care or are transitioning out of care and into independent living.
This b= ill will expand supports and written agreements to include prenatal services for expectant parents at risk of becoming involved with child protection once t= he child is born. It will expand eligibility for transitional supports and wri= tten agreements to youth who are turning 19 and/or are under the age of 26. It c= larifies that youth who were previously placed in extended family care by their pare= nt or by a court order for a total of at least two years are eligible for transitional supports. It will permit the director to extend transitional supports and written agreements beyond a person’s 26th birthday in exceptional circumstances related to achieving goals set out in their care plan — such as finishing school, a degree, or other traini= ng, for example — and identify additional transitional supports for a successful transition into independent living. It will help with tuition or income or safe housing if necessary.
The am= ending bill will clarify the purpose of the transitional case plan and the need for amendment and permit the use of a collaborative planning process when amend= ing. It will extend the term of agreements with extended family members from the typical six months to 12 months in order to reduce the risk of disruption of supports. It will require a case plan for the provision of supports under a= ll agreements. That case plan must be reviewed every six months for as long as= an agreement remains in place or 12 months in the case of an extended family agreement. It will remove a “special needs agreement” for child= ren with disabilities to avoid forcing families to enter the child welfare syst= em in order to receive services solely to meet the complex needs of their children.
Another innovative change is that the Government of Yukon’s Social Supports branch now provides a comprehensive continuum of disability supports and services throughout a person’s lifetime. The Child and Family Services Act will support children with disabilities who have a protective concern. It will clarify that a child, a youth, or a family may self-refer and request an agreement for supports and= specify that a child or youth must be in need or at risk of protective intervention= for the directive to offer most supports, excluding prenatal or transitional supports. It will permit the director to offer supports without a written agreement in an emergency or on a short-term basis — for example, whi= le a case plan is being developed.
Althou= gh the current act sets out the criteria for determining when protective intervent= ion is needed, as well as the processes by which the need for protective intervention is identified and investigated, the bill will further refine t= hese processes and bring much-needed clarity.
With r= espect to the criteria for determining when protective intervention is needed, the bi= ll recognizes and will further clarify emotional harm and its possible sources= . It will further clarify and describe abandonment. It enables and provides an alternative option to an intrusive child protection investigation when the parents of a child are cooperative and can be supported through voluntary s= ervices. This option is only for non-criminal matters, of course, and when there is acknowledgement by the parents of the child protection concern. The director must also notify each First Nation and indigenous governing body of which t= he child or parent — either parent or both parents — is a member in both circumstances when there is an investigation and when the parents are cooperating and report the results of the investigation to those parties. <= /span>
For ch= ildren who need to come into the care or the custody of the director, case plans need = to be developed as described under sections 44 and 45. These case plans will a= lso be developed using a collaborative planning process. The bill also requires that a cultural plan has to be completed. These cultural plans will be for = all children in the care of the director. There will be supports and respect for cultural activities and teachings, no matter the culture that the child is from.
All ca= se plans will be reviewed every six months, and the director will be required to inv= ite participants of the collaborative planning process to participate in the re= view of that process.
There = are a few amendments that pertain to court processes and the party status to a proceeding. The amending bill will require that the director notify the child’s birth parents of the application and hearing and ensure that = they are served relevant documents, even if they do not have custody of a child.= The changes require the director to notify each Yukon First Nation and indigeno= us governing body of which the child, or their parent, is a member. By contras= t, the current act only requires that the child’s Yukon First Nation be notified. That is not satisfactory any longer.
The am= ending bill will provide a right to be a party to a court application to a child’s birth parents, except in situations of adoption, to their extended family members or other persons to whom the parent has given care = of the child, and each First Nation and indigenous governing body of which the child, or their parent, is a member. This is truly exceptional.
The am= ending bill will place a maximum of a 70-day limit for each adjournment to a heari= ng and add factors that the judge must take into account before granting an adjournment, such as the best interests of the child, whether the adjournme= nt will promote family reunification, and whether the adjournment will impact a timely return of a child to their parent or the child’s access to community and culture.
The ch= anges will enable a judge to extend the time period a child is in temporary custody to allow families to continue working with Family and Children’s Service= s to address their child protection concerns and work toward family reunificatio= n.
Curren= tly, the judge must generally make a continuing custody order if a certain total cumulative time period for temporary custody is met. This practice — = this requirement — may well disrupt family reunification efforts, so it’s being changed.
Under = the current act, the director must place a child who is in their temporary custody or continuing custody in a foster home or a group home. The act also sets out certain rules and considerations for the director to follow when placing a child.
Bill N= o. 11 will enable the director to place a child with an extended family member or someone else living in the child’s community if placing the child on a short-term basis. It will enable the director to place a child in their temporary custody or continuing custody with an extended family member, sub= ject to the director’s ongoing supervision, to ensure the children remain = in their communities.
The bi= ll will add criteria for the director to consider when determining whether or where= to place a child in out-of-home care in order to ensure that children remain w= ith siblings and close to their parents and their extended family members and thereby preserve their cultural and community connections. This will be the law.
Bill N= o. 11 specifies that “sibling” includes sibling-like relationships, as identified by the child or a parent, such as a cousin or a close friend. It clearly extends the connections for children with their close family and culture.
The bi= ll will enable the director to apply for a court order to obtain information from a third party if it is relevant to their ongoing duties, such as determining = who should be allowed to contact or visit the child in their care or their cust= ody and to set out conditions relevant to both the application and the order, if granted. The check and balance here is that it is an application to a court= .
The cu= rrent act sets out the process for adoption processes in sections 95 through 155. Bill No. 11 will clarify that adoption-related information can only be shar= ed as outlined in division 6, also known under the title of “Adoptions”. Bill No. 11 will also require the consent of Yukon First Nations and indigenous governing bodies prior to the adoption o= f an indigenous child.
There = were a number of administrative and service quality accountability amendments in t= he bill. The bill will better facilitate the collection and disclosure of pers= onal information and personal health information by the director if it is appropriate and related to a child protection concern. It will also require= the minister to publish an annual report and to specify the content of the annu= al report to improve transparency and accountability. It will enable the direc= tor to share information relating to the provision of services with Yukon First Nations, indigenous governing bodies, the federal government, and provinces= and territories, as need be.
It wil= l provide regulation-making powers with respect to the requirements for short-term placements, and it will provide regulation-making powers with respect to transitioning —
Deputy Chair: Order.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that and I appreciate the minister’s opening remarks. I realize that the minister has opening remarks and so I would like to offer = her the opportunity to continue them.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I appreciate that; I was very near the end. My opportunity was= to, again, thank child and family services — the act advisory committee — for embracing the Children = of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report and the Child and Family Services Act steering committee for the government-to-government discussions that led to the proposed amendments and the Council of Yukon First Nations.
These = amendments are the result of so much time and focused efforts toward reforming our chi= ld welfare system by putting children and their interests at its centre. These amendments are the next step on our path forward to reform and work together with Yukon First Nations toward healthy, safe, and supported children and families. I appreciate the opportunity to finish my note.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s opening remarks on this bill. I would like = to join the minister in welcoming officials from the department here. I apprec= iate their presence to aid the minister in responding to our questions and discussion with regard to this bill.
I am a= ware of the general desire to see this bill to move forward with a certain degree of speed, so I will forego the normal opening speech that MLAs, in responding = to a bill, may offer, and I would point to my comments at second reading.=
I will= begin then by getting right into some questions. I would like to begin with the consultation process for the development of the bill. Obviously, the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow report, which was completed by the advisory committee a nu= mber of years ago, was a guiding document for this legislative work, so I am wondering if the minister can offer a bit of an explanation of how that rep= ort was taken by the government, how it was interpreted, thought about, and implemented into the act or the bill that we see before us.
I woul= d also like for the minister to explain a little bit about how this report, Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow, was dealt with by — the minister could correct me h= ere — either a steering committee or an advisory committee that was made = up of Yukon First Nation representation as well as the Yukon government —= ; so how that advisory or steering committee interpreted this report and dealt w= ith it and how this report was used to inform the creation of this bill.=
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I thank the member opposite for the question. This is an incre= dibly important aspect of the process to getting here today with this bill. I can advise that the steering committee went through each and every one of the — I guess they are recommended actions as opposed to — or “required” I think is the wording that is used — required actions instead of recommendations, so, let’s use that language ̵= 2; the “required actions”. The steering committee went through each and every one. They provided their advice to government on the required act= ions related to the report of Embracing = the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.
The fi= rst phase of that implementation project, or of the Child and Family Services Act implementation project, was focused on legislat= ive requirements and the required actions that were necessary in relation to th= ose required actions.
The ne= xt phase will focus on the implementation of these amendments and the broader Family= and Children’s Services policy and practice reform. It should be noted — many policy and practice reform actions are currently underway in anticipation of the work that will be needed to bring innovative approaches through policy and practice.
Of the= 149 required actions, 26 were not accepted. These required actions were not accepted for various reasons, including that they would expand the scope of= the Child and Family Services Act t= oo broadly for its focus or they would erode parental custodial rights, which = may impact the child’s and the parents’ voices in the decision-maki= ng process. It might be that they were not accepted because they were not consistent with other parts of the legislation or they weren’t practi= cal and may not impact the outcomes for children and families in the child welf= are system. Noting that the focus of this Child and Family Services Act Steering Committee was to encompass the required actions of Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow into the Child and Family Services Act in a way that did not impact parental or custod= ial rights or the children’s voices or any of those things in an adverse = way.
We can= share further details of the specifically required actions that were not accepted= , if that is appropriate. Of the accepted required actions that were non-legisla= tive — so the focus, of course, was on the legislative ones to bring us to here today — related to policy and practice reform — and that w= ork is underway, as I have noted. Working groups have been proposed to further understand how we can work together to implement the intent of those import= ant required actions. They have not been put by the wayside, but they did not impact the work that is here in this bill to amend the legislation with that focus, of course.
We have
established the prenatal and infant support services for the at-risk expect=
ant
people working group that will focus on developing options and a Yukon model
for preventive supports for expectant people at risk of becoming involved w=
ith
child protection after birth.
This i= s an incredibly important step because this is an area of child protection work = that has been of concern for many years. This is work that the Department of Hea= lth and Social Services is looking forward to, planning, and doing at this time with the expectation that there will be support, should the bill pass. But = in any event, as I’ve described earlier, the shift that is taking place = is with respect to how this new and current legislation must be better adapted= to the needs of children and families.
At thi= s time, the working group includes representation from Yukon First Nations, the fed= eral government, and community organizations. There were also other areas identi= fied by the Child and Family Services Ac= t Steering Committee as needing further discussion and collaboration to understand some of these issues more deeply. We’re looking to establi= sh working groups in a number of areas that will support child welfare reform initiatives. This is one piece of the work that needs to be done to go forw= ard with child welfare reform.
There = were areas that required more focus, discussion, and understanding to advance them to = the reform that is required and to consider all options. The proposed working groups include custom adoptions, legal representation, coordination of prev= ention services and supports, and youth justice. I hope that responds to the member’s question.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s answers. Based on her answer, my understand= ing is that the Child and Family Servic= es Act Steering Committee took the Embraci= ng the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report and its 149 required actions and then considered and distilled them and broke them down into = 212; for lack of a better word — pots of actions that would either need to= be dealt with through legislation, through policy, or through intergovernmental relations between the government and First Nations.
That r= epresents the first phase of a multi-phased approach, which we are at right now ̵= 2; those legislative changes. Right now, phase 2, I suppose, is beginning, once this bill passes, around implementation, policy reform, and other issues. I think I have that right.
I was = wondering if the minister could — and she indicated that she could, so I hope s= he can now — offer up the list of required actions from the act review committee, in Embracing the Childre= n of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, that were not included.
I unde= rstand that it’s very logical in having read them, and I can understand why = some would not have been included, and the minister began to answer some of that. Some were outside the scope of this legislation, et cetera, but I’m hoping that the minister can offer up a list of those. I believe it was 20-= odd required actions that were not included in the bill.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I think I will list the numbers of the — there are 26 re= quired actions that were not accepted by the committee for current work for various reasons, as I’ve said earlier. Let’s see if I can — if I = use this, it won’t be in a particular order, but I’m happy to do th= at. They won’t be in numerical order; I should say that.
I will= try it like this: 20 were somewhat legislative related — 20 of the 26 requir= ed actions were somewhat legislative related that were not accepted. I have sa= id that these are not in numerical order: 113 suggested that the name of the a= ct be changed, and that wasn’t accepted; 28 indicated that there should = be a cooperative planning process, and that wasn’t accepted, because other changes were made and that wasn’t the wording; 19 dealt with foster parents and the requirement there, and it was determined that it was dealt = with in other ways and should not necessarily be included; 87 talked about exten= ded family care agreements, and that was not accepted by the group with respect= to how the legislation was providing that in other places; 105 made a required action about alternative dispute resolution and changed a version of what is currently in the act, which wasn’t accepted, because the alternative dispute resolution is a process used when consensus is not available, and t= he focus here is on consensus.
As wel= l, required action 107 was dealing with whether or not the director and a pers= on were unable to resolve an issue. Again, it was not accepted by the group. Required actions 126, 127, and 128 were requiring the minister to mandate a particular committee to be independent and at arm’s length, which was= not accepted by the steering committee. I can go into further detail if necessary on that. Required action 131 required that t= he annual report must be authored by the director. This, of course, has been p= ut in the legislation to require the minister’s support and provide an annual report number.
Requir= ed action 132 suggested that, in addition to an annual report that covers the whole territory, it must be prepared by the director. That was not accepted, beca= use the director’s annual report is also publicly available through the Y= ukon government website, so there was clarity there.
Requir= ed action 7 dealt with partnership, meaning a relationship between an individual First Nation government, community, Yukoners, and Yukon government. It was not accepted, because the steering committee agreed that there is, and should continue to be, mutual respect, trust, and understanding between all of the= se partners. It is clearly in the preamble that this a commitment by the government, remembering that legislation, in this case, is directing the director of Family and Children’s Services to do certain things to protect children in relation to that.
Requir= ed action 140 made a recommendation that the director — sorry, a required action — that the director shall offer co-operative planning when the need is for protective intervention; of course, that is dealt with in other places = in the legislation.
Requir= ed action 120 was also not accepted, because it dealt with the — envisioned a s= hift from punitive language and action to providing support and preventive intervention in the first response. It dealt with terms like “supervi= sion order” and other terms that were dealt with. It was not accepted that= we should be changing the name of a “supervision order” to “support services order”. That would erode the intent and the r= ole of that order under the act.
Requir= ed action 142 spoke about counting a child’s time in the director’s tempo= rary custody under section 61, or an interim care order, and it was not accepted, determining that when a child is in interim care, the child’s parents retain the custodial rights of the child, and the child is not legally in t= he custody of the director of Family and Children’s Services and should = not be considered for calculating that time, appropriately, to make sure that t= he child’s custodial rights — the parents’ custodial rights — were intact during that period of time.
I shou= ld say that I appreciate that I might run out of time — the collective time = we have for answering questions — but I’m happy to rise again.
Requir= ed action 144 dealt with — a child can only be subject to a temporary care order under certain circumstances, and the steering committee recommended against counting that time in those cases.
Requir= ed action 141 deals with an order for supervision, which must change to, in their recommendation, a support services order. It was not accepted. The steering committee agreed that legislative changes were not required because there a= re other mechanisms that were happening in the act and the bill brought forward here that would address this.
I have= some more information if that is of concern.
Requir= ed action 75 indicated that there should not have to be a child protection concern for families to access programs and services that they need to stay together, a= nd this piece of legislation is about child protection concerns. There are oth= er ways in which children and families can have support, and this certainly broadens that. The Child and Family Services Act is a child protection piece of legislation designed to pro= tect children from harm or the likelihood of harm. I need to be really clear with respect to this one. This particular required action would expand the opportunity for the director to be involved with children in a way that sho= uld not be expanded. The child protection concerns are what trigger the services and the responsibilities of the director, in this case, and, as a result, m= ust be respected.
Requir= ed action 119 dealt with whether or not the director believes that a child is in need= of protective intervention, and it was not accepted because, as mentioned abov= e, the Child and Family Services Act= i> is child protection legislation and it’s designed to protect children fr= om harm or the likelihood of harm. In that case, the steering committee agreed that the family in the Yukon required upstream or prevention-based services= and programs. However, those programs should not be delivered by a child welfare system if there were not protection concerns but that, of course, that shou= ld be limited to the scope of the act.
Requir= ed action 42 noted that an adult adoptee must consent to being adopted under section = 130, and it suggested that we would change section 130 to add that the adult mus= t be advised of their right to seek independent legal counsel. It was not accept= ed because there is nothing in the Chi= ld and Family Services Act that precludes an adult from seeking legal advice p= rior to an adult adoption, and certainly conversations can be had and recommendations can be made through policy, if appropriate, to make sure th= at this is the case.
Requir= ed action 111 deals with the fact that the committee had heard about guiding principl= es that often do not make it to the front-line practice. It was not accepted by the steering committee because it was noted that all of the recommendations from the advisory committee must be in the Child and Family Services Act and that many of the recommendations could be carried out through other avenues such as regulations. So, it wasn’t feasible to enshrine everything in the recommendations, into the Child and Family Services Act, but= the steering committee agreed to evaluate each and every recommendation, and th= ey did.
I shou= ld also make reference to my presentation in second reading that the preamble to th= is piece of legislation, Bill No. 11, that will change the scope, the practice, and the commitment of the government — Health and Social Services and the director of Family and Children’s Services — in the front and preamble is extraordinary. I will not take this opportunity to read it here again, but I note that I did so, including in my comments duri= ng the opening of second reading. I will take the opportunity to do so in Committee if I have the chance because it is extraordinary, and it encompas= ses the guiding principles, the commitments, in a way that I would say that I h= ave never seen in a piece of legislation — or maybe anyone has ever seen. Certainly, I am not the expert.
Requir= ed action 53 dealt with front-line workers to have contact with families, children, a= nd youth to provide supports and services and indicated that they had heard th= at front-line workers have to obtain consent from a supervisor to provide basic needs and services. This was not accepted because the steering committee ag= reed that the approval process and financial accountability and services to fami= lies all needed to be overhauled — that the act changes were, in fact, doi= ng that and that the commitment will be done and put in policy.
Requir= ed action 73 indicated that the committee had heard that Family and Children’s Services tends not to investigate certain allegations made by one parent du= ring a separation, as an example. It was not accepted because the steering commi= ttee agreed that the Child and Family Se= rvices Act is child welfare legislation. Of course, if there is a concern about harm or potential concern for child welfare, those investigations are carri= ed out. In this case, there will be an opportunity for the best interests of t= he child to be considered and for families to be involved.
Requir= ed action 88 dealt with parents, foster parents, and extended family, indicating that they must be specifically informed about a change and their right to obtain legal advice. It was not accepted because no changes were planned for the extended family care agreements, as noted, and no decision-making powers or ability to consent will be provided to extended family caregivers or foster caregivers, so that was not accepted by the committee.
I thin= k this is number 26, although I could stand corrected — required action 102 tal= ked about conflicting direction about the duty to report in instances of same= 8209;age sexual violence — teenagers seeking support and information after they had been sexually assaulted by a peer. It was not accepted to be included h= ere in this legislative change because the duty to report is, in fact, a legal obligation. It’s developed to protect children and youth, and the dut= y to report is clear. If anyone under the age of 19 is sexually abused or assaul= ted — or there are concerns of abuse — or is likely to be sexually abused or abused in any way, it must be reported to Family and ChildrenR= 17;s Services. Service providers in the community are provided with messaging to understand this. A good example would be teachers who might come into that = kind of knowledge or have children or youth disclose to them or seek help from t= hem. That was not accepted with respect to expanding or making that more specifi= c.
I thin= k this is now number 26; I apologize. Required action 98 indicated that the committee= had heard that communities can and do feel isolated and overworked, and this le= ads to high turnover, so social workers need to be supported to prevent burnout= and compassion fatigue. This was not accepted as a recommendation that every community should have two social workers, because that is not available to = us at the moment, but certainly we accepted the intent that social workers in communities need to be supported and that their work needs to be properly recognized and acknowledged. We have certainly learned through COVID‑= 19 that community health workers, mental wellness workers, and social workers = fall into that category and need to be supported throughout their work. Family a= nd Children’s Services regularly realigns manager and supervisor positio= ns to provide clinical supervision, case management, and support — and m= oral support — to regional social workers and all of those individuals.
Becaus= e this is the last one, I will add one further comment, which is that I don’t disagree with the observations made by the committee in certain circumstanc= es. I think that action has been taken to address all of those. I have worked previously with social workers and Family and Children’s Services. I = know the stress of the work in the communities, but I also know that, having gone through this process with Bill No. 11, these changes are designed to h= ave that work be properly recognized, to put the children, families, their cult= ure, and their communities at the centre of what action is taken for the protect= ion of children, and that the duty to protect children all remains in this real= ly amazing piece of legislation.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister walking through those. I have a few questions just = to confirm things. The minister adequately addressed the 26 that were not included. By virtue of that, can we then assume that the remaining 123 requ= ired actions were indeed accepted and will be reflected in the legislation? I wo= uld ask — the minister does not need to read through all 123, but simply indicate whether that is the case or not.
Was the determination and the explanation provided by the minister just now a funct= ion of the steering committee or a decision that YG made after? My question is:= Was it the steering committee that went through those required actions, made the determination, and provided the explanation for why they weren’t incl= uded in the legislation? So, the question is basically: Was it the steering committee that made that determination?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I think that I will answer the last question first, which was whether or not it was the steering committee that did this work, and yes, in fact, it was the steering committee that did this work.
I thin= k that I will answer the other specific one in two ways. There were 26 required acti= ons that were not accepted. I just went through all of those. The total is 149. There were 84 others that were accepted as required actions, and that work = is happening. There were 39 others — again, of the 149 — where they were accepted in principle and that work is continuing. The work with respe= ct to both of those groups of required actions is ongoing. As I’ve said, there are working groups being structured and much of that work is policy- = and practice-related.
I will= answer this another way to say that there were 65 required actions that related to legislative change. For the reasons I’ve given already, 20 of those w= ere not accepted, but 45 of them were and resulted in direct changes to the Child and Family Services Act thro= ugh Bill No. 11, which is here today.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that answer from the minister. I have to go back and check, but I believe that all adds up. I’ll have to give that some thought.
But th= e reason I asked that question is simply that the committee put in a tremendous amount= of work. They interviewed a lot of people involved. There were a lot of sensit= ive discussions and a lot of emotional content put into that report. I think th= at it’s certainly good to understand how that report has been incorporat= ed into this bill.
Has an= yone from the government ever communicated what the minister just communicated to the Legislature, to the former committee — which required actions of their work were accepted in principle or not? Has any sort of communication been provided to the former committee about which of the required actions actual= ly were accepted or not accepted? Those that were not and the 26 that were lis= ted by the minister earlier and the reasoning behind them — have those ev= er been provided to the former committee either?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I can indicate that I have met with the committee that was inv= olved in the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report. I know that the former Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services met with that committee. I can’= ;t tell you when, but I know it was during COVID because it was a virtual meet= ing, but I can’t tell you when. I can tell you that I did not go through t= hat process with them.
Certai= nly, we talked about the commitment that we had made to their work and the work that the steering committee was doing at that time to ultimately result in the acceptance and implementation of their required actions, with the exception= s of the ones that have not been adopted by the CFSA Steering Committee members, of which there are many. It looks like I have 2= 4, all in all — 19 from Yukon First Nations and five from the Yukon gove= rnment. There were also members from the Council of Yukon First Nations. As members might be aware, that committee was co-chaired, as I mentioned earlier.
Their = work was completed. I don’t want to speak for them; I won’t speak for th= em. The work by the committee that worked on the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report = was extensive — absolutely amazing work — 149 required actions. The= ir work was truly comprehensive, and they truly turned their minds absolutely = to the protection of children in bringing forward these required actions.
We are= here to discuss the required actions that were part of this legislation — or = Bill No. 11 — bringing this forward. I have committed to, on the floo= r of the Legislative Assembly — and the Department of Health and Social Services has committed — and Yukon First Nations’ cooperation — and they have — again, not speaking for them — committe= d to doing the work going forward to deal with the others going forward, but we = have not presented the required actions, in the way that I have just done here, = to the committee that worked on that report.
Mr. Dixon: So, the reason why I ask that is simply that I too have met with the former cha= ir of the committee — last weekend — and received some input from = her about the bill. I know that, in large part, the committee — and I only spoke to the chair, so I can’t say for the entire committee, but I’m sure that the committee felt strongly about their work. I believe= it would have been nice for them to understand how their work was incorporated into the bill, which aspects were not, which aspects were, and the reasoning behind that. I just wanted to highlight that for the minister.
Furthe= r, I know that, earlier this week, the minister’s office sent out an invitation= for members of that committee to attend the Legislature for this Committee of t= he Whole. In response, the former chair sent an e‑mail to the minister’s office, copying me and the Leader of the Third Party. She noted some very positive aspects of the bill. She noted that the bill is — and I’ll quote from the letter: “This bill is a fantast= ic start to the changes that are needed in the Act.”
One of= the areas, though, that she did ask about was the issue of preventive interventions. I’m wondering if the minister can discuss that. Obviou= sly, the notion of preventive interventions is a prevalent aspect of the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow report.
While I appreciate the definitional change that is included in this bill to the definition of “prevention”, I wonder if the minister can commen= t on the overall intent toward making changes to the preventive intervention pro= cess and approach that this bill will change in the legislation.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I certainly appreciate hearing from Maureen Caley-Verdonk earlier this week, who I worked with for many= years in the Dawson circuit. She was a renowned social worker in the area of child protection. I really appreciated her reaching out. I do also appreciate the perspective that she brings with respect to the preventive changes, but I am happy to answer here how this piece of legislation will support a prevention-based approach to child welfare, as it does.
The am= ended Child and Family Services Act will clarify what “preventive services” means — I mentioned th= at in my comments earlier — in the context of this child protection-based legislation. I think that we need to focus on the fact that it is child protection-based legislation, but there are areas and opportunities for prevention-based work.
The le= gislation will focus on how to de‑escalate child protection risks and to prevent children in need of protective intervention from coming into the custody of= the director of Family and Children’s Services. In 2010 when the new legislation came in, I remember being excited that there were opportunities built into that legislation for the focus to be on preventing children from coming into the care of the director. There were many strides at that time = and there were changes in approach, but I feel extremely confident and have the = honour, as the minister with respect to this piece of legislation — t= his bill — to now see this go so much further than what was contemplated = or available then under that legislation.
The ap= proach of de‑escalating child protection matters and preventing children from coming into the protective care of the director of Family and Children̵= 7;s Services is termed as “tertiary prevention services”, according= to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where services are targeted to specific families when a crisis or risks to children have been identified and the purpose is to mitigate the risks of separating children from their families= .
This i= s such a shift in child protection work — I just can’t say enough about = the importance of this proposed shift. Our proposed legislative amendments built upon the foundation of tertiary preventive and voluntary services that Fami= ly and Children’s Services introduced back in 2010, which is laid out fr= om sections 10 to 17.
The Yukon’s trilateral table on the well-being of Yukon First Nation chil= dren and families acknowledged that Yukon First Nations are in the best possible position to deliver primary and secondary child welfare prevention services= and determined that funding must flow directly from the Government of Canada to Yukon First Nations and community organizations to deliver primary and secondary prevention services. Primary prevention services are aimed at the community as a whole, and secondary prevention services are delivered when concerns begin to arise and early intervention could help avoid a crisis. Y= ukon First Nations have the expertise to address the issues within their communi= ties impacting all their children and prevent those issues from turning into chi= ld protection concerns.
The pr= oposed legislative amendments respect the Yukon First Nations’ right to self-determination and avoid expanding the Child and Family Services Act to deliver primary and secondary prevention services. They go beyond that to create room for the broach of child welfar= e reform that includes Yukon First Nations and the Government of Yukon and the Government of Canada.
The ne= wly added purpose clause in this bill clearly states that the Child and Family Services Act is meant to provide services and programs to preserve families in order to alleviate the need to separate children from their families.
Progra= ms and services listed under section 10 of the Child and Family Services Act now include prenatal services for expectant par= ents to ensure that children remain with their parents after they are born. This= is a significant change to our child welfare legislation, which does not curre= ntly allow the director of Family and Children’s Services to serve parents= , or approach them or assist them, until the child is born.
Sectio= n 10 is further expanded to include services to support children learning and practising their languages, their culture, their traditional practices, the= ir customs, and their traditions of their family and their community.= p>
As wel= l, section 10(k) gives the director the legal authority to develop any other programs = or services for children in need of protective intervention, and their familie= s, to support the prevention-based approach.
Anothe= r proposed amendment is to create a legal obligation for the director of Family and Children’s Services where they are required to inform children and families of all prevention-based programs that are available under the Child and Family Services Act R= 12; again, a significant change.
Agreem= ents with extended family members, under section 14, is one of the most frequently us= ed prevention-based tools available under the current Child and Family Services Act. In addition to all the policy and program changes to create true parity between the supports provided to exte= nded family caregivers and foster caregivers, we propose to increase the maximum length of these agreements to 12 months to give parents more time to work toward family reunification and to reduce the administrative burden on exte= nded family members of renewing these agreements every six months.
This i= s the prevention-based approach that has been included in Bill No. 11, inside the context of child protection-based legislation. I think they are new initiatives. I think they will support families going forward. Perhaps most importantly, they will support Yukon First Nation communities, governments,= and organizations to deliver the primary and the secondary prevention services, remembering that — I think the number is 79 percent, and that may have changed since this statistic I have from December — but somewhere nea= r 79 percent of the children currently in the care of the director are of Yukon First Nation descent.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister addressing the area that I have raised. The reason I went through there and raised that was that the former chair of the committ= ee did feel that there was a missed opportunity to better address preventive interventions, and I wanted to note that. I know that our time is limited, = so I will move on from that.
I thin= k that we have clarified the role of the Embr= acing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow report and have a clearer understanding of its role in this bill, so I think that I will move on from that. I will shift gears to the Child and Youth Advocate.
Obviou= sly, I had asked a few questions of the minister during Question Period today, so perh= aps we can dig into that a little bit more. The Child and Youth Advocate sent a letter to the minister yesterday, which I won’t read extensively from, but appended to it was a January 19 letter from the Child and Youth Advocat= e to the Minister of Health and Social Services. At that time, among other thing= s, the Child and Youth Advocate said — and I will quote from this letter: “Therefore, for the purposes of reviewing this policy issue that rais= es a substantial question of public interest in respect of how children’s rights will be impacted by proposed amendments to the = CFSA, I once again respectf= ully request, in accordance with ss.12(1), s.21 and s.23 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the following by February 1, 2022= . 1. Draft legislative amendments to the CFSA; 2. Records demonstrating consideration of children’s rights throughout the CFSA Implementation Project, including but not limited to tools such as Child Rights Impact Assessments; 3. Records demonstrating youth participatio= n in the CFSA Implementation Project; 4. Records demonstrating inclusion of the Advocate’s submission to the CFSA Advisory Committee; 5. Do= cuments and materials regarding the CFSA Implementation Project, including but not limited to: a. Terms of Reference for the Steering Committee; b. Minutes of the Steering Committee; c. Corr= espondence and reports produced by the Steering Committee; and d. Current status = of the CFSA Implementation Project.”<= /p>
Then f= inally, “6. Recommendations from the Steering Committee for: a. legislat= ive amendments to the CFSA; and b. policy changes to the Family and Children’s Services policy manual.” Then there is: “7. Updated policy manual for Fami= ly and Children’s Services.”
Can th= e minister confirm whether or not that material was provided to the Child and Youth Advocate by the date of February 1, as per her January 19, 2022 letter?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I think I’m happy to respond. Thank you for the question= . I can indicate that — I don’t have it in my hand, although I have asked for it to be brought to me — the response to the March 17, 2022, letter, I can recall — and I will paraphrase what I have responded to with respect to that letter — was that we had provided everything tha= t we were able to provide, pursuant to the responsibilities that we had with the committee.
I know= that earlier the Child and Youth Advocate asked for draft legislation. By that t= ime, we had given draft legislation and were providing it to her office. We did = not have it before then, so I just want to make it clear that there was no withholding of draft legislation to the Child and Youth Advocate. = p>
We wer= e pleased that the Child and Youth Advocate brought her resources to review this legislation. The Child and Family Services Act legislative process has been, as I outlined several times, government to government between the Government of Yukon and Yukon First Na= tions, and that was done specifically given the overrepresentation of indigenous children in the child welfare system.
I̵= 7;m not suggesting for a second that the Child and Youth Advocate does not work wit= h or protect the rights of indigenous children, but this is the approach that was taken with respect to the development of this legislation and the steering committee and more particularly taking into account the work of the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow and the extensive work that was done by that group.=
Health= and Social Services has appreciated very much the training and support that the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office has facilitated to develop strong capacity for the Government of Yukon to have policy staff work to apply the= child rights impact assessment, or what has been referred to here as the “<= span class=3DSpellE>CRIA”, and the ability to take that lens on legislation.
But I = am going to say here, almost more importantly, on program and policy development is = that the way in which these things are practically impacting families and childr= en — it is my understanding that Health and Social Services has committe= d to involving the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office in appropriate areas du= ring the program policy and practice development process, which is responsive to= the practical way in which this legislation, the policies of the department, and the requirements and obligations of the director impact children.
Key stakeholders, including the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office, were provided opportunities during the independent advisory committee’s extensive consultation to communicate their concerns and thoughts about the= Child and Family Services Act. It’s my recollection — and I’ll check with my advisors he= re today as to whether or not I have this right, but I think the Yukon Child a= nd Youth Advocate Office did present a written document of some 40 pages, which was clearly taken into account with respect to this work.
The la= st thing I should indicate is that, when I responded to the letter of March 17 —= of course, I have not responded to the letter of March 23, which came yesterday — prior to that, my office and the Department of Health and Social Services conferred with the CFSA Steering Commi= ttee and indicated that some minutes were being requested of those meetings.
The re= sponse that I received was that they believed that some of those minutes contained very sensitive information and they were not happy, or supportive, of those minutes being released at that time — somewhat late in the game ̵= 2; but more importantly, they believed that it protected their process and that the other documents spoke for themselves. So, that is with respect to one specific request. I hope that responds to the question.
Mr. Dixon: So, just to be clear then, it sounds like the minister is making the point that= the government did not provide all the information that was requested in the January 19, 2022 letter from the Child and Youth Advocate to the Child= and Youth Advocate. At least the draft legislative amendments, I don’t believe, were provided, according to what the minister just said, and it so= unds like other aspects of what was requested, including the possibility of draft minutes or minutes of meetings, were not included.
Can th= e minister clarify if some of that documentation was not provided because it was too l= ate in the game to request it? That is what she said, and so I would ask her if= she could clarify that.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: No, I did not say that is why it was not presented. My response — actually, having seen the letter now, I had extensive discussions w= ith the deputy minister. It came through a response from the deputy minister’s office to the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office indica= ting that we had provided all of the information that we were able to. There was= no reason whatsoever that any information was not provided, which is the insinuation, I think.
Let me= be clear: We gave the Child and Youth Advocate everything that we were able to give t= he Child and Youth Advocate in response to her letter in January. If we were n= ot providing information, it was because we were not able to at the time.
Mr. Dixon: So, can the minister tell the Legislature if she feels that the government has = met its requirements under the Child and Youth Advocate Act to provide information?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I appreciate the language in the question, but it has nothing = to do with my feelings. I want to be clear that my obligation, as a minister of t= his government, is to respond in the best way possible to all inquiries that co= me to my office. We had legal advice. We conferred with the steering committee with respect to the types of documents that were being requested. = p>
I shou= ld note that, back in January, a really extensive list of documents was requested, = and we were provided very few days in which to respond, but we did review all of the requests of the Child and Youth Advocate and provided all of the docume= nts that we were permitted to provide to her, based on the consultations that I have described.
Mr. Dixon: I’ll reword the question and set aside any notion of feelings.
Did th= e minister meet her obligations under section 23(2) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act to provide the records requested by the Child and Youth Advocate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Yes.
Mr. Dixon: Okay. So, I’ll move on to the more recent letter from the Child and Youth Advocate dated yesterday.
In tha= t letter — I’ll quote from it briefly: “Second, your Department of Health and Social Services has essentially ignored our formal requests since May 2021 for a draft of Bill No. 11 for the express purpose of conduct= ing our CRIA…” — to use the acron= ym defined by the minister earlier — “… well in advance of t= he Bill being tabled in the Legislative Assembly. Specifically, we requested t= he draft Bill on May 5, 2021, June 30, 2021, July 6, 2021, November 4, 20= 21, December 8, 2021, and on January 19, 2022. For your ease of reference, I enclose our letter of January 19, 2022 to you, and copied to…” — the Premier — “… which summarizes our repeated requests for a draft of Bill No. 11, as well as our warning that the continued failure of your government to provide the YC= AO with the draft of the Bill could result in a delay in enacting the Bill. On= the following day, January 20, 2022, I personally met with…” — the Premier — “… to emphasize both the government’s legal obligation to provide the draft Bill to the YCAO= , as well as the urgency with which we now required the draft Bill to perform= a CRIA prior to the tabling of the Bill, which was expe= cted to occur during the spring sitting.”
Now, t= he minister referenced a document prepared by the Child and Youth Advocate. I assume she was referring to the CRIA, because that’s roughly 40 pages long and she indicated that it was a 40-page document. Does the minister feel that the Child and Youth Advocate was given sufficient information and time to conduct the child rights impact assessme= nt in a thorough and comprehensive way?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you for the question. I know the member opposite has sat= in government and is well aware of the way in which a process works with respe= ct to a draft piece of legislation.
Let me= say that it is in fact the case that the draft legislation is not often finalized un= til days before the legislation is going to be introduced.
I̵= 7;m going to respond by saying that when the draft legislation was in a form that was satisfactory — I mean, there have still been a few typo changes and things like that at the end — back in January, we provided a copy to = the Child and Youth Advocate for the purpose of her applying a CRIA, which I understand, by virtue of the definition of the CRIA process, should be applied to legislation near finality, not to case notes, draft notes, or those kinds of things ahead of time.
I shou= ld also clarify that the 40-page document — the CRIA — that has been presented here in the Legislative Assembly, appropria= tely by an officer of the Legislative Assembly, is not the document I was speaki= ng to before. It is my understanding that the Child and Youth Advocate present= ed — maybe I have the page numbers wrong, but I think it has now been clarified that it is probably near 59 or 58 pages — of her approach, = her concerns, and her thoughts with respect to this process to the Embracing the Children of Yesterday, T= oday and Tomorrow committee, the committee that resulted in that report, and that was quite some time ago. In addition to that, we have the benefit of t= he CRIA process that has been provided by the Child and = Youth Advocate.
I thin= k that answers the question, but I am just checking my notes. I think that does an= swer the question. I guess, to be really clear, we respect absolutely the proces= s of the Child and Youth Advocate Office. I was an officer of this Legislative Assembly for five years. I completely respect the process of independent officers and their role in activities that take place with respect to this Legislative Assembly. I certainly respect the request made by the Child and Youth Advocate Office and ultimately the information that she gave, inserte= d, and provided for this process, both at the early stages when the report was being considered and 149 required actions were being developed — duri= ng that process — and ultimately now with respect to the matter coming before this Legislative Assembly and her review of the draft legislation, w= hich we provided when we had it.
Mr. Dixon: The question that I had asked was: Was it the minister’s understanding th= at the Child and Youth Advocate was given sufficient time to conduct a thorough and comprehensive child rights impact assessment with the information neede= d? I will just re‑ask that question: Does the minister feel that a suffici= ent amount of time was given to the Child and Youth Advocate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I am not an expert in the assessment done by the Child and You= th Advocate, so I won’t be able to answer that question.
Mr. Dixon: That is very clear.
Did th= e child rights impact assessment in any way influence the bill that we see before u= s?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you for the question. I think it’s really incredib= ly important to reference the child rights impact assessment, not only the one done by the Child and Youth Advocate, but the one done during this process = or the lens used during this process.
I thin= k the question was whether or not the child rights impact assessment — I th= ink the reference is to the one done by the Child and Youth Advocate; am I corr= ect in that? I see nodding heads. So, whether that was considered in relation t= o Bill No. 11 — it was considered. When it came to us, it was extensive= ly reviewed. The approach we initially took is that the Government of Yukon appreciates that what I have just said is also the position of the departme= nt with respect to respect and deference to legislative officers of this Legislative Assembly.
The Go= vernment of Yukon appreciates the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office’s child rights impact assessment on the proposed legislative amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. We = went through the report done by the Child and Youth Advocate Office point by poi= nt. Certainly, we thank the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office for all of her efforts in ensuring that children and youths’ rights are protected in this context and in all contexts. The work that is done by that office is incredibly important.
The recommendations of the Child and Youth Advocate do raise important points f= or consideration, many of which were thoroughly discussed by the Child and Family Services Act stee= ring committee. The Government of Yukon position is that the 11 proposed recommendations will, and do, require further conversation through the proc= ess of practice and policies that will be developed, but do not require further amendments to the legislation. I’m happy to go through them. I think we’ll have an opportunity to do that.
I thin= k we should go back for a second and remind everyone that the independent commit= tee that worked for months and ultimately authored the report, Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, includ= ing 149 recommended actions, had the input of the Child and Youth Advocate with= an extensive document, and the consideration of that point of view and expertise was tak= en into account at that stage of this process.
I shou= ld also remind everyone that, upon receipt of the 149 required actions, the steering committee considered each and every one of them individually, one at a time= , to determine how they could be included, or should they be included, in the process of developing this bill and that we worked government to government with respect to the development of the ultimate bill that is before you.
Lastly= , I would like to say that, while I have great respect for the Child and Youth Advoca= te Office with respect to the CRIA, or the child r= ights impact assessment, that was done, the steering committee did use the child rights lens at every step of the process of developing this legislation and= in the assessment of each and every one of the required actions.
Lastly= , Yukon First Nations were determined and took a position, quite rightly, that they= are experts in the care and protection of their children, their families, and t= heir communities and that this must be front and centre in Bill No. 11, and= in fact, it is. So, I appreciate the opportunity to address the child rights impact assessment and all that goes with that, because this is about childr= en’s rights and it’s about children’s rights in the context of child protection, and as a result, the child rights lens must be, and was, applie= d.
Mr. Dixon: On what date did the minister receive the CRIA fro= m the Child and Youth Advocate?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I have a letter in my hand, dated March 10, from the Yukon Chi= ld and Youth Advocate Office. I am going to assume that I received this document on March 10, and I can tell you that we met almost immediately with respect to this response from the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office. We were keen = to make sure that any recommendations that she might have made and her assessm= ent was taken into account and was assessed almost immediately. I can tell you = that the team of individuals at the policy part of Health and Social Services ha= ve worked tirelessly to assess this.
I appr= eciate that March 10 is not that long ago, but I can assure you that this had top priority with respect to bringing this bill forward and making sure that we= had addressed all of the concerns, if there were any expressed by the Child and Youth Advocate.
Mr. Dixon: The minister received this report on March 10. Does she recall the day that she tabled this legislation for first reading?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I have been advised that this bill was tabled on March 9, but = before the member goes there, I am happy to reiterate exactly what process was undertaken when we received the child rights impact assessment from the Chi= ld and Youth Advocate Office. We have seen it several times here in this parti= cular legislative Sitting where individuals amended their own motion or their own bill. I certainly would have brought forward amendments if they were necess= ary. I have to say that the advice and the information that we received from the Child and Youth Advocate Office was excellent.
I can = indicate that I was very pleased that we have addressed in this legislation — = or will in policy and practice development — each of the things that she mentioned in that assessment report. We have committed not only here but previously to the Child and Youth Advocate that her point of view and the expertise of her office will be involved in the process of policy and pract= ice development.
Mr. Dixon: I hope that the minister can see the problem here, because she just stood not= too many minutes ago and told the Legislature that, when they received the CRIA, they extensively reviewed it and that it inform= ed the legislation that we see before us — all the things that were recommen= ded were considered.
But th= e CRIA was received on March 10 and the minister had al= ready tabled the bill on March 9, so it is completely incongruent that the minist= er can say that she thoughtfully considered the CRIA prior to the bill being tabled when the CRIA was received after the bill had been tabled.
It is = very clear that the CRIA done by the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate was an afterthought. It was something that they didn’t wait = to receive and thoughtfully consider. They got it afterwards and now have revi= ewed it post facto. It seems difficult for me, and I think for anyone, to unders= tand how the minister can say that the CRIA informed= this bill when the CRIA was submitted to the ministe= r the day after she tabled the bill.
We are= going to have time to go through some of these recommendations, but ultimately, the Child and Youth Advocate makes a lot of specific and general comments about= the legislation. Make no mistake: The Child and Youth Advocate notes that the b= ill is good, there are good things in here, and it is going to improve things. = But the Child and Youth Advocate also notes that there are a few changes that requi= re a second thought.
In the= executive summary of the CRIA, the Child and Youth Advoca= te notes — and I quote: “But there are also a few changes that req= uire a second thought, and still other areas where no changes = were proposed but may represent a missed opportunity to meaningfully impact children’s lives. If the enclosed recommendations are considered carefully, this CRIA would represent= an opportunity for the government to implement exemplary and transformational legislation, providing the benchmark for jurisdictions across the country.”
If the= minister had simply waited to receive the CRIA and then = held the CRIA up against her proposed bill, the mini= ster could have thoughtfully considered extensively — as she said she did, which obviously isn’t true — the CRIA prior to tabling it, and then we wouldn’t be in the position that we = are, where an independent officer of the Legislature is asking for changes to a = bill that is on the floor of the Legislature after it has been tabled because her input wasn’t considered before it was tabled.
So, I = think that this is sort of the nub of the issue and the nub of our concern — that the CRIA and the work of the Child and Youth Ad= vocate wasn’t considered here. I know that there was some input earlier on. I know that the Child and Youth Advocate made a submission to the advisory committee back in 2018 or 2019, but ultimately, the minister did not provid= e a draft bill in time for the CRIA to be completed before the bill was tabled. The minister tabled the bill before the CRIA was even completed and yet has had the gall to s= tand here and say that they extensively reviewed it and that the CRIA is incorporated in the bill, which obviously makes no sense at all.<= /p>
My que= stion, I guess, is this: Is the minister willing — she floated the idea herself — to entertain amendments to the bill relative to those clearly advis= ed by the Child and Youth Advocate, which the Child and Youth Advocate clearly thinks would strengthen this bill? Will the minister be putting forward tho= se amendments herself, or would she prefer that someone else do it?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I’ll just say that the member opposite has quoted me to = have said that this was taken into account — that the CRIA was assessed prior to the bill being tabled. I don’t believe I said t= hat. What I said was that, when we immediately received it, the work was done. T= hat might be incredulous to the member opposite, but that’s what happened. I’m a proponent of accuracy and specific facts with respect to this Legislative Assembly. As a result, I am happy to repeat that this work was = done immediately upon having received the child rights impact assessment from the Child and Youth Advocate.
When t= he Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services wrote to the Child and Youth Advocat= e on February 2 with the response and the inclusion of the draft Child and Family Services Act, we encouraged her review. We outlined how some of the work had been done previously, and we looked forward to receiving any comments or CRIA or report that may be done. We indicated that Fe= bruary 16, 2022 would have been the date upon which we expected, if possible, to receive it.
The la= st paragraph says — and I quote: “Again, thank you for your letter= . We look forward to receiving any comments you may have by February 16, 2022. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.” It is signed by the deputy minister. Ultimately, we had a = very cordial correspondence from the Child and Youth Advocate. I think that lett= er was dated March 10 — that included the report. I can also indicate th= at I believe we have an e‑mail from a day or two before this that went to — I don’t know if it went to the Leader of the Official Opposit= ion. It went to the Leader of the Third Party — just because I recall that= . It came to me indicating that the child rights impact assessment was completed= and indicating that the Child and Youth Advocate would be tabling it in the Legislative Assembly. I recall that my response — and, I think, the response from the Leader of the Third Party — was to ask if we could = see a copy, thanking her for that, and ultimately we received this letter dated March 10.
I am s= orry that this seems incredulous to the member opposite. I have reported here exactly= the work that was done by the department. I have reported here extensively the respect that we have for the work done by the Child and Youth Advocate Offi= ce, and I have reported extensively on the details and how we worked through ea= ch of the points made by the Child and Youth Advocate in the CRIA to make sure that we could consider them in relation to Bill No. 11 and consider them in relation to the policy and practices that will be develope= d.
Deputy Chair: Do members wish to take a brief recess?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
.
Recess
Deputy Chair:̳= 5;Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
The ma= tter before the Committee is general debate on Bill No. 11, entitled Act to Amend the Child and Family Serv= ices Act (2022).
Is the= re any further general debate?
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the opportunity to return to this. I think the nub of my questio= n is simply: Why not just wait to receive the CRIA b= efore tabling the act? The minister knew that the Child and Youth Advocate was do= ing this work. They had been asking for information for months, maybe more. They knew that there was an interest in conducting the CRIA= . Why not simply just wait until the CRIA was done before tabling the bill so that the government could consider the recommendations of the CRIA before the tabling = of the bill?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you for the question. Let me reiterate that the CRIA or the — I’ll just make sure I have = the acronym correctly. I don’t want to mess that up — the child rig= hts impact assessment is a process that is — was, in this case, I underst= and from the correspondence — completed by the Yukon Child and Youth Advo= cate Office. If I haven’t been clear, it is also a lens by which the steer= ing committee did their work at every step of the way in the development of Bill No. 11.
The pr= ocess that was determined here is, in fact, groundbreaking. It is work including 14 Yu= kon First Nations, 12 at the table. The steering committee was co-chaired by the executive director of the Council of Yukon First Nations. In addition to th= at, the respect for government-to-government relations and the process that was determined on how to achieve Bill No. 11, how to go through 149 requir= ed actions of an independent committee that worked for months and months and hundreds of hours to do this must be respected.
The Fi= rst Nations at the table — I need to talk for a second about the groundbreaking process. Government to government is something that we’= ;ve committed to since our election back in 2016. It has resulted in extensive impact and extensive progress with respect to how we work with Yukon First Nations. That was integrated into the process that was used here to address= the overrepresentation of Yukon First Nation children in the child protection process, in the child protection world, in the child welfare process.
First = Nation governments and First Nation individuals who came to this table are the experts with respect to the care of their children. They had a voice in this process that has not been the case previously with respect to the development of legisla= tion that so intensely affects their communities. The CRIA<= /span> lens was used throughout the development of this process. We very much appreciate the lens and ultimately the report provided by the Yukon Child a= nd Youth Advocate, but it is one piece of the puzzle in the process that was developed to use here in getting Bill No. 11 to the floor.
As I h= ave said previously and will reiterate here, each and every one of the recommendatio= ns made in the report that was sent to us on March 10, 2022 have been taken in= to account and considered, and I certainly look forward to discussing them one= by one in relation to Bill No. 11.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s comments there. I guess my point is simply this: We, as legislators, are asked to consider these bills to vote on them. When that happens, we seek input from people who have thoughts from their constituents, experts, and others. I know that the minister is informed by = the process on the public service side, but when we receive a bill like this and then, within 24 hours, receive a child rights impact assessment like this f= rom the Child and Youth Advocate — who is an independent officer of the Legislature, who we appoint to provide us, as legislators, with advice about issues related to the rights of children — and the independent officer tells us that, while good, this bill could benefit from additional changes = and makes specific changes, I think that it is only fair that we consider them. That is the position that we are in.
It sou= nds like the minister is prepared to do that, so why doesn’t the minister give= us a bit of that explanation? Why are the amendments proposed by the Child and Youth Advocate not good or not right? Why should they not be considered now= ?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I appreciate, I think, whether it is a formal or informal agre= ement, that the answers during Committee of the Whole will be no longer than eight minutes, but I am happy to sit down when I reach that time, because this wi= ll be an intricate answer.
I have= been asked about the recommendations of the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate with respect to Bill No. 11 before the Legislative Assembly. While the recommendations from the Child and Youth Advocate raise important points for consideration, many of which were thoroughly discussed by the Child and Family Services Act stee= ring committee, the Government of Yukon does not take the position that any of t= he 11 proposed recommendations would require further amendments, and I am happ= y to go through the rationale for that.
Firstl= y, I will say that eight of the 11 recommendations are already addressed in various w= ays throughout the existing Child and F= amily Services Act’s proposed legislative amendments and the Family and Children’s Services policies that either exist now or will be properly addressed to match the legislation, should we have that opportunity.
In wor= king with our partners, it was determined that the three remaining recommendations — I will get to the eight in a moment — would do a number of th= ings that were not contemplated or appropriate in the circumstances.
The fi= rst being number 1 — it would actually expand the scope of the Child and Family Services Act beyond a child protection focus, which is, of course, the purpose of the act.
Recomm= endation 3 — I’ll call them as numbered in the report — we’ve taken the position and reviewed the fact that it would blur the legal manda= te between Family and Children’s Services and the Child and Youth Advoca= te Office. That’s something that we want to protect and not blur. That’s number 3.
Number= 10, which was one of the recommendations that was not determined to be included here, would or could unintentionally result in colonial child welfare practices t= hat further perpetuate the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care. <= /span>
I̵= 7;m happy to note, with respect to recommendation number 1 as referred to in the executive summary, it contemplates the articulation of the rights of childr= en receiving services under the act. The recommendation would expand the purpo= se of the Child and Family Services Ac= t to promote the rights of children generally and capture the United Nations = Convention on the Rights of the Child<= /i> in the guiding principles and ultimately expand the rights of the child in care that are included in section 88 to apply to all children receiving services — and it would move that provision to the beginning of the statutes.<= /span>
I will= come back to that because that’s the original recommendation.
The Child and Family Services Act is t= he Yukon’s child protection legislation. It has a specific focus. It is primarily designed to protect the health and safety and well-being of child= ren in need of protective intervention. In fact, that’s truly its only purpose with the exception of the adoption provisions.
It is = not intended to promote the rights of all children in the Yukon and does not af= fect children who are not in need of protective intervention. If the purpose of = the Child and Family Services Act is expanded, then the director of Family and Children’s Services’ legal authority would be expanded as well, and it would result in more chil= dren and families — especially indigenous children and families — becoming involved in Yukon’s child welfare system. That is in no way = the intent — and I am sure that, while we have respected all of the recommendations — and I certainly won’t speak for them, other t= han to say what they are — we must look at the potential consequences.
The Un= ited Nations’ Convention on the Ri= ghts of the Child is referenced in the preamble of the Child and Family Services Act to acknowledge that the legislati= on is meant to be applied within the context of children’s rights, but t= he United Nations’ Convention on= the Rights of the Child goes beyond children in need of protective interven= tion and creates the full range of children’s rights. It refers to civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights for governments to uphold = for all children. This is incredibly important to do, but not in this piece of legislation. Embedding all of these broader rights in the guiding principles would expand the Child and Family Services Act beyond its intended scope.
I real= ly want to emphasize that a reference to the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child in the preamble of this piece of legislation is, in fact, that recognition and is so important, whi= ch is why it is there. I have made reference to the preamble of this legislati= on many times throughout the debate, and it is critical. It is also the preamb= le of a piece of legislation which clearly indicates that all of what comes be= hind it takes into account all of these provisions and all of these protections = and must be read in light of those documents and those — some are pieces = of legislation, like the federal piece of legislation respecting Inuit, indigenous, and Métis children.
Sectio= n 88 of the Child and Family Services Act <= /i>lists the rights of children in the custody of the director of Family and Children’s Services. In that context, the rights of the children are = set out in section 88. These are the rights that all children who are in govern= ment care are owed, and the director of Family and Children’s Services is obligated to uphold these rights in those circumstances because that is what their obligation is, as defined by this legislation.
Childr= en who are not in the custody of the director of Family and Children’s Services = and who receive services under the Chil= d and Family Services Act are in the custody of their parents or guardians. If section 88 is expanded to include children receiving services as well, then= the director of Family and Children’s Services may infringe on parents= 217; custodial rights by taking action or being required to take action under th= at section of the act.
Reorga= nizing the Child and Family Services Act t= o move section 88 to the beginning of the legislation, which is part of that recommendation, would counter the legislative scheme that prioritizes the prevention-based services to children in need of protection, or protective intervention, over the intervention-based approach to bringing children into the custody or care of the director of Family and Children’s Services= .
I think it’s important to note that section 88 exists where it does in the legislation for a specific reason, which is, among other things, that the f= ocus of this new legislation should be on keeping children out of the care of the director — supporting their families, supporting their culture, and supporting their communities to make sure that they are safe and cared for,= but not having to be taken into the care of the director.
The se= cond — I guess I will call it “the second” — recommendat= ion in the report from the Child and Youth Advocate from March 10 indicates tha= t we should, or there should be, a requirement to inform children of their right= s, including the existence of the office of the Child and Youth Advocate and t= heir right to contact the advocate, this recommendation that children receiving services under the Child and Family Services Act should be informed of their rights, the United NationsR= 17; Convention on the Rights of the Child<= /i>, and how to access the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office.
This i= s, of course, a good idea. Family and Children’s Services’ policies already require social workers to explain rights that children receiving services and children in care are all entitled to in child-friendly languag= e, including how they can bring forward any complaints to enforce these rights. Children are provided with pamphlets to describe their rights as children in care and internal complaint procedures that are available to them.= p>
The pa= mphlet describing how to bring forward a complaint also includes information on ho= w to access the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate Office and the Office of the Ombudsman. Workers must assist children who want to bring their complaints = to the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate or the Ombudsman. These pamphlets and informational material will be updated after the legislative amendments, sh= ould they pass this House, to capture the expanded rights, including the right to culturally appropriate advocacy services. Access to advocacy services are also included in one of the proposed service deliv= ery principles, which requires that children and their families be given the support necessary to access advocacy services that meet their needs, includ= ing organizations that understand the needs of indigenous people.
Again,= I just want to remind everyone that there is now the obligation — or will be= in the legislation, hopefully — that First Nations and indigenous organizations be advised whenever one of their members’ child, parent= , or other parent is involved in the child welfare process. Together with that requirement, the obligation to inform children and families about advocacy services that are available to them, including advocacy services that might= be culturally appropriate, is meeting the recommendation made by the Child and= Youth Advocate in this context.
The ne= xt recommendation involves ensuring that the role of the advocate is incorpora= ted into the Child and Family Services = Act. The recommendation is to add the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate’s functions and powers to the Child a= nd Family Services Act.
I note= that earlier the member opposite casually described the role of the Child and Yo= uth Advocate as being one to inform this Legislative Assembly in matters like t= his. Certainly, that’s one interpretation, but I have discussed many times with the Child and Youth Advocate, and with the former Child and Youth Advo= cate when I was also an officer of this Legislative Assembly, about the advocacy role for children and how important that is. I know how important that is to the current Child and Youth Advocate. That is the primary function. =
The Ch= ild and Youth Advocate’s functions and powers are properly and appropriately listed in the Child and Youth Advoc= ate Act, where they belong. It is the authority for that person to act. It provides the scope, the authority, and the legal mandate of that person to operate and to protect children in this territory. The Child and Family Services Act does not provide powers or create legal obligations for the Yukon Child and Youth Advocate; therefore, it wou= ld not be appropriate to list the Child and Youth Advocate’s respective functions and powers in that piece of legislation — in the Child and Family Services Act when= I make reference to that piece of legislation.
Access= to advocacy services are already captured in the Child and Family Services Act as a= key principle. One of the proposed service delivery principles requires that children and families will be supported to access a broad range of advocacy services, as I’ve noted, and respect the wishes of children and their families to choose their First Nation or culturally appropriate organizatio= n to advocate on their behalf. This in no way diminishes the fact that the child= and family are required to be told about all advocacy services that might be of assistance to them and, beyond that, to be assisted to access those service= s if they need that kind of assistance. It certainly goes beyond providing them = with an address or phone number should they need to go to an office or need an appointment of some kind.
If the= Child and Youth Advocate Office is explicitly listed as an advocacy service in the legislation, it creates the risk that the advocate becomes the default or preferred advocacy service and potentially precludes Yukon First Nations fr= om advocating for their children and their families.
Before= I turn to policies, I think it also presents the risk that the Child and Youth Advocate’s powers and responsibilities in the Child and Youth Advocate Act could be somehow compromised by the fact that they live in another piece of legislation, and the purposes of th= at legislation, like the Child and Fam= ily Services Act, would not provide the legal authority for them to act, because that exists in the act — the statutory authority that creates= the Child and Youth Advocate position and the Child and Youth Advocate Office.<= /span>
Family= and Children’s Services’ policies already acknowledge the right of children and their families to access the advocate, as well as the Office of the Ombudsman, and now will require that workers support children and famil= ies to access not only those advocacy services, but those that are related to t= heir culture or community.
Recomm= endation number 4 is to add the child’s views and preferences, the sense of ti= me, and the child’s need for security and stability as factors in determi= ning the best interests of the child. We absolutely recognize the need for the child’s view and preferences to be heard, and we feel that the legislative amendment brought to the floor here — I guess I should say “confident” rather than “feel”. We are confident th= at those reflect the need of the child’s views and preferences to be hea= rd.
The child’s views and preferences are already one of the factors that mus= t be considered when determining the best interests of the child under section 4(2)(b). The child’s — I’m going to quote here: “… the child’s physical, mental, emotional and spiritual safety, security and well-being…” and “… the import= ance to the child of having ongoing relationships with and connections to their parents, siblings, and other extended family members and to their community= and culture…” are the two primary factors under the “Best interests of the child”.
The fe= deral act respecting First Nation, Inuit, and Métis children, youth, and famil= ies, which established the minimum standards for child welfare across the countr= y, requires the Yukon to use these as the two primary factors for consideration when making decisions related to a child involved with child protection.
I don&= #8217;t think we can say that strongly enough: New federal legislation developed in conjunction and collaboration with First Nations across the country requires that there be minimum standards for child welfare that require these two primary factors for consideration. They are included as the requirements for how to determine — the criteria, if you will — what is in the b= est interests of the child.
The child’s sense of time and developmental capacity are already enshrine= d in one of the service delivery principles from — I’m going to refe= rence section 3(b).
The child’s need for security and stability was removed, which is a part = of the recommendation from the Child and Youth Advocate — so, just to address that, the child’s need for security and stability was removed because this factor was used in the past to enable the colonial practice of keeping indigenous children with their non-indigenous foster caregivers, instead of reunifying these children with their families or their communiti= es and their cultures. Historically, it was argued that the stability and the attachment that the child had formed with the foster caregiver should not be disrupted by attempting to reunify children with their parents. That is not something that can be tolerated and must be addressed.
I will= stop there. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to those further.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s response, but I did want to note very quick= ly, and I know that it is not enforceable, but members did agree that we would = try to keep responses in Committee below eight minutes. The Chair isn’t a= ble to intervene at eight minutes. I know that the minister didn’t mean t= o go on, I’m sure, but just for future responses, it would be appreciated.=
Based = on the minister’s response, I think that it is very clear that she is reading from some documentation, so perhaps in the interest of time, it would simpl= y be easier if the minister could just write a letter to me or to members, perha= ps, which goes through the 11 amendments that she has suggested. She has been reading them, explaining them one by one, which is appreciated, but I think that, just given the time, it may be easier if the minister were to simply provide the rationale for those in writing so that we could have them in advance of this returning.
I will= just move on, because I hope that the minister is all right with that.
I will= switch gears to just recognizing that it is almost 5:00 p.m., and we do have the Commissioner coming in a few minutes, and I know that there are others. I d= id want to switch gears to the IPC, the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Obviously, the minister is very familiar with the letter that was sent to t= he Premier, to the Leader of the Third Party, and to me.
I woul= d like to start off with: What level of consultation was conducted with the IPC and d= oes the minister have any thoughts on the letter and the recommendation for amendments to this bill that were put forward by the IPC?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: So, the Yukon Information and Privacy Commissioner reviewed the bill and provid= ed a letter, as the member has referenced a number of times, sent to the Premier, and to him, and to the Leader of the Third Party. The recommendation includ= ed in the letter or the comments included in the letter from Yukon’s Information and Privacy Commissioner — again, an officer of this Legislative Assembly — was that the proposed amendments may remove an individual’s “right” to access certain personal health information under the Health Inform= ation Privacy and Management Act, or something known as “HIPMA”.
I think it’s important to note that the current legislation came into effect = in 2010. At that time, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act applied to that piece of legislation, of course, and to all pieces of legislation in the territory a= nd activities of government.
Then, = following that — and I don’t recall the year; somebody will tell me, no d= oubt — the Health Information Priv= acy and Management Act came into effect.
The go= al here, with respect to the amendments in Bill No. 11, were to make sure that = the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Health Information Privacy and Management Act were both respected in the proce= ss and properly referred to in the Chi= ld and Family Services Act.
I appr= eciate that the Privacy Commissioner’s letter indicated that it may be of concern to her and the effect of accessing personal health information. I c= an indicate that, immediately upon the Premier indicating to me that this lett= er had been received, we contacted the Department of Justice, and we had this quickly and thoroughly reviewed, because obviously, this is not what was tr= ying to be achieved here in the draft. We respectfully disagree, or perhaps we — that’s strong language, but I don’t believe or don̵= 7;t have confidence that the individual’s right to access certain personal health information is not affected.
The Yu= kon Information and Privacy Commissioner proposed legislative amendments to the= Child and Family Services Act, and= those proposed amendments — sorry, let me say it this way: Her opinion that= it might remove an individual’s right to access personal health informat= ion is not the opinion of those who have worked on this matter. I will say it t= his way: The right of a person to access their personal health information is a fundamental right under the Health Information Privacy and Management Act. This right is not restricted by= the proposed legislative amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.
There = is no conflict between the obligation of a public body under the Health Information Privacy and Management Act to disclose perso= nal health information when requested by an individual and the director of Fami= ly and Children’s Services’ discretion to disclose information or documents in the director’s possession. Let’s be clear: There i= s no conflict between the obligation of the public body to disclose personal hea= lth information that is requested by an individual or the director’s disc= retion under the act.
The Child and Family Services Act was developed, as I’ve noted, prior to the HIPMA legislation coming into force — or the Health Information Privacy and Management Act. There are circumstances where disclosing relevant health information to the director = is essential to a child’s well-being. I should note this. These amendmen= ts directly respond to required action 125 in the report Embracing the Children of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, which states that — and I quote: “Section 180 is silent about the Hea= lth Information and Privacy Management Act (“HIPMA= span>”) and the director’s ability to disclose and obtain information should = be paramount over HIPMA…” — simi= lar to the requirements in ATIPP.
These = amendments provide clarity as to how the Health Information Privacy and Management Act is considered throughout the Child and Family Services Act and = does not restrict a person’s right to access their personal health information. I think that this is absolutely critical. I note that the Health Information Privacy and Managem= ent Act came into being in 2013.
With r= espect to how the Information and Privacy Commissioner — were they involved in = the amendments to section 180? The answer to that is no. We were effecting the opportunity to make sure that HIPMA and ATI= PP were both properly reflected in the amendments. The proposed legislative amendme= nts related to the administration of services and service quality and accountability have been reviewed by a number of our legal and subject matt= er experts and amended to meet confidentiality and privacy standards. Of cours= e, always taking these into account, the proposed legislative amendments ensure that the sensitive information that is in the possession of the director of Family and Children’s Services is only disclosed in limited circumstances.
I hope= that answer is responsive to the question.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister following the eight-minute informal agreement; I appreciate that.
I just= wanted to circle back — I did jump ahead to the IPC, but I did want to conclude= my piece on the CRIA. Has the minister responded t= o the Child and Youth Advocate’s CRIA that was = tabled here? Has the minister provided that issue‑by‑issue explanation= of why the amendments proposed by the Child and Youth Advocate are not needed = at this time?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you for the question. I will return with that informatio= n when we discuss this further. I appreciate also that I didn’t respond to t= he member opposite asking for a written version of the position with respect to those and I will certainly take that under advisement and discuss it with t= he department. I think that it would be a useful tool.
Mr. Dixon: I agree with the minister that it would indeed be a useful tool, because of course, as we consider this bill, if the minister has a predetermined list = of answers to these questions, it would be useful to see them, because when we= get into line-by-line debate — we have recommendations from the Child and Youth Advocate to make legislative changes or amendments to the bill, and i= f there is an explanation of why that is not needed or not going to fit within the bill, then it would be useful for legislators to see that explanation in advance of getting into line-by-line debate.
Likewi= se, I would like to ask if the minister has responded to the IPC — her lett= er dated March 11. Has that letter been responded to, and can we see that lett= er?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you again for the question. The letter from the Informat= ion and Privacy Commissioner wasn’t written to me, so I will determine wh= ether the response has been sent and whether it will be tabled here.
Mr. Dixon: Again, this is another example of a situation where we’re advised by an independent officer of the Legislature to make an amendment to a bill on the floor, and if the government has, in this case, a legal opinion that sugges= ts that amendment is not needed, it would be useful for legislators to see it = before we potentially table or vote on an amendment.
If the= re is legal advice that the minister has received on this — I seem to recall that the minister had said that when they first received the letter — when the Premier first received the letter, he shared it with the minister,= and the minister immediately went to the Department of Justice and sought advic= e. If the government is able to share that advice with other legislators, it w= ill obviously help inform how we proceed in terms of line‑by‑line debate and ultimately in terms of voting on not only the bill, but the line= -by-line debate and any potential amendment.
With t= hat, if the minister could just simply indicate whether or not that’s going t= o be possible, I would appreciate that.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: As I’ve noted, the letter response would not have necess= arily been from me. I’m happy to look into it and respond as we proceed in = this matter — absolutely.
Mr. Dixon: I apologize to my colleague, the Leader of the Third Party, but that’s = it for me in terms of general debate. I’ll pass the floor on to her.
Ms. White: I thank my colleague for his thorough questions today, and I’m pleased = to be here with all of you to have this conversation. I know my time is very limited today, but that’s okay.
First,= I just wanted to start by saying that I really believe in the potential that these amendments have for Yukon families but more importantly for children, becau= se we’ve seen the problems that we’ve had already. I hope that consensus-based work like this between the department and each Yukon First Nation will be a template for legislation in the future, because I believe = this will make things stronger. It’s my hope that these changes will create better outcomes for our children.
One th= ing that my colleague today has done a really good job in, though, is highlighting t= he concerns that other officers of this Assembly have had as far as being able= to see or have input into things that they see as possible problems. = p>
My hop= e is that, on a go-forward basis, we make sure that we bring together all of the folks= we need to make sure that by the time it gets here — instead of spending= time going through this — it could have been addressed, understanding, of course, that folks in the policy and drafting all have an experience that we here just don’t have. So, that is my pitch for what we do, going into= the future, and I think that it is really important.
I thin= k that there are important things to say because there are such huge changes plann= ed in this legislation. There is an expression: “Failing to plan is plan= ning to fail.” I think that one thing that has been highlighted is that su= ch sweeping changes will require such a huge overhaul — really a shift in philoso= phy within every level of the department.
A lot = of the questions that I have — I will barely scratch the surface today ̵= 2; have to do with how we are going to support the people who are going to do = that work in making that shift. What we are really saying is that we are going t= o do this in a completely different way, and I think that this is really importa= nt. But how do we support people who have been doing the work following one pie= ce of legislation as we move toward this new way of doing business? Those are a lot of what my questions are, and there might not be answers to them yet, w= hich is okay too, but I am going to put them out into the universe because I thi= nk that it is helpful as we try to figure our way forward.
Lookin= g at this department shift and the importance of what we do on a go-forward basis, wh= at financial resources are going to be devoted to this shift? Have we recogniz= ed right now what we are going to need to be able to start making these monume= ntal shifts that this legislation is asking us to do?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I am very excited to be able to answer this question, but I se= e that I have two minutes, so let me just start. I will hopefully be able to finish when we come back to this bill.
I thin= k that it is an incredibly important question. We have been doing the work at the Department of Health and Social Services already. This process has been goi= ng on for five years. This shift has been contemplated in the possibilities of= the world going forward for child welfare for a long time. Obviously, the development of the federal piece of legislation — and opportunities to work with that — brought that to our attention as well. Individuals w= ho work in this area have been hungry for new tools and for new ways to support Yukon children and families — absolutely.
The as= sociated costs for Yukon First Nations, which are going to be certainly an aspect of this — and First Nation youth — it is not expected to require additional resources at this time, but the federal government has committed resources specifically to Yukon First Nations — to First Nations acro= ss the territory — in relation to changing the work in the child welfare system. The direction and the support of the trilateral working group on ch= ild welfare reform with both Canada and Yukon First Nations — resources h= ave been a top priority. The transitional supports through the legislation are expected to require support for students and for youth. We will support them throughout.
I appr= eciate that I am out of time, Deputy Chair. I am pleased to speak more specificall= y to resources and the importance of them in the transition of this piece of legislation and the adoption and operation of Bill No. 11, but seeing = the time today, I move that you report progress.
Deputy Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Riverdale South that the Chair report progress= .
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Streicker: I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Deputy Chair: It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair
Speaker: I w= ill now call the House to order.
May th= e House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Chair’s
report
Ms. Tredger: Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 11, entitled Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act (2022), and dire= cted me to report progress.
Speaker: You= have heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole.
Are yo= u agreed?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: I d= eclare the report carried.
We are= now prepared to receive the Commissioner of the Yukon in her capacity as Lieute= nant Governor to grant assent to bills that have passed this House.
Commissioner Bernard enters the Chamber announce=
d by
her Aide-de-Camp
Assent to
Bills
Commissioner: Please be seated.
Speaker: Mad= am Commissioner, the Assembly has, at its present session, passed certain bill= s to which, in the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request yo= ur assent.
Clerk: Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act and=
the
Municipal Act (2021);=
Income
Tax Amendments Act, (2022);=
Act to
Amend the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act (2022); Act to Amend the Legal Profession Act, 2017 (20=
22); Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2022=
span>; Interim Supply Appropriation Act 2022-23.
Commissioner: I hereby assent to the bills as enumerated by the Clerk.
I am h= appy to announce that, to coincide with the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, we have completed our wall of translation. Commissioner of Yukon — Commissaire du Yukon — is now translated into the eight indigenous languages of the Yukon.
I woul= d like to sincerely thank everyone across the territory who has taken part in this endeavour. I invite you to come to Taylor House to view our translation wal= l, our exhibition for the Platinum Jubilee, and the museum on our second floor= . We are back to regular working hours — Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. = to 4:30 p.m. — after the Easter break.
Thank = you, merci, shaw nithän, günilschish, mahsi= 8217; cho.
Commissioner leaves the Chamber
Speaker: I will now call t= he House to order.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I move that the House do now adjourn.
Speaker: It = has been moved by the Government House Leader that the House do now adjourn.<= /p>
Motion agreed to
Speaker: Thi= s House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. Monday.
The House adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
=
The following documents were filed March 24, 2022:
35-1-55
Bill No. 1= 1, Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, letter re (dated March 23, 2022) from Annette King, Child and Youth Advocate, to Hon. Tracy-Anne McPhee, Minister of Health and Social Services (Dixon)
35-1-56<= /p>
Comments about = Bill No. 11, Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act (2022), = letter re (dated March 11, 2022) from Diane McLeod-McKay, Information and Privacy Commissioner, to Hon. Sandy Silver, Premier, Currie Dixon, Leader of t= he Official Opposition and Kate White, Leader of the Third Party (Dixon)
35-1-57<= /p>
Bill N= o. 11, Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act, letter re (dated Mar= ch 17, 2022) from Peter Johnston, Grand Chief, Council of Yukon First Nations,= to Hon. Tracy-Anne McPhee, Minister of Health and Social Services (McPhee)
35-1-5= 8
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Policy, letter re (dated November 20, 2019) from Tracy-Anne McPhee, Minister of Education to Porter Creek Secondary Sch= ool Gender and Sexuality Alliance (McPhee)
<= !--[if supportFields]> PAGE 11