Child and Family
Services Amendment Act, 2000, Bill 118, Mr Martin
/Loi de 2000 modifiant la Loi sur les services
à l'enfance et à la famille, projet de loi
118, M. Martin
Mr George Henry
Ontario Association of
Children's Aid Societies
Ms Sandy Moshenko, director, quality assurance and outcomes
Mr Marvin Bernstein, director, policy development
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
L)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Legislative Research
Service
The committee met at 1108
in room 151.
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI
SUR LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE
ET À LA FAMILLE
Consideration of Bill 118, An
Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act / Projet de loi
118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et
à la famille.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): I'll call the meeting to order. Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a meeting of the standing
committee on justice and social policy to consider Bill 118, An
Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act. We will begin
with the official opposition's statements and questions for 20
minutes.
Mrs Leona Dombrowsky
(Hastings-Frontenac-Lenox and Addington): Thank you very
much, Madam Chair. I am delighted to be here this morning to make
representation on behalf of the opposition party with respect to
Bill 118. I applaud my colleague Mr Martin from Sault Ste Marie
for introducing this bill that is intended to protect children in
the province of Ontario. In spite of what has been presented in
the media recently, the Ontario Liberal Party will support any
legislation that will ensure the safety of children, particularly
children in the province who are more vulnerable in that they are
in care situations.
Dalton McGuinty has made it
abundantly clear on many occasions -- and I would suggest as well
that one consider the opposition record: the number of private
members' bills, Liberal bills, Rick Bartolucci's three private
member's bills, that look to ensure the protection of children in
the province. So I'm very happy to be here this morning to speak
in support of Bill 118.
I certainly hope the
government does not intend to undertake partisan tactics. I think
we need to act now to implement legislation, whether it comes
from the opposition or the third party, to act in the best
interests of the children of the province.
My colleague from Sault Ste
Marie became painfully aware of how people might take advantage
of children in an institutional setting. I can't imagine the pain
that is suffered within a community when this happens. Mr Martin
has taken the first opportunity he had to ensure that a situation
of this nature could not happen again to vulnerable children in
our province. That is the intent of this legislation, and
certainly it is worth supporting.
We support this bill because
it does expand the authority of children's aid societies to
protect children. It enables them to conduct and communicate the
results of an investigation. That ability right now, at the
present time, is very limited and, because it is limited,
children are therefore at risk in the province.
Very sadly, it is true that
children do suffer abuse, not only at the hands of their parents,
but it has happened that they suffer at the hands of those in
positions of authority, positions of responsibility, people who
are trusted by society. I think it's important to say at this
point that the Liberal Party certainly respects and believes that
by far the majority of people who are engaged in activities that
support and care for and serve children are good and honest and
reputable. But it does happen, sadly, that not all people are of
this nature, so we do need laws that ensure the safety of
children. I also believe that the people who care for children
need and deserve protection as well. I believe that full
investigation and full disclosure is of benefit to both parties
in that particular case.
This bill is for children. It
is to better protect them, and it's to ensure that they have a
voice. They don't vote; they don't make presentations to
committees. We are charged with that responsibility. Certainly I
accept that and I'm honoured and I'm very vigorous in my attempt
to ensure that children do have a voice so that they are
protected.
I did some research last
week, and I was very alarmed by the fact that the number of
abused children -- and I think it's interesting to note that the
number of abused children since 1996, since the time this
government took office, has increased by 50%. I would suggest
that's not a statistic that we will hear in the Legislature,
presented by the government, when we hear the economic report
card. We don't hear about its impact on children. But it is a
fact that there are 50% more children who have been abused and
are in care in the province of Ontario than in 1996. So I would
suggest there's an even greater need for this kind of
legislation. There are more children being abused and even more
need to ensure that there is a process in place to hold those who
might abuse children more accountable.
I have the figures; I think
there are some looks of disbelief from across the table. In
January 1995, there were 10,639 children identified as abused in
the province. On January 1, 2001, there were 14,956 children
identified as being abused, sadly. Instead of those statistics
improving, they're not. In fact, I think they are embarrassingly
high. That's something we'll pay some more attention to in a
later forum. But I think it's important to share those numbers
this morning with this group of people so there's a very clear
understanding that in this bill, Bill 118, when we talk about
protection of abused children, we're not taking about an
insignificant number; in fact, we're talking about a number
that's rising at an alarming rate.
I believe that even this
government is recognizing we're on the verge of a crisis by the
amounts of money that they're throwing in this direction. While
any dollars that are offered in support of children at risk -- I
think that probably we need to take a look at how and when we're
spending the money. Instead of throwing money at the problems and
the consequences, we need to be investing in ensuring that in
fact these situations do not happen.
I support those who come to
speak on this bill and certainly hope that it or an amended
version of this bill will become law soon. That's what's really
very important to understand today: we need this to be the law
soon.
When I was doing my research
on this bill and I came to be aware of the particular case in
point that gave rise to the legislation, I became aware that in
1999 the Honourable Sydney Robins issued a report, A Review to
Identify and Prevent Sexual Misconduct in Ontario Schools. Mr
Robins was appointed by an order in council, and in his report,
he made a recommendation with regard to an amendment to the Child
and Family Services Act. In fact, his recommendation is what we
see in Bill 118, so I would offer that there is a very sound
support in the report from the Honourable Sydney Robins that
supports this legislation as well.
Finally, I believe, and my
colleague from Sault Ste Marie has indicated, that Bill 118 is
not the final word on what we as legislators can do for Ontario's
children. I would suggest that if we wanted to embark on an
exercise that would perhaps expose shortcomings of the bill or if
we wanted to become especially particular on the wording, there
could probably be some rather lengthy and not especially
productive debate on that. The bottom line is that there are
children in Ontario who at this time, with the present act, are
not protected. Mr Martin has introduced a bill that will begin to
enable people who provide service and protection for children to
do their job better.
I expect that you will hear
in subsequent presentations from those agencies and individuals
who will also support the legislation. I strongly encourage and
urge all members of the Legislature to support it. It may require
some fine tuning, and certainly we would support that, but what's
most important for the Liberal Party, for the opposition, is that
action be taken precipitously, so the kind of scenario that
unfolded in Sault Ste Marie does not happen with other children
in institutional settings in Ontario.
Madam Chair, that concludes
the more formal part of my presentation. If there are any
questions, I will do my best to answer them.
1120
The Chair:
Thank you, Mrs Dombrowsky. Are there any questions?
Mr Bart Maves
(Niagara Falls): Questions or statements?
The Chair:
There is up to 20 minutes for statements and questions for the
official opposition and the third party.
Mr Maves: I
appreciate the member's comments. One of the things she talked
about at the outset was an increase in children in care, kids at
risk who are now in the care of children's aid societies. The
reason for that -- and I think anyone at most of the children's
aid societies would agree with this -- is a lot of the changes
the government has made over the past five years with regard to
CASs.
We've instituted a new risk
assessment model, which is a methodology for CAS workers to
better determine if someone is in danger. We've doubled the
budgets for CASs across Ontario, and this is as a result of a new
funding formula. Rather than saying, "You get $10 million. Go out
and look after kids in your area," the budget now usually works
on volume. CASs now have the budgets. As I said, most of them
have doubled across the province, so they can hire workers to
look after kids and even investigate all the reports that come in
to them.
Because of changes in
legislation, there is now increased responsibility on
professionals to report abuse. We talked about this in Sault Ste
Marie last week. With the bill that was passed in 1999 and
implemented in March 2000, if a teacher has reason to suspect
that abuse is going on in a school -- a teacher of a child --
they now have a responsibility to report that abuse and in fact
are liable to a $1,000 fine if they don't. That wasn't there
before, and so there's increased reporting. Mr Martin asked the
folks in Sault Ste Marie, "Is it getting better? Is it changing?"
Just about everybody, when asked that question, said it is. There
seems to be more people coming forward reporting abuse, and
that's a reason we have more kids in care.
We've also lowered the
definition. It used to be that CASs couldn't get involved as
often in reported abuse cases because of the definition. The test
of when they could get involved was too high. I think some of the
words might have been "imminent danger." I can't remember the
exact wording, but it was a higher test. Now we talk about
someone having a suspicion, reasonable grounds to suspect there's
abuse. It's lowered the bar, and so there is more reporting and
the CAS can get involved a lot easier than they could before. So
abuse that maybe wasn't getting reported does get reported
now.
In the Robins review, which
we appointed, we asked Mr Robins to review the DeLuca case. As I
said in Sault Ste Marie on Thursday, I personally don't think
it's had enough attention province-wide. That report talked about
the probability of a lot more abuse happening in the school
system and a systemic burying of heads to the problem in the
school system. Maybe the DeLuca case got a lot of play in the
Sault Ste Marie media and in the surrounding environs. It didn't
get nearly as much publicity, nor did the Robins report get very
much, across the province. Basically, I think all the people --
the government, the school boards, the teacher unions, everyone
-- just said, "Yes, we agree." When everyone agrees with
something, the issue tends to die. No one was out there opposing
the Robins report, and so it died. That's unfortunate, because I
think it's important that people see the Robins report and
realize what happened in the DeLuca case. We were there on
Thursday, and we found out that on Wednesday --
Mrs
Dombrowsky: That's not a question.
The Chair: I
assume that's a point of order. It seems like an awfully long
question, but --
Mr Maves:
That's why I asked at the outset, but I'll put it in the form of
a question. All these things combined say this is why the number
of kids in care has increased, and we heard that from folks.
Maybe I'll put it in the form of a question to the member
opposite. All those things -- the new risk assessment model, the
doubling of budgets, the children's services act reform in 2000
-- are the main reasons we have more kids in care. Does she not
see that as the rationale for more kids being in care, and does
she not see that as a positive step because it has improved the
ability of CASs to get involved and improve their resources?
The Chair:
You have about three minutes to answer that five-minute question,
Ms Dombrowsky.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: First of all, my understanding is that the
changes to the Child and Family Services Act came into effect in
May 1999 and not March.
Mr Maves:
March 2000.
Mrs
Dombrowsky: March 2000. OK. When I look at the figures
over the last five years, even previous to the implementation of
those changes in legislation, the numbers were rising. Even prior
to the requirement of the law that would make it easier or
facilitate reporting, the numbers were increasing. That the
changes were made is certainly laudable, but to suggest that's
why there have been increases -- that now it's easier to report,
and that's why we have more children in care -- I think, is a
less than accurate presentation. I have a graph here, and I have
the numbers. Every year the numbers have increased, if that's the
point you wanted to explore.
In terms of the resources
that are provided to children's aid societies, while I'm sure
children's aid societies appreciate the support that's very
necessary, because there are these children being abused, the
point I would like to make is, why is that happening? Why are the
numbers increasing? Maybe it's because we've got a lot more
children in families living in poverty. Our party is not the only
group that would advocate that because there are desperate family
situations, they are moved to very desperate actions.
In response to your point on
numbers, the numbers were rising before the newly enacted
legislation came into play. I'm suggesting as well that the
government has a responsibility to put in place programs and to
assist and support families so that family situations don't
deteriorate to the point where children are being abused. There
is certainly a correlation between poverty and abuse.
The Chair:
Mr Martin.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault
Ste Marie): At the outset, I want to say how thankful I
am to both the Ontario and the Algoma children's aid societies
for the excellent work they've done in bringing this bill forward
with me, so that we might move quickly to limit the possibility
of children being abused again in the way that happened in Sault
Ste Marie and in many other institutions across this province for
a long period of time. Their contribution has been invaluable.
Without them, we wouldn't be here today. I think it's an
indication of the concern the Children's Aid Society has, not
only in the work they do every day in trying to protect children
and families, but in the work they do in helping those of us who
have another mandate, which is to make sure the framework within
which they work is helpful to them in doing their work. A lot of
what I will be sharing with you today by way of comment on this
bill is work that in fact has been done by the children's aid
society in support of the work we do on this together.
The other thing I want to say
is that I've appreciated the non-partisan nature -- up until
about Friday and this morning -- of the discussion we've had on
this bill, both upstairs in the House and around this table. I
still feel there's support from every side to move quickly to
make sure we put in place whatever is required as quickly as
possible -- this bill is not complicated or difficult; it's not
an omnibus bill of any sort -- that no more children are in
danger of being abused out there, determined by at least the work
that we can and should be doing.
1130
I just want to talk for a few
minutes about where this bill came from, what it's about, and to
some degree what it's not about, so that we might sort out some
of the challenges and difficulties that may be floating around
that might get in the way of this thing moving forward. I want to
share a bit of what we heard in Sault Ste Marie on Thursday and
then close up with some thoughts on why we need to move this
through the system and get it done as quickly as possible.
I was privileged on Friday to
get a phone call from the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association in
support of this bill. They hadn't heard soon enough to actually
come and make a presentation. They would have liked to be before
us on Thursday in Sault Ste Marie, but they didn't get word on
time. They weren't able to prepare the brief, and so they will be
mailing a brief in to the clerk, who will share it with the rest
of us. It's a very good brief. It's one that all of us should
look at, because it not only addresses the situation where Sault
Ste Marie and DeLuca are concerned, but it talks about the abuse
that that nation of people endured at the hands of institutions
over a number of years and how they feel that anything we can do
to limit that is good and that this bill in particular will go a
distance to giving them some relief that finally some things are
being done that need to be done.
They say in the opening of
their brief:
"The precipitating factor for
this bill was the report of the Honourable Sydney L. Robins on
the incidents involving Ken DeLuca, as they pertain to the
operation of the Sault Ste Marie Roman Catholic School Board.
They involve 13 victims over a 21-year period, with 14 separate
sexual offences. School and community officials engaged in a
cover-up of these offences until they were finally brought to
light." And this is true.
"After the submission of that
report to the Honourable James M. Flaherty," by Justice Robins,
James Flaherty being the Attorney General of the province, "the
Children's Aid Society of Algoma responded" quickly "in June
2000, suggesting that children's aid societies need: a clear
definition of their role and authority with respect to
investigating and preventing institutional caregivers; the power
to take action to prevent further abuse when children are at
risk; and the authority to report the results of investigations
of institutional caregivers to the people in charge of the
institutions."
I immediately responded to
the children's aid society to say to them, "It's my job as the
MPP for Sault Ste Marie to work with you to make sure the changes
in legislation that you've indicated are needed in order for you
to be able to do your job get done." We agreed to work together
to bring this forward. So here we are today, a good ways down the
road to actually enacting something that we feel, and I believe
the whole of the Legislature felt when we debated this at second
reading, is needed to be done. I'll mention at the end some
concerns I have around the possibility of the House proroguing
and then what happens so that everybody understands that we need
to continue to find some way of making sure, if that in fact is
what happens, that we get this bill brought forward quickly
again.
I'm not claiming any
ownership of this. If the government wants to bring it forward or
if they can suggest a way I might bring it forward again, or the
Liberals, that's fine by me. The bottom line here is that we get
this in place and change the law so that the children's aid
societies can in fact do their job in terms of abuse where
institutions are concerned and children will be less at risk out
there across the province.
What is the bill about? The
most important things that Bill 118 will accomplish are: (1) it
will clarify the ability of the society to report the results of
investigations in caregiving institutions to the heads of
institutions and to make recommendations to the heads of
institutions for alleviation of risk to children following the
investigations; and (2) to secure court orders forcing
institutions and their component staff members and volunteers to
comply with recommendations of the society to alleviate risk to
children within the institution. Those are the two main pieces of
this legislation.
It's useless for the
children's aid society to be able to and in fact be mandated to
investigate reports of child maltreatment within institutions but
not be able to report the results of its investigations to the
institutions, only to the alleged perpetrator, and make
recommendations to the institution regarding steps to alleviate
the risk and, as with maltreatment within families, secure a
court order from the court to force the institution to take
remedial steps to alleviate the risk if the institution fails to
do so notwithstanding the recommendations of the children's aid
society.
That's basically what this
bill is about. There are a couple of other sections in the bill
that are important, but they're not as important as those. I'll
talk to those in just a couple of minutes.
What is this bill not about?
It's not about the duty to report, because the government and the
Legislature passed legislation in April 2000 that gives us the
power to force people to report abuse of children. The government
tightened up the duty-to-report section in amendments to the
Child and Family Services Act which came into effect in April
2000, and did so in a way that covers duty to report child
maltreatment in caregiving institutions as well as in families.
What must be remembered is that there already did exist a duty to
report child maltreatment within the caregiving institution by
professionals such as teachers, physicians, nurses, clergy and
non-professionals, and that the government already did tighten up
that duty to report in the amendments to the Child and Family
Services Act which came into force in April 2000. There was some
degree of discussion in Sault Ste Marie last Thursday about
whether in fact there was the duty to report where institutions
are concerned. It was brought to my attention over the weekend in
further discussions with the children's aid society and some of
their legal advisers that in fact that was already there.
Having said that, though,
there is one additional, fairly minor way being suggested in Bill
118 that the duty to report could be tightened up. Currently
without Bill 118 it is not as clear as we would like to see that
when a person has a duty to report information to the society,
that duty continues indefinitely until the report is actually
made. The vagueness which exists currently in the law stems from
the Provincial Offences Act, which goes back a ways to 1990,
subsection 76(1), under which the offence for breach of the duty
to report is prosecuted. It provides that no charges for the
offence can proceed following "six months after the date on which
the offence was, or is alleged to have been, committed." That's a
piece of Bill 118 that we think will make the law work better and
reduce the threat of danger to children out there.
Having said that, I just want
to focus for a minute on some of the conversation we had on
Thursday in Sault Ste Marie so that those who weren't there might
understand the flavour and the nature of that and factor it into
their consideration of this bill and hopefully work with me to
bring forward amendments, if necessary, to respond to some of the
concerns that may be raised and to make sure we put a bill in
place here that we're all satisfied will do the job that Justice
Robins suggested needed to be done and that the children's aid
societies have indicated they need us to do if they are going to
be able to carry out the very important work that they do.
1140
Just to begin then, during
the presentations to the committee in Sault Ste Marie one of the
common suggestions of presenters in the community was that there
ought to be a further tightening up of the duty to report in the
area of consequences for breaches of the duty. That is, the
current provisions of the Child and Family Services Act,
subsection 72(1)6.ii, provide that a person convicted of the
offence of breaching the duty, upon conviction, is liable to a
fine of not more than $1,000. The bill does not address the
adequacy of this consequence for breaching the duty. It appeared
to be a common suggestion of the presenters to the standing
committee in the Soo that a fine of up to $1,000 is an
insufficient consequence for a breach. A suggestion made by one
of the presenters was that a breach be sanctioned by loss of
employment of the breacher.
It's interesting to note that
other breachers of the CFSA are sanctioned at CFSA section 85
with "a fine or a period of imprisonment of up to one year." It
is curious that given the very serious results of a failure to
report, the consequence is so minor relative to the consequences
of other breaches of the CFSA. Certainly it would not be every
case of failure to report that might merit a consequence greater
than a fine of $1,000, but with respect to some cases of failure
to report the members of the community of Sault Ste Marie at
least appeared to feel that the consequence of a $1,000 fine is
insufficient.
Now, we're not suggesting in
Bill 118 that we at this time go there, but it certainly is
something to consider as we go down the road. If people feel
strongly about that, it could be considered under Bill 118. If,
when we get together after this and we consider amendments in
clause-by-clause, we want to do that, I'd certainly be in support
of looking at that. In any event, the bill does not address the
issue of the consequence for the breach of the duty to
report.
In Sault Ste Marie all
presentations seemed to support the legislation, particularly the
children's aid society's right to investigate report findings and
take action to protect children. All, including the committee,
acknowledged that the physical and sexual abuse of children by
institutional caregivers is a recurring event and corrective
action is necessary. Unfortunately, the discussion on Thursday
seemed to focus on duty to report more than the actual bill
itself and the power of the children's aid to investigate. While
we can tighten this up, the two critical areas are, as I said
before, the authority to report findings and the authority to
seek a court order if children are still left at risk.
Some of the issues raised
during the day were, for example, who should be responsible for
conducting investigations? There was a suggestion that, given the
nature of the type of investigation that's often required here,
perhaps a coordinated effort by the police and the children's aid
society might work better. It was also suggested that in
circumstances where, mostly in smaller communities, there might
be a conflict of interest in terms of the interrelationship of
people, that a third party be established to investigate because
the children's aid society itself may be somehow involved or
there may be the perception of the person bringing a case forward
that they wouldn't get the same due process or they wouldn't feel
confident that the children's aid society worker perhaps would do
the kind of job that is required. There certainly are some valid
reasons for looking at that. Again, it's not part of Bill 118 but
is certainly an important consideration.
It was also suggested there
should be greater education and awareness of the duty to report
so that people understand what their responsibility is and, in
particular, that those within the institutions charged with
carrying out the investigation understand what that's all about
as well.
Some thoughts put on the
table regarding the definitions of "caregiver" and "caregiving
institution" suggested that they should be broader and I think on
this we all agree. This can be done by providing a generic
definition and removing the list of organizations and
professions, as is done elsewhere in the act. There is an
amendment on the table now by the children's aid society to in
fact do that.
It was suggested that section
75(8) be removed from the amendments, because the child abuse
registry needs to be revamped. Again, I have no difficulty with
that. However, it's an area of this that needs to be visited at
some future date, and I would suggest the sooner the better so
that that vehicle, that registry, can become more useful to
people working in the child care field.
There was also a very strong
suggestion made on Thursday that for people who lodge complaints,
some kind of whistle-blower protection be put in place. When
staff come forward there is often a backlash within the
institution, and there should be penalties for this as well as a
fund to cover legal costs, it was suggested, because in Sault Ste
Marie there is still a person who was the whistle-blower in that
incident, who tried to deal with some very significant legal
costs because of the action that was brought against her by
various of the players. That, in the minds of some of the
presenters and certainly in my mind as well, I have to say, is
totally unfair. That somebody who had the courage to blow the
whistle, to bring the case forward, to actually report, should
now be saddled with legal costs that caused the kind of personal
stress that in this case is happening is, in my view,
unacceptable. The current legislation does protect them from
civil action. However, some protection needs to extend to the
work site. This is a very difficult area, and the need for
protection probably extends beyond this area.
There were a number of other
issues put on the table on Thursday, all of them very important.
But the two most important priorities, in my mind and the
children's aid society's mind, are the ability to communicate the
results of an investigation, which is section 15, and the right
to seek a court order to protect children at risk. Access to
children when conducting an investigation is also very
important.
Lower in priority but also
very important in the bill -- and I suggest that we need I think
at least to take a look at them, but if it gets in the way of
this bill moving forward, we can discuss that and find a
compromise that will work for all of us -- is the need to
strengthen section 72, the duty to report. There has been a
recent legal precedent set, as well as some of the changes being
proposed to the Provincial Offences Act. The amendment, however,
that we have in here would make the legislation clearer in this
matter and save us all a lot of confusion.
Also, access to the child
abuse registry, subsection 75(8): we agree that this should be
dropped at this point, if necessary, because the registry doesn't
have a high enough threshold to protect individual rights. With
the new computer database and the new system, this should be more
easy to construct. So we could perhaps visit that again at
another time.
Just to wrap up -- I've
probably used and abused my time here by going over, as I often
have a habit of doing -- I just have one other piece to put on
the record, and it comes again from the brief that was prepared
by the Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association, if I can find it
here. "The Ontario Metis Aboriginal Association urges this
committee to make the Child and Family Services Act as effective
as it can be to fight institutional abuse. Our fervent hope is
that no child, male or female, white or aboriginal, need face the
breach of trust inflicted by an abusive adult, be it a teacher,
mentor, daycare provider, volunteer, institution or government
agency." They say, "We failed thousands of aboriginal children
over the last 100 years. We failed many non-aboriginal children
in orphanages in parts of this country. Do not let it be said
that we failed our children and grandchildren while" it was our
watch. Their safety should be our sole and all-consuming focus.
It is our sacred duty not to repeat the abuses and mistakes of
our history."
I would urge this committee
to continue down the track that it is on in moving quickly to
make this Bill 118 the order of the day in Ontario so that if
nothing else that has any positive ramifications at all comes out
of the very difficult and tragic circumstance in Sault Ste Marie
under the rubric of the DeLuca affair, we pass this bill, because
the children's aid societies don't have the ability to do the
investigation that they know they need to do in order to shed
light, bring to the fore the reality and share that information
with the folks who need to know about it so that plans can be put
in place and ultimately, it is possible to bring a court order to
bear.
Thank you for the time. I
look forward to the rest of today.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Martin. I believe you did mention in your
submission that the written submission that you've received from
the Metis community will be sent to this committee.
Mr Martin:
Yes, it will be sent to the clerk, because I advised the
gentleman who phoned me on Friday to do that. I suggested that
the clerk then would share that with the rest of us.
The Chair:
That's fine, thank you.
GEORGE HENRY
The Chair:
We will turn to public submissions, Mr George Henry. Sorry we're
a little late, Mr Henry. You have 10 minutes.
Mr George
Henry: Good morning.
The Chair:
Good morning. Take a seat there, that's fine.
Mr Henry: I
was a ward of the children's aid back in 1962. The children's aid
never gave me a report that I had a disease which was
communicable. I believe this bill should be enacted to help the
children's aid so when children are being released from their
custody they give them as much knowledge as they can about their
disease and why they were placed in there.
This gentleman over here
said, "I would like third party investigations, independent
party." I would like that too if you could put that in the
act.
That's basically all I have
to say except that I was in the children's aid and I wasn't
informed of this for approximately 38 years. I have a copy of a
clinical record there saying I had a disease which is
communicable and I wasn't told about this. I found it out under
the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which I
should not have had to do.
I should have been told about
this. I was released to my mother's custody. She should have been
told of it, or my doctor, upon my release from the children's
aid's custody. I wasn't informed of this.
I'd like to have protection
there for the children after they get out from custody. That's
basically all I have to say. Thank you very much.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Henry. Are there any questions of Mr Henry at
all?
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): Thank you, Mr Henry. It takes a lot
of nerve to come before a committee. It's very difficult, so we
appreciate your coming before us today.
I have a couple of questions.
You indicated you were a ward of the children's aid in --
Mr Henry:
The Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto back in
1960.
Mr Spina: In
1960?
Mr Henry: I
believe it's 1960. I have a clinical record here. It's a copy of
a clinical record saying --
Mr Spina:
That's fine.
Mr Henry: --
what I had there, back in 1962. They took tests on me; they knew
I had it there, but I wasn't informed of it. Upon being released
-- I was supposed to be a permanent ward, I believe, but I was
released to my mother when I was 14.
Mr Spina:
How long were you with children's aid?
Mr Henry:
Approximately eight years.
Mr Spina:
And you were released to your mother at the age of 14?
Mr Henry:
Yes, approximately.
Mr Spina:
So you'd been in there since you were six?
Mr Henry:
Yes.
Mr Spina:
When did you find about the communicable disease, at what
age?
Mr Henry:
I just found this out two years ago. It's hepatitis. When I asked
for the records from the children's aid society a lot was blacked
out there, and then I found out I was in the Orillia Hospital
school. There's a copy of the record.
Mr Spina:
Will you be able to leave copies of those?
Mr Henry:
Yes, I would. I felt I was abused in the children's aid for not
finding this out.
Mr Spina:
Thank you, Mr Henry. We appreciate your time.
Mr Henry:
You're welcome.
The Chair:
Thank you for coming in, Mr Henry.
We'll recess for lunch and
return at 1 o'clock.
The committee recessed
from 1154 to 1300.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION
OF CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES
The Chair:
I call the meeting to order. This is a continuation of the
standing committee on justice and social policy to consider Bill
118, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act.
We have the Ontario
Association of Children's Aid Societies, Mr Bernstein, director
of policy development, and Ms Moshenko, director of quality
assurance and outcomes. Good afternoon.
Ms Sandy
Moshenko: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank you for
giving us the opportunity to come and speak in support of this
bill. What I'd like to do is give you a brief overview of what's
in our written submission. I also have some additional
information that I'd like to provide you with. I'm hoping that
will take only about 10 minutes and that we'll have lots of
opportunity for dialogue.
Just by way of
introduction, Mr Bernstein, my colleague, is an expert in child
welfare law, so if you have any questions related to the detail
of the legislation, either as it's been proposed or amendments
that you might be considering, he'd be prepared to give you some
comments on that. I have extensive experience in service delivery
in the child welfare sector and I'd be happy to do my best to
answer any questions related to the service aspect of child
welfare practice.
By way of introduction, the
Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies was incorporated
in 1912. We are a membership organization with this objective: we
are the voice of child welfare in Ontario, dedicated to providing
leadership for the achievement of excellence in the protection of
children and in the promotion of their well-being within their
families and their communities. The Ontario Association of
Children's Aid Societies represents 50 of the 53 children's aid
societies in Ontario.
Over the decades there have
been an unsettling number of investigations and inquiries into
situations where abuse of children has taken place within the
setting of a public institution such as a correctional facility,
a group home or a school.
The mandate of the
children's aid society is to investigate allegations or evidence
that children who are under the age of 16 or are in the care of
the children's aid society or under its supervision may be in
need of protection.
In June 2000, the board of
the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies passed the
following motion. They moved that the OACAS develop proposals
with respect to reforming the Child and Family Services Act,
which is the legislation that governs child welfare practice in
Ontario, so that the statute provides specific authorization for
children's aid societies to investigate incidents of
institutional abuse, including the following things: the
authority to communicate with an employer regarding the outcome
of an investigation; the authority to interview other children or
youth who might be affected by the maltreatment; and suitable
remedies in the legislation to protect victims in non-familial
settings.
You may have received prior
information or had some discussion about whether the recent
amendments to the Child and Family Services Act haven't already
sufficiently addressed some of these shortcomings. While we think
the recent amendments are significant, they still do not address
some of the obstacles that are faced by children's aid societies
in investigating complaints from children who are saying that
they've been abused by a person who is not one of their
parents.
In order to try to
illustrate some of the obstacles that can be encountered, I'm
going to tell you a story that is a wholly fictionalized
description of the way in which these obstacles come up in
day-to-day activities of the children's aid society. It's not
based on any real information, but it's a composite picture of
the kinds of activities that children's aid workers have to
undertake and how the legislation either facilitates their
investigation and their work with children or not.
I'd like to just give you
an excerpt of a day in the life of a child protection worker.
It's a typical day and a referral has been received from a very
distraught parent who is concerned that her 12-year-old daughter,
who is an aspiring competitive-level gymnast, has just disclosed
that she has been suffering both physical and sexual abuse at the
hands of her gymnastics coach. The child has been involved in
receiving gymnastics instruction at an exclusive private gym in
the community. This is a gym that promotes excellence in
competition and has produced a number of Olympic-calibre
competitors. The gym coach has a very high standing in the
community, is well-liked and in particular has won accolades for
the accomplishments of some of his trainees.
The parents, who have
listened attentively to the child's complaint and believe that
she is telling the truth, immediately withdraw the child from
gymnastics competition and from her membership in this particular
gym. The children's aid society is involved to investigate the
complaints of this child and they do this by conducting extensive
interviews with the child and evaluating the story as she's
telling it.
They take this information
and request an interview with the gymnastics coach. He agrees to
the interview but makes no admissions and, in fact, makes
accusations that the girl is lying, that she is telling the story
about alleged abuse because of concerns about her failing
performance in the gymnastics club.
Were this a family member
and were the child being abused by a family member, the
children's aid society would at this point have to make a
decision about whether the child had been abused or not and they
could use the courts to assist them in intervening in a number of
ways, including by removing the child from the care of the
caregivers and placing the child in foster care. But since this
child in question is not, under the current legislation,
described as a child in need of protection, that is, she's no
longer being exposed to the abuse of the gymnastics coach, the
remedies that are usually available to the children's aid society
don't apply in this particular case.
Perhaps the case would end
there, except that another three children come forward with
similar complaints about abuse at the hands of the same
gymnastics coach. One of the complainants reports that she has
actually witnessed the gymnastics coach sexually assaulting the
first complainant. This young woman said she wasn't observed
watching the abuse, but she failed to come forward out of concern
about her own safety and that she would not be believed, that her
word wouldn't be believed when compared with the word of the
gymnastics coach, who everyone respects and admires.
It now appears to the
children's aid society that there could be more victims, but the
children's aid society is restrained in its powers in the
following way: they are prevented via the legislation from
sharing information about the allegations without the consent of
both the victims and the accused person. I think it's easy to see
that an accused person would not want to readily consent to the
disclosure of this information. They also have no authority to
inform the employer, the person who manages and runs the gym, of
the allegations against the gym coach, nor do they have the
authority to inform the employer of the outcome of any
investigation that they might conduct. So even if they conclude
that the gymnastics coach has in fact been abusing children, they
have no power to release that information to the employer.
In this particular case, if
they were able to share that information, they might find out the
following: They might discover that the coach had worked at
another gym in another community. The gym had been run by the
same company and the gym coach had faced complaints in that
community as well. The employer had heard about the complaints
but didn't believe them. So in order to save the reputation of
the gym company and to safeguard the reputation of the gymnastics
coach, he had been transferred to another community to resume his
duties of coaching young women. The allegations at that point had
also been denied by the gymnastics coach and the investigation
had not resulted in any charges.
1310
If the children's aid
society had been able to speak to the owners of the gym, they
might also have discovered that no references had been checked
when this particular person was hired, so there had been no
verification of his suitability to work with children. Doing this
might have uncovered that the employee had been dismissed from a
prior job as a result of allegations that he had sexually abused
young people.
Were the CAS able to
disclose, without consent, the information regarding the
complainants, they might be able to more readily locate and
interview all the other students whom this gym coach was
currently tutoring and ensure that they had neither suffered
abuse at the hands of this particular person nor were at risk of
suffering any abuse in the future. Finally, they might also have
learned that an association that regulates the activities of
coaches had received prior complaints about this particular
coach.
The current legislation is
unsuitable and inadequate at present to allow children's aid
societies to do the kind of broad investigation that would be
necessary to adequately ensure that people such as the
hypothetical coach I've described to you do not continue in their
abusive activities, that the organization for which the coach is
working can receive some support in taking the necessary steps to
ensure that good hiring decisions are made in the future and that
there is a process in place for dealing with future complaints
about employees who might come to the employer's attention. None
of this is available in the current legislation, but we do
believe that Bill 118 addresses some of these shortcomings.
In particular, the
provisions of Bill 118 would assist children's aid societies in
protecting children from institutional abuse by providing
specific authority to investigate allegations or evidence that
children in a caregiving institution who are under the age of 16
may be in need of protection by communicating the outcomes of a
child protection investigation to employers when the employee's
actions in the community or at work pose a threat to the safety
of children who are under their care. It would permit children's
aid societies to review records and interview other children in
the care of the institutional caregiver. It would permit the
children's aid society to provide guidance and support to
caregiving institutions concerning procedures to follow in order
that they could reduce risk to children and prevent future
circumstances requiring the protection of children. It would also
allow the children's aid society to institute remedies to protect
children from abuse; for example, restraining orders that do not
allow a caregiver contact with a group of children, or directives
to the organization that had employed the person to change some
specific policies that may have contributed to the risk. Finally,
it would allow children's aid societies to follow up in order to
ensure that institutions have in fact implemented conditions that
eliminate risk.
Those are our summary
comments about the bill, which we do support. We would be happy
to comment further or respond to questions you might have about
our position.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Moshenko. We have between six and seven
minutes for questions. We'll start with you, Mrs Dombrowsky. Do
you have any questions?
Mrs
Dombrowsky: Not at this time.
The Chair:
Mr Martin?
Mr Maves:
Chair, if you will, and Mr Martin, I'll just make a quick motion.
There are no more witnesses for the rest of the afternoon. Is
that correct?
The Chair:
That's correct.
Mr Maves:
Could we perhaps agree by unanimous consent to have at least a
total of 15 minutes of question time for the current
witnesses?
The Chair:
Would you like to recess around 1:30 or thereabouts?
Mr Maves:
Yes. That way Mr Martin can take his time with his questions and
I can take the time.
The Chair:
Is there general agreement? That's fine.
Mr Martin:
Could you comment for me, given the hypothetical situation you
presented to us, how the need to tighten up the duty to report
might come into play there?
Mr Marvin
Bernstein: In terms of duty to report, there is
certainly a provision in the legislation. That was one of the
amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, which has
heightened the reporting duty and has made it referable to the
definition of "child in need of protection," so it catches risk
considerations, not just actual harm. The reporting duty is a
continuing duty. It's one that can't be delegated to other
persons.
There is some case law
which was decided recently by the Court of Appeal. It arose in
the context of a case where an employer failed to report an
injury to an employee to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
within a three-day period, as prescribed by the governing
legislation. In the particular case there was a question of
whether or not there was a breach of the Provincial Offences Act,
which sometimes has caused a problem around the failure to report
where the prosecution hasn't taken place within six months from
the commission of the offence. The Court of Appeal determined
that duty was a continuing duty, and that duty continues either
as long as the duty isn't complied with or to the point in time
where the compliance occurs, and that's when the six months
starts to run.
While the provision in the
bill would seem to be perhaps a positive consideration in terms
of ensuring that the duty to report would continue up until the
point where the risk comes to an end, or even potentially where
the duty has been discharged, my own read on that is that the
amendment to the Child and Family Services Act, which reinforces
the fact that this is a continuing duty -- it's not a one-time
duty; it continues from day to day until the duty is complied
with -- coupled with some recent case law from the Court of
Appeal level, would suggest that the protection is probably there
already.
I think the important
considerations, from our perspective, are to support the
investigation powers of children's aid societies, to support the
ability to disclose information to employers and heads of
institutions and to enable societies in particular cases to
initiate court applications. The duty to report certainly would
provide some additional clarity, but I think that aspect of the
bill is more marginal.
Mr Martin:
Just to reinforce some of what you shared with us in terms of the
hypothetical situation, again, and to maybe bring it a little
closer to home in terms of the DeLuca affair in Sault Ste Marie,
if a report is made to the children's aid society of a suspicion
of child sexual abuse or physical abuse by a teacher in a school
setting, and the children's aid investigates and finds that such
abuse did occur and believes such abuse is likely to occur again,
are there any interferences which would stand in the way of the
CAS reporting to the school principal or school board the result
of the investigation, its opinion as to future risk of
reoccurrence, recommendations to alleviate the risk, and to
secure a court order to force the school to take actions to
alleviate the risk?
Ms
Moshenko: Right now there is nothing explicit in the
Child and Family Services Act that would permit that to happen
without the written consent of the people who had been the
subject of the investigation, so that would mean the parents, the
child who was the victim and the perpetrator. I don't think it's
hard to imagine that getting consent from all those parties can
be very difficult, particularly a perpetrator who might feel that
would incriminate him in other actions. I'm saying "him" because,
unfortunately, most often these are male perpetrators and female
victims. There would be no capacity, short of ignoring what is in
the current statute and doing what was felt to be in the best
interests of the child, but there would be no protection for the
children's aid society in disclosing that information had they
not obtained the appropriate consent.
1320
Mr Martin:
So in the DeLuca case, for example, if the children's aid had
been called in -- and I'm led to believe they were not called in
-- short of getting Mr DeLuca's agreement to share that
information, there really wouldn't have been much else they could
have done.
Ms
Moshenko: That's right.
Mr Maves:
Mr Stewart also has a question. I'm going to try to leave him
some time at the end of my questions. I want to start on the
phrase "duty to report until the risk comes to an end," which is
part of the proposal here. How would you determine when the risk
has come to an end?
Mr
Bernstein: Normally there are certain tools that social
workers will use in terms of looking at whether or not there's a
specific risk. There's a risk assessment model; there are three
different elements of the tool. Workers will carry out an initial
evaluation and then will continue to review the results of their
initial assessment, will go back. I think under the standards
which are contained in regulations there is an obligation to go
back and re-evaluate the level of risk. So they would do that
according to the provisions in the legislation, according to the
risk assessment tool they're using, in consultation with
supervisors.
Mr Maves:
As a teacher, I have a duty to come forward if I suspect some
abuse. When I decide to come forward to the children's aid
society and I report that abuse, to me, I've complied with the
act; I've done my duty. But the children's aid society may be
slow in investigating. Maybe they do a cursory investigation and
think it's unfounded and do nothing. If I believe there's abuse
and I point it out one day, and that teacher is still in the
school and that student is still in the school the next day, do I
have to call the CAS again?
Mr
Bernstein: I think in that particular case the answer
would be no. The duty is to report the information, the suspected
need for protection, together with any information that supports
the concerns. So if the social worker comes out and interviews
the teacher and interviews the child, obtains the information and
there isn't any new indicator, you don't see any further bruises,
the child isn't providing additional disclosures, it seems to me
that you've discharged your reporting duty.
Mr Maves:
That's the only part that concerns me, that "risk comes to an
end." As a layperson how do I know? I know there's an obligation
on me to continue to report it. So I might report it and the risk
hasn't come to an end, because the teacher's in the school and
the kid's in the school, so I might want to report it on a daily
basis until the teacher is removed or the kid is removed. There
might be some confusion on the part of lay people to know when
the risk has come to an end and how we might determine that. I
think there might be some people with concerns about that aspect
of it.
Mr
Bernstein: If I could just respond, in the language of
the current Child and Family Services Act -- this is subsection
72(2), that establishes the ongoing duty -- it is triggered when
the person has "additional reasonable grounds." So there has to
be something supplementary that comes to your attention. I don't
think the obligation is such that the person has to keep making
reminder calls to the children's aid society to exempt himself or
herself from running afoul of the reporting duty. There has to be
something additional; there has to be an additional concern, an
additional bruise, the child comes forward with another
disclosure.
Mr Maves:
Right now, as it exists, if something makes me suspect abuse, I
have a duty, an obligation, to report it?
Mr
Bernstein: Correct.
Mr Maves:
And that goes on forever, until I've reported it, right?
Mr
Bernstein: That's correct.
Mr Maves:
Even the case I talked about means I have that duty forever?
Mr
Bernstein: Yes, but the duty is to report forthwith, to
report immediately, so I think that's what the legislation
contemplates, that this is going to be an immediate communication
to a children's aid society.
Mr Maves:
We all hope that does happen, but if it doesn't happen, I still
have an ongoing obligation as long as I have that reason to
suspect.
Mr
Bernstein: That's right.
Mr Maves:
In the gymnastics club example, one of the problems Mr Martin and
I have talked about, and some of the people in Sault Ste Marie,
is that when you start defining what a caregiving institution is
or what a caregiver is, you run the risk of narrowing the scope
of the definition and therefore leaving people or places out. As
I look at the definition of "caregiving institution" in the bill,
I have a fear, right off the top of my head, that a private
institution, which is the gymnastics club, wouldn't be included
in "caregiving institution." Any comment on that?
Ms
Moshenko: That didn't occur to me. Marv might be able to
comment on this more, but anyone who sort of stands in the place
of a parent is a person who has temporary responsibility for
children. My example was designed to illustrate just what types
of people we might be referring to here. There are some
traditional people we would think of -- parents, grandparents,
babysitters, daycare providers -- but we're also talking about a
broader range of individuals to whom you and I as parents turn
our children over, and we entrust our children to these people in
a parental way, even if it's for a limited period of time.
Mr Maves:
But doesn't the way it's currently worded allow that? As soon as
I take my kid to the gymnastics club, they're in the charge of
that person; therefore, I can investigate that person. If I start
saying in the act a caregiver is a teacher, a child care worker,
a residential youth worker, I've run the risk of narrowing that
scope and all of a sudden the gymnastics guy can say, "You can't
investigate me," or, "I've got a private gymnastics club; you
can't come in here and investigate us." I think the intention of
the legislation back in 1999 was to have these things defined
broadly enough that indeed these people would be covered.
Ms
Moshenko: Exactly.
Mr
Bernstein: I think the problem would be that if you made
the definition of "institutional caregiver" exhaustive, then
you'd run into that problem; you'd have a narrow list of
categories. But I think one of the problems is that part III of
the legislation is meant to deal with parents, caretakers,
substitute caretakers and family members, and that's why the
whole concept of institutional abuse doesn't quite fit into what
the legislators contemplated.
Mr Maves:
Just one last question before I turn it over to Mr Stewart. When
you're doing an investigation, using your gymnastics example,
don't some CASs right now inform school boards or other
institutions that they've done an investigation of one of the
teachers and about that investigation sort of on a need-to-know
basis?
Ms
Moshenko: I think sometimes there are circumstances
where -- in the case I gave you, the information got to the
attention of the children's aid society through a parent, not
through an employee of the gymnasium. Frequently when children
disclose abuse they disclose it to a school teacher, so already
the teacher has been privy to some information not released by
the children's aid society but disclosed to them by the victim.
So there is already some prescribed information.
I will tell you, though,
that frequently children's aid societies run into difficulties in
their day-to-day working relationships with schools and teachers
because they are very constrained in terms of what else they can
disclose without consent. For instance, if you're the teacher
making the referral and I'm the social worker and I do an
investigation, without consent, about all I can tell you is that
I have completed an investigation and thank you for bringing this
to my attention. If the parents and the victims are willing,
there may be more opportunities for us to sit together and
discuss the implications of the complaint and what we're going to
do to assist the children on an ongoing basis, but it is not
expressly allowed in the legislation. In fact, the standards
accompanying the legislation say that consent must be
obtained.
Mr Maves:
In your example, if you were going to investigate that gymnastics
teacher, you would go in and probably interview some of the
people who work at that gymnastics club, you'd probably interview
some of the parents and other kids at the gymnastics club. So, in
effect, everyone around that would probably know that at least
there's an investigation underway.
Ms
Moshenko: No. In fact, in the example I gave you and
under the current legislation, we would be able to interview the
complainant, subsequent complainants and the alleged perpetrator.
Without consent, there would not be any capacity to go to the
employer or to speak to other children who had been students of
that gymnastics instructor but had not made a complaint about
abuse or neglect.
Mr Maves:
I have more, Chair, but I'd better let Mr Stewart ask a quick
question.
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): Just two very quick questions. One is,
will this legislation have any bearing on any court action that
may be pending now against institutions? There certainly are a
number out of the province and indeed there may be one in the
province still ongoing. Would this have any bearing on that?
That's the number one question.
The other one is, when I
look at your second bullet point, "Review records and interview
other children under the care of the institutional caregiver," if
I insert the word "teacher" and I insert the word "school" in
that, I guess I have concerns about the fact that much of the
review will possibly be done after. What I'm saying is that this
legislation isn't strong enough. To me, that is after the fact,
when the damage is probably done. We know what happens and I know
you have to disclose and that's been one of the problems of the
past. But if that doesn't happen, in a close-knit society if it's
not on the record, it makes it pretty difficult to know what's
going on. Then all of a sudden you're getting abuse and it's too
late then.
Ms
Moshenko: I'll respond to your second question and then
I think Marv would probably be better to respond to your first.
You're right, the Child and Family Services Act is a reactive
piece of legislation. Investigations happen based on a complaint.
There is also, though, a preventive component to that reactive
response and that is, if intervention can be effective and we can
address some of the underlying issues that led to the abuse, we
can prevent people from abusing again. I agree with you that it's
not the complete solution, but it has both a protective and a
preventive component to it.
Mr
Bernstein: In terms of the first point, my response
would be that I don't see that as having any significant impact
upon other proceedings. Oftentimes what happens in child
protection cases is that there may be outstanding criminal
proceedings, there may be outstanding civil litigation, and years
ago typically what would happen is that those child protection
proceedings would almost go into a hiatus state and the court
wouldn't proceed. The case would be on adjournment until these
criminal proceedings were disposed of. I think there's been a
turnaround. More recently, courts hearing proceedings under the
Child and Family Services Act will say that we've got to focus on
the needs and the protection of these kids. There are protections
that can be claimed under the charter, under the Canada Evidence
Act, so that the evidence that's being introduced can't be used
to incriminate that person in other proceedings, but you get on
with the business of getting the evidence that you need and
protecting those children who have been victimized. I think
that's the approach that would be taken if these amendments were
to be enacted.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Bernstein and Ms Moshenko, for coming in this
afternoon.
