22/23 Minister's Child Abuse Register Section 63-66

The Minister’s Child Abuse Register Section 63-66

Section 63 (3)
“The Minister or an agency may apply to the court, upon notice to the person whose name is intended to be entered in the Child Abuse Register, for a finding that, on the balance of PROBABILITY, the person has abused a child”

Comments and Recommendations:

• This is beyond scandalous! That a person’s reputation could be ruined “on the balance of probability”! This is a power that the Children’s Aid Societies/Family and Children Services/Community Services should not have! Many people have experienced workers within the agencies deliberately lying about specific situations. There is serious concern that the application of this registry could be abused.
• The Child Abuse Registry should be maintained by the police, and it should be based on proof and convictions!

Comments and Recommendations by the Minister‘s Advisory Committee on Children and Family Services Act 1996 :
This committee is suppose to be formed on an annual basis. 1996 was the last year this committee reported back on this act as mandated in Section 88 (1)

“As a result of enhancements to the Canadian Police Information Centre (CIPC) the Advisory Committee was concerned as to whether there would be a duplication between the role of the Child Abuse Register and the CIPC. Several organizations recommended that the Child Abuse Register be eliminated. . . . . (Nova Scotia Council for Family) ‘We recommend that the Child and Family Register be eliminated and that child welfare agencies be given direct access to CPIC. The register is more problematic than functional.’ . . . (Judge James Wilson, family Court) . . . ‘I am not convinced that the present register is working as it should. . . . I think it is important to have a process to ensure that inappropriate registrations are screened and all parties are notified and given the opportunity to object when their name is entered on the Registry’ . . . The committee believes it might be appropriate for the next committee to decide whether or not it should be continued based on the CPIC enhancement. The Minister should also initiate discussions with federal officials with regard to placing findings under child welfare legislation on CPIC.” (pg 13-14, 16)