Summary#
Bill 36 would amend four Alberta laws: the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, the Education Act, the Protection Against Family Violence Act and the Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act. Its stated goal includes protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation and supporting families; these are aims, not guaranteed results.
- Child and family services: Directors could approve kinship caregivers (relatives or others approved to care for a child) as well as foster caregivers. Decision-makers would have to give priority to kinship placements and involve the child’s foster or kinship caregiver in care planning.
- Sexual exploitation: The bill would broaden the definition of sexual exploitation and treat a child as needing protection if exploitation is reasonably foreseeable. It would also broaden when a child may be taken to a protective safe house without a court order.
- Secure confinement: Directors could apply for a new secure-services order or issue a new certificate before a renewed order expires, despite the existing 30-consecutive-day limit. The bill also changes how courts consider less intrusive measures.
- Adoption: It would allow written openness agreements with listed people, including birth parents, caregivers and, for an Indigenous child, a member of the child’s Indigenous community. It would also change consent rules and let the Minister release some adoption information on request.
- Family-violence reviews: It would repeal the statutory provisions for the Family Violence Death Review Committee, including its review, information-access and reporting rules.
- Other changes: Kinship caregivers would gain certain notice, court-participation and review rights, and their children’s school residency status would be addressed in the Education Act. A director could ask a court to order removal of a name or photograph published contrary to an existing restriction.
What it means for you#
- Children and families involved in child intervention: A kinship placement should receive priority, but the bill does not make it automatic. Decision-makers must consider the child’s views if they can be ascertained, and, where practicable, the family’s views on resources and supports.
- Foster and kinship caregivers: Caregivers would be included in care planning. Kinship caregivers would gain certain rights to notice, appear in court, request a review of a director’s decision, and receive delegated powers or duties for a particular child. These are not rights to control every decision.
- Children at risk of sexual exploitation: The broader definition includes coercing, luring or involving a child in specified sexual acts or material in exchange for money, goods or a real or perceived social or economic benefit. A child’s apparent willingness would not exclude the conduct from the definition. A police officer or director could take a child to a protective safe house without an order only on reasonable and probable grounds of serious and immediate danger.
- Adopted people and families: The Minister may release information after a written request from specified people, including adult adoptees and some people aged 16 or older. The bill excludes sealed adoption records and does not require the Minister to release information.
- Indigenous communities: A member of an Indigenous child’s community could enter an openness agreement, but the bill does not require community involvement.
- General public: The bill does not directly change taxes, create a general right to adoption information, or guarantee that the Minister will establish new support programs.
Money#
No cost information is in the supplied material.
- The Minister may establish programs to protect children from sexual exploitation or provide support and recovery services, but the bill gives no budget or staffing estimate.
- The bill does not specify costs for directors’ new or expanded duties, or savings from removing the death-review provisions.
What is unclear#
- The bill says its provisions come into force on proclamation, but gives no start date. The supplied material does not establish whether it has passed.
- The supplied text contains excerpts from the Acts, not the full Acts. Current-law comparisons and the exact reach of some existing rules could not be verified against the complete Acts.
- The bill does not set out how kinship-caregiver approval works, or how decision-makers should assess whether a kinship placement is possible.
- “Reasonably foreseeable” risk of sexual exploitation is not defined in the supplied text. The bill also does not spell out a process for reviewing repeated secure-services confinement.
- The bill does not set out how openness agreements would be enforced or disputes handled.
- The material does not say whether the Family Violence Death Review Committee is currently operating or whether another review process would replace it.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that children may need protection before sexual exploitation occurs, not only after prostitution-related conduct. The broader definition and risk-based protection rule are aimed at that gap.
- Giving priority to kinship care and involving caregivers in planning could help decisions account for a child’s existing relationships and care arrangements.
- Openness agreements and access to some adoption information could provide ways to maintain connections or share information, while the bill preserves limits on access to sealed records.
- Removing a name or photograph published contrary to an existing restriction could give directors a way to seek a court order to address that publication.
Case against#
- The bill broadens grounds for protective intervention, including taking a child to a safe house without an order when serious and immediate danger is believed to exist. The supplied text does not set out additional review steps for that action.
- Allowing a new certificate or application for a new order before a renewed secure-services order expires may allow confinement to continue beyond the existing 30-day limit. The text does not clearly explain how repeated confinement would be assessed.
- The bill removes the statutory death-review system, including its access to records and public reporting rules, without describing a replacement.
- Openness agreements may be entered into, but this section gives them no legal effect on the adoption itself and does not specify an enforcement process.