Preserve and Share Child Welfare Records

Summary#

This bill changes how Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Social Services handles requests for child and family services records and how it preserves certain historical records. It adds factors the Minister must weigh when deciding whether to release information. It also requires the Minister to keep records about Indigenous children’s time in residential and related schools, and about the Sixties Scoop (large‑scale removals of Indigenous children from their families, mainly in the 1960s). The goal appears to be greater transparency, truth and reconciliation, and better preservation of history.

Key changes:

• The Minister must consider specific factors that may favour disclosure, including if records relate to:
  • the death or injury of a child in care sought by family members,
  • residential school or Sixties Scoop records,
  • contributions to truth and reconciliation or improving the child and family services system,
  • research or validation of Indigenous peoples’ claims,
  • helping living relatives answer intergenerational questions about a deceased family member taken into care.
• If the Minister refuses to release some or all requested information, they must give the applicant written reasons.
• The Minister must take steps to preserve all records in their care and control about:
  • any Indigenous child’s time in Indian residential schools, day schools, boarding homes, vocational or reformatory schools, and
  • any child taken into care as part of the Sixties Scoop.
• Keeping these records in electronic form counts as sufficient preservation.
• The Act starts on assent.

What it means for you#

• Indigenous families and survivors

  • You may have a stronger case for access when you request records tied to residential schools, day schools, the Sixties Scoop, or family members who were taken into care. The law does not guarantee release, but it lists these as factors favouring disclosure.
  • If access is refused in whole or in part, you must receive written reasons.

• Families of children who were in care and died or were injured

  • Your requests for information about the event are listed as a factor favouring disclosure.
  • You will get written reasons if information is withheld.

• Researchers, journalists, and community organizations

  • Requests that could support truth and reconciliation, system improvement, or validation of Indigenous claims are identified as favouring disclosure. This could mean a greater chance of access, subject to other privacy laws.
  • More historical records should be preserved and available in the future, though access rules still apply.

• Ministry of Social Services and related record-keepers

  • You must preserve the specified historical records and may digitize them. This likely means new or expanded records management, scanning, and storage practices.
  • You must give written reasons when denying access to requested information.

• General public

  • There is little direct impact unless you request these records.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible cost areas:

• One-time and ongoing costs to locate, organize, scan, and securely store historical records.
• Staff time and training to process requests and write reasons for refusals.
• Technology costs for electronic preservation and secure access controls.
• Potential workload increases if more people request records.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to advance truth and reconciliation by preserving records and by favouring disclosure where it supports understanding past harms.
• It could help families get answers about relatives who were taken into care or who died or were injured in care.
• Requiring written reasons for refusal may improve transparency and accountability in child and family services.
• Preserving records can prevent loss of important history and support research and validation of Indigenous peoples’ claims.
• Considering whether disclosure might improve the child and family services system could help identify problems and support reforms.

Opponents' View#

• The bill does not explain how these factors interact with existing privacy limits on child welfare records. It is unclear when privacy will outweigh the listed factors.
• There is no detail on timelines, appeal rights, or how applicants can challenge a refusal beyond receiving written reasons.
• “Care and control” and “take steps to preserve” are not defined. This could lead to uneven implementation about which records are included and how they are kept.
• Electronic preservation is called “sufficient,” but standards for security, accuracy, and retention periods are not stated. This may raise questions about data protection and record quality.
• New duties could add significant administrative workload and costs without identified funding, which may slow responses to record requests.