2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

10 a.m.

Douglas Fir Committee Room

Parliament Buildings, Victoria

Present: Ron Cantelon, MLA (Chair); Nicholas Simons, MLA (Deputy Chair); Jagrup Brar, MLA;
Maurine Karagianis, MLA; Leonard Krog, MLA; Dennis MacKay, MLA; Claude Richmond, MLA; Valerie Roddick, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: John Les, MLA; John Rustad, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 10:01 a.m.

2. The Representative for Children and Youth appeared before the Committee, provided an update on the work of her office and answered questions.

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions on the work of the Children’s Forum – critical injury and death investigation and review process in British Columbia:

4. The Committee recessed from 11:41 a.m. to 12:03 p.m.

5. During the appearance of the Representative for Children and Youth, it was moved by Ms. Karagianis that the Committee adjourn. The question being put by the Chair, it was agreed to and the Committee adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
children and youth

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Issue No. 16

ISSN 1911-1940

[ Page 225 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2008

The committee met at 10:01 a.m.

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you all for coming. I'd like to call the meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to order.

We have some new committee members that I'd like to welcome. Claude Richmond is here from Kamloops. Claude, it's very good to have your considerable experience on our committee. John Les has also been added to the committee but can't be here today, and John Rustad is travelling with the Finance Committee.

Now, let's go to the agenda. I'm going to suggest an amendment to the agenda, and that's to move Mary Ellen's overall briefing to follow the witnesses on the Children's Forum just so that the witnesses on the Children's Forum can go back about their other busy days and also to add an in-camera item at the end of the agenda.

If I can hear a motion to approve those changes to the agenda.

Meeting agenda as amended approved.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Mary Ellen, are you going to start off briefly, then? I turn the floor over to you.

Briefing: Children's Forum

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'd also like to welcome the new committee member.

I think that it would be appropriate at this time if the members of the Children's Forum could come up, and we could begin the presentation as a group. It's a forum that I've been chairing, but we work, obviously, as a collegial body. So perhaps this would be the opportunity just to take a moment for them to come forward.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Right. I welcome them forward, and then when they're seated, we'll ask them to introduce themselves to the panel and the committee, and the committee will introduce themselves to them.

M. Turpel-Lafond: With your indulgence, I will just give a bit of background to the committee. The Children's Forum was created as a result of recommendation No. 47 from the B.C. Children and Youth Review by the hon. Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes recommended that the ministry, MCFD, establish a forum or council including the new Representative for Children and Youth, the Coroners Service, the Ombudsman and the Public Guardian and Trustee that will meet regularly to review developments and issues of common concern.

Following the Hughes review, the recommendation sat. There was some discussion as to whether or not it would move forward. When I was appointed representative, I took the initiative to chair the forum and to initiate it. We have had a number of meetings to date, and the members are here.

The membership expanded slightly. I'll describe a little bit about that, and the members will have an opportunity to tell you a bit about the work. There is the chief coroner, Terry Smith; the Public Guardian and Trustee, Jay Chalke; Ombudsman Kim Carter.

We expanded the membership to include Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer, given his role and responsibility with respect to the health, safety and well-being of children generally in British Columbia. And as well, we've invited the director of child welfare from the Ministry for Children and Families. That seat is now occupied by Sandra Griffin, who is the ADM at MCFD for quality assurance.

The committee has taken the view that, further to the Hughes review, a person designated as a provincial director at the provincial level should be involved with us with respect to the Ministry for Children and Families. That position of provincial director was eliminated in July of this year, so the heads of the committee have considered how we will proceed with that. That's an open agenda item that we're still discussing.

[1005]

I would say, from my position as chair, my goal with the Children's Forum is that the chair would rotate as our public agencies worked together on these common issues. The meetings have been remarkably productive, in my respectful opinion. We've had great opportunity to discuss how, as a variety of agencies and the ministry, we deal with the injuries or deaths of children and how the respective agencies coordinate their work, coordinate their policies, and have had an opportunity in a confidential and professional environment to discuss common issues of concern.

So I'm very delighted that the members are here today with the members of the standing committee and, of course, to have an opportunity to brief you respectively on our roles and also on our work to date.

With that, I assume you might want to go according to the order on the witness list, but I'll leave it to the Chair as to the order of presentations. I don't know if that's been vetted with the members of the Children's Forum.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I think that's what we'll do. In terms of time, we have an agenda going to two o'clock, so I see this taking us probably close to noon, with questions. I'm sure there'll be many questions from our committee. I think that's a reasonable way. So we'll start with Mr. Chalke, the Public Guardian and Trustee.
[ Page 226 ]

J. Chalke: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the select committee, for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. My name is Jay Chalke. I'm British Columbia's Public Guardian and Trustee. With me this morning are two of my staff, Catherine Romanko, who is the Deputy Public Guardian and Trustee — by statute, if I were to drop dead today, she would take over in this chair — and Ms. Sara Campbell, the director of the child and youth services division.

The Public Guardian and Trustee provides services to three distinct client groups in British Columbia: children and youth, adults who need assistance in decision-making as a result of mental incapacity, and the estates of deceased British Columbians who do not have a will or relatives who are willing and able to administer their estates.

This morning, because we're probably not a very well-known public agency for some of you, I'll be outlining part of one of our functions to one of those client groups — children and youth.

The office I lead protects the legal and property interests of children and youth under a number of British Columbia laws. Some of those laws mandate us to carry out a review function to ensure that a decision made by a child's guardian — typically, their parents — and typically involving legal proceedings is in the child's best interests.

Other laws mandate us to manage children's funds in trust. Most of our over 22,000 children clients fall into these two categories, as does the nearly $200 million that we prudently manage for children on their behalf.

However, there's a very special group of child and youth clients that our office serves and that we serve specifically because they do not have a parent or relative to make those guardianship decisions. Those children are orphans, children undergoing adoption and, most commonly, children for whom the Provincial Court has issued a continuing custody order under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

The legal effect of a continuing custody order is that guardianship is removed from the parents and is divided into two parts. One part, guardianship of person, is entrusted to the Ministry of Children and Family Development directors — the individuals that the representative was referring to a moment ago. The second part is guardianship of estate, and I'm the guardian of estate for those children in continuing care.

Each of the organizations in front of you today has a distinct role regarding critical injuries or deaths of children, and we all play our part in protecting those interests. But unlike some of my colleagues here today, our guardianship of estate role does not lead to involvement when a child in care dies. That's for some of the other agencies before you. Rather, we are involved when a child in continuing care is injured, and I'll describe that in a little more detail.

[1010]

As partners on the Children's Forum, all of us here are working together, as the representative says, to learn from one another in a collegial fashion. As we each carry out our distinct roles, we recognize that many of the same issues that can lead to injuries can lead to deaths and vice versa. Often they are really tragic manifestations of the same underlying issues.

Guardianship of estate — because you're probably wondering what exactly that is — is a bit of an ancient and somewhat ill-defined concept and certainly could use some legislative attention to bring it up to date. Indeed, you might be interested to know that the current law in British Columbia is set out in an English statute known as the Tenures Abolition Act, passed during the 17th-century reign of King Charles II. That's the current law in British Columbia.

At its core it involves a bundle of rights and obligations designed to protect the property rights of children, including their rights to compensation. In modern society these rights to compensation are typically protected through the pursuit of legal claims.

The Public Guardian and Trustee ensures that a child's legal and financial interests are protected until the child reaches the age of majority and has the capacity to act independently or on their own behalf in that regard.

As guardian of estate, the PGT acts as a litigation guardian in all civil proceedings concerning a child's property rights. Section 7(2) of the Public Guardian and Trustee Act provides that my office is the guardian of the estate of a child and may act as litigation guardian for the child in making or defending civil claims brought on behalf of or against a child as we consider advisable and in the best interests of the child.

Simply put, when kids in continuing care are injured, it's my job to decide whether I should sue on their behalf. As litigation guardian, the PGT claims on behalf of children in areas such as damages for personal injury, damages under the Family Compensation Act, claims under the Wills Variation Act or other estate claims.

In some cases where a child in continuing care suffers injury or loss, it is as a result of the alleged negligence of the province, and the PGT would act as litigation guardian for the child and advance a claim against the province on behalf of the child.

As guardian, the PGT is also in the position of pursuing other financial benefits, such as Canada Pension Plan orphan's benefits; disability benefits; life insurance proceeds — for example, where a child is a designated beneficiary and no trustee has been named; victims-of-crime compensation; and certain tax benefits. Where my office is guardian of estate of a child, we're also trustee of all property that then comes into our control on behalf of that child.

Our role really relies on timely and accurate information being provided by the child's guardian of the person, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who
[ Page 227 ]
have day-to-day involvement with the child. That communication starts when a continuing custody order is made. Section 58 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act requires that the director provide my office with a copy of the continuing custody order, and that triggers our involvement as guardian of estate.

Every month about 75 new children enter the Public Guardian and Trustee's guardianship as a result of a continuing custody order being made, and about a similar number leave as a result of reaching the age of majority, being adopted or being placed with permanent private guardians.

Historically, the ministry notification under section 58 was too often delayed and, in some cases, didn't come at all. Obviously, we would then be unaware of our role as guardian because we had not been told that a child was in continuing custody or undergoing adoption. Clearly, this state of affairs hindered our ability to do our job.

As a result of an initiative that our office led, in March 2002 I signed an agreement with the then director of child protection to improve notification to us. Under this protocol, the ministry now sends us a monthly report of all children in continuing care so that we can ensure that we're receiving timely notification.

[1015]

But that's really only half the battle. We took another major step forward in November 2006 with the long-sought introduction of an automated transmission to the Public Guardian and Trustee of all critical incident reports prepared by the ministry regarding children in continuing care.

We now receive those reports on a daily basis. We review those reports to determine whether there's a potential financial entitlement, such as a potential lawsuit. If so, on a preliminary review, we refer the matter to in-house counsel for more investigation. We seek further information from the ministry and from other sources, depending on the case, and where as a result of that investigation we believe that there is a potential meritorious claim and it's in the child's best interests to pursue that claim, then we would initiate legal proceedings.

It's in this way that my office and the ministry share guardianship of some 6,000 children and, in doing so, how it comes to pass that from time to time we find ourselves on the opposite sides of a piece of litigation, which can happen. My job is to protect private people's rights. We serve the public interest by protecting private interests.

Not all claims, though, are directed at the ministry or at a foster parent. Most frequently, quite frankly, the injuries are those arising from a motor vehicle accident, and normally such claims, of course, are insured by ICBC. Tragically, there are many investigations that we carry out into potential claims for sexual assault that relate to a child.

As the representative said, our work together on the Children's Forum has been one where we've made, in a short period of time, great progress, I think, in establishing a collegial relationship. Our office was one of the organizations that sought the establishment of a forum like this, and we're very pleased to be part of that forum. We look very much forward to working with our colleagues on the forum and with our partner guardian, the ministry, as we move forward and improve our service — and with this committee.

With that, I'll close my remarks. I'll be happy to take any questions you have, probably at the end of all our presentations.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, I think we'll take questions now and then maybe more subsequently.

M. Karagianis: I am curious as to what your role is with regard to Community Living members — families, individuals — and whether or not you also provide guardianship, either through the connections to the ministry or by direct petition from Community Living members and families.

J. Chalke: For children who are in continuing care and being served by Community Living British Columbia, we would still be guardian of estate for that child who is served by CLBC. However, for adults there's a legal presumption that all of us are capable in British Columbia when we become an adult, and until someone is declared incapable, they are supported by their family and informally, if necessary. They would not necessarily have a legal decision-maker.

However, they may need one. To the extent that they don't have somebody who is in their family who can provide that support, then it's possible that we could be appointed to act on their behalf.

M. Karagianis: Further to that question then, I notice one of the comments you made about your guardianship extends till the child reaches the age of majority or demonstrates capabilities beyond that.

Where do you stand on this issue of developmentally challenged individuals with IQs over 70 who may or may not be in fact capable of managing their own affairs? What is your position on that?

J. Chalke: Our guardianship of estate terminates when the child reaches 19. Our role on behalf of individuals who are in continuing care would terminate at 19.

All children have guardians. Most of them have parental guardians. That's who their guardian is. At 19 the legal presumption that I referred to applies to everybody. So the law then treats everybody at 19…. It presumes them to be legally capable until they have a decision to make in society that requires a legal decision-maker, and
[ Page 228 ]
then that capacity, if it's in question…. There's a legal process by which it can be determined that they are or are not capable.

[1020]

If that then happens, then somebody else can be appointed. Most typically, for somebody who has supportive family members, it would be their family member who would be appointed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia as something called a committee under the Patients Property Act. There is legislation passed but not yet proclaimed that would move to a more modern system of adult guardianship. That, as I said, is not yet in force.

L. Krog: Thank you for your presentation. You said, sadly, that your office has to investigate a number of sexual assault claims involving children. The criminal injury compensation program having been abolished, I'm going to assume that a number of the perpetrators, so to speak, are often penniless. In a situation like that, does your office make the decision not to sue civilly because it's a waste of time?

J. Chalke: It is absolutely true that our prospects for recovery…. Our assessment of those, as would be for anybody, is considered as to whether or not we would commence a lawsuit — yes.

That is not to say that everybody who perpetrates a sexual assault, though, is penniless.

L. Krog: In your experience can you group the perpetrators, so to speak? I mean, is it most often family? Is it caregivers? Are there any significant statistics you can provide the committee around this?

J. Chalke: It's probably early days for us to do that. One of the reasons for that is that claims for sexual assault…. The litigation around that is very much a changing field.

Certainly, the belief — probably as recently as five years ago — was that it was generally better not to proceed with civil claims for sexual assault until the victim became an adult and the damages could be better crystallized.

There is a lot of review among people as to whether or not that's the right perspective to take with respect to those claims. So there's, I think, probably a change in the litigation practice I would say, but it's very new.

The other thing that has a significant impact is that historically there were legal doctrines such as non-delegable duty that generally held in a line of cases that the Crown would be vicariously liable or liable under the doctrine of non-delegable duty for torts perpetrated by foster parents.

In the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called K.L.B. and some related cases, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected that doctrine. As a result, the Crown is liable only if it is independently negligent, as opposed to liable on the basis of the doctrine of non-delegable duty.

The practical impact that has on us in deciding whether to sue on behalf of a child is that rather than knowing that the Crown will always be there and that the Crown can make good on a judgment if found liable, we're now looking to actually look at the individual circumstances of each case and include in an assessment of that whether or not there are prospects of recovery currently and whether those prospects would remain when the child became an adult.

So I think it's early days to probably come up with statistics, in answer to your question, but certainly the landscape is changing. We're certainly seeing more early pursuit and investigation of claims than probably happened historically, not just by our office but generally, I would say, in society.

L. Krog: Is it your sense that…? Of the claims that you investigate, how many of them, percentagewise, would you not proceed with in the civil courts because there was little chance of recovery?

J. Chalke: I wouldn't have the statistics broken down by no chance of recovery. Certainly, most of the matters that are reported to us do not result in a claim. We consider a lot of things. Obviously, we have to be in a position to prove cases, and so proof is an issue.

Also, it's very important in the litigation process that the child is someone who wants to pursue the claim. It's important, first of all, because it's a respectful thing to do. But it's also important at a practical level. They need to participate in the litigation process. There are things for them to do.

Those are certainly factors that tend to reduce the number of claims we pursue. As well, obviously, there are impecunious defendants or defendants where it's very difficult to determine where their assets are.

[1025]

All of those do occur. But some cases do go through that process, and we do pursue those cases on behalf of kids.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'd like to insert a question here from the Chair, the Chair's prerogative, if I may. You mentioned, Mr. Chalke, that you were one of the ones who looked forward to this forum being instituted and commented that there's great progress. Maybe you could just expand that — what sorts of issues you've dealt with that have been beneficial to your side of the fence in the operation.

J. Chalke: Well, certainly from our perspective the network of agencies that has a role to play around a child who is injured or a child who passes away…. It's
[ Page 229 ]
really important to have good communications, one with another. I think that the commonality of issues that can occur between injuries and deaths is something that we need to look at more than we have historically in the past.

So I think that for me, that's the advantage, really — building those networks with the individuals who have responsibility for fatality investigations and connecting that with the work we do around injuries.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'm going to let Claude Richmond have the last question, and then we'll need to move on with the other presenters.

C. Richmond: Thank you for your presentation. A follow-up to Mr. Krog's question about sexual assaults on children. Do you have any way of breaking down whether these occur in direct family situations, extended family, foster parents or strangers? Do you have any way of determining that?

J. Chalke: We're currently doing some work on that. Sadly, the answer is all of that. Of course, we would only see those cases that are reported to us, but we do see every one of those types of circumstances that you identify. It raises an interesting question for us in that it has heretofore been that lawsuits against parents for sexual assault have been relatively rare, if one looks historically at the jurisprudence.

Obviously, every one of the children, by and large…. Most of the children who are in continuing care are some sort of what lawyers would describe as a tort victim. They're a victim of a physical or sexual type of assault at some level. This raises a whole lot of issues for us as we go forward.

Definitely, every circumstance that you've identified we absolutely see. What we're doing this year, and we will have…. By the end of March we'll be releasing our first report on our role with respect to children in continuing care.

So I'm going to release a report about what we do with respect to children in continuing care. A lot of that is assisted by the improved reporting that we now receive from the ministry.

C. Richmond: But what you're saying is that you don't have any breakdown of numbers in each of these categories.

J. Chalke: I don't for you today, but I absolutely expect that by the end of the year we will be in a position to have that sort of thing.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'm going to change gears slightly and ask…. I can see this could be quite lengthy. There are so many interesting questions to ask, and valid questions. We're going to go through the entire presentations, presenters, so that we can get a sense of how they're working together and get a more contextual overview of the interplay on the committee. Then we'll open the floor to questions, as long as we have time for questions.

It's my great pleasure to introduce Kim Carter to speak next, and then we'll hear from Terry Smith following that.

Kim, the floor is yours.

K. Carter: I'll try and keep this brief, in keeping with your injunction. As the Ombudsman, I know that you're all aware that our role is to ensure fair treatment for people in British Columbia by public authorities. We have a very broad jurisdiction, almost 2,800 different public authorities, and we receive about 7,000 complaints a year and open roughly 2,000 files.

Most of the work we do is complaint-driven by individuals who have come into contact with public authorities in British Columbia. For us the committee is quite interesting, because of course those public authorities include the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Public Guardian and Trustee, the coroner's office, and I think we even include Perry within the jurisdiction.

[1030]

For us the forum is a very interesting and useful mechanism, because usually our contact is more in the nature of, "There has been a complaint, and we're calling about something," rather than a professional, collegial and complementary approach, which exists there.

In addition to complaints, of course, that are received, there is an option for the Ombudsman to initiate investigations. That's used rarely and judiciously. We look at any matters of administration, which are essentially, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, government actions that are not decisions of the Legislature and which exclude, also, decisions of the court.

Very simply, in most cases we receive a complaint from somebody. We then speak to an authority. We look at a matter from the point of view of trying to resolve it satisfactorily. We don't represent the complainant, so we're not an advocate for the complainant, and we're not an advocate for the authority. We're an advocate for fair treatment in British Columbia.

The recommendation of the Hughes committee was that the Ombudsman continue the work that the Ombudsman does in these areas and also that the office become part of the Children's Forum.

I'll only speak about one of the authorities, because I think that would be of most interest to you, the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It has consistently, over the years, been what I'd describe as one of the most significant authorities from the Ombudsman's point of view; that is, we deal regularly with complaints about the ministry.
[ Page 230 ]

I use the word "significant" carefully, because when we have significant authorities, I don't want people to conclude, necessarily, that this means the authorities are not treating people fairly. It's often something that revolves not only around the number of complaints but the kinds of issues that people deal with.

So when you're talking about children, particularly children who may be in the care of the government or in some way under its supervision, you have, first of all, a very emotional situation. People are very much engaged, and you often have multiple interests.

For example, the complainant to us might be a child who was in foster care who was dissatisfied with something that happened to them, but equally it could be a parent. It might be a situation where you have a parent who has a new partner and another parent who has another new partner, up to eight people who believe they're grandparents and even foster parents — all of whom feel that they have a role to play and should be consulted and have their views considered.

As I said, perhaps not surprisingly the other area that is one of our most significant — in fact, more significant that Children and Family Development — is the now Ministry of Housing and Social Development. It's essentially the income assistance section that generates most of the issues to our office. Roughly in the last five years, the number of complaints has reflected about 10 percent of our work. So if I run through the numbers we have, there are essentially between 500 and 700 issues that come to us.

The types of investigations that we do…. Perhaps I will go back briefly and say that we are resolution-oriented. What we're trying to do is get fair treatment for the individuals who come to us, but we're also looking to resolve systemic issues. So if somebody comes to us with a problem and we resolve it for them but there's an improvement in the process that will stop this happening again, we're actually…. Since we have enough complaints from other sources, we don't really want to deal with the same one again and again, so we'll work to try and get that resolved. So we look for policy changes and make recommendations to authorities to improve those processes.

The types of investigations. I've just picked a few from the past two or three years. One was a mother of a special needs child who was in a situation where her day care subsidy had taken so long to be issued that her son had to be removed from his day care. We got involved with this. We managed to get the subsidy reinstated quickly. We got back reimbursement for the time frame which was the delay, and the child was back into day care.

[1035]

We had one which I call the snacks for kids case. This actually involved a youth custody facility. Our office visits all the youth custody facilities regularly. We meet with the young people in there on a one-on-one basis, if they wish to complain to us directly. We also meet with staff. This was an issue that the young people couldn't get afternoon snacks. There was a rationale; there was a policy. There was a lot of explanation back and forth as to why this might lead to bullying or children not eating properly.

Essentially, if any of you have teenagers, you will know that some of them are just bottomless pits. You don't have to worry about them not eating supper. They'll still eat two helpings of everything.

Anyway, this was something where we engaged with the authority. We engaged with the young people. We looked into it, went up to the upper levels in the ministry, and it got resolved. It took a policy change at the highest levels. But hey, they get their snacks. They're healthy. They don't have trans fat in them. We said that that's fine — apples, granola bars. They can get something to eat now. So that's another one.

We had someone, a foster parent who came to us because of a recommendation for orthodontic funding for one of the foster children, who couldn't get that funded. It turned out to be, in many cases, that this is reflective of miscommunications and people not getting the information they need or not explaining what they need. Anyway, happily, the program ultimately approved the treatment.

In addition what happened was that the manager of the program made a change. In future…. The program was going out and communicating clearly what everyone needed to provide, so again, it didn't happen again.

This is one that's perhaps a little different. It's one where we weren't successful, actually, in our recommendation. It involved two young people who were wards of the state and who caused damage, and then there was a suit against various public authorities essentially saying that they weren't properly supervised, treating the authority as the parent. It went through court. There was negligence and liability found in one area, and then on appeal that was overturned.

We went and looked. Again, our approach is that we look for fair treatment. What we essentially suggested was that in fact public authorities should take the position that they are the parents and should accept some liability in this case. We were respectfully declined.

I think perhaps those give you some idea…. One other thing. A number of years ago, when the child tax benefit rules came out, there was a lack of communication, so people whose children went into care and then subsequently were returned to them didn't know about having to tell the federal government that they didn't have their child. Then they were getting dinged for getting payments that they shouldn't have, and when they had to pay it back, it was usually at entirely the wrong time. Equally, they weren't told that when the child came back into care, they had to apply and get those reinstated.
[ Page 231 ]

In that case, we not only got some of those issues resolved for individuals but worked with the province to get better communication. Indeed, the province and the federal government, as a result, talked to each other, and there was an automatic notification that went from the provincial authorities to the federal government to stop these payments after seven days so that no one had a big debt that they had to pay as a result.

So a number of practical things. I think it gives you an idea of the range of what we do.

[1040]

Because we have other authorities…. It's not just Children and Family Development where we connect. There's, of course, Housing and Social Development income assistance issues, schools and school boards. Young people come to us, or families, about issues. Community Living B.C., libraries, parks — these are all things that may involve young people.

I've talked to you about our visits to the youth custody facilities. We have also recently revamped our website, so we have a special section for youth. We have a specially designed card that is short and snappy for young people about their rights. I'll be happy to leave those with the committee.

We do all those things. From my perspective, I actually started as Ombudsman more or less contemporaneously with the Hughes report coming out. I have found the Children's Forum, as I've said, a really useful way of just talking with colleagues. I think it gives an opportunity — and I would say this — for the ministry in particular to talk to people and get questions asked.

As you will appreciate, as essentially an oversight body I'm not going to give people rulings in advance on any situations. But I think it really gives a very good way for various groups, particularly the ministry, to come forward and say: "This is what we're doing. Do you see anything?"

We're an advocate in our organization for trying to fix a problem before it happens, as opposed to letting it happen and then everyone gets medals afterwards for resolving it. But it would be much better if you fixed it beforehand. It gives us the opportunity to ask questions, certainly for me, and say, "Have you thought of this? Why are you doing it that way?" which I hope are taken back and will improve the process before it gets rolled out, rather than fixing the problem afterwards.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Okay. I'd like to call on Terry Smith, then, to proceed.

T. Smith: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, before I launch into my presentation, I'd like to add a disclaimer, first, in deference to my colleague Dr. Kendall, to avoid any complaints from the College of Physicians and Surgeons or any complaints about the fact that I'm giving this presentation under fraud or false pretence. I'm not a doctor, but thank you for the honour.

As you know, I'm the chief coroner for the province. I'm here this morning along with one of my staff, Ms. Kellie Kilpatrick, who is the executive director of our child death review unit.

The B.C. Coroners Service is found within the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. In British Columbia all children's deaths are reported to me as the chief coroner under section 2 of the Coroners Act. I just point out that the Coroners Act is a new one that was passed and came into force in September 2007.

The deaths that are reported to me include not only those that are sudden and unexpected deaths, as in all adult deaths, but also all those deaths believed to be natural and expected.

On receipt of a report of a child death, a coroner will conduct an investigation and will determine who the child was and how, when, where and by what means the child died. Additionally, we'll classify that death into one of five categories: natural; homicide; suicide; accidental; and in some cases we simply don't know, and it's classified as undetermined. We will also determine the cause of death to the best of our ability.

In cases where natural and expected child death occurs, the investigation may be concluded fairly shortly after the death occurs. In cases where death is sudden, unexpected and unexplained, the investigation may take somewhat longer in order to complete pathology, toxicology or the conclusion of a criminal proceeding.

At the conclusion of an investigation, a coroner will make a report to me as the chief coroner. The report may contain recommendations, or in some circumstances I may direct that an inquest be held. I can tell you, as well, that inquests are determined by the case being put before a committee of the deputy chief coroner; the executive director of our medical unit, who is a physician; the executive director of the legal unit, who is a lawyer; and the executive director of provincial operations.

[1045]

That committee makes a recommendation to me. I take that under advisement and will either direct that the report be completed under section 16 of the Coroners Act or that an inquest be held.

At the conclusion of the investigation or an inquest, the child death will be referred to the child death review unit under the direction of Kellie Kilpatrick. All child deaths, approximately 375 a year, are reviewed by case specialists within the child death review unit — referred to in our parlance as CDRU — and are further examined by an internal multidisciplinary team.

During the course of the review, the CDRU members may exercise the powers of investigation set out in section 11 by virtue of the fact that they are assigned those powers under section 48 of the act. In other words, those people working in the child death review unit have the same powers as a coroner does to make investigations and to examine records. Following each review of a
[ Page 232 ]
child death, the CDRU will make a report to me with findings respecting the death and any recommendations intended to prevent future deaths.

I can report to the committee this morning that since the CDRU became fully operational in May of 2007, the following reports have been released: in July 2007 the special report on drowning looked at the deaths of 33 children; in December 2007 the 2006 child death review annual report respecting 244 child deaths; in July 2008 the 2007 child death review annual report respecting 395 child deaths. Further, I will be releasing the special report on child and youth suicide in mid-November of this year examining 81 child deaths.

I have the ability to establish child death review panels under the provisions of the new Coroners Act, section 49, where the panels will conduct further reviews of individual child deaths or clusters of child deaths. The child death review panel will provide me with advice related to medical, legal, social welfare and other matters that may impact public health and/or public policy and the prevention of child deaths.

I can report that I've established two child death review panels this year. The first was held in April and August of 2008, examining deaths of aboriginal children where alcohol was a factor in the death. The panel forwarded a series of recommendations to me which are in the final stages of being directed to the relevant jurisdictions.

The next child death review panel will convene tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, and will conclude on Friday, October 3. This panel consists of well-known experts in the field of child and youth suicide. They will be examining the child death review findings and providing me with advice and recommendations.

Those are the two that have been convened under the child death review unit. I can also advise that I have convened two more death review panels, but they are not exclusively examining child and youth deaths. One of them is relevant, however, to child and youth death, and that would be the one looking at motorcycle and motor vehicle accidents. That review will take place later this fall.

I also have the ability to refer historical cases to the Representative for Children and Youth based on criteria developed jointly by our two offices. I can report to date that I have referred five cases to the representative. I also have specific provisions of the Coroners Act which allow me to make disclosures to the representative as I deem necessary.

[1050]

I am pleased to report that my staff — in particular, those responsible for the investigation review of all child deaths in the province — enjoy a strong working relationship with the other agencies represented here today. I find the forum particularly helpful in helping my staff form recommendations and in understanding the interface that we all need to have as we work through these issues, because quite frankly, many of these issues are not issues that relate to just one agency or organization. They must be addressed holistically by all of us together, and this forum provides exactly that kind of forum. I've been most pleased with the work that we've been able to accomplish cooperatively with my colleagues on the forum.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Now I'd like to call upon Dr. Perry Kendall to present.

P. Kendall: Mr. Chair, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. As you're aware, one of my functions under the Health Act is to monitor and report on the health status of the population — or subpopulations, as it might be children or aboriginals or women — and make recommendations on programs, policy or legislation.

One of the abilities I have, working with the various sources of health data that we have, is to look at trends in health status or ill-health status so that we can actually monitor over time what happens as a result of policy changes or environmental changes.

I have been working, as well, with the Representative for Children and Youth and her predecessor on a series of co-authored reports looking at high-risk children in care. The first was on the health and illness experience of children in care. The second was on the educational experience of children in care. The third one, which we hope will be coming shortly, is on the experience of children in care in the justice system.

Some of the work, the way I've been working with the forum, is to look at the trends and data and information coming out with high-risk children, compare them with the trends for the whole child population of British Columbia and work with the various partners around the forum to put the information into context, to maintain some record linkages — for example, the B.C. Vital Stats and the coroner's office are currently working on record linkage, looking at alcohol-related unintentional injuries in youth to see what trends are over the last few years — and also to develop comparable ways of looking at the data so that the reviews of X number of childhood deaths can be fitted into the more general experience of what's happening to childhood deaths or injuries or experiences over time in the context of the B.C. situation and, if necessary, look at what other jurisdictions are doing or what other jurisdictional experiences are.

We can also offer some service links through this public health system. The data that came out on unsafe sleeping practices and unintentional deaths of children…. We were able to look at safe sleeping practices and link that with the public health field through my contact with medical health officers in the field and my contact with the maternal and child health program in the public health area.
[ Page 233 ]

I would just echo the comments of other speakers that this is a useful forum for exchange of information, for getting better information and more robust data and for communicating between various arms of government and independent officers.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Kendall.

Finally, I'd like to ask Sandra Griffin to report on her experience with the Children's Forum.

S. Griffin: It's a pleasure to meet with the committee again. I'm actually looking forward to meeting with you again this afternoon.

I'd like to begin with the final line of the February 2008 report that we are speaking to as the Children's Forum. Where we were describing our service delivery, we noted: "The ministry's case review model is moving toward being more coordinated and integrated across program areas, as recommended in the Hughes review." So what I'd like to do is walk you through the current status of our office and the work that we do.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development provides and funds programs in the areas from early childhood through youth justice, child and youth mental health, special needs and child welfare. It includes the guardianship of children in care. Services are delivered through regional offices, delegated aboriginal agencies and contracted agencies.

[1055]

Each of the ministry's program areas has policy, including procedures for reporting and reviewing critical injuries and deaths of children and youth in care or receiving services. The policy related to each program area differs slightly, and different types of reviews and investigative processes can be undertaken in different program areas.

Recently the ministry released its action plan, Strong, Safe, and Supported. We had the opportunity to present that to the committee recently. It includes implementation of an integrated quality assurance approach which is intended to strengthen supports to policy and practice and to focus more strongly on the achievement of healthy outcomes for children, youth and families that we serve.

The integrated case review framework fulfils one of the ministry's strategic directions for developmental and integrated quality assurance activities that promote our strengths-based and developmental practice forward motion. The framework also supports the collaborative and integrated case review process, as recommended by Judge Hughes in his B.C. Children and Youth Review.

The identified program areas for our integrated case review model are child welfare, child and youth mental health, provincial services for deaf and hard of hearing, nursing support services, children and youth with special needs, youth services, delegated aboriginal agencies, the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre, youth justice and youth forensic psychiatric services.

For child welfare services, the Child, Family and Community Service Act provides the statutory authority for critical injury and death review and reporting. Ministry policy requires that the regional director of integrated practice or the director responsible for delegated aboriginal agencies be notified immediately regarding the death or the critical injury of a child in care or a child who has received reviewable child welfare services in the previous 12 months.

Such notifications occur via reportable circumstances reports that are also distributed to myself as ADM for integrated quality assurance, to the ADM for aboriginal regional support services and to the Representative for Children and Youth. If the child or youth is in the permanent care of the director, the Public Guardian and Trustee is also notified.

These notifications provide an appropriate director with the opportunity to objectively review the circumstances, receive and provide feedback and learn from these incidences as well as to support the individuals involved. The child's family is notified, and the ministry takes action to support the family and extended family as appropriate to the circumstances. If the child is aboriginal, a representative from the aboriginal community or identified delegated aboriginal agency is notified.

The director may seek additional or clarifying information regarding the circumstances. Depending on the response, the director may be satisfied that there are no outstanding issues or questions. That is often the case for natural, expected deaths when there is no reason to believe that practice would have had any impact on the outcome for the child.

Otherwise, the director may decide that a formal case review is required. The decision to conduct a formal case review is made as soon as possible and no later than 20 days following the occurrence. There are two types of formal case reviews, with different methodologies: a comprehensive or director's review and a file review.

A comprehensive review involves the examination of case files as well as interviews of relevant staff, caregivers and service providers. The decision to conduct a comprehensive review is based on the severity of the occurrence, the potential link between case practice and the outcome, and the level of response required for public accountability.

A file review is more limited in scope and usually consists of a review of the relevant case files, with a focus on the last five years of service involvement. A file review can assist the director to determine whether a comprehensive review is required.

Both types of reviews may result in recommendations to develop and address any practice or systemic areas. These recommendations are tracked and monitored for
[ Page 234 ]
implementation by the director and by me as the ADM for integrated quality assurance.

[1100]

The integrated quality assurance is supporting, actually, enhanced tracking and monitoring of these functions, such as reportable circumstances, case reviews, case practice audits, recommendations, tracking, rolling up of recommendations for aggregate analysis. I understand that I'll have further opportunity at a later time to speak to you in some depth about integrated quality assurance as a whole.

At present the IQA team also reviews all the reportable circumstances for data integrity and provides technical support to the regions on this. The IQA team confirms child death categories with the B.C. Coroners Service and publishes child death statistics, executive summaries of case reviews and case practice audit reports on the ministry's website semi-annually.

We have been pleased to be a member of the Children's Forum, I believe, as a representative of the ministry — the opportunity to sit with the oversight bodies and, as I think Jay and Kim particularly pointed out, the chance to be able to talk back and forth about questions, issues and areas of concern.

At the last meeting, recognizing that there were some areas where definitions weren't clear or where there is additional information that I might be able to provide, this provides the perfect opportunity, because we're all working with the same children.

The opportunity to be able to collaborate and problem-solve around the table, to be able to share information and then, for myself, for the ministry to be able to bring back to that table the relevant information is a unique and I think very useful opportunity. I'm a new member to the forum, but in the brief opportunity to attend the two meetings, I have already found it to be a very useful venue.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you, Sandra.

I'd like to invite the representative to make any overview remarks, and then we'll hear questions.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'm not going to speak at any length, because you've had a chance to hear the roles and responsibilities of the members of the forum. I just would say a bit with respect to the representative's role, as recommended in the Hughes review and as legislatively implemented through the Representative for Children and Youth Act — that is, to conduct reviews and investigations of injuries and deaths of children where the children receive services in a designated category of services in the year prior to their injury or their death.

It's important. Obviously, the work of the Children's Forum is crucial to us because we want to do that work in a coordinated fashion, respecting the various roles and responsibilities, but also be an independent body that can look sometimes at the work of other agencies and bodies in the process of reviewing and evaluating the circumstances.

The focus of the representative's work is on the systems — whether or not the delivery of services played a role in the injury or death of a child or a group of children in the instances where that is aggregated up for analysis.

Of course, around the edges of that requires us to have a very solid understanding of the other processes, such as the vital role that the Public Guardian and Trustee plays for those children in continuing care — occasionally provides for the children in temporary care with particular referral, but very rarely for the children in continuing care — and the vital role that the Coroners Service and the chief coroner play in terms of determining the cause of death and sometimes having to have that determined through an inquest process and sometimes through a more specific internal decision-making process of a judgment of inquiry — and, of course, also dealing along the way with some of the concerns that family members, communities, caregivers and others have, who may also have approached or be working in these cases or other cases with the Ombudsman.

[1105]

The work of the representative's office requires strong coordination and support with other agencies, given our respective roles, but also a very strong commitment to an independent and, if you like, sort of final look at matters. We must await other processes, as this committee well knows from our work.

So we give a period of time for the ministry to do its work. They have their time lines. We like to see that they meet the time lines. If they don't, we can proceed. We like to ensure that the Coroners Service has the time, when there's been a death, to do their work.

We, of course, do talk about cases to see what would be appropriate when those time lines take longer, where for no reason within the control of Coroners Service — such as the access to forensics, etc. — there are delays. And of course, we work very closely with the Ministry of Children and Families to ensure that very early after there is an incident, there is an effective process to review that and, if there is something to be learned, to take that learning back to the front lines. So our role is sort of the tertiary level of review, if you like.

But it is also based, as Mr. Hughes recommended, on some expertise around the child-serving system. We, as you know, have a multidisciplinary team of people from a range of areas — education, health, child welfare and so forth, and child abuse and maltreatment in the medical fields. We do seek outside support.

I think the important point with respect to the Children's Forum is that it has come together…. Certainly, I feel very strongly that the work has been of enormous value to me as representative and, I think, as a collegial body. I also think that there's a lot of work yet
[ Page 235 ]
to be done. I really feel very strongly that, for the representative's side, it's been immensely helpful. I certainly would like to play a very supportive role with the other agencies to be able to do the work they have to do that's important to support better outcomes for children and youth in British Columbia.

I think the ultimate goal, certainly as Mr. Hughes imagined it when he crafted this recommendation and wrote his review, was that there would be very clear accountability to the people of British Columbia — that when a child dies or is injured, particularly a child that may be quite invisible, a child that's in care or a child from a vulnerable family living out of the parental home, public bodies engaged and reviewed the matter, improvements were made where the improvements needed to be made, those improvements were tracked and implemented, and there was public accountability to families, communities and so on.

I think this has been a very valuable process, and the work will continue.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you. I'm sure the committee members have many questions.

I recognize that Jagrup had one pending for me, so you may have the floor, Jag, if you wish.

J. Brar: I did have the question for the last one, but I have this one….

R. Cantelon (Chair): You can go back wherever you like.

J. Brar: The question I have is for the chief coroner here.

Do you have sufficient resources to complete the death reviews in a timely fashion and also in a qualitative manner?

T. Smith: We continue to produce this work as quickly as our resources permit. I think they're getting out in a reasonable fashion. I've detailed for you the numbers of reports that we've produced. I'm sure that we'll have a better handle on how much more work there is to be done as we go through an evaluation of the statistics.

I can tell you that we've just implemented a new database, which is far more searchable now than it has been in the past. That will begin to inform our work in the coming years and will certainly help us determine what, if any, new resources we require.

J. Brar: You must have some time line established for particular cases. Is there any data available as to what percentage of cases is actually completed before that?

T. Smith: Well, if you're talking about the child death review unit, those are all post–conclusion of the investigation by the coroner. While it's important to move ahead with those quickly, the more urgent work is really about making sure that the front-end coroner investigations are completed in a timely way.

[1110]

J. Brar: You also mentioned in your presentation that you refer cases to the Representative for Children and Youth. At what stage does that happen?

T. Smith: We begin to inform the representative and her staff the minute that we have a report of a child death, and we share that information all along so that the representative and her staff can be fully informed and monitor the progress as it works through.

J. Brar: My understanding is that you refer those cases to the representative — right?

T. Smith: Once we have completed our investigation as coroners and once it's gone to the child death review unit, it may happen fairly quickly following the referral — the transfer of the case to the child death review unit itself.

J. Brar: What would be the particular cause to do that?

T. Smith: As you heard, the representative is primarily looking for systemic issues and procedural issues as well. When we come across that, we will make the representative specifically aware of that.

There is, as I said earlier, an ongoing discussion and discourse with the representative and her staff from the minute that we get a report of a child death. So there's no gap there at all. It's very seamless in terms of what the representative knows, and we collaborate on when those references need to be made.

J. Brar: How many cases — I think you mentioned five — have been referred to the representative?

T. Smith: To date we've made five referrals. That's correct.

D. MacKay: Just a follow-up to the last question. Terry, for the five cases that you have referred to the CYR, are they cases where the child was in custody or in continuing care?

T. Smith: Those would be the ones that we would be referring to the representative, yes.

D. MacKay: So that would be the case with the five that you have now referred?
[ Page 236 ]

T. Smith: That's correct.

M. Karagianis: Just one further question, then, to Terry on that.

When you talked about these historical cases, are there more pending? You've had five so far, but are there more that you might expect to refer to the children and youth office?

T. Smith: I know that we do have some historical cases in process, but I can't comment this morning on which, if any, of those might go to the representative. It's entirely possible that there might be one or two that would go over, yes.

M. Karagianis: Terrific.

My second question, actually, is through to Sandra.

You mentioned about the comprehensive file reviews. Those, I presume, are all internally managed. Has there been any significant change since the implementation of your role in how those reviews are done?

S. Griffin: What I referenced was three areas there. We had the integrated case review framework and model, which we are just piloting now. That's the one where I described the opportunity to pull in providers from across the range. That's a new piece that's rolling out, and we're piloting in the regions, evaluating, etc.

The process that has been in place, which had a director's review, which we call a comprehensive review or the deputy director's review, remains the same process at present. What happens is that when those reviews are done, they are signed off by the director of integrated practice. In each of our regions there is a fully delegated director. So the director signs off on that, and that comes to us.

We provide, from a quality assurance perspective, an extensive review of the review and provide feedback, and that will go back to the director of integrated practice. Any further work that will be done on that document would be done and would then be signed off by the regional executive director.

So we still collaborate very, very closely. Actually, from the beginning of the process we're there to support and work with the region as they work through the review itself. So we're with them from the beginning through to the end.

[1115]

M. Karagianis: Sandra, are there new resources being put in place for this — new funding, new personnel, just generally some new resources — or is this something that's now being implemented into the current and existing workload?

S. Griffin: What we have is the whole development of the integrated quality assurance team. The former provincial director of child welfare staff, which was 30-plus staff, are now part of my team. In addition, we have a research and evaluation team, and we've also pulled in accreditation.

So all of the quality assurance now rests within my mandate. To that degree, we are increasing the supports to the region, both in consultation on practice support and on research and evaluation into that process. We have essentially doubled the size of the staff that are supporting the region in this work.

M. Karagianis: And you report directly to the deputy minister?

S. Griffin: To the deputy, yes.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Val, do you have another question?

V. Roddick: Well, a question and a comment.

First of all, from what we've heard, I just want to congratulate all of you on the collaboration of this forum. As a front-line MLA, the people coming into our offices really require help wading though the system. That's why I want to direct this comment to Kim Carter and to Sandy Griffin.

One of the major things that I get, because there's quite a considerable presence in the riding of Delta South, is that some of the mentally challenged have to go through the same office as everybody else without sort of even any demarcation. Some of them are quite capable in certain respects but get into an office like that and tend to be very challenged as to the type of people in the office, and they get concerned. This is what I've heard as an MLA from the parents.

I'm interested in your saying that you're trying to improve the process, improve communication. I really can't emphasize enough the fact that you're getting together and that you're going through all this. That's really what we're hearing on the front lines: "Please help some of these people." They wouldn't be in these positions if they didn't have issues, so we need to deliver to them and make it easier for them, as opposed to harder.

I want to thank all of you, and let's keep up with the good work.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Speaking of wading through some of the complexities of this, I'm just wondering. It just came up partly because you mentioned, Kim, the card.

That's okay. It's the card that tells people to speak up. I think part of the public's confusion around where to go when there's a problem has to do with the fact that there are at least three agencies involved in this Children's
[ Page 237 ]
Forum alone who independently have a poster out saying: "If you need help or if you're in trouble, call this number." There are three different numbers.

Then there is the children's help line, which is on the milk cartons. And then there are the ads for the international or the national organizations that say: "Call here." We've got confusion, I think. "Are you being treated unfairly? Haven't you been heard?" The representative says: "Do you need help? Do you need to talk? Is someone hurting you?" And the help line says: "Do you know a child who needs help?"

I'm hoping that perhaps the forum might be an appropriate body in which to discuss this kind of issue. If I'm a child in British Columbia and I'm hurt, I'll need a line just to help me figure out where to phone. I do know situations where people say: "Who do I call?" I think that that's fundamentally important as it's the gateway to the system.

[1120]

It's not good to have a number of different doors, especially if the insides aren't connected, but with the fact that the insides are connected now, maybe we can decide on a door.

That's just a point about communication and helping the community wade through what could be seen as quite complex. That's all of the comments for now. It's not a criticism as much as just pointing out what I've noticed.

K. Carter: I take your point, of course. Some agencies are private, so certainly, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman — and, I suspect, the jurisdiction of many people — doesn't run to that remit.

Internally, I know that my staff and Mary Ellen's staff talk together. We do referrals. I think we do have different roles. I think we have complementary roles. I think that at least between our organizations, we're quite active in making sure that if it's not something we can do, then we would refer them if the representative's office had a role and vice versa.

I take your point that there be one number. I think there are advantages and disadvantages to having multiple approaches. Some people are just more comfortable doing things in certain ways, or have a habit or know a certain organization. So I think we are sensitive, internally, to working together. Certainly, in our office the approach traditionally has been that if somebody calls, we refer them to those, if they haven't used internal dispute resolution mechanisms.

But one of the things I've done is said that if it's a child who's calling, then we don't do that. We listen to that. We look at it. We see what we can do. So I can offer you that reassurance, at least.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): If I might just follow up. I think that the role…. The number of telephone numbers available, I think, sometimes adds to this impression that we don't call the ministry, that the child won't call the ministry. I'm worried about the evolving perception that the ministry is not who you call when you have a concern about child welfare, because there seems to be this growing…. It's not fair, but it's this idea that responsiveness isn't forthcoming from the ministry, as opposed to when you phone an advocate who can phone above where you can phone.

I'm worried about that kind of collateral effect of having this number of numbers — not just the confusion but the undermining of the actual jurisdictional authority of the ministry. I just wanted to make clear that it wasn't just the confusion, which is problematic in itself, but the impression that it may leave.

J. Chalke: To add to that comment regarding information, I would just note that the least we could do is make sure that the information that's out there is accurate.

I had occasion to be on the ministry's website yesterday and noticed that there's a know-your-rights brochure of the sort that you're referring to that has to be, given the agencies that are identified there, at least six or seven years out of date. It makes no reference to the representative's office. It refers children to the child, youth and family advocate. That organization hasn't existed for a number of years. It makes no reference to our office either.

It's just that I think we should at least, at a minimum, make sure that the kind of information we're putting out…. I think that point is well taken, and I think we can do a better job in that.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you. Sorry about ignoring you briefly.

D. MacKay: I just wanted to add my support to what Mr. Simons just commented on — the fact that if we've got three different phone numbers for children to phone. We have 911 for people who are adults, if we don't know whether we want a fire truck or a police car or an ambulance to come to our house. Surely we can simplify the calling process for children who feel that they've been abused or are looking for some help.

[1125]

I'm hoping the committee would look at that concept of maybe coming up with one number and having an agency that would refer the child to the proper agency instead of getting them stuck up in those automated phone calls.

I have to tell you that I did that the day before yesterday, and I got extremely frustrated. After being on hold for 20 minutes, after pushing 1 for English, 2 for French, I hung up the phone. It is extremely frustrating for adults, and I think most of us can understand the challenges that we do face in our day-to-day lives. Let's not make it
[ Page 238 ]
any more difficult for the children. I just wanted to add my support to it.

Terry, I just wanted to go back. I was running down some numbers here when you were speaking about the child death review unit. You'd mentioned that in December of 2007 you referred 244 cases to the child death review unit, and then you mentioned 2008.

I'm somewhat confused, because 2008 has still got a couple of months to go. You had referred 395. Did I copy those down wrong?

T. Smith: That was the 2007 child death review annual report that was submitted in July of 2008. So it was the '07 report that referred to 395.

D. MacKay: So that's a pretty dramatic increase in numbers that were referred to the child death review unit.

T. Smith: Well, you have to understand that the CDRU came into being in May of '07, so it took a look at some 244 to start with, and then the 395. I think what you'll find is that over the next year or two there will be some fluctuation in the numbers examined.

I think it's also important to recognize that these aren't deaths that were reported in that calendar year. These are deaths that are investigated by the coroner, concluded and then referred on to the child death review unit. So there was some historical catching up in '06 and again some more in '07. I think we probably won't see a levelling off or an averaging out of that for another year or two as we work through the historical cases.

D. MacKay: Okay. If I could ask, just to follow up then. Based on the numbers, did you or did your office track the number of children who were in care that were…? Like, is it 5 percent, 10 percent of that caseload?

T. Smith: That's detailed in the annual reports. We do have a copy with us today, and we'd be happy to leave it with you for your review. I don't have that figure in front of me right now, but it is identified in the annual report.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Mary Ellen, do you wish to add to that?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Just on that point, I think that one of the areas that the Children's Forum has been really valuable with is dealing with areas where we're catching up from the past — so new institutions, child death review unit, the Coroners Service, new statutory improvements for the Coroners Service. There still are some bundles from the past that have been coming through there.

Certainly, on my side, one of the objectives we have is to have some more real-time reporting. How many are before us now? How many are outstanding? In six months what happened to them? In nine months where are they? In 12 months? It's so that we have a better concept at any given time of how many child deaths there have been this year; how many injuries there have been, particularly to children who are served who may be vulnerable; and what the pace of progress is of that.

The more transparent in real time that that can become, I think that's helpful. At the same time, after Mr. Hughes's report there was an effort to obviously address this through the various partners in the Children's Forum.

I certainly would say from my side…. The chief coroner has indicated that some cases have been referred to me, and in fact, today we'll deal with two more in our in-camera session. Some of these may be cases in the transition period of the establishment of my office but still deal with some ongoing system issues.

I would like to see, certainly in the next year, that we'd come more into a real-time process of knowing what reportables are outstanding, what the pace or the progress is on those. So is it at an inquest or judgment of inquiry? Is it with the representative's office?

Really, we'll have a form of public reporting that's consistent among our public agencies. The public will know it's the same group. We're not dealing with deaths from 2003; we're dealing with them in this year.

[1130]

At times those numbers can be very frightening to the members of the public as well, if they think there's been a very significant increase. So to be very fair about reporting on trends and so on, I think it is really crucial that that same methodology be used — good public health information, good vital stats inform that — but also that we appropriately identify those who were served by the Ministry of Children and Families — whether they're in care in the home of the relative or what have you, and that that group is identified and also that we properly identify, of the children, which ones are aboriginal, have special needs, etc., so we have some key characteristics consistently defined across our systems.

L. Krog: Firstly, to echo the comments of all of my colleagues, my compliments for doing this and taking this approach. I guess it's fair to say that this isn't, how shall I say, a statutorily authorized approach. This represents, if you will, the extra work of a diligent student, so to speak, at school who wants to get ahead. And I mean that not in a sarcastic way — in a very complimentary way.

What I'm wondering is…. I very much appreciate the overview, but is it a consideration for the forum as a whole that you will actually make recommendations through Mary Ellen, who has to report to this committee, about possible legislative or policy changes in a very direct way as opposed to doing the kind of collaborative work, which I think is very important?
[ Page 239 ]

I appreciate that it may be seen as overstepping some bounds, but quite frankly, these problems of children — indeed, everyone in our society — are incredibly complex. I think we all want to see improvement. I'm just wondering if that's a consideration for the forum.

Having taken this further step, which I compliment you for doing, are you prepared to go even further and make some specific recommendations where you think it appropriate?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think just on that…. Thus far, we've had some discussions on very significant subjects of common concern. I think Dr. Kendall and the chief coroner referred to safe sleeping — infant sleeping preventable deaths. These are areas where there's a great opportunity for the forum to bring things forward. I mean, obviously, the chief coroner has issued reports on this, will issue a public warning. The Ministry of Children and Families may send out information to foster parents about safe sleeping — or others. My office may play a role to disseminate information to vulnerable children and families about that.

We may all have different audiences in the public realm, but the key is that we're united with respect to how we understand it, if there is a concern, how we've analyzed it and how we can work together.

It may not come through a recommendation from the representative to this committee — although I would periodically report to you on it — but I can't say that there wouldn't be instances where we wouldn't do that as well.

You know, certainly, not the other members of the forum but as representative, I do have a few opinions about things, like when a certain statute is to be proclaimed and when are we moving forward with modernizing some of the issues around guardianship of the person, guardianship of the state, etc., because it would be valuable to improve the area.

We really are trying to work jointly to be more effective. I think that this will really blossom in the next year or so. I think that out of the starting blocks we've made some very good headway to create a professional and collegial body to great impact. But we'll have more perhaps visible public presence in the future as we deal with issues like safe sleeping and other matters that are of significant concern.

J. Brar: It is just the beginning of this forum, and it seems that the group has taken a good kind of takeoff. You mentioned, Mary, at the beginning that you have added new members to the forum. I just want to know that it's very important for this whole body to function properly, to have this group functional all the time. Do you have any terms of reference for this group in terms of chair, how often the chair is going to rotate and how you're going to add new members and all that?

M. Turpel-Lafond: We do, and I can share those with the committee. We have terms of reference. As representative, I've taken on the chair, and my office has taken on the responsibility to organize the meetings, the documents, the support and so on. But as I said at the outset, my goal would be that it would move. It would rotate among the heads of the public agencies.

[1135]

The chief coroner hosted one, and that was very valuable. But I think that it needs to have a home in terms of the material to be presented.

What we have decided as a group…. It's also very important for us to have very confidential, often in camera, discussions about issues because there's information that is private and must only be discussed in a very appropriate forum.

We have taken the approach that we will invite people — say, people in the health care field who may have a role around it, CEOs of health authorities and other leaders in the health area — to attend and brief us on occasion and to have other important partners come to talk about issues. Essentially, we need to keep the roles that we have to maintain the integrity and the collegiality and also to be able to have fulsome and forthright discussions of some of the challenges that we may face in appropriately working on this.

The broader goal, which I know I stated to the standing committee in the past, is that I certainly would like to see British Columbia have a nationally and internationally accepted process for the review of critical injuries and deaths of vulnerable children, and that it could be something that would be defended anywhere in terms of the methodology, the interface of polices and practices. We do get some visits from people from away who want to know how we're doing things. I think we are possibly breaking some ground.

I know the Coroners Service, in particular, has been very committed to that type of excellence in the development of the child death review unit.

I think that there's a great chance for it to grow and to lead to that. I can say from my observation that I see a very profound commitment to improvement, to professionalism and to ensuring that the best work is done on behalf of the people of British Columbia in our various roles.

V. Roddick: Just to follow up on Mr. Simons and my colleague Mr. MacKay's comment on the telephone number. Maybe the group or the Ombudsman could look into the status of the 211 number that was to work through the United Way. It was to be a one-stop shop call, 24 hours a day, with somebody alive at the other end.

I honestly can say I have no idea where that is at the present moment, but it's definitely out there being dealt with. Possibly it's worth checking with the United Way as to what progress they're making on this.
[ Page 240 ]

K. Carter: Certainly happy to call the United Way and ask. I can certainly assure you that when someone calls our office, they actually get a live body on the end.

Interestingly, it's not only important for children. The seniors who call us seem to be pretty keen on getting a real person. In fact, in my office the people who are our call coordinators, who answer the phone, have told me consistently that the question they're asked most often is: "Are you a real person?"

Occasionally they get the urge to say….

V. Roddick: Well, 211 is not just for children. It's for everybody.

K. Carter: I suspect it's probably even broader than just public agencies and includes private agencies. Certainly, I'm happy to see if we can find out something about 211.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I don't see any further questions. I'll make my own comment on the phone numbers. I don't think we'll ever get them all together and have one magic number. I don't think that'll happen. I take Kim's comments that it may not be a good thing. But I think behind those numbers it's very good to hear that there's such good collaboration so that whatever comes forward to the forum is treated in a very collegial way.

The committee's certainly encouraged to hear the comments, and we look forward to some of the information that's going to come forward from the coroner's office and from the Ombudsman. Kim, we appreciate that you're resolution-oriented. That's what we like to hear. Much good work is being done. We hear all positive comments — "immensely helpful" and "profound commitment" — and we hear that there is good collaboration going on and information being exchanged.

I think that while there obviously is so much work still to be done, we can clear a lot of the decks by working together very effectively.

[1140]

I'd like to thank the forum for the work they've done and continue to do, and we look forward to being further informed with more progress on some of these reports. We'll certainly call you back from time to time to get further updates.

That is the signal that lunch has arrived, so we'll take an adjournment at this point.

The committee recessed from 11:41 a.m. to 12:03 p.m.

[R. Cantelon in the chair.]

R. Cantelon (Chair): I understand, MCFD, that we still have some technical difficulties. So as you machinate with that, we'll carry on with our other parts, if we may.

If you're not too distracted, Mary Ellen, to begin with part 1, which is the update.

Office of the Representative
for Children and Youth

M. Turpel-Lafond: All right. I'm going to begin by addressing the agenda item that was put over from this morning, which is a bit of an operational update on the work of the representative's office since we last sat with the standing committee in June of 2008.

As I said this morning, of course, I'd like to welcome the new members of the standing committee and Mr. Richmond, who is here.

My office continues to be very busy, and there is significant activity across all areas of my mandate. I wanted to inform the committee today that after one year of operation, I thought it would be of value to have an external review of my office completed by a consulting company — a well-known and respected consulting company that won a request for proposals, or a properly tendered process, to have a look at my organization to ensure that it has what it needs to fulfil the task before it, organizationally and operationally.

[1205]

I'm, of course, very pleased with the work of our office in the first year. Many of you would have received our annual report. I know that under the statute, we weren't required to prepare an annual report till next year, but I did think it was important that we prepare one and detail the work. It does focus very much on the work in the area of advocacy. It's a very strong focus on some of the cases, the caseload and so on, in that area.

I did receive an external review and considered a relatively minor but significant reorganization of the representative's office to allow us to effectively address the work in the year ahead. I think it's a very healthy thing for any type of independent office at one year to sort of have a look-see at where things are going to ensure that the work can proceed.

As a result of that valuable process, there have been some changes made. In the past I had three deputy representatives. Those deputy representatives will continue to head up their program areas. They are now associate deputy representatives, though, with the exception of John Greschner, who's also the chief investigator in the area of critical injuries and deaths.

I have a single deputy representative that is a new single position, which is more akin to a chief operating officer position. That will be filled for a six-month period on an acting basis until there is an appointment. I wanted to introduce to you the acting deputy representative. His name is Bill Valentine. Bill is not seated with me here at the front, but he's just behind me here.

I just want to give you a bit of background about Bill. Under the statute, there are statutory requirements
[ Page 241 ]
with respect to the qualifications of anyone who would assume a role of this kind in my office. Even though he'll assume it for six months, those statutory requirements must still be fulfilled.

Bill was a senior official with the B.C. government for 12 years, holding deputy minister and CEO positions. He's the former CEO of Land and Water B.C., deputy minister of B.C. fisheries and a treaty negotiator. He has an extensive knowledge of public policy issues and the challenges of creating a high-quality and well-informed service and advisory role.

In terms of his recent work before he left the government, at Land and Water B.C. he oversaw a staff of 350 FTEs located in seven offices throughout B.C. He implemented an executive development program with an emphasis on leadership. He also was instrumental in the hands-on creation of a new provincial agency, B.C. fisheries, with 250 staff and three distinct offices. He brings a very solid reputation for innovation and achieving results, especially in the public policy area and weighing a variety of competing and complex interests.

In addition, with respect to his work, he's worked extensively with first nations as a deputy in key areas like the resource areas of fisheries, as a treaty negotiator and in the area of social development. Of even greater interest, certainly to me as representative in this role, is that he has a background as president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, president of the Queen Charlotte District Teachers Association and director with the Skeena–Queen Charlotte Islands regional district. He was also an elementary school teacher and principal.

He's just a very remarkable individual who for the next six months will perform a very important role in my office, ensuring that the three program areas run according to the service plan and according to the enormous mandate that the office has been given. As I say, I'd like to introduce you to him. You'll be seeing more of him.

On a few other items, the next quarterly update on reviews and investigations will be released later this month. As the committee members know, I'm trying to report quarterly — sort of in real time — on the reportables that come into my office, and clustering them according to infants, aboriginal status and so on, so one will have an idea of what the in-box in our office looks like.

At present we have 12 reviews underway and at various stages of completion. Six are at the stage where investigation decisions are ready to be made — likely this week, in fact. One investigation is currently in its initial stages. Our advocacy program is continuing to be challenged by a large volume of calls for assistance. We are seeing a pattern of approximately 130 to 150 calls per month.

We are also implementing a community outreach and awareness plan targeting 22 communities across the province this year.

[1210]

We are also continuing our work with the parliamentary Senate committee on sexual exploitation of children and youth. We've met with them before, and we'll be attending their next round table in Ottawa in November.

Last week my office also presented a workshop at the UBCM, and I'm so pleased to report that our elected leaders at the local level were very interested in working to support better outcomes for vulnerable children, as are members of this committee.

Two weeks ago I released an issue report on medical assessments of youth in custody. You would have all received a copy of that report. I appreciate that it's an agenda item that will need to be added to a future meeting. There are a very small number of recommendations in that report, and I think it's very positive for me to say that my work with youth justice and MCFD on this was a very productive and positive experience. A number of the changes that I've recommended are either implemented or virtually implemented.

There is one larger recommendation pertaining to the health of adolescents leaving youth custody, which will require some ongoing work, I think, but I look forward to speaking to those recommendations once you become more formally seized with them at a later date.

As well, work is underway on several important reports which I expect to be sending your way in the next number of months. First of all, at our next meeting I'm hoping to provide you with an update on the monitoring brief on services to children and youth with special needs. As committee members know, there were some service delivery changes in this area. My office is monitoring, again with the same methodology that the monitoring brief used earlier, whether or not there has been progress made in some of those categories and the implications for this group of vulnerable children and youth in British Columbia.

My office will also issue a report on full-day kindergarten and whether this will improve education outcomes for vulnerable children.

An update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Hughes review for 2008 will also be made to this committee.

A report on the sexual abuse intervention program will be released next month.

A report on youth justice outcomes — as indicated earlier by Dr. Perry Kendall, a joint report between our offices — is to be completed soon.

A report on the complaints resolution process in the Ministry of Children and Families, CLBC and delegated agencies, which is a joint report between me and the Ombudsman, is in final stages and will be laid before this committee soon.

Finally, I have also taken a step to commence an audit of the Child in the Home of a Relative program. We are in the process of pulling a statistically valid sample
[ Page 242 ]
of files in order to evaluate the program. As committee members may know, the Child in the Home of a Relative program moved from Housing and Social Development to the Ministry of Children and Families in mid-August.

These are some matters that my office is, of course, very busy working on. I'm also very pleased to report to you that plans for the children's summit Champions for Children and Youth, which will occur later this month in Vancouver, are near complete, and we look forward to a tremendous opportunity to advance our knowledge about how best to support vulnerable children and youth.

We have many exceptional nominations for our first awards of excellence — the representative's awards — for outstanding contributions to improving the lives of children and youth in a variety of categories. We will, at the banquet at the children's summit, present the awards to the six winners. I don't want to give away that information today, but there will be a press release very soon, later this week, with respect to those award-winners.

Certainly, it's a great opportunity for my office to recognize the work of offices — because in some instances the recipients are offices, including offices of the public service of British Columbia providing phenomenal service to children and youth — as well as individuals and including outstanding youth.

I also note that we have tentative meeting dates — one at the end of October and one at the end of November. I'm looking forward to having these meetings confirmed so that you can be kept up to date on the progress of our work and the implementations of the recommendations that I've made.

[1215]

Representative for Children
and Youth Report:
Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena:
From Loss to Learning

M. Turpel-Lafond: One final area, Mr. Chair. I would like to speak briefly about the next agenda item, which is the recommendations for which this committee is seized in the Loss to Learning report of April 2008, which you adopted after our deliberations at the June hearing of this committee.

This committee — and I appreciate for the new members of the committee, who have perhaps watched the work of this committee from another place — in my respectful view, holds the key to progress in demonstrating improvements to the child-serving system. You represent the people of British Columbia in an all-party committee and come together to receive the work of the independent office created in fulfilment of the Hughes review recommendations.

The members of this committee…. We've been meeting periodically — in fact, meeting quite regularly — to review the work of my office as set out in your terms of reference. This involves a range of items such as updates, like I'm providing today, progress reports and so on.

In the case of the next agenda item, it is a report of an investigation into the deaths of four children. These cases were referred to my office by the committee, and I reported to you and the people of British Columbia in April 2008 at the conclusion of my investigation. MCFD filed a response the same day the report was released.

The report From Loss to Learning stemmed from the exercise, as I say, of these statutory investigative powers. In addition to the four deaths, we also paid particular attention to the level of practice in the child welfare system in one region of the province during the period 1999 to 2007.

The title From Loss to Learning says a great deal. We must learn from these tragic cases of individual children and understand the extent to which these could have been avoided through a stronger child-serving system.

I remind you that I reached the finding in that matter on page 100 of the report, and I'll quote briefly from it.

"The ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena. Learning from preventable deaths is essential. This investigation found that current safety and assessment practices and planning practices for children have not shown marked improvement since when these children died."

The select standing committee reviewed the investigative findings, analysis and recommendations, as I said, in June and adopted the recommendation. As Mr. Hughes contemplated in his vision of this committee and the representative's office, a process would then begin of tracking the implementation of those recommendations with my office assisting the committee by reporting periodically on the progress of implementation.

Mr. Hughes said: "I propose the representative provide advice and recommendations to the minister, the Legislature and the public through annual reports and special reports. This will include reporting on compliance with recommendations, by the ministry and other public bodies."

My independent office takes great interest in the outcome of recommendations, and when your committee adopts them, they also become your recommendations. Together we need and want to evaluate on an ongoing basis if progress is being made in implementing those recommendations.

It is crucial that following the release of such a significant report, there be a thorough debriefing of the methodology, findings and recommendations with the ministry. In this instance it is my view that a debriefing should be held with both MCFD provincial office, meaning headquarters office, and the north regional office.

I must report to the committee that despite requests from my office, no debriefing on the report has occurred to date. As the representative, I and my staff are deeply
[ Page 243 ]
disappointed about this fact, and I expressed this to the minister earlier this summer.

In the case of today's presentation to the committee of the ministry's response to the recommendation, I received the ministry's response document and what I believe is today's PowerPoint only yesterday and indeed days after the document was sent to the committee members.

Because of this, I have not had a chance to review them in any depth. For the items referenced in the document that you will receive, these have not been provided to my office. I am not sure if some of those materials will be provided, but that is another discussion.

[1220]

Among those it includes northern recruitment and retention plan; comprehensive training plan; comprehensive recruitment and training plan with delegated agencies; comprehensive review of the risk assessment tool or evaluation of the tool; draft practice standards for child welfare or workplan to complete that work, including AOPSI, or aboriginal standards; copies of case summaries to be posted on the Web.

I note that there were two case summaries posted in June of what I would estimate are approximately 40 summaries outstanding. I have not received the north region plan to review protocols with health, education and police or the plan for comprehensive evaluation of the current case practice audit program. These are all materials identified in the document filed with the committee.

Any updates in that document indicating that the representative's office will be invited to participate in discussions are certainly welcome. But six months after the report was released, these discussions have not yet occurred pertaining to these recommendations — certainly not with any notice to us.

Specific to the material the ministry, I understand from the PowerPoint, will present today…. Because of when I received them, I reviewed these documents for the first time last night, and they may well have changed overnight. I'm not sure if they have or not.

I find no reference to the specific From Loss to Learning recommendations in the extensive PowerPoint material. Perhaps this material will be filed for background information purposes. But again, I have had no opportunity to discuss or independently evaluate the content of this material. It is also unclear what is being referenced when the document states that in some cases, work has been underway involving us.

I want to go on record to say that the response, certainly that I reviewed, does not reassure me about the status of the ministry's progress on these recommendations. In addition, I am compelled to raise another related matter — that is, making the best use of this committee's time in light of its terms of reference and the purpose for which it was created, and obviously my role as independent officer and my relationship to this committee to report and provide information to this committee.

As members are well aware, the committee was constituted based on the Hughes review when Mr. Hughes recommended "that the Legislature strike a new standing committee and that the representative and deputy representatives report to this committee at least annually." Mr. Hughes went on to say that the representative must report to your committee to encourage our legislators, who have ultimate responsibility for our child welfare system, to engage in constructive discussion on these important issues.

It is also helpful to look at your terms of reference, which set out only four items specifically. Those are that the committee receives my annual service plan, that I report to this committee at least annually, that you receive and consider reports I deliver, and that you may refer investigations of critical injuries and deaths of children to me.

Based on the Hughes recommendations, the committee's terms of reference and the essential and valuable role that this committee plays in ensuring progress on improvements to the child welfare system, I ask committee members to consider this — that this forum must be sharply focused on relevant agenda items and not involve review and evaluation of material that has not been provided to the oversight agency for advance evaluation.

I suggest that asking committee members to receive and assess newly introduced presentations puts you in the position of being asked to be the oversight agency rather than the committee working with the oversight agency, the representative's office. The degree of information is indeed, in some instances, overwhelming. Sorting through it with an evaluative expert lens is obviously not appropriate in terms of placing that responsibility on the members of the committee.

Certainly in our oversight role, we carefully and thoroughly verify content, debrief on the relationship of the material to the recommendations, and undertake to evaluate and share that with the committee — and, through the committee, with British Columbians.

I will provide two examples of concern. First, the materials do not identify for the committee the serious matter of the 11 audits received by my office since the report was released in April 2008 pertaining to the north region, many of which are for the same communities and offices referenced in the report with similar patterns of practice which were identified in the Loss to Learning report.

[1225]

Some of these audits were conducted in 2006, and it took two years to complete the audit reports, seeing them signed off only in the summer of 2008.

In addition, three deputy director's reviews of deaths and injuries have been completed since the April report.
[ Page 244 ]
Again, these were paper-only file reviews, and there were challenges to complete these in the required time frame.

The role of the representative's office in independently assessing these crucial aspects of the child welfare system for the committee is essential for public accountability, transparency and progress. As committee members, without the oversight agency, you will not have an independent assessment of matters, which is what Mr. Hughes recommended, both to move beyond partisan differences that have made this area challenging but also to ensure that progress is being made for British Columbians and that it's verified and evaluated regularly.

Given these circumstances, I would respectfully suggest to the committee that you focus on a specific agenda item. The specific agenda item is the 11 recommendations from the report. May I suggest that you address those — depending, of course, on your decision as to proceedings today — and consider what I as oversight would consider with respect to recommendations.

The questions that I ask in looking at the implementation of recommendations are the following. Does the ministry clearly accept the recommendation in full, in part or not at all? Do the ministry's responses clearly address each specific recommendation and the report?

Are the recommended time lines and deadlines, as set out in the From Loss to Learning recommendations, being respected? If not, is a revised time line for full implementation proposed? And if not, what is the rationale for not meeting the time lines? Who has been tasked with the lead responsibility for implementation? Overall, what is the status of progress today on the recommendations?

As mentioned earlier, I regret that I've been placed in a position of not being able to properly assist members of the committee on these matters. For this reason, I would offer to return to the committee in January 2009 with a progress report on the implementation of the recommendations.

I have no reason to expect that it will not be a positive report on progress made, but I have no capacity today to assess whether meaningful steps have been taken regarding these recommendations. Further evaluation would be required.

I do note that on the two recommendations pertaining to the Coroners Service, I have received an update from the chief coroner that indicates that progress in completing the recommendations has been made, and in the view of the representative's office, they are implemented.

On recommendation 11, which is directed at the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I can report to the committee that I continue to work on that matter. It's in progress, and I have a meeting with the minister in the very near future to discuss that. I have also had very productive meetings with heads of policing on that same subject.

I would also indicate that there may be a need to meet with the Attorney General to discuss the proposal of a dedicated prosecutor for child abuse and maltreatment cases. I would certainly report back to this committee in the future on the outcome of those discussions.

Finally, I want to come back again to Mr. Hughes. He was characteristically clear on one point in the Hughes review. That was about what meaningful evaluation is. He said that a great deal more effort was needed to document the effectiveness of the initiatives undertaken, supported or funded by MCFD before any firm conclusion should be reached. That is why oversight was put in place.

In terms of these recommendations, with the greatest respect, I must be allowed to do that job properly for the members of the committee and for the people of British Columbia. I respectfully urge the committee to assist my office in shaping a process that respects and supports the work of the independent office of the representative.

R. Cantelon (Chair): We'll take one question, and then we'll move on because of time frames.

[1230]

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): In reviewing the information that was sent to me on Friday, which was the same information sent to the representative yesterday, it struck me as beyond the jurisdiction of this committee to be the vetting process for future plans for the ministry's goals. This is not the place, in my opinion, where general plans for ministry operations are to be vetted.

We're here because we need to assume the responsibility of ensuring that recommendations that are made by the independent representative are looked at, are assessed, and that steps are put in place where these recommendations are at least addressed. I'm looking through the response to the 11 categories of recommendations. With maybe one or two exceptions, there's no actual evidence — not even something that we can pretend is evidence — to suggest that they are related to those specific recommendations.

The recommendations are clear. They're either followed or they're not. In this particular case, hon. Chair, I think there are certainly a number of questions I would have with respect to why these recommendations haven't been followed up.

I'll point out that maybe this would have come up, hon. Chair, had I had the opportunity to see the agenda as the Deputy Chair prior to this meeting. So I would certainly like an opportunity to discuss among committee members here as to whether or not it's in fact our mandate to be looking at the upcoming plans for the ministry in the north or if it's in fact our mandate to review the recommendations and to see if the representative's recommendations are being adhered to or being considered or if planning is in place.
[ Page 245 ]

There's a lot that we could talk about here, but I don't think this is the forum to review the future plans of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I would rather see that we spend our time ensuring that the reason we are established as a committee is adhered to.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, we are to receive and consider reports, as pointed out by the representative. I received the agenda the same time you received the agenda, incidentally.

However, I think none of us are experts in children and family development. To provide a broader context, as the ministry intends to do, I certainly think is very informative and valuable to the committee. We will do that.

We will also consider, as you point out quite correctly…. We received at the same time I received the specific recommendations. Having heard the context, we intend then to consider in some detail the responses to the specific recommendations. I agree with you, and I'd like to be able to go through them virtually one by one, if we may. With that, I'm going to invite the…. We need to move on, Maurine.

M. Karagianis: Chair, we have actually a recommendation made by the representative.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Yes, I've heard the recommendation.

M. Karagianis: We're not allowed to speak to that?

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, we have an hour and a half to go. My ruling as Chair is that we're going to receive the overview from MCFD, and then we're going to proceed forthwith to the questions and answers regarding the specific recommendations, which I'm sure they'll provide.

M. Karagianis: I must object, Chair.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, I'm sorry. You're overruled.

M. Karagianis: The representative has made it clear that she has not had a chance to even review this report, and I believe that it's inappropriate for us to be reviewing a report until the representative has done so.

Our mandate is to the representative, not to MCFD. So I would object to us proceeding without some discussion on the relevance of us considering a report that the representative has not considered.

At the very least, Chair, I would suggest that we not proceed until the representative has had a chance to at least review this.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Are you suggesting adjournment at this point?

M. Karagianis: Yes, I am.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, I intend to use…. All right, I can accept that point. However, we have the representatives here from MCFD, and I certainly think it would be a wasted opportunity to not hear what they have to say and broaden our knowledge in that regard. As time permits, let's see what other suggestions might come forth with how we proceed from there.

I'll hear from Mark and then from the MCFD.

[1235]

M. Sieben: I'm to begin on behalf of MCFD. It's always a hard act to follow the representative, but I'm pleased to do so on MCFD'S behalf. With that one, I'll state an initial introduction, and then, perhaps after having spoken with Mary Ellen, I'll give the committee and the Chair some options.

Interjections.

M. Sieben: I think we can help here, if you let me begin and get to a certain point. Then perhaps….

M. Karagianis: At this point I believe our relationship is with our Chair, with the greatest of respect, so I would like a clarification….

R. Cantelon (Chair): Order, order. You have had clarification. I call the meeting to order. I give Mr. Sieben the floor, and let's proceed. That is my ruling.

M. Karagianis: Well, I call for a motion to adjourn.

R. Cantelon (Chair): The motion is in order.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I call the question.

Motion approved.

R. Cantelon (Chair): The meeting stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

[ Return to: Children and Youth Committee Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada