Children and Youth — Issue No. 13 — Thursday, February 12, 2015 (HTML)

Present: Jane Thornthwaite, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Donna Barnett, MLA; Carole James, MLA; Maurine Karagianis, MLA; John Martin, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Dr. Moira Stilwell, MLA

1. There not yet being a Chair elected to serve the Committee, the meeting was called to order at 8:36 a.m. by the Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.

2. Resolved, that Jane Thornthwaite, MLA, be elected Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. (Donna Barnett, MLA)

3. Resolved, that Doug Donaldson, MLA, be elected Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. (Carole James, MLA)

4. The Committee reviewed correspondence received regarding its statutory review of section 6 (1) (b) of The Representative for Children and Youth Act. The Committee reviewed and amended its proposed meeting schedule and preliminary witness list for the ongoing youth mental health project.

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


CONTENTS
Page
Election of Chair and Deputy Chair	347
Committee Terms of Reference	347
Correspondence and Statutory Review	347
Committee Meeting Schedule and Agendas	347
Youth Mental Health Project	349

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good morning, Members. Welcome to the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the new fourth session of the 40th parliament. As the committee is based on a sessional model and you have not yet elected a Chair to serve the committee for the present session, the first item of business is to open the floor for nominations to that position.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you. I will ask if there are any further nominations. Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Okay. The next step will be to put the question. All those in favour of Jane Thornthwaite as Chair of this committee, please say aye.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Now we have to do the vice-Chair. Do I hear nominations?

All righty, then. Kate has kindly given us a draft agenda, and I guess what we want to do first is just make sure that we’re okay with the draft agenda. We might want to have a little more detail on No. 5, but is everybody okay with the order and the agenda?

Just to confirm for the information of members that the terms of reference which the assembly agreed to yesterday is identical, in essence, to the previous session terms of reference for this committee.

You will note that in addition to the four main responsibility areas that are provided to you both by statute, by the Representative for Children and Youth Act, and by these terms, there is, of course, the fifth point, which speaks to the need to complete a statutory review of section 6(1)(b) of the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

There is some recent correspondence that the committee has received on that topic, which will naturally flow into the next agenda item, but just for the information of members, I draw your attention to the requirement to conclude that assessment by your committee no later than April 1. So we are on a fairly short timeline with that responsibility.

Other than that, both the membership and the other terms are unchanged since last session.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Both myself and vice-Chair Doug Donaldson had received a letter. It’s a joint letter from the Ministry of Children and Family as well as from the representative. Does everybody have a copy of that?

Looking at the next item, which is the proposed meeting schedule and agendas, and then with the guidance and advice from Kate with regards to how the times are, we thought that it would be good to get that item over with first.

If they wanted to come in together on the same day to deal with the statutory review, then what we could do is combine some reports, including the service plan and annual report of the rep.

Then just to flag, which Kate had mentioned before…. One of the reports we have to look at is A Follow-up Report on the Representative’s Past Recommendations to Help Vulnerable Children in B.C., which was released in October 2014. We might want to get the ministry in to respond to that as well.

Did everybody get this proposed meeting schedule as well? I know I’m kind of jumping on three agenda items, but it helps to start the discussion as to what should be our next meeting. We’ve got a meeting on February 17, and we’ve got a meeting on February 24.

D. Barnett: Excuse me. I guess I’ve got a different one. I’ve got the 25th, not 24th.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Do we have the right dates there? Is everybody looking at this one? Do we have the right date?

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Thank you for your eagle eyes, for recognizing…. That’s good. Donna is on the ball with regards to knowing the dates, so that’s good.

I guess what I’m getting at is I just wanted to throw it out to the committee. We can talk about the joint letter that we did get from both the rep and the ministry and where we want to put it.

M. Karagianis: I thought that the letter was very encouraging. For one thing, the fact that it’s a joint letter really shows the leap forward that both the office and the ministry have made.

My only concern about the meeting schedule is that Tuesday, February 24, where we are doing the MCFD update and the statutory review and all that — I’m hoping that’s enough time. We have a tendency to be…. You know, we’re curious. We have curious minds around this table. We do ask a lot of questions. Generally, the answers are fairly lengthy and complicated.

That would be my only concern with these shorter meetings in the morning where we all know there are pressing duties of the House immediately upon us. I would be concerned about if that is constraining us in any way. I think it would be unfortunate if we were halfway through a meeting, we ran out of time, and duties of the House called some of us away. That would be my only concern.

I know that this is kind of a workable schedule, but even when it was proposed, I was concerned about this. I just know our habits here, and we often do ask a lot of really complicated questions which require complicated answers.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Yes, the problem is exactly what you said. It’s that when we sent out all of the suggested meeting dates, people were unavailable on certain dates. We don’t want to have this all of the time, when a lot of our….

M. Karagianis: The thing about Wednesday mornings when we have been successful, where we have that time frame, that’s generally allowed us to get through quite a lot of work quite effectively and efficiently. That would be my only cautionary note on this.

D. Barnett: I have the same concern as Maurine does. I think this is too important to take a real short time frame on. I would like to see, if we can’t put more time for that specific issue, that maybe we have another time reserved to continue on.

I wouldn’t like to see us shut the door and say: “You’ve got an hour and a half for this very important topic.”

C. James: On the question, we mentioned having both of them come together to do the presentation. Is the idea that both of them be there for the 17th and the 24th, or that…?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): To clarify, that was a good suggestion but one that we hadn’t incorporated into this document. If the committee wished to focus exclusively on the statutory review based on the correspondence received, a combined appearance, if both offices were available next Tuesday, might be a first step and then a deferral of consideration of reports of the representative to subsequent meetings.

C. James: Chair, that would be my suggestion. I think it gives us, then, two meetings. It gives us two meetings with both of them. It gives us a chance to be able to ask the questions, and the review of the reports can come in March.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Is everybody okay with that? I’m seeing nodding heads — very good.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, we would be pleased to accommodate that proposal, and we’ll be in touch with the two offices this morning. I would very much appreciate members’ guidance with respect to any reports that they wish to schedule either on the date Tuesday, February 24, which is another shorter meeting, a 90-minute meeting….

We have the opportunity, of course, on Wednesday,
[ Page 349 ]
March 4, to cover off any number of reports of the representative’s office as well as any work that you may wish to embark on with respect to the youth mental health project. We were anticipating that we may also wish to have the committee consider some additional meeting dates later in the session.

M. Karagianis: Because we are here until May, we do have a little bit more leeway as far as getting together. I really believe that looking at any of these plans in this short time frame, these little meetings in the morning…. I don’t think it’s going to be satisfactory. I would rather move things to that longer meeting, where we can have fulsome and real discussion and not chop them up. I think it’s just too difficult.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): We’ll try to do that from here on in, like with March, April May. The problem is that a lot of us…. I’m sure it’s all of us. Because, technically, the House isn’t sitting on Wednesday mornings, that’s when everybody seems to be putting their meetings, and there are these constant conflicts. We want to make sure that we get ours in first, so maybe we should just book them all.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Just to be clear, what we’re trying to do next Tuesday, February 17, is to have both the children’s representative and a deputy minister here on the statutory review, so we have a full 90 minutes on the statutory review. We’re not doubling up on that meeting, which I think is good.

The next meeting on the 24th, are we then going to continue with the statutory review? I would think that an hour and a half, considering the tone of this letter, is going to probably be enough for the statutory review, so that frees up the 24th to do one thing, which would either be the annual report or the MCFD update, one or the other, for a full hour and a half.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Okay, and we can also discuss, on that same day, moving forward. But I want to actually talk about the child and youth mental health project, too, right now. I have some ideas. I wanted to throw them out.

C. James: I just wouldn’t close the door if we don’t finish off in an hour and a half. I mean, if we’re going to do a report, either the MCFD review or the representative’s review, both of them will be here anyway. My suggestion is that we leave the door open, if we don’t finish in an hour and a half, to be able to carry that on, on the 24th so that we’re not feeling rushed and pressured for that important task. Then if we’ve got time to do a report, great. But if we don’t, we do the statutory review.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Carrying on to No. 5 and No. 6 on our agenda, thank you for all your work on the child and youth mental health interim report. I’ve received a lot of feedback, and it’s pretty much positive. Of course, after getting all that positive feedback, then the next question is: “What’s next?”

I’ve been kind of vague when I’ve been asked that question, because I wanted to make sure that I had brought everything up to the committee. If I recall, what we had tentatively thought about is getting the ministries — not ministry, the ministries — in to talk to us about what they think about the report, getting the health authorities to come in.

I know, just by talking to some of the people from the collaborative — the Interior collaborative…. Now they call it the collaborative. They don’t call it the Interior collaborative, because other health authorities are glomming on to it. So that’s all good.

They’re working on their work kind of at the same time we are. And to get an update on the other health authorities that are actually collaborating with the collaborative is actually a really positive step.

If we wanted to get the health authorities to come in and ask (a) how you are doing if you’re on this track and (b) if you’re not on that track, why not, and what you are doing in that regard, I think that that might be a good suggestion.

The other thing that I mentioned in our second-to-last meeting is to investigate possible school-based models. One of the models that I mentioned before that I’d actually been exposed to at a principals and vice-principals association meeting was this New Brunswick model. What they do is they move services for children and youth — meaning their equivalent of MCFD, Social Development, public safety, Justice, that sort of thing — into the schools.

What they’ve found out is that they had cut their attrition rate from 40 percent to zero. Obviously, it was good for the staff. They felt like staff satisfaction about what they were doing was good. Waiting lists were cut down from six months to two weeks. This sort of thing.

I’d like to get more details from them. Since I talked to them, which was last fall, they have had subsequently more evaluations on it — the actual results. I’d just like to get a feel of that — understanding that it’s not the be-all and the end-all. One of the things that Dr. Steve Mathias told me about when I was saying, “What do you think about services in schools…?” He said: “Well, don’t forget about the 18- and 24-year-olds.”

I’m not saying that that’s the be-all and the end-all, but I am saying that I think we should probably look at it. I
[ Page 350 ]
know the collaborative is looking at it and other people are looking at it. Other jurisdictions actually are doing it. So I think it’s a possibility.

The other thing that I thought we could go on about that school-based model is to see what schools actually are doing it. There are schools in British Columbia that are actually consolidating or collaborating services for children and families in the schools. If they’re doing it right but they need a little bit of help or they have some suggestions on how the ministries could work better together, then I think we should listen to them.

I just thought I would throw that out to you. Think about it. Then we can maybe come back next time with a list of projected people that we might want to have present to us their “living in a perfect world” sort of thing. Then that would maybe help guide us moving forward.

D. Barnett: I think that’s a good suggestion, but I would like to see us take it one step further — child development centres, where the children are younger and the issues, mental health, start sometimes the day you’re born. Some of these child development centres — the work they’re doing, the collaboration they have…. I have one in Williams Lake that I brag about because they are amazing — the programs they have there.

We do have one of the eight autism centres being built in Williams Lake. The CEO there…. Her name is Nancy Gale, and I would just love to have Nancy come and talk to us. She’s been doing this for 30 years. She’s amazing. The dollars and the programs that she seems to come out of the sky with and the young children…. They now have a psychologist there. I mean, it’s just simply amazing.

I think we have to start earlier with children. Grade 1 and kindergarten is sometimes too late. So I’d like to see us even move further into child development centres to start programs.

C. James: I’ve had the same positive feedback — I’m sure all members have — of the report but also the expectation. I think that’s what we have to really approach. People were willing to say: “It was a great report, I felt listened to, but you did say it was step 1.” I think that’s really important.

I agree with most of the ideas that you’ve come forward with, Chair. I think they’re good suggestions. But I think we have to make sure we provide the same opportunity for folks who engaged the first time round or who provided an opportunity to be involved and read the report to also give feedback.

My suggestion would be that the Chair and the Deputy Chair take a look at some questions that we might want to focus on. I think we had good success in the first report by putting together a couple of questions for people to be able to respond to. I think, as we said when the report was delivered, we want to focus now on solutions.

That’s really what phase 2 is, is to look for solutions. What are fact-based, research-based approaches that are working? I think if we frame a couple of questions around, “What is the success? Where is the research that shows it? Where are the facts that show that it’s working?” and ask people to make presentations — including the people that you’ve suggested, Chair — then I think we will help in looking at how we determine the second piece of our report.

I just want to make sure we’ve kept the door open for all those people who have the expectation that they’re going to be able to come forward second time round and give ideas and approaches on things that are working.

I think we heard very clearly all of the challenges in youth mental health. I think there isn’t a person who doesn’t know the challenges and that we have huge challenges around this province. I think now we really want to focus on what some of the solutions are that we could come forward to make as ideas for governments to look at.

M. Karagianis: Well, I was having very similar thoughts. Managing expectations, I think, is going to be a challenge for us, because we have now initiated something that is exciting for people who have been struggling in this particular realm for some time now.

I do like Donna’s suggestion about the idea of early intervention. We do know, from everything we heard, that early intervention is such a successful preventative step that often could diminish the needs at the 18-to-24 or in adult mental health services.

I think we should be systematic, though, about who we’re meeting with and how — the idea of meeting with the various ministries and choosing who and how we conduct that piece — and then looking at others, those who are having success in other communities.

I’m intrigued by this idea of what they’re doing in New Brunswick. I think that we need to just be really systematic, so that we’re putting together information that fits together so we’re not actually thinking: “Gee, if we’d only heard this before we met with that group.”

I’d like us to think about that before we meet with ministries. I would certainly think that our report is having impacts as well. Maybe things are changing of their own accord, but they could be driven a little bit by what we did — the work we did and raising this profile.

I’d like us to think about maybe the ministries as a later phase. Let’s talk with some of these other resources first. I would hate to try and get the ministry here and then we meet with somebody really marvellous afterwards and say: “Gee, if we’d only known this before we met with the ministries, we could have asked those questions.”

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Yeah, that’s a good idea. Maybe what we could do, then, before the next meeting,
[ Page 351 ]
is think about suggestions of either people or groups that actually could physically be here, or we can do it by teleconference or something, right?

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Finance Committee does that all the time. I think it’s a great idea.

I think there are some people that are in our school system today that know what needs to be done in schools. They just need a little bit of help — coordination, collaboration, ministries talking to each other and all that sort of jazz. I don’t think that would be a problem.

Whether or not we can get these people from New Brunswick to either physically be here or at least by teleconference, we’ll investigate that. I know that the collaborative people are talking about an Ontario model as well, but I’m not too familiar with that at this point.

M. Stilwell: Sorry, I’m just not clear about how we’re going to decide on the order. I just wanted to register that I had the alternative view about managing our own expectations and meeting with the ministries first. They have policy papers for what they think the health system will look like in five, ten, 15 years, and commitments to other groups about reform.

I take your point. It’s always the worry that you’re going to find a better solution the day you print the report. At the same time, I think we want to manage our expectations, to be working in some general alignment so that the report will be taken up with more enthusiasm.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I don’t really have too much to add on that part, other than I guess we could have them back too — have them first and then last, and other people in between.

My question was simply…. We might have covered this back when we met last, in November. Was the report sent to every individual and every organization that testified or came to the public hearings in Victoria and Vancouver?

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): A link to. And many, many others. It’s got legs. It went viral.

Does anybody else have comments about…? I’d like to have comments from what Moira had said — like John and Donna and Jennifer.

M. Karagianis: Well, there are many perspectives. That’s all, right? It’s just a matter of perspective, and….

M. Stilwell: Well, you know, there are ministerial views and government views, and the extent that we want to try to align with those or not is up to us, obviously. But it would be helpful to just understand.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Well, I think we always can get them back. They live here.

D. Barnett: I agree with Moira. I think the more information that we have prior to making any decisions or moving forward…. I think we need to know what’s there within the ministries. So I agree with Moira.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Well, what we could do is…. We’ve got them coming in anyways — right? — to do the statutory review and all that. We could ask them if they wanted to…. We’re going to have to propose some questions.

M. Karagianis: Thanks, Jane. I think that when we’ve talked about ministries, though, we’re not talking about one ministry. We’re not talking just about Children and Families. We’re talking about Justice; we’re talking about Education; we’re talking about Health. So that is a lot. I’m not wedded to the idea of who goes first. I just think that there are obviously some really interesting and provocative things happening. The collaborative is on the move, and that’s interesting.

What’s happening in New Brunswick…. It might be just very informative to have had that Skype or teleconference as well. I’m not wedded to either way. I’m just trying to think logically, for myself, how I would compile information and how we put it together and deliver it to the public — because, of course, this is about educating ourselves and then how we deliver this to the public and to our colleagues in the Legislature.

I’m just trying to think about ways that it makes sense for me, how I organize my thinking, but I’m not interested in debating it at all. I’m happy to comply with the general consensus around the table.

Let’s remember that the kind of input we had from just a few organizations was enormous and pretty compelling. If we get four or five ministries in here, that is not a short conversation. I don’t think it can be squeezed into the kind of schedule we’re talking about just to do our normal body of work here.
[ Page 352 ]

I think that has got to be viewed in the same way as we did the hearings themselves — to have a day where all ministries come and present to us and then, I’m sure, another day where we get various other updates, perhaps including this idea of a teleconference with one or more organizations.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): So what you’re saying, then, is…. I get what you’re saying: with all the ministries having to…. I totally understand that that would have to be a big day, but under the understanding, then, that we may have to bring them back again.

M. Karagianis: Yeah, I think it’s entirely fair to say at the end of our body of work, whenever we determine that we’ve kind of finished this couple of phases…. I think we’re delivering something, then, that we certainly want commentary from the ministries on, which is why I had seen them as being slightly further down the road. They may want to present, and they may want to comment on what we’ve done so far.

If our next phase is gathering more information from success stories around the country, and that becomes part of what the ministries also view…. They’re looking at this report as well. It’s informative, but it’s also critical of the ministries and how they have functioned, specifically around youth mental health. They’re watching this. They’re reading this. They’re reviewing this.

I’m sure it will have an impact on their planning. They have planning in place right now, but I suspect that you could see them review their own plans in view of what’s happening across the country and with this report.

I’m simply just trying to be more logical to think about how we get the biggest bang for our buck. We could drag the ministries in here every other day, but it would be nice for them to have had a bit more time to respond, because they’re going to come and respond as well to the work we’ve done so far. That’s all.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): To also add to it, we also want to have the health authorities, which are separate.

C. James: I think to leave in the option to have them both makes sense. I think you want them at the beginning, to say, “Here are our plans. Here’s what we’re working on. Here’s our direction for youth mental health,” so that we’re just aware of what’s being done. Whether we agree or disagree, or whether people on the outside agree or disagree, at least we’re aware of what’s going on. Then give the opportunity for, as you said, other groups and organizations.

I just want to put a plug in, again, to make sure that we provide an opportunity. I know it takes more time and more energy, but I think the strength of the first report — the voices of the parents, the voices of the young people who are struggling with youth mental health issues, and community-based groups — was very powerful, and so I don’t want to close the door on that this time around.

I want to still provide that opportunity. I hope the committee would provide the opportunity for that same kind of approach from people to be able to put in submissions, to be able to let us know — just as I said, very focused on what the successes are so that we’re trying to take a very big issue and corral it down into a report.

I think the value of having community-based organizations and youth themselves and parents speak out was the power of the first report and I hope would be the power of the second report.

Do you want to do that, then? Maybe, Doug, we could meet. When are we meeting again? It’s next Tuesday?

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): So it’s coming up. If everybody could just put on their thinking caps and….

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): After we put on our thinking caps and bring names and suggestions to the next meeting, then perhaps after that, you and I could sort it.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Then we’ll meet. Okay. Obviously, it’s going to depend on availability of people as well. As Maurine said, the logistics of it will be another suggestion.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I was just reviewing the conclusions of the committee in the interim report. I think, beginning on page 30, where the committee had identified a number of key priority areas, that those would form the basis of some very effective preliminary questions that we could draft for your input and review, and perhaps we could send those in advance to the ministries and health authorities.

We would refer the entire report to them, but they may have particular comments, for example, on assigning ministry leadership, integrating service delivery, enhancing community-based services — those themes that the committee had already identified as a way of sort of focusing a preliminary discussion. So we can work towards that.

J. Martin: In terms of getting people physically in here, the weeks…. Over the next four months, there are four weeks where we’re not sitting. Is there any thought to maybe meeting in Vancouver with that? Might it be easier to coordinate?
[ Page 353 ]

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): I have a whole bunch of smiles coming from everybody at the table while that was….

C. James: I just know that some of those weeks have already got other work again — committees and other things that have already been booked in.

J. Martin: I’m just looking at my calendar and looking at the schedule, and I said: "My god, how am I going to do this?"

C. James: Well, Chair, we moved into June last time. I think there’s no reason why we can’t block off a week in June and do a number of hearings and a number of meetings as we did last time in Vancouver and Victoria and go out to the Interior if people feel the need.

I think we shouldn’t rush. We shouldn’t feel like this has to be completed by the time the session is done. I don’t think there is any expectation from us that that has to be done. I’d rather take the time and do it thoroughly and make sure that we’ve given people an opportunity to present, and I think June may be a better…. It certainly worked better last time for all of us, I think.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Fridays. Yes. Fridays could be in Vancouver, I suppose, but then you have to get Hansard and everybody to come over.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We’re happy to facilitate a Vancouver meeting if it’s more convenient to members, but I know that does impact travel schedules, as well, for members with ridings outside of the Lower Mainland or Vancouver Island.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Okay. Well, I’m looking at our agenda, and Doug, it’s only ten after nine.

I think it’s good if people just think about…. You know, I’ve had lots of feedback, and I’ve got lots of suggestions on people in the categories that I already mentioned. I’m sure you have as well, so let’s just get it all together and talk about it on Tuesday. Then Doug and I will meet after Tuesday with the details and the calendars and all that.

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.

Chair:	Jane Thornthwaite (North Vancouver–Seymour BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Doug Donaldson (Stikine NDP)
Members:	Donna Barnett (Cariboo-Chilcotin BC Liberal)
	Mike Bernier (Peace River South BC Liberal)
	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
	Maurine Karagianis (Esquimalt–Royal Roads NDP)
	John Martin (Chilliwack BC Liberal)
	Dr. Darryl Plecas (Abbotsford South BC Liberal)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Dr. Moira Stilwell (Vancouver-Langara BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
CHILDREN AND YOUTH