Children and Youth — Issue No. 14 — Tuesday, February 17, 2015 (HTML)

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

3. The Committee considered potential witnesses for its 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
Committee Workplan and Meeting Schedule	355
Youth Mental Health Project	357

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for coming here and for all being here.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): We have a very short agenda today to revise our workplan. Kate kindly gave us a very comprehensive workplan for discussion — thank you, Kate — that we need to discuss. Then what we had originally planned for this meeting was to discuss in a little bit more detail and get some ideas to give the Clerk direction as to who we’re going to contact to get future witnesses for our special project on child and youth mental health.

The first agenda item — we did get it e-mailed to us — is the revised workplan, meeting schedule and timelines. Are there any comments, suggestions on this at this point?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Good morning, Members. Just a point of clarification. Following the meeting that was held last week, our office did contact both the Representative for Children and Youth and the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Both, of course, were unable to attend the committee meeting this morning due to commitments relating to the budget process today and budget lockup this morning.

I also had a sense from Mr. Sieben, the deputy minister, that he felt, in many instances, that the letter that had been presented to the committee with respect to the statutory review was a fairly succinct and accurate summary of the position of the ministry, and he wasn’t sure, necessarily, how much more detail might be required to discuss the position of the ministry with respect to the statutory review.

The representative’s office would be pleased, I’m sure, to come and to speak as well on that topic. But one of the challenges that we had identified in terms of preparing this preliminary schedule for your review this morning…. We weren’t sure how much time the committee might anticipate spending on the statutory review process.

At this stage, what the proposed workplan provides is a brief opportunity — perhaps next Tuesday — with the representative’s office. Then, if you so wish, what we had proposed here is perhaps a discussion on the representative’s report, on the follow-up — the status of follow-up recommendations — with the ministry, which could then segue into a more extended meeting on March 4 with ministry officials present to cover off any remaining questions on the statutory review and perhaps the status of recommendations in that report.

It’s very much in your hands, but some of the amendments that we had adapted into this preliminary plan were very much based on the availability of witnesses and the correspondence we received from the deputy minister.

M. Karagianis: I think that the workplan as proposed here is excellent. I do question, on the proposed March 4 meeting, the last point — a youth mental health special project briefing, witnesses to be determined. Is that a discussion, again, with us about potential witnesses? I don’t know if we would be able to fit actual witness presentations here.

I think, realistically, again, knowing that we are going to have both the ministry and the children’s representative here…. We’re going to be talking about the statutory review. We’re going to be talking about a report. Our experience is that that can easily eat up a few hours in the morning and leave us not a lot of time for any kind of witnesses.

That would be the only piece I would caution on — the trying to squeeze in the piece on a witness, I think, is not going to work.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I agree with that, and I’d also add that I have about six potential witnesses that aren’t specifically mentioned in the additional meetings.

I think what would be helpful for the committee is to consider the questions Carole put forth first, because that might add a layer of filter about who we actually invite as witnesses.

What are we trying to accomplish? That’ll be pretty apparent through the questions that we want to pose to the witnesses, and that’ll be a filter for maybe cutting down some of the number of witnesses that we’re inviting.

I would like to use some time, perhaps after March 4 or by e-mail between ourselves, to develop the four questions that we’re going to put to the witnesses in this next phase.

C. James: I agree with that. I think it would be helpful to know what kind of focus we’re going to have. It makes it easier then to look at lists of witnesses and determine who should fit in there. We could even, perhaps on the March 4 meeting, just approve the questions at the end, rather than look at having witnesses. Just leave it to the Chair and Deputy Chair to go through the questions and then perhaps bring them on the 4th for us to finalize them.
[ Page 356 ]

It doesn’t give you as much time to be able to invite witnesses, but there are some local folks and others who we could look at. So I would agree with that.

I just have a question back on the comments around the Ministry of Children and Families and the representative’s office — just so I’m clear, Kate, on the discussion. Are you saying that the Ministry of Children and Families felt that they had said in their letter what they needed to say and they didn’t feel that they need to have a discussion around the statutory…?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, in essence, we had just a very informal response back from the deputy minister. He did note that he didn’t think there was much additional information to add to the views provided in the joint letter from the representative and himself. I’m sure he’d be open to answering any questions from committee members, but he wasn’t anticipating having a formal presentation or other documents to support additional information with respect to the letter.

With respect to the meeting on the 4th, if the ministry officials were, for example, present that day, I agree with the member’s observations. It would be challenging to add additional witnesses. However, because ministry officials may be in attendance, it might be an opportunity to begin a conversation perhaps with them about the youth mental health report in context of that larger meeting — but certainly defer to the wishes of committee members.

C. James: I certainly would encourage…. I understand if the ministry doesn’t want to give a presentation if they feel they’ve already been clear in the letter, but I certainly believe that it’s of value to all of us to have the ministry here to answer questions, as we were talking about with the representative — to have them both here. I would certainly encourage us to have the ministry on that day — and the representative’s office — so we can have that discussion as we talked about at our last meeting.

I think it’s important…. If the intent of the letter was for work together and further agreement around the statutory obligations together, then I think it’s helpful for us as a committee to have them here together to be able to ask those kinds of questions.

D. Barnett: Just back to the witnesses that we’re going to invite and the questions we’re going to ask. I agree with my colleagues across the floor here that we should work on the questions. I just don’t want a bunch of people here to come and tell me what’s wrong. I want people to come and tell me what the solutions are that they found within their organizations or ministries. That’s what I’m interested in. We all know the issue, but I want to hear some solutions.

M. Stilwell: Can I bounce back to the discussion around the ministry? My understanding, with having been through this exercise before, from the rep is that…. One of the big ideas that I think is important is that the rep is there, and part of the largest goal, I think, was to make sure that the ministry internalized a meaningful quality assurance program and thus, over time, would put the representative possibly out of business — in other words, that the ministry would have a robust, transparent reporting process that addressed a lot of the things that the rep’s reports address.

Although both the ministry and the rep over the years have said, “And this is happening,” I don’t think we’ve really ever heard in detail what the current state of the ministry’s quality assurance program is and how they plan to close the gaps that they agree or disagree still exist.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yeah, point well taken, although I don’t believe the review that we were doing and the performance evaluation standards that are being put in place were to put the entire responsibilities of the independent Representative for Children and Youth out of business. It was just the monitoring of performance, not the reviewing of incidents.

M. Stilwell: Right, but it would decrease. That’s philosophical, in the future, anyway, and we probably agree. But the big idea was that I just don’t think we have seen…. I could not describe to anyone in any significant detail how I know there is a quality assurance program that exists and is growing. I’m sure there is, but I just can’t express it to you.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Okay. Thank you for all of that. I am hearing that for the Wednesday, March 4 meeting, we probably won’t have any witnesses, but we’re certainly going to work to at least have all of the questions and an idea of who we’re asking and hopefully some actually booked by that time.

I’m hearing that Wednesday, March 4, barring their availability, would be a Ministry of Children and Family day, for them to come and talk to us about…. Sorry, Tuesday the 24th is when they would talk about the statutory review, and then Wednesday, March 4 they would….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): There were two possible options that we wanted to capture.

If the committee wished to hear first from the representative on February 24, she could perhaps provide some insights into the statutory review option with or without the ministry present. But I thought it may be helpful to continue the committee’s practice of hearing first from the representative on her reports. So on the 24th she would be invited to speak to the follow-up report on past recommendations, with the understand-
[ Page 357 ]
ing that at the subsequent meeting the ministry would also be available to address the statutory report and the follow-up recommendations report.

The other option that we had placed there on February 24 was her annual report and service plan. I think that is one of the older reports that’s pending, and ideally we would like to have the committee consider the annual report and service plan in the context of providing our assistance to you in drafting a summary of this committee’s annual activities. It’s an annual report of this committee that Byron shepherds along throughout the year. That was sort of the missing piece for this year’s task list. That’s why it was possibly an option for February 24.

We’re in your hands with respect to how you’d like to, perhaps, have the representative come on the 24th and then segue into the ministry’s presentation the week thereafter.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): How does that sound? We’ll do the representative on the 24th, then the ministry on March 4. Is that better?

Okay. Is everybody okay with the suggestions from the Clerk as to exactly what we would be discussing, then, on Tuesday the 24th — the follow-up report with the rep as well as the statutory review discussion, and then her annual report as well?

Then on March 4 have the ministry come in, again to answer questions on the statutory review as well as a follow-up from the Not Fully Invested report. Perhaps, Moira, you could delve more into the question about quality assurance at that time.

M. Stilwell: I was kind of thinking of something more than verbal. That’s all.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Then in the meantime, maybe the vice-Chair and I could go back and forth. Maybe we can discuss a little bit about questions right now, but we could more or less come to an agreement before the 4th so that we were just kind of confirming the decision that was made on those questions for further people to come and present.

D. Barnett: Moira’s question about quality assurance. I think rather than wait until the ministry staff come, it would be good if we gave them a forewarning about the discussion we wish to have so they’re prepared to come with some answers.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Absolutely. We’d be happy to provide them with some additional information in terms of assisting them with preparing some comments for the committee. I note in the letter that was co-signed by the deputy minister that there is a notation that the ministry has made some progress in its ability to measure and report out on performance but that considerable work is required to achieve performance outcomes and reporting and vision by Ted Hughes.

I think this committee actually did receive a similar presentation probably about a year and a half ago on progress in the ministry, so it would be an update, perhaps, to that work. It would fit well, I’m sure, with the work before the committee.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): I think it would be helpful to have that report too, what they did just to inform us ahead of time as to where we’re at so that we know where we have to go.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): So item 2. “Further discussion on potential youth mental health witnesses.” This is what we discussed at the last meeting, to come with ideas. Again, given the fact that we haven’t actually thought about the questions yet that we’re going to ask, I thought maybe I’d just throw it out to people. If they have any suggestions, maybe that will inform us on that questions at the same time.

D. Barnett: Well, my suggestion is I’d like to have the administrator of one of my child development centres, who’s very…. Their child development centre is a model that we can all be very proud of, believe you me. They do have workers and a psychologist now — I think they have a psychiatrist too — working with the young children. So I would love to have her come and talk to us and tell us what they’re doing, because it is a success story that I think everybody should hear.

D. Barnett: Nancy Gale is her name, from the Williams Lake Child Development Centre. They also were one of the spokes for the autism centres.

M. Stilwell: I might be repeating myself, but I suggest that we have Leslie Arnold. She is currently the CEO of B.C. Children’s Hospital but prior to that was responsible for mental health services at the PHSA.

C. James: There was a group of three researchers who presented to the previous report. Allan Castle headed that group up, but you’ll see the three listed in the report. Janet — I’ve forgotten her last name. But they are focused on mental health not from the medical model but from the supports — the counselling, the life supports, the school focus, the community focus.

I think they’d be very helpful to come and talk about exactly that kind of approach, particularly with our discussion around Ministry of Health versus Ministry of Children and Families and the strengths and weaknesses of having it spread out between the two ministries. I think they have a lot to offer in looking at it from a community perspective rather than a medical perspective.

D. Barnett: Dr. Fedor was here before from Williams Lake. They put the model together for rural mental health, and they have quite a model. I’m just wondering. We’ve heard from him, but I know he would come back, because they have progressed even further, and they’ve received funding from Interior Health.

So Interior Health is quite engaged in the whole process now, so either somebody from Interior Health that is involved in the mental health delivery of services or Dr. Fedor, I think, should come back. I don’t know if all health authorities are at the same level.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): Well, Interior Health was the trail-blazer, because they started the Interior collaborative, and now there are other health authorities that are coming on board, including Vancouver Coastal Health and Vancouver Island. So I know that there’s a movement.

D. Barnett: So it would be nice to have one of them come and speak to us, a different one, to see how it’s working out and how far they are, actually, with collaboration with other agencies.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Again, I’m going back to…. I will provide six names, but I’m going back. It seems we’re just building a long list, and I’m going to go back to what the purpose was.

I think that our initial phase focused on what the problems were and, I think, the two findings, where there’s a lack of a coordinated, cohesive system and lack of services. Now, I believe, our next report is going to be about recommendations to address those shortfalls or shortcomings.

The questions, I think, that we’ve discussed fall into a couple of categories: the finding solutions or the highlighting of templates that could be broadened throughout the province, perhaps; and to enlist support from agencies that could be the ones that are going to implement those templates. I think the questions have to flow from that, and I’m going to add my six to the list in light of that.

I think we should have the First Nations Health Council — Doug Kelly. First Nations Health Authority. Dr. Evan Adams is the chief medical officer. Perhaps he would be the best. In the context of the fact that one of the models that we’re looking at is the coordinated approach involving education and police, I think we should have the RCMP. We should have the B.C. Transit police, First Nations education council, and then a pediatrician who has worked for over 30 years in Smithers, who would provide some interesting commentary, I believe — Dr. Clare Moisey.

Once we arrive at the questions I’m sure we can decide whether we want to narrow that list down that we’re creating.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): I would also suggest that there may be instances where they can collaboratively present as well. If they are working together, then that would be a good model to look at.

My suggestions — and I think I’ve already mentioned these over the weeks. I’d like to get the folks from the New Brunswick collaborative. They’ve got an interministerial pilot project that actually right now encompasses four ministries, having the Deputy Minister of Education brokering the collaboration, but it’s through Health, their equivalent to MCFD or Social Development, Education, as well as Public Safety.

The two individuals were seconded from the University of New Brunswick to do this as a pilot project, and they started in two school districts. Now I think they’re up to almost half of the school districts in New Brunswick, and then they hope to expand to the rest of the school districts at some time in this year or next year. I’m not really sure.

I don’t have the details. I think that would be a good opportunity. I know enough to know how much I don’t know and how much I want to know more about it. That’s basically where we’re at with that. I know after talking to them, that they would be delighted to either come physically to present to the committee or do it via teleconference. We’re pretty fortunate that they’ve agreed to do either. It’s just a matter of putting a date.

I think that would be good because, again…. I mean, what the Deputy Chair had mentioned and everybody knows, we don’t have to go over what the report said, but the major challenge is the collaboration between these agencies and ministries and jurisdictions. If we can get models that have worked…. And I’m not saying New Brunswick is the same as British Columbia. It obviously
[ Page 359 ]
isn’t. But they must be doing something right because the results are showing positive results for the kids.

The other thing that I thought would be really good is to get the Interior collaborative people who have presented before. They have done a lot of work since the time they came to present to us to encourage other health authorities to come on board, and actually, they’ve been doing that. One of the health authorities that has really grasped on, that I’m familiar with, is Vancouver Coastal Health. There is work in there that they are doing.

The other thing — I was fortunate enough to go on a tour — is a school on the North Shore called Mountainside, that’s had secondary, which is actually an alternative school. They are apparently exceptional because they’re already kind of doing what we’re investigating.

In other words, they do have combined services with MCFD and a psychologist and trained counsellors. What we heard in the report is that there are people that are perhaps giving counselling to children, or even parents and families, that aren’t actually trained to do so.

Take, for instance, a school like this that’s actually kind of on the road but maybe needs a little bit of help from government in the coordination and even the physicality because sometimes they still have to recommend the student go a few miles away to see somebody in another site.

I think it would be worthwhile to get — I think you said it, Deputy Chair — what other agencies and schools and collaboratives and health authorities are doing that is right and say: “Hey, yeah. You’re doing it. You’re on the right track.” Grab the capacity that’s already there, and then inform us on any recommendations that we would have that would be simpler. They’re already kind of halfway there.

I’m not physically familiar with this site, but I’ve heard of it during discussions with others — the Welcome Centre in Surrey. Apparently, they see kids all over Surrey school district, off site. Apparently, they have a funding model that is dependent on collaboration between different agencies. That might be kind of an interesting thing to learn about.

I’ve got one more. There are two teachers — principals/district principals, one in Comox, here on the Island, close, and the other in Coquitlam — who were recommended to me by Keli Anderson to speak to. Keli Anderson, as you recall, is the person that came to present to us from FORCE and now is with the Institute of Families.

Her experiences, passionate experiences, that she endured with her son who was ten — I think he’s now in his mid-20s — indicated that anything that we recommend or anything that, for instance, any group is doing has to include the family. In other words, it’s not just the child; it’s the family. She recommended that I talk to these two individuals within the Coquitlam school district as well as the Comox school district who actually are working with families in the schools.

C. James: I just wanted to make sure it didn’t fall off the table, the opportunity for us to ask for written submissions or whether we’re going to do a couple of open events. We all know that people make connections, and those are often the groups that we invite and that come forward. They’re people that have talked to us or something we’re familiar with. I just want to make sure that we provide the opportunity for people out there in the province who we may not have heard of.

I think that comes back to the questions again. If we’re very specific around what kind of collaboration — if that’s what we’re talking about — we want to ask people specifically: “What kind of collaboration are you doing in your project? Where are the successes? Where are the measures that show that?” I think we want to be very focused around what we’re asking people for.

I think then you’ll find that people will come forward, and there’ll be people that, perhaps, no one around this table has heard of who are doing great work in the province. I just don’t want to lose that as we look at our questions and as we look at opportunities to have people come forward.

J. Thornthwaite (Chair): And also, if we are focused on the questions, then we want to discourage people from coming here just to tell us what’s wrong. We need to have people that are coming to tell us: “This is a solution that has worked in our community. We need just this amount of help in this or that or that, and we’ve got a good model to start on.”

On that note, do people want to throw some possible questions? You can take it back with you to discuss, but I think we’re on the right track. Is everybody kind of in agreement about that track that we’re on? What do you think?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I think that one of the considerations will be to ensure that we have a fulsome consultation process, as Carole has noted. We will work towards having an on-line portal, where interested participants can send a written submission. Or if questions are developed to the satisfaction of the committee, we could have almost an on-line survey — a kind of questionnaire that we can launch through the website.

In looking ahead to the additional meetings to be scheduled for your committee later this spring, we made a note of a number of government agencies as well. There was some discussion at the last meeting to hear from a range of ministries, being cognizant, of course, as the committee discussed, of the 18- to 24-year-old age cohort. It’s quite a fulsome list of government ministries, as well as the provincial and regional health authorities.

We had made a brief notation, as well, there about the
[ Page 360 ]
New Brunswick model that the Chair has noted, and Donna is interested in early intervention centres.

In addition to the many witnesses that have just been discussed this morning, I’m thinking that you might want to keep in mind an approach where perhaps the committee designates, let’s say, a day to meet with key government stakeholders, whether they’re in the ministries or in the health authorities — sort of a themed day — and then perhaps a second day by invitation, once you’ve got your questions defined.

We can also follow up by letter to invite written submissions from a range of other community advocates and practitioners, who you may want to particularly invite into the process. Keep in mind that at the committee’s last two-day meetings in Vancouver, we had, I think, a meeting stretch of about six or seven hours each day. We heard from I think no more than eight witnesses on each day.

Just keeping that in mind, I think there are plenty of government stakeholders that have been identified. That’s probably a day unto itself. Then, depending on how many additional meeting days you may wish to schedule…. Keep in mind that in a full day we can cover about eight witnesses, unless somehow there is a combined joint presentation. It kind of gives us an idea of where we might want to go in terms of scheduling additional meeting days.

D. Barnett: Just a thought. You know, we always have the meetings in Vancouver and Victoria, and I’m just thinking here — rural British Columbia. Sometimes I don’t feel we get the input from the rest of the world. Maybe if we could see fit, we could have the meeting out somewhere, where other people who don’t have opportunities to come to Vancouver or Victoria could possibly make some presentations. It’s just a thought.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Another opportunity — just to remind members — is in addition to a regional public hearing type of model as Donna suggested, we can also support a video conference or conference call connection for regional participants.

Our next meeting is February 24. That’s the day that, hopefully, we’ll get the rep in, right? Then maybe we can have, if we do have, time at the very end just to solidify more ideas or questions.

I would encourage you, while we’re away for the week, to seriously think of questions with the whole intent of trying to streamline and get results and make sure that we will get what we need to get from the people that will be presenting.

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