The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good morning, Members, and welcome to this first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth in the second session of the 41st parliament. As there has not yet been a Chair elected to serve this committee, the first item of business is election of a Chair. I’d like to open a call of nominations for that position.

R. Singh: I would like to nominate Nick Simons.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you so much.

Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

Seeing none, Nicholas, do you accept the nomination?

N. Simons: Yes, I do.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I will put the question to the committee. All those in favour?

Motion approved.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Kate.

First of all, I just want to say how happy I am to see all of you, my colleagues, at this table. We’ve reconvened this important committee. I’d like a special welcome to Bernard Richard, the representative, and Dawn Thomas-Wightman for being here.

Thank you very much, and thanks to the Clerk and staff for what promises to be an exciting session with important work from this committee, bringing attention and information to legislators about the child welfare system and to increase understanding in the public of the challenges in the child welfare system in the province.

Our first order of business is to elect a Deputy Chair. I call for nominations for Deputy Chair.

[11:05 a.m.]

L. Throness: I’d like to nominate the member for Parksville-Qualicum as Deputy Chair.

N. Simons (Chair): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

Well, seeing none, I think you have become the Deputy Chair of this committee. Congratulations, Michelle.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Do you want to put the question?

N. Simons (Chair): Oh yeah, we have to vote on it.

Motion approved.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks a lot. Welcome.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair. I look forward to the work that we’ll be doing on this committee. As you said, it’s important work, and I think the experience that you bring from your social work background will be integral to the work we do here. I look forward to working with all members on all sides.

N. Simons (Chair): Right. Great. I think it has traditionally been a committee where there’s a lot more collaboration and congeniality than we sometimes see in the House, but we know that the primary interest is to ensure we have a system that serves the children in this province well. So we know what our goals are.

I think the first thing we should do is review the terms of reference just so everyone knows what’s expected of this committee. If you look on your agenda items, we have the terms of reference. If you have your iPad, it’s also there.

Committee Terms of Reference

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning again, Members.

The terms of reference that has been provided to this committee was adopted by the Legislative Assembly earlier this week, on Monday afternoon. It is, in fact, very similar to previous motions, terms of reference empowering this committee in previous years. Many of the responsibilities outlined in the terms of reference flow to you from statutory provisions in the Representative for Children and Youth Act.

There have been some specific changes that have been inserted into this current motion, which I can address momentarily, but in essence, you will note five key areas of responsibility for your committee. First off is to receive and review the annual service plan from the Representative for Children and Youth, which comes out annually each fall. It’s been compiled along with their annual report to the Legislative Assembly. So that is a formal referral to your committee, as are all other reports of that office.

Over the past 11 years or so, the committee has met with the representative on a regular basis and during the last parliament reviewed at least 25 to 30 reports of that office. That tends to be the main focus of most committee sessions.

The third element of your terms of reference is: “Refer to the representative for investigation the critical injury or death of a child.” That is a power that the committee has used only rarely in the past. In those cases — certainly, at the recommendation of the former representative of the day, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond — those referrals provided an opportunity for her office to investigate the critical injury or death of a child for deaths or injuries that occurred prior to 2007 after the office was able to fulfil its legislative mandate to lead those reviews and investigations. So it’s not a power that has been used very frequently and certainly not after the point in time that the office undertook their work statutorily in that area.

The fourth item, again, affirms the committee’s important role to receive and consider all reports provided by the representative’s office to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

Then the fifth component is a statutory review provision. On a regular basis, this committee is tasked with a review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act and the responsibilities and mandates provided therein. The committee began to undertake this work within the past year, but due to the pending general election in May earlier this year, that work has not yet been completed.

To date, the committee had heard, in the context of this particular review, from the hon. Ted Hughes as well as the former representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, just before she completed her second term last October.

[11:10 a.m.]

We’re still very much looking forward to receiving a formal written submission from Bernard Richard, the present Representative for Children and Youth, his office; as well as likely additional submissions by the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Justice, who both appeared some time ago to offer some general context and background information but have not yet provided a fulsome and concluding submission to your committee.

I’d also like to mention and introduce Alayna van Leeuwen, who’s joining the committee as the committee research analyst. Alayna would like to, if time permits, provide you with a bit more information later this morning about the statutory review process, the work that was already undertaken by the previous committee and to assist you in your deliberations, pursuant to the fifth point of your terms of reference.

You’ll note that the terms of reference requires the review to be concluded by way of a report from your committee to the Legislature by the end of February next year. We will be able to provide you with further information on steps taken to date and receive from you your guidance as to how you would like to see the remainder of that work unfold.

On the back of the terms of reference, you’ll notice a reference at the top of the page to the additional powers previously conferred upon other select standing committees, including this one. That is a reference to an opening day motion in the Legislature Assembly by which all parliamentary committees, pursuant to various statutory provisions, are empowered to call for witnesses or summon evidence to appear before them.

Those are formal powers that are not usually exercised by parliamentary committees in British Columbia. However, they do enable you to fulfil the important duties that have been entrusted to you by way of the act and through the Legislative Assembly appointment process.

Generally speaking, I should highlight that committee practices tend to be very collaborative, and we’ve had no need to have the committees exercise the powers to summon witnesses or evidence previously. The working relationship with both government ministries and the representative’s office has always been highly collaborative and cooperative.

A number of other provisions in your terms of reference provide your committee with the opportunity to appoint a subcommittee, as required, to sit at any time, including any sitting of the House or in the recess after prorogation or during a period in which the House is adjourned — so there’s much flexibility in terms of planning your meeting schedule in the months and years ahead — and to conduct consultations by any means that the committee might consider appropriate.

In the past, the committee has undertaken, on occasion, special projects where they engage broadly with different stakeholders, expert witnesses, individuals and organizations on a number of themes, but also, with respect to your statutory review process, consultations can continue. We can update you more on those that have taken place to date.

Item (d) simply refers to the fact that the committee can meet here in Victoria or in other locations around the province. In the past, the committee has met primarily in Victoria. However, during a non-sitting period, if Vancouver, for example, might be a more convenient option to members, it is an opportunity that is available to this committee to meet there.

Item (e) is that, if required, additional personnel could be contracted, for example, to assist with any work of the committee.

The final concluding paragraph simply underscores the committee’s reporting relationship with the Legislative Assembly. So from time to time, the committee will prepare an annual report summarizing its activities and deliberations. That report is typically presented to the Legislature by the Chair and Deputy Chair from time to time, just as a report on the statutory review process would likely be expected to be made.

I’ll just draw your attention back to the first paragraph again, on your terms of reference. It contains some important language there with respect to your overall mandate, which is to foster greater awareness and understanding amongst legislators and the public of the B.C. child welfare system, including the specific needs of Indigenous children, youth, families and communities.

That reference is based in the recommendations that had flowed in 2006 from the report by the Hon. Ted Hughes. It was his intent that this committee serve as a forum to build awareness and understanding amongst members of both government and opposition about the challenges and successes within the child protection system in British Columbia.

The new addition, in this terms of reference, is the phrase identifying “the specific needs of Indigenous children, youth, families and communities.” That is a change since the model that had been brought forward in previous sessions.

I’m happy to answer any questions, but that is, in essence, a bit of an overview of the terms of reference.

[11:15 a.m.]

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Kate. Does anyone have any questions about the terms of reference?

I might just say that adding the specific reference to Indigenous children and families and communities came about partly because of the current situation with the federal Human Rights Tribunal calling on appropriate funding for on-reserve First Nations communities, and the finding that, in fact, First Nations communities have been underfunded in their child welfare efforts.

That is not necessarily the direct purview of the province, but we have some influence in attempting to influence the federal government to meet the expectations and the calls from the tribunal. We’re hoping to be able to further that cause, perhaps by hearing from witnesses about the impacts of underfunding the child welfare system on reserve and in First Nations communities.

Thank you very much for that, Kate. Perhaps this a good time for Alayna to describe some of the activities that have already taken place with respect to the statutory review of the statute. If that’s all right? Thanks, Alayna.

Statutory Review of
Representative for Children and Youth Act

A. van Leeuwen: Yes, thank you very much. I won’t go into a lot of detail about the past two statutory reviews except to say that the committee or prior committees have reviewed the act twice, once about five years after its initial enactment and then, again, a further time, actually, at the recommendation of the committee from its first review that they undertake a limited review.

All of the information about those prior reviews is available on line. If you need any help locating any of that, if you want that for background context, we can help you if you have any difficulty finding the right reports and the right meeting transcripts, because some of that context may be helpful to you.

The first review was fairly comprehensive, resulting in six or seven recommendations, which were all implemented. The second was much more limited, and it resulted in a report basically saying to revisit the issue more comprehensively in 2017. So, as required by the act, the committee did initiate the statutory review prior to April 1, 2017.

I think it would probably be fair say, to describe the first step in the statutory review, it was to hear some initial comments from the then Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, back on October 25, 2016. At that time, she just provided a general overview of some of her initial thoughts around the RCY mandate, but again, she was very conscious it was the end of her term and wanted to allow opportunity for the committee to hear from the representative that would then be later taking over.

Likewise, the committee was also very conscious of the pending provincial election and the fact that they didn’t want to go too far down a road of precluding or presupposing what future committees might want to do in terms of the statutory review process or in terms of boxing them in on any recommendations or directions. But the committee also did want to establish a good basis for future committees to work from. To do that, they also, as Kate mentioned, invited Ted Hughes to make some preliminary comments, which are available to read in the transcript from the January 12 meeting.

Then, after that, on February 22, the Ministry of Children and Family Development came and provided two presentations, one being a general kind of context setting briefing about the child welfare system as it currently stands, current priorities and pressures on the system, a status update on actions by the ministry to implement a variety of recommendations that had been made to the ministry over the years. And then an additional presentation, which was largely about data and performance measurement and what the ministry is doing to try to innovate in that regard.

That presentation was not at all prescriptive or directive in terms of the act. It wasn’t even that tightly focused on the act. They instead left it more to the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, as the custodians of the act on behalf of government, to present, essentially, the results of an internal consultation that they did with other affected ministries and relevant agencies, where they identified some possible areas that the committee might want to do further investigation on.

In each case, all of those presenters, including Ted Hughes and even Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, did mention that they would be more than willing to return to the committee again and provide further information and detail if that was required.

[11:20 a.m.]

Again, the ministry presentations are also available on line, with the February 22 meeting materials, if you’d like to refer to those at any time.

Now, the committee also thought it would be a good idea to solicit some written submissions as well. The committee, with assistance from us, developed a list of almost 60 different stakeholder organizations — identified partly from people who participated in the 2012 statutory review and, also, people identified by members that they thought might have some useful input. We emailed those people and organizations directly. We also opened up a general consultation portal so that any member of the public who is interested could make a submission as well.

We ended up with about 16 written submissions, 13 from organizations and three from individuals. That is about on par with what was received in the 2011-12 statutory review as well. While the topic of the child welfare system generally is of tremendous interest, sometimes people maybe don’t have as much to say about the specific act that governs the representative’s role.

In any case, we do have all those written submissions available, and we can make them available to members. That might provide some useful insight into possible directions you might want to go or areas you might wish to explore further.

If you would like, I could let you know a list of who has submitted thus far. We heard from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, B.C. Civil Liberties Association, B.C. Government Employees Union, Carrier-Sekani Family Services, Children’s Health Foundation of Vancouver Island, Coroners Service of B.C., Federation of Community Social Services of B.C., First Call B.C., a woman named Georgia Peters with an organization called Court Watch, Public Guardian and Trustee, UNICEF Canada, Vancouver Foundation and West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund. These were some of the organizations that have already made a written submission to date.

Unless anybody has any questions about what’s been done to date, I’ll just leave it at that.

N. Simons (Chair): Anyone have any questions about the review that has already started?

Thank you very much, Alayna. I appreciate that.

We could go over the workplan, but first I thought it would be a good opportunity to invite the representative, perhaps, to introduce his office to the committee and give us his views on how we’ll be working together.

Thank you, Bernard. Welcome.

Update from
Representative for Children and Youth

B. Richard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here, of course. With me is Dawn Thomas-Wightman. She’s the deputy representative and has been at the office for far longer than I have been. So she may be able to add and improve on anything I have to say.

I did want to take the opportunity to be here to meet with the new members. We’ve had occasion to chat on several occasions since it’s been…. Your chairmanship, although just confirmed today, has been in the works for some time. You’ve visited our office. It’s a great opportunity for us to meet with the other committee members.

I’m looking forward to presenting…. Kate mentioned…. I think there are about five reports that we haven’t presented on to the committee yet, so there’s a fair bit of work there. Some are from previous to my coming here, but most would be since I’ve been here. Nick Lang, perhaps. The Alex Gervais report. A report on DAA funding. We’ve just released a report recently in the area of youth mental health, Missing Pieces: Joshua’s Story.

We’ll be releasing a report tomorrow on the education outcomes of children in the care system. There will be lots of work. We’ll be seeing each other, I think, fairly often over the coming months. Of course, our annual report was released about a month or so ago, before the end of September.

[11:25 a.m.]

I come from New Brunswick. Most of you know I’m of Acadian heritage. French is my first language. I’m a lawyer by trade, but I’ve spent some time in the Legislature in New Brunswick — 13 years. I’ve been a backbench member on the government side, I’ve been a cabinet minister, and I’ve been an opposition member. I’ve been Leader of the Opposition for a bit. So I have good knowledge of the kinds of challenges you face as members of the Legislature.

I was appointed New Brunswick’s sixth ombudsman — that’s what it was called at that time — officially in January of 2004. I was responsible, as well, for information and privacy oversight during that time, and I heard public service appeals. Later the responsibility was added, and I became New Brunswick’s first Child and Youth Advocate. So over that seven-year period, areas that are covered by, I think, four different officers of the Legislature here, which I think occasioned my early aging.

I retired, seemingly retired, in 2011, but I did a lot of volunteer work for an organization called Plan International Canada. I travelled extensively and chaired the board of Plan Canada for four years. It’s a non-profit that raises about $200 million in Canada and is part of a federation, Plan International, that raises close to $1 billion internationally and works in developing countries on child issues. It’s a child rights–based approach — access to education, to health; birth registration, which is a big issue in some countries. Children who don’t have identities are easily exploited and trafficked across borders, so those are issues of interest.

I also worked with First Nations chiefs in New Brunswick, particularly the Mi’kmaq chiefs. There are nine Mi’kmaq communities in New Brunswick, six Maliseet communities. I worked primarily with the Mi’kmaq to restructure the child and family services agencies serving First Nations children there and did some other odd stuff.

I ended up here. I’m not sure exactly how or why, but I’m certainly pleased to be here. It’s been a steep learning curve for me. It’s obviously a much bigger province. The issues are not dissimilar, of course, but there are so many non-profit-sector organizations in British Columbia, a significant overrepresentation of Indigenous children — 203 First Nations and now 24 DAAs. There were 23 when I came. A new Métis agency in the Kamloops area has just been delegated.

We’ve established three priorities: the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care — in no particular order but certainly as a significant priority; mental health and addiction services, availability of services, wait times…. It’s a significant issue that comes up time and time again. Transitions out of care is the significant issue faced by…. Many of our reports feature youth that have died, either just prior to leaving care or just after leaving care, and the transition issue is a significant issue in their lives. It’s well documented. Alex Gervais certainly is one that I would mention.

I feel extremely fortunate. I think I have a superior staff membership, really strong staff members who support the work that we need to do under the legislation. Most of our folks do individual advocacy work. They’ve worked with individual children and youth. They’re caregivers within…. Obviously, we’re focused on very specific designated services provided for under the legislation, but a big part of our work is with children and the child care system. We help them navigate the system. We try to resolve issues. Those are our advocates and our advocacy group.

[11:30 a.m.]

Pursuant to Ted Hughes’s vision, we have a responsibility for, I’ll call it, oversight, monitoring of public services, regarding those designated services. So we will report tomorrow. We’ll release tomorrow. It’s very much a product of our monitoring group. Then we have a specific responsibility to investigate cases of critical injury or death of children in care or just out of care.

The worst day of every month is when we review about 75 reports of critical injury or death of children in the system. We screen to determine which of those…. Well, actually, we receive a much higher number of reports, but we screen out those that are not related to service delivery in any way. So it could be illness, accidental events not related to service delivery. We’re left with about 75 that have some attachment to service delivery issues. We then pick some of those for review, a deeper dive, and then, finally, investigate.

Investigations typically take a year and a half. We can’t investigate deaths before the coroner has reported on them. We can’t start immediately, although, obviously, some of these cases come to our attention sooner than that. We can interview anywhere between 45 and 75 people — police officers, health officials, social workers, family members. It’s a significant amount of work.

The most recent report, released three weeks ago perhaps, on Joshua’s untimely death on the grounds of B.C. Children’s Hospital was the work of our investigation unit.

Essentially, that’s it. Of course, we’ve really focused on Indigenous children in care, because it’s unavoidable. Although they represent about 8 percent of the child population in British Columbia, they represent 62 percent of the kids in the care system. So we’ve established an Indigenous Strategies and Partnerships team, led by Lise Haddock, who’s a former executive director of a delegated Aboriginal agency. I know, Mr. Chair, that you know her quite well from your past work.

They engage with the Indigenous partners in the province. They’ve also organized a couple of really interesting events, from my perspective. I was not here for the first one but attended the second one in Lake Cowichan in August. They call it Ignite Your Spirit. We had 32 Indigenous youth in care attending four-day workshops. We had five elders there, several councillors. Some of our advocates were there. It was quite a powerful event.

The minister — who had just been appointed, really — was kind enough to attend the witnessing circle, which took place on the Thursday. It was about 35 degrees in Lake Cowichan on that day. We were passing around Ziploc bags full of ice to keep everybody nice and cool. It was outdoors, although we did have a tent for shade.

A very powerful three-hour session. I don’t think she would…. She’s talked about it a fair bit during her media interviews, but she certainly told me that it was so real and raw, hearing from youth themselves. She’d learned as much from that session as from three days of formal briefings from staff at her department. As a former minister, I can tell you it’s a very powerful event. If we come to an area near you, you would be invited to attend, certainly, the witnessing circle part of the workshops.

We’re very focused on engaging youth. A lot of the young people who were here yesterday are people that we know, that we admire. They’re the leaders. They’re natural leaders.

[11:35 a.m.]

I think of Ruby from Vancouver Island University, a very powerful speaker. I thought she did a great job. Dylan Cohen, the organizer. Rachel Malek is someone who’s worked with our youth media team. We have a youth leadership team as well.

We work with the ministry Youth Advisory Committee. They were some of our group leaders at the Ignite Your Spirit event, so we have no barriers. We don’t feel we need to have our own little group of young people. We identify young leaders.

We’re doing a fair bit of work with Katherine McParland, who was acknowledged last week in the Legislature by the Kamloops area MLA, MLA Stone, for her work on homelessness. She’s a former youth in care, former homeless youth. She’s doing her master’s in social work now and will be doing her practicum in our office.

We recognize youth leaders, and their voices are important to us. It’s a requirement under the convention on the rights of the child, but we really strongly believe we have to put that into practice. We’re certainly doing that.

I guess in a nutshell, that’s who I am, who we are. Sorry, it may be a bit longer than you anticipated. But I’m a former politician, so any opportunity….

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Bernard. I appreciate that.

Dawn, did you want to add anything?

D. Thomas-Wightman: I’ll introduce myself.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you.

D. Thomas-Wightman: I’m Dawn Thomas-Wightman. I’m from the Snuneymuxw First Nation in Nanaimo and Hupačasath in Nuu-chah-nulth. I have a traditional name, which is Aa ap waa iik, and that translates loosely to “the one who says the right words about chiefly business.”

I always share that child welfare is probably the most chiefly business. My whole career has been in child welfare. I’m passionate about it. I’m an adoptive parent of three special needs children, have worked in child welfare, starting off at the ministry as a social worker, and then ended up at Aboriginal services, where I got to know the Chair quite well, and then over at the rep’s office since 2010 and very honoured to be working at the office with Bernard Richard as well.

I think I’ll just add a couple points. We’re thrilled to see the Indigenous addition into the mandate. It’s a big piece of our work, as Bernard had said, and a huge priority for us. We look forward to working with the committee.

I think one thing that I’d like to share is that we’ve worked really well with the committee in the past. We’ve also worked really well with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Although the media sometimes portrays, in the past, that we were head to head, our relationships with the staff at the Ministry of Children and Family Development was very positive and very collaborative. I think we’ve really built on that since the new representative has come forward.

We have a number of working groups that we work together on and really have our value and belief in that there will be better outcomes for children if we work together as best we can. So we’ve formalized those relationships now and work very positively.

I look forward to maybe presenting together with the Children and Family Development Ministry and working with the members as well.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks so much, Dawn. It’s really nice to see you.

Prior to the election, there was a protocol signed between the representative’s office and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Maybe could you just describe briefly what that protocol encompasses.

Interjection.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Sure. It, again, formalizes our relationship between the two offices and really spells out how we’re going to work together amongst the different teams in the office. So when Bernard talked about each month when we review critical incidents, sometimes there are what we call cases of concerns where we see some practice that’s quite troubling, so we have a protocol to talk about how we’re going to talk to the ministry about those cases. So who do we call? What steps do we take? Do we write a letter? So it spells out some of those relationships.

It also spells out how our advocacy staff will work with the ministry. If a child calls in and has some concerns about their voice not being heard, it spells out exactly what we can do with that child and with the social worker and how we connect with the staff and, if things escalate, how we go through the bureaucracy up until a level that it needs to be addressed.

Each team in that protocol has specific steps on how we plan to work together. I guess it really does formalize that we want to work collaboratively and together. It also spells out some of those working groups and what those look like.

We have a working group on plan of cares. That’s based on John’s recommendations around RCY having oversight of plan of cares. We also have a group on our recommendations. So in the past, this committee had expressed some frustration with the ministry coming to the committee and saying there was 700 recs, and then we’d come and say there were 50 recs.

[11:40 a.m.]

There was even some confusion around how many recs, what was a rec, what was something else. We’ve got a recommendations committee coming together, too, so that we can both agree on what is actually a rec. What’s a meaningful rec? What’s implementable, etc.? That group has really gone far and almost completed their work. I’m really pleased with where we’re at. That should make it easier for the public and should make it easier for this committee to understand where they are at meeting their obligations under the recommendations.

Then we have a new group that’s identified in the protocol around residential review and around this ministry’s new — what they’re calling — system of care. It’s three working groups, with our staff and the ministry staff. We’re pretty happy with the working relationship.

B. Richard: Just on that, we’ve engaged the ministries much earlier, before releasing reports, including in testing out possible recommendations. We don’t want to make recommendations that can’t be implemented. Certainly, we have an interest in pushing the ministries to do a bit better, but we want to be realistic in the recommendations we make. We don’t have the resources of a ministry with 4,500 employees in our office, but we do spend a lot of time with the leaders of ministries to make sure that we make recommendations that touch upon issues that they recognize.

There are no surprises. I guess that’s the way that would best describe it. People know when our reports are coming out. We’ve talked to them. We’ve talked to officials. It’s not just briefing a minister on the day or two days before we release a report. That was happening in the past, but certainly, I think the ministry will acknowledge that we’ve worked, on both sides, very hard. That predates the election, to be fair. It’s something that started before the last election but has continued in the same vein since the election.

At the end of every single day, we want to help vulnerable children, and the ministry’s role is to do just that — and other ministries as well. We’re happy to be collaborative. As I’ve mentioned to this committee, there will always be a healthy tension between an office such as ours and the government, because we have a role of oversight. I think it’s working.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Bernard. And Dawn, thank you for that overview. I hope that at one point we’ll be able to go and maybe visit your office as a committee, see where you work and meet some of the people that are involved in the important work and that we are working with.

Kate, should we go through the draft workplan, perhaps?

Committee Draft Workplan

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, I’d be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the materials that were circulated at the meeting this morning, you will note that our office has prepared a very general preliminary draft workplan for your review and discussion, perhaps at your next meeting following today. What we’ve tried to encompass in this preliminary workplan is an outline of the anticipated activities for the year ahead. We’ve included a list of the five reports that Mr. Richard mentioned in his comments to the committee, which have not yet been considered by the committee.

I have print copies of reports with me. I usually carry a lot of print materials around, but thanks to the assistance of our IT colleague Ian Hood, who was here earlier today, you can also opt to use your iPad to receive meeting documents, including reports. Given the volume of information that we tend to transmit to support your deliberations, you might find that method to be more convenient to you. Certainly, we can provide your office with meeting materials in advance of meetings, ideally two days minimum in advance. For reports that we know will land on the agenda of the committee in coming meeting days, you may wish to have a glance at some of those materials earlier, rather than farther down in the sessional calendar.

Also in the workplan, we’ve noted that we would look forward to supporting your development of your next annual report to the Legislature — just simply summarizing the work that you will undertake, some of the materials that you’ve discussed and any recommendations that might be brought forward by your committee, as well as supporting you through the statutory review process.

[11:45 a.m.]

At the bottom of page 2, we’ve also added some information about the opportunity, should your committee choose to pursue it, to develop a new special project. As I think I referenced in a general sense earlier this morning, the committee has undertaken two special projects in the past. One dealt with the issue of child poverty in British Columbia, and the second, with child and youth mental health.

The committee did some work in these areas, connected with youth and families touched by those issues, and other academic researchers, and developed some reports in those areas, some of which I have with me today. But there is an opportunity, based on your committee’s mandate to foster greater awareness and understanding amongst legislators and the public of issues related to the child- and youth-serving system, to undertake a new special project in the coming session.

On the third page of the workplan, we’ve had a very preliminary attempt to sketch out what type of work, in terms of a meeting schedule and other tasks, might be on your minds in the coming weeks and months. I was hoping, perhaps, that all members would be able to give us some direction and guidance with respect to those details, and perhaps the Chair and Deputy Chair or any other interested member might be able to refine that further.

The workplan is very much just an information item at this meeting today, but we certainly welcome your input, discussion and direction on all of those elements to ensure that we can support you. We look forward to working with you all in the coming months.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Kate. Are there any questions about the workplan?

R. Glumac: Not about the workplan. A technical question, I guess. Will all of those previous reports be viewable on here? Currently they aren’t.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): They’re not there yet, Rick? Okay. Certainly, we will arrange to have them there. Typically, what you’ll find on the iPad PDF Expert app is a meeting folder for each scheduled meeting of the committee. What we can do is put some background documents up there now for your review. I will include in that, if I might, a copy of the act, just so you always have a copy to refer to.

I also have with me — and we could load onto your iPad — the second chapter from the Ted Hughes B.C. Children and Youth Review from 2006. This is the chapter that deals with the external oversight model that the Hon. Ted Hughes recommended. It includes his recommendation for the Office of the Representative as foundational, as well, to the establishment of this committee and the objectives that he had articulated for your work. Just as background documents, those might be helpful to include as well.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Kate. The Deputy and I will probably be discussing some of the scheduling. We have a lot of work to catch up on. There’s been a bit of a time lag since our last meeting, and I look forward to doing that.

Is there any other business?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Not from my perspective.

L. Throness: Could we just talk about scheduling? When would you like to meet? Would it be a regular meeting? Would it be ad hoc?

N. Simons (Chair): I know that while we’re in session, we’re all kind of wondering when the session will end — sitting back, wondering when it will end. We have Wednesday mornings, and none of us are on the other committee that’s scheduled to meet Wednesday morning, which is the Finance Committee. So potentially, we could use Wednesday mornings while we’re here in Victoria.

Otherwise, we have other options. We have sat for day-long meetings to clear backlogs, to get things done that way and hear witness testimony on various issues. There’s nothing set in stone. In fact, opinions of members are helpful in determining that kind of scheduling.

I’d be happy to meet, while we’re here, as much as possible, to ensure that we do the reviews that are required. Then, once we rise, we can still meet in either November or December.

L. Throness: In Public Accounts, we met for a couple of days at a time. That was good in clearing backlog for reports that had already been tabled long before and were not necessary to see in a really timely way. Perhaps we could consider that for some of the past reports of the representative, and for some of the more timely things, we could meet on a more regular basis.

N. Simons (Chair): That sounds like a good suggestion. Michelle and I will probably try and work with that in mind. There’s also the possibility of — you know, the importance of raising awareness about the work we do — to meet in a location other than Victoria or Vancouver.

[11:50 a.m.]

I was contemplating that as we do the review of the report on delegated agencies, perhaps to do it from a place where there may be a delegated agency and perhaps bring awareness to the different systems that exist within the province. If people are amenable to that, I think it would be an interesting opportunity.

I know that the representative wants to add something here.

B. Richard: If I can so bold, I’d be pleased to suggest Kamloops as a possible meeting place, for a couple of reasons. The most recent delegated Aboriginal agency has just begun its work there. It’s a Métis agency. There’s also a fairly well-functioning DAA, not Métis. There’s also a tremendous amount of very good work that’s being done by the United Way on youth homelessness there.

I think you’d be quite impressed in hearing from, possibly, Katherine McParland if you’re visiting. I really like to promote her work. She’s been instrumental in the creation of A Way Home Kamloops. Now there is A Way Home Canada. She’s quite engaged in addressing homelessness provincially as well. I would, just as a modest suggestion….

N. Simons (Chair): It’s always welcome. I appreciate that. Thank you for adding that, and that will be something that we’ll consider. Clearly, that’s one of the options that we have as a committee.

Thank you for that, and thanks for the input, Laurie.

Is there anything else anyone wants to bring up at this point?

I’m sorry. Jennifer is unable to be here for reasons we can’t disclose. No, I shouldn’t say that. But she’ll be here next meeting, I’m sure.

I want to thank you all for agreeing to be part of this very important committee, and I look forward to working with everyone.

I call for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Sonia, seconded by Michelle.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:52 a.m.