The committee met at 9:04 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Okay. Let’s call this meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to order.

[9:05 a.m.]

Welcome, everybody. Thanks, everyone, for all their work to get here or to join us. I’m sorry Teresa is unable to join us, for reasons I hope get clarified and resolved.

Our agenda for today is three parts, possibly four if there is any additional business. The first is the review of the Representative for Children and Youth Act. That will be a discussion that we’ll have in camera.

Then we’ll come out of camera, and item 2 will be the consideration of the Adoption and Permanency Option Update. We’ll get witnesses from the representative’s office.

Then after lunch, we’ll be talking about Last Resort: One Family’s Tragic Struggle to Find Help for Their Son, the representative’s report on the circumstances surrounding Nick Lang’s life.

And fourth, any other business.

Deliberations

N. Simons (Chair): Perhaps at this point we should ask if there is any other business anyone wants to discuss that we can put onto the agenda for later.

Seeing none, I move that we go in camera and proceed with our discussion. We are in camera.

The committee continued in camera from 9:06 a.m. to 11:03 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Let’s take a five-minute recess and await our next section of the meeting.

The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:13 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): At this opportunity, I get to welcome Monsieur Richard, the Representative for Children and Youth; Dawn Thomas-Wightman, the deputy representative; Alan Markwart, the COO; and other representatives. Thanks, all, for being here. We’re looking forward to discussing the Adoption and Permanency Options Update.

With that, Monsieur Richard, à vous.

Consideration of Representative
for Children and Youth Reports

B.C. Adoption and Permanency
Options Update

B. Richard: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. I’m very pleased to be here, of course, as always. I really enjoy this opportunity to speak with committee members again.

If I’m a bit hesitant this morning, I’m jet-lagged from my travels to Ottawa this week attending the emergency meeting yesterday on Indigenous child welfare and the Child and Youth Advocates meeting the two days previous.

N. Simons (Chair): Jet-lagged but warmer.

B. Richard: Warmer, if a little wetter. The wet stuff stays wet here. In Ottawa, they skate on it.

[11:15 a.m.]

Of course, I’m pleased to present on two reports today. I have Dawn Thomas-Wightman, the deputy representative, with me, and Alan Markwart. Jeff Rud, our communications director, is here. Alysha Hardy is here as well. Alysha was our lead investigator on the Lang report, so she’ll be supporting us this afternoon.

Actually, I’ll tell you right now that Dawn will be leading our presentation this afternoon. The Lang report was finished and released before I was appointed, so I’m more comfortable with letting Dawn take the lead on that one. I may be, Dawn, nodding off by this afternoon, so that’s another reason. I hope not. I’ll have some coffee later.

Some of you may be aware that in June 2014, the previous representative, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, released a report entitled Finding Forever Families: A Review of the Provincial Adoption System. The report showed that the province had faltered in its work towards achieving adoptions for B.C. children and youth in the permanent care of the government and that at any given time, more than 1,000 of these children and youth were waiting for permanent homes.

At the time of that release, at a joint event held with the then Minister of Children and Family Development, Minister Cadieux, the representative pledged to issue periodic updates to the first report. So December’s report was the fourth periodic update on the original.

To summarize, the latest permanency numbers from MCFD are disappointing to us and concerning as well. During the first six months of this fiscal year, ’17-18, only 84 B.C. children and youth in care were placed for adoption. At that rate, our update concluded, MCFD is unlikely to match its adoption totals for the past two fiscal years, despite a sizeable investment in the initiative.

To give you some context, there were 362 children and youth in care placed for adoption during the entire 2015-16 fiscal year and 284 more adopted during 2016-17. And 84 adoption placements over the first six months of this fiscal year compares to totals of 149 and 104 adoption placements during the first half of the previous two fiscal years. As you can see, the numbers were down significantly after the first six months of this year.

The ministry is now counting transfers of custody, under sections of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, as part of its permanency efforts — so adoptions plus transfers of custody — in addition to counting strictly adoptions. Under the legislation, custody can be transferred either from the biological parents or from the director, when a child is already in care, to another person. But even when we include transfer-of-custody figures for the first six months of this fiscal year, the ministry is behind on its efforts of the previous year, as far as achieving permanency for children and youth in care.

Perhaps most troubling is that of those 84 children and youth placed for adoption in the first half of this fiscal year, only 16 are Indigenous. Compare that to the first six months of 2015-16, when 55 Indigenous children were placed for adoption, or the first six months of last year, when 40 Indigenous children were adopted. The first-half numbers indicate that it is highly unlikely that MCFD will match its year-long totals of 152 and 124 Indigenous children adopted from care, respectively, in the previous two fiscal years.

[11:20 a.m.]

Of the 16 Indigenous children placed for adoption in the first six months of this fiscal year, only four were placed in Indigenous homes. This is of particular concern, as it is contrary to existing policy and standards that call for placement of Indigenous children and youth in Indigenous homes. The lack of permanency for Indigenous children and youth is particularly troubling when one considers that Indigenous children and youth comprise 64 percent, a December number, of all children and youth in care in B.C.

The declining adoption and permanency numbers come despite increases to MCFD’s budget for this area. The ministry has committed $31.2 million to adoption and permanency planning in 2017-18. That’s from last spring’s budget. This has increased since 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years, when MCFD committed $27.7 million and $30.7 million, respectively.

I do note that progress has been sustained on some fronts in the provincial adoption and permanency effort. For example, 179 adoptive families were newly approved by MCFD in the first six months of this fiscal year. This is slightly above pace when compared to the previous entire fiscal year, 354 homes approved, but behind 2015-16, when 440 homes were approved. The total number of adoptive homes registered in B.C., at 233, is also up slightly from the previous two years.

However, the bottom line is that there are still more than 1,000 children and youth in the care of the B.C. government or awaiting adoption or another form of permanency. That’s essentially the same scenario we saw in 2014, even though there are now over 200 fewer children and youth in the permanent care of the B.C. government.

We all know MCFD can easily get caught up in “the tyranny of the urgent,” meaning the demands of child protection can overwhelm more proactive parts of the child welfare work such as adoptions. We also know that the ministry made progress immediately following our initial report on the adoption system in 2014. Now it seems to be regressing.

I understand this well, from the minister’s response to our update, that perhaps in the early years, children who are younger, who have fewer special needs, who have no special needs, are more easily adopted, and we all understand that. But permanency is an extremely important factor in the life of any child, particularly for those children and youth in care of the government, many of whom have undergone significant trauma in their young lives. We talk about that all the time, including in front of this committee.

In a document entitled Factsheet: Adoption in British Columbia released on March 3, 2017, MCFD stated: “Strengthening the provincial adoption program and finding loving, permanent homes for B.C.’s waiting children and youth is a priority for the ministry.” We could not agree more that it should be. The same document added later: “Adoption recruitment and promotion is a consistent priority for the ministry.”

Statistics in this report do not reflect progress on the stated priorities. Let me give you a very brief update on the update. We now have numbers to the end of December.

Our monitoring staff requested data from MCFD’s adoptions management system earlier this week that provided numbers up to December 31, 2017, at the three-quarter mark of this fiscal year. The pace of adoptions has increased slightly since September, with the ministry now at 138 total adoptions for 2017-18. Thirty-one of those children and youth placed are Indigenous.

However, compared with the full fiscal year, numbers of previous years that I’ve mentioned earlier, MCFD is still considerably off the pace. We certainly will continue to monitor and provide future updates, and I’m happy to answer questions if you have any.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much. I’ll take a list of speakers.

[11:25 a.m.]

I have a starting question. I know we don’t call them “delegated agencies” anymore, but the First Nations child welfare agencies number something like 24 now. I believe that the vast majority of them are solely providing the family support level, which we used to call level 1, or delegated level.

D. Thomas-Wightman: No. I think it’s about a third provide full child protection. A third provide up to guardianship, which was C4 in the past. C3 is voluntary, about a third, so it breaks down.

N. Simons (Chair): Of the C4 agencies, of the agencies that have authority over guardianship of their children, how many actually have adoption worker?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Two have adoption delegation.

N. Simons (Chair): Two have adoption delegation out of 24.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Any of the other agencies cannot do adoptions themselves. They can partner with the ministry to complete an adoption, but they don’t have their own delegation to do adoption.

N. Simons (Chair): Dawn, do you know if the Directors Forum, or whatever group, is advocating for more adoption workers, so that where we have agencies that serve a vast majority of First Nations people in the province…? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have adoption workers for those who need it?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Definitely. I know in Victoria there is an urban agency that has had the same request from the ministry regional office. Because they’re funded by the province, because they’re an urban agency, they’ve asked for adoption staff. That hasn’t been supported as of yet. Whether it’s delegation to do it or whether they just have staff that work on site that have delegation themselves, those could be two options.

Another option that the Directors Forum has put forward is having, perhaps, an Indigenous adoption centre that served all of Indigenous people in B.C., perhaps in Vancouver or of the such. But it means that the ministry has to work with the agencies to receive the delegation, and then the funding issues between the feds and the province for adoption. Post-adoption assistance is the most….

B. Richard: Contentious issue, or the most important issue.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Yes, and driving. Exactly.

N. Simons (Chair): That brings me to my second question. I don’t mean to dominate. How many adoptions that the ministry is placing come with support to the families, in terms of financial or other resources?

D. Thomas-Wightman: We could get the specific numbers, but every child in care…. As long as you’ve been in care for more than two years, you’re considered a special needs child. So that child would have the eligibility to receive post-adoption assistance.

One of the problems, as we see it, is that now post-adoption assistance has a salary cap, an income test. It never used to, and many provinces don’t have an income test. So many families would not be eligible for PAA. That’s one of the ongoing issues in B.C.

B. Richard: Certainly, we hear that quite a bit. When you consider that children with special needs often require some kind of treatment, support, counselling, that can be costly. It’s a significant factor, particularly for lower-income families and, I would say, the vast majority of Indigenous families.

I’ll segue into the issue of custom adoptions. It’s been on the books for 20 years in British Columbia. There’s, to my knowledge, not been a single custom adoption approved by the ministry. That’s important, because if they were adoptions approved by the ministry…. Custom adoptions are adoptions, usually, within the community to extended family members. They’ve long existed in Indigenous communities — just not recognized by the ministry.

If they were, then financial support would be provided to those adoptions as well. Those are, for the most part, low-income families. So that could be a pretty significant change factor to improve the numbers, I would think.

J. Isaacs: I’m just wondering. Would you mind just walking us through what the process is if a family wanted to submit an application to be an adoptive family, what their criteria is? How long does that take, typically? And then, when that family is approved, because you said there are 179 newly approved, how long does it take then, typically, for a child to be placed in that adoptive home?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Sure. I’m an adoptive parent through the ministry, so I can tell you a little bit about that. You put in an application. There’s an orientation for parents just to make sure this is something that you want to go down that road with. The orientation talks about the kinds of kids that are in ministry care. They don’t do any newborn baby adoption, so they just describe some of the situations that kids that are available for adoption are in. Once that starts, you start a home-study process.

[11:30 a.m.]

In the past, that was where some of the backlog was around placing children. I think they’ve had some increased number due to those budget increases, so they’ve contracted out with contractors to help with the home study. The home study is a comprehensive — usually six months, I’d say — process where they meet with the family over a number of times to really understand what the family’s strengths and weaknesses are and what type of child might be placed with the family.

Once that happens, then it can be anywhere from almost immediately — there’s child-specific adoptions where they might know the child and there’s foster-to-adopt — but it could be years and years. After this update came out, we had quite a few callers call in with concerns around customer service and waiting, etc. So that still seems to be an issue.

In my case, we waited four years for one child and under two years for the other two. It’s really varied, but that’s one of the complaints that has come from families: the waiting.

We haven’t had many complaints about the home study process. It’s comprehensive. It should be, because you’re approving adoptive parents. It’s a cumbersome process, but it should be a cumbersome process. Some of the backlog has been addressed with the recent budget lift, but it’s still an issue.

L. Throness: I have several questions, Chair, so just shut me down when you feel my time is up.

N. Simons (Chair): I’ll do it as soon as I can.

L. Throness: Did the representative meet with the current minister about this issue?

B. Richard: Yes. We’ve briefed the minister. She came to our office, actually, and we briefed the minister on our update and had an exchange with her. Her response was similar to her public response in that this an issue that is a priority for the ministry. The minister has changed. Most of the staff is the same staff. The minister is fairly new.

Certainly, she’s indicated that this remains a priority for the ministry as it was before, that they’re quite committed to meeting their goals, and that numbers tend to improve towards the end of the fiscal year. That has been the case over the last two or three years. I think the previous minister can confirm that as well, but they are finding that kids are easier to have adopted younger.

Most adoptive couples want to adopt younger children. That’s easier done but certainly, children with special needs, and quite a significant percentage of children in care — about 50 percent, I think, or higher even — are considered as special needs children. Certainly, as they grow older into the teenage years, they’re much harder to be adopted.

I think there is some sense that they’re running against that kind of situation. There were 1,000 children waiting to be adopted three, almost four years ago. There are 1,000 children waiting to be adopted now. Despite the pretty robust numbers the first couple of years, we’re still at that number.

L. Throness: Just looking at page 5, appendix A, where it does give the historical retrospective of the number of children waiting — 878, 954 and 1,003. If we do not match prior year’s totals, that backlog is going to grow. Is that not correct?

B. Richard: Exactly.

L. Throness: Is that backlog…? Demographically within those numbers, they’re going to tend to be older and older children who are more difficult to adopt.

B. Richard: I think that’s exactly right. Certainly, what’s concerning to us and why we think it’s important to do the updates is that the actual total number of children in care has been reducing. It’s gone down by about 2,000 over the last ten or 11 years. Not so much with Indigenous children but for non-Indigenous children, the drop has been fairly considerable. Yet the number of children waiting to be adopted stays at quite a…. In fact, it has increased marginally over the last two years.

L. Throness: Next question is…. I know that the former minister made an enormous effort to increase adoption numbers and was successful in doing so. I’m wondering if the same efforts have been made under the new government. Is the new government placing the same kind of priority on adoptions as the former government?

B. Richard: The numbers, of course, are half-year numbers. The minister became a minister sometime in late July. You would know better than I.

[11:35 a.m.]

So late July, and the numbers are for the end of September. I think it is early, to be fair, to make a judgment on the government per se. But the ministry remains the same, right?

Our view is that as urgent matters come up — Indigenous child welfare is a very important issue currently across the country — there are attempts at responding to the Ed John recommendations. I think there is a tendency to lose focus on these more proactive kinds of measures. I mean, I don’t know. It’s not up to me to defend the ministry. Far from that. I think it’s quite the opposite. But I think it is a bit early to make that judgment.

L. Throness: Perhaps I could just clarify my question. My question is not really about what the minister has done, but are the material efforts undertaken by the ministry the same as they were under the previous government?

B. Richard: We don’t know. It’s a good question for the ministry. All we know is that the numbers speak for themselves. We’re concerned about those.

L. Throness: That’s all I have for now.

S. Furstenau: Could I just delve a little bit more into the custom adoption? It says that it’s been identified as an action to address. Have you seen any concrete steps on this, and if you have, do you feel that they’re going in the right direction? Or what do you think needs to happen?

D. Thomas-Wightman: We haven’t seen any concrete steps on custom adoption. And as the representative had said, it’s been in the legislation since 1996. Our office held a forum probably two years ago, I’d say, and we’re working with the ministry on custom adoption, what some of the barriers are and what some of the solutions were. There was a report released after that meeting with some action items that haven’t been acted on.

I guess maybe one of the barriers around custom adoption is that the ministry feels lost and doesn’t really understand custom adoption. At the last meeting, they said to us that they’re going to do some more consultation. We reminded them that there was quite a bit of consultation done in the past, so hopefully, they’ll use some of that with their new plan around consultation. Of course, Ed John talks about custom adoption. The major issue here is the post-adoption funding and being recognized by the Supreme Court. That’s one of the barriers that we see around custom adoption — that the family must go through the Supreme Court to get it recognized under government.

Many families do participate in custom adoption. They are happening, but not through that Supreme Court process, which then allows for the funding to follow. We know of traditional custom adoptions in First Nations communities. Somehow that barrier has to be looked at, so what we’ve said to the ministry is…. The question has to be: why are there no custom adoptions registered when you’ve had it in the act for so long? Look at those reasons, and then address it that way so that we can have some success and support for families.

Like the representative said, our families live in poverty in First Nations communities — many of our families do — and the special needs are significant in many cases. I don’t want to…. There are costs — medical and counselling and supports and tutors. Even with the post-adoption assistance, it isn’t likely enough to support these families, but when it’s not there, that’s the issue.

Custom adoption continues in First Nations communities but, for many, many years, is not recognized by the ministry. We think one of the barriers is this Supreme Court piece that’s mandatory.

B. Richard: As I mentioned earlier, I spent the day yesterday at the emergency meeting on Indigenous child welfare, and custom adoption came up a fair bit. But what also came up was the importance of devolution, of allowing First Nations to take care of their children, to put it in very simple terms. In my view, one of the ideas that was mentioned earlier having an Indigenous agency where Indigenous people would coordinate adoptions…. Clearly, they would accept custom adoptions, because it’s a customary practice for First Nations.

I think that would accelerate the placement of Indigenous children in extended families where they would get the kinds of supports they would need. They would automatically be connected to their culture. More of them would stay in their own communities. I think that that’s a solution waiting to be adopted, in my view.

N. Simons (Chair): Sonia, do you want to follow up?

S. Furstenau: Just a quick follow-up. You’ve already answered what I was going to start with. Given the statistics that you’ve provided in this report, particularly around the lack of success of adoption of Indigenous children, you were saying that the custom adoption approach and devolution of more of the control to Indigenous communities is the way forward on this.

[11:40 a.m.]

B. Richard: I think it is respectful of Indigenous jurisdiction, of interest, of culture. It really speaks to all of the things that the act talks about, so I think it is long overdue. The legislation has been in place for a long time, and they’re fairly…. I think doable measures could be taken to allow that to happen.

R. Singh: Just following up on this. We talked about it yesterday morning too. The meetings that you have come from in Ottawa…. What I was hearing from the news was that there was a big talk about adopting this measure. Would that affect this — bringing out the legislation here in B.C.?

B. Richard: Yeah. I think, in fact, the legislation is in place, some administrative efforts to allow First Nations to create their own adoption agency, to coordinate adoptions within their own communities, recognizing custom adoptions as adoptions that can be supported financially.

There are, obviously, some financial implications to that and likely some negotiations with the federal government to be had in terms of funding. That’s always a contentious issue. But there seems to be some willingness, certainly, hearing from Minister Philpott yesterday morning. She continues to, certainly, say some quite encouraging words for many, and all who were there, for sure.

What I’m saying is I think there are solutions at hand. It requires some work, but I think that would be quite a practical and respectful solution that is available.

R. Glumac: I appreciate the update on this, and the discussion around custom adoption seems to make sense. The budget has increased since 2015 by more than 10 percent, maybe, but the results are not going in the right direction. We have an update that tells us this. What are we doing about that?

B. Richard: What we said at the time of the release of the update is that we think it needs some more focused attention, that the ministry could be promoting adoption more. You know, I think there’s little more that you could do for any child than to provide them with a stable, loving home. British Columbians are generous. I think they are ready to adopt, but it is not an easy thing, particularly when you’re adopting a special needs child. Dawn has three special needs children. It is a huge commitment.

It requires, I think, an effort on the part of government. I want to say that I salute the efforts that have been made in the past. There’s an increase in budget. But the numbers just don’t provide us with the confidence that we can maintain the pace of the last two years, unfortunately. Someone said, yesterday, words that I will never forget. He said at the microphone: “Children only have one childhood.” Once it’s past, there’s no getting it back.

I feel this is an urgent issue. It’s an issue where there is a solution, I think. The previous government had demonstrated a willingness to address this in a focused manner. I hope that commitment is maintained and we don’t lose ground.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Can I just follow up?

What we want to put forward, as well, is parity amongst the numbers. So if a child’s in foster care or a 54.1 transfer of custody, there are all different funding arrangements for those.

We would want money never to be a reason why a child wasn’t adopted. So we’ve asked for the same numbers across the board — no matter foster care, post-adoption assistance, transfer of custody — because that is another issue for some families. So one set rate for everybody would also be something that we think would increase the number of adoptions.

N. Simons (Chair): Dawn, just to ask a follow-up to that. Would that be the same number for a four-year old as for a 14-year old?

D. Thomas-Wightman: It is. Anywhere in the province, it’s the same number as well. So if you’re living in a high-rent or high-housing issue, it doesn’t matter.

B. Richard: If you’re travelling for specialized services, for instance, same amount.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Same amount.

[11:45 a.m.]

N. Simons (Chair): There was a system — I don’t know if it exists still — where different levels of foster parents, based on their…. Oftentimes, if a relative took a child of a sister or what have you, they would be receiving the restricted foster home rate. If it were a stranger across town taking the child, it would be a level 3 rate. I saw situations where families were upset. If it was a financial issue that influenced the decision whether they could take on another child, it created an unfair playing field.

D. Thomas-Wightman: It’s still happening.

N. Simons (Chair): Yes. I hope that the ministry does make some focus on that.

I also think that…. When you’re talking about adoption, you’d better not rush them. That’s the other thing. It’s a danger, I think, if there’s a mandate to increase the number of adoptions without the necessary resources to go with it. Then you have adoption, and you have adoption breakdown. What happens? Do we count the adoption breakdowns?

I think that sometimes, when we look at the numbers, they’re just crass numbers. We have to talk about how we support the adoption of children whose needs make it difficult for families to care for them. When the nuanced support portion…. I never call it pay, because it’s not. It’s foster parents. It’s not pay. It’s support for family.

I appreciate the number. I think it’s important that we monitor them. I think it’s important that we see children coming into care, and we see children aging out of care, and we see children going into permanent placements. We see children, sometimes, having long-term temporary placements. I know that there was a move to get rid of those long-term temporaries and make them permanent in one way or the other. Sometimes those are helpful too.

R. Glumac: Given what we’re seeing in the trends where things seem to be going, it’s troubling to me to see this and not know what’s going to come. What is going to change? What is going to improve this situation? Is there an opportunity for us to bring the ministry in to ask them about this in more detail? How are they going to focus on this?

N. Simons (Chair): I think there’s always an opportunity to talk to the ministry about it. To be fair, we’re also trying to deal with some of the underlying factors that lead to difficulties and family situations that lead to family breakdown — poverty and other issues that underline causes of disruption in families.

I think if we want to talk about how many more resources, how many more full-time-equivalents have gone into the adoption sector, my question was why those haven’t gone to the First Nations agencies. They’ve gone to the ministry. We used to have a provincial director of First Nations child welfare who would be responsible for every community’s particular issue.

The adoption exceptions committee. There’s a reference to that in the report. There’s a committee. The policy is that Indigenous children are placed in Indigenous homes. When that doesn’t happen, that process has to go through a committee — a committee appointed by the ministry, I believe. Maybe someone can explain that process — how many children, what reasons are put forward, etc., etc.

D. Thomas-Wightman: The adoption exceptions committee is a committee that…. The provincial director appoints people to that committee. Ministry staff — including the director of adoption, the deputy director of Indigenous services — sit on that as well. It’s been difficult to attract First Nations community partners because of the issues around adoption, but there always is an attempt to have Métis representation, First Nations representation on that committee. It’s usually made up of about seven or eight people, exactly like the Chair said.

Their policy is actually a really good policy: Indigenous kids to Indigenous families. It’s a strict policy that has to be thoroughly played out. First, extended family, and then community, and then other community or other First Nations. So all those steps have to be taken before you can even consider a non-Indigenous placement for an Indigenous child. That’s a lot of work for a social worker to do, if they’re doing it right and doing it thoroughly.

If that doesn’t happen, and the social worker believes that this non-Indigenous home is the best place for this child, it goes to the exceptions committee. There’s a template that they fill out describing why this home meets this child’s needs, and there’s also a mandatory cultural plan. So how do you plan to keep the child connected to culture?

[11:50 a.m.]

The committee is faced with very difficult decisions, and much of First Nations leadership is not supportive of the committee, for many reasons. What often comes before that committee, though, is children that have been in non-Indigenous foster homes for ten, 15 years with no permanency placement, and then all of a sudden they’re going to be placed for adoption. Well, nobody wants to move that child after they’ve been, ten, eight — seven years, even — in a home, even if there is an Indigenous home at that period, because of the bonding.

They’re very difficult decisions to make at that point. Some of them are controversial decisions to make. Sometimes the cultural plan…. A cultural plan should happen for an Indigenous child right when they come into care, and then, if they’ve been in this foster home for five or six years, there should have been a cultural plan. Often there isn’t, so it’s being developed at very late stages. That’s when family could be identified that perhaps could have adopted these children.

It’s a very complex situation at that committee. We don’t have the numbers here, but we could get them for you. They do track them. It was a significant number in the past. I’m hoping that as the ministry evolves and develops and grows, children don’t languish in care for six, seven or eight years with non-Indigenous caregivers, and then you’re left with a difficult decision at that point of where to place, even if there is an Indigenous family available.

B. Richard: I think Dawn makes a really good point. I want to pick up on it a bit. I know it can sound like we’re talking about adoption numbers, but we’re talking about children. Individual cases can break your heart. We’re dealing with an advocacy case right now. Dawn is well aware, probably more aware than I am.

The child was placed in a foster family. An Indigenous child was placed in a non-Indigenous family soon after birth. She’s been with that family for six years. The foster family wants to adopt, but the practice is to ask for consent of the First Nations that she’s related to. Although she’s never been there and has had no relationship with the First Nations, the father is First Nations. The First Nation is refusing to give permission, but the attachment is significant, from after birth to age six, with the foster family.

There are competing kinds of really important interests both ways — cultural connections, but attachment, and the reality of the relationship between the child and parents, whether they’re foster parents or not. These are, when you dig down to children, not easy issues — rarely easy issues — to address.

N. Simons (Chair): On that point — before I recognize Sonia — equally, I don’t think there are social workers who are just sitting with their feet up on their desks.

To put these numbers into perspective, they’re about children — finding good, permanent places for them. That requires a lot of work, and that requires a lot of thoughtfulness. We just hope that the ministry finally has resources sufficient to meet that demand.

S. Furstenau: Bernard, I think you raise a really good point here about, say, six years in and the disruption that we could be looking at, potentially, to a child. To me…. I wonder about your opinion on this. Should the emphasis right now be on ensuring that at the moment of the first intervention of MCFD, the standards that are in place to ensure that all of the efforts to maintain that connection with the community, the culture, the Indigenous background are met?

It seems to me that we’re dropping the ball at that moment and then trying to pick it up later down the road, whereas the emphasis should actually be in that first moment.

B. Richard: To ask the question is to answer the question. I couldn’t agree more. This is something that’s been going on forever. I don’t want to be political, ever, in my answers. This has been going on for a very long time. We’ve neglected providing cultural connections to Indigenous children in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country as well, of course.

We can go further down in history. You heard a lot about it yesterday in Ottawa as well — residential school, Sixties Scoop, etc.

[11:55 a.m.]

Once you’ve gone three, five, ten years of lack of connection to one’s culture and to one’s family…. I think, through looking at the level of attachment, love, stability for any child, to disrupt that becomes more and more difficult the longer the placement in a non-Indigenous home continues. Clearly, absolutely, yes.

That’s why we think custom adoptions are really a practical, possible answer as well — one answer.

N. Simons (Chair): Can I ask a question about the number of children who are currently awaiting adoption? Of the 1,000 children in government care, what percentage of those would have come into care through a removal process, a non-consent order, not a consensual…?

D. Thomas-Wightman: We wouldn’t have those here, but we can….

N. Simons (Chair): Do they exist? It would give a better….

D. Thomas-Wightman: The numbers exist.

N. Simons (Chair): I’m just thinking about this desire for immediacy and finding long-term plans when, in fact, perhaps, the first two years are spent trying to keep the child with the parent or keep the child with the auntie.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Oh, that happens. That’s typical, yes.

N. Simons (Chair): Maybe those efforts result in longer placements than one would have anticipated.

D. Thomas-Wightman: That is exactly what happens.

B. Richard: Certainly, that is typical. There are some really good practices in British Columbia, I have to say. I spend a lot of my time criticizing what’s going on. Last week I had a great exchange with a community that’s quite isolated, 1,200 people. Cormorant Island is a community where the K’wak’walat’si agency…. They haven’t taken a child into care in ten years. That’s remarkable. Some isolated communities have up to 80 percent of the children in care.

I asked a ton of questions, as you would as well. In fact, I encourage you to invite them to meet with you. They said one thing that really stuck with me. They said: “In some cases, we take the parents into care. We remove the parents, with community support, from a risk situation and leave the children in the home, their bedrooms. They go to the same school. They have the same extended family. When there’s a need for treatment — it could be addictions or otherwise — the parents are removed, and the auntie or the uncle moves in and cares for the children in their same environment.”

It just makes perfect sense to me. It’s not easily done in some cultures, but in Indigenous cultures, that can happen. That, to me, is to be encouraged and funded. That’s all about family supports, prevention, early intervention and intervening in the right way. I think there are solutions out there, really good practices in British Columbia that can be learned from. I know, actually, the ministry is quite aware of this agency and is having exchanges with it.

N. Simons (Chair): I’m happy to say that when I was a director for ten years, we didn’t have any children coming into care through the ministry either, but that was because we used the tools of the federal government to fund differently.

I think you’re absolutely right, Bernard. It’s about finding preventative tools that are as substantial as what we’d have to wait for the court systems to do. You do that with family. I do think there are solutions.

B. Richard: When the minister spoke yesterday of their six commitments, one of the six was focusing on prevention rather than protection. She did speak of the funding model that really encourages agencies to take children into care. They’re fully funded for services once a child is in care, but there has been little funding for prevention. That’s the federal funding model, which certainly needs to change, and there’s a commitment to do that. So we’ll see.

N. Simons (Chair): I remember every two weeks, Bernard, filling out a form for the federal government and marking down…. If a child was in care for one night, I’d put at the end of the line $52 and something cents. Every child who spent the night out of their own home was considered by the federal government as in care, so the agency would be compensated for it. If you have a different definition of what you consider a requirement of being in care, you could use that funding for better purposes. It’s 20-1, as they say.

A. Markwart: I’d just like to comment that the same issue…. There have been some comments about resources and costs and post-adoption assistance and investment in Aboriginal agencies to better support adoption.

[12:00 p.m.]

The ministry can afford to keep these kids in care, which is actually more costly. There is actually a potential cost savings, if you redirect that funding and invest up front to get them out of care.

N. Simons (Chair): And not just cost savings in the child welfare system.

A. Markwart: Well, and better outcomes, yes.

N. Simons (Chair): Better outcomes, however you measure them. I think we know this.

S. Furstenau: Bernard, to hear the comments that you’re hearing from the federal minister and the kinds of commitments I just saw in the press releases from our own ministry…. What are the most effective and immediate steps that you think can be taken to start seeing this translate into changes on the ground?

B. Richard: I think even Indigenous leaders yesterday were saying: “The words are great. We need action.” And: “We’ve been hearing these words for decades.”

Of course, it requires everybody at the table. Yesterday was a stakeholders meeting. I’d love to be in Ottawa this afternoon, a fly on the wall in the in-camera session between ministers, because the feds, of course, have the funding, and they have the jurisdiction, but the hard work is done by the provinces and in the provinces.

There’s a complicated, fairly long transition process to get to where we need to be. In my view, that is that Indigenous communities take care of their own children. Of course, people are free to leave their communities and to go live elsewhere. That’s complicated. In B.C., 70 percent of First Nations people live outside of their communities. So who provides services to their children in Vancouver or Victoria or Prince George? It’s complicated, is all I’m trying to say.

Clearly, what we’re moving towards, undoubtedly, is a system of child welfare where Indigenous communities take care of their own children through their own agencies. I think we’re heading clearly in that direction.

It’s quite a revolutionary change, I think, if we look at a time when colonialist governments, settlers, which most of us are, were quite sincere in thinking that if you take the child out of the home and you assimilate the child to our culture, they’ll be better off. Well, we now know that we’ve missed the boat on that. We’ve been doing that for 150 years. I’m not pointing the finger at anyone, but clearly, that hasn’t worked. So we have to allow these founding communities of our country to establish their own child welfare system. We need to support that.

J. Isaacs: Am I reading this correctly? On this chart, appendix A, 2017-18, to September 30, there were 313 children waiting for adoption. Then on the foot page, it says: “Number of available adoptive homes for Aboriginals — 29.” So are there 29 available homes for 313 children?

A Voice: Yes.

J. Isaacs: So there is a huge shortage of Aboriginal homes.

D. Thomas-Wightman: I can comment on that. Actually, First Nations people or Indigenous people overrepresent, based on our population totals, as caregivers. So we are a small percentage of the population, right? That’s one issue. Considering the overrepresentation, it’s probably always going to be that way.

There is an issue, I think, around recruitment and support of Indigenous families coming to the ministry to be approved as potential caregivers. I think that goes right back to what the representative said, as well, with Indigenous-controlled adoption agencies, where Indigenous families feel comfortable coming and going through an approval process.

Considering the history between the ministry and Indigenous communities, going there proactively and applying and having someone look into your life, many of our families, because of all those issues, have histories. Having to unpack that and go through that with likely a non-Indigenous social worker — you can see why there might be an issue with recruitment.

We do overrepresent as caregivers. The overrepresentation…. We’ll never be able to match those up. So with some non-Indigenous families, we’ll have to place Indigenous kids. But a strong, cultural connection that happened early on is the point.

Some custom adoptions have a non-Indigenous adoptive family, and the community adopts that family. That happens traditionally. But again, under that umbrella, I think of Indigenous-owned, Indigenous values, etc.

[12:05 p.m.]

B. Richard: And creating a comfortable environment for that to happen.

Clearly, our office and others have talked about systemic racism. It exists. I think if we’re honest, you know, we grew up where Indigenous people were characterized in a certain way. That impacts the way we think about it. We have to make a really strong effort not to let that take over.

It’s unconscious often, but Indigenous people feel judged differently because they’re Indigenous. There are stereotypes that affect the way we think about them. So having Indigenous agencies and people provide these services is another way to address that systemic racism that has existed forever in this country, since settlers first came. My ancestor, in 1652, as a matter of fact.

I think that has existed. We need to admit to it and address it.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much. Most appreciated.

We look forward…. When’s the next update? Do you know?

D. Thomas-Wightman: We haven’t decided yet. This was going to be the last one. But we’ve had quite a bit of support and public interest. So we think we’re going to continue with them, considering the numbers.

N. Simons (Chair): Just as an aside, it’s been found that First Nations, Indigenous, child welfare has been underfunded systemically. The Human Rights Commission has repeatedly said so. The work of Cindy Blackstock and the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society has been instrumental in addressing this and getting this as a national debate finally. I’m pleased that you were able to be involved in that.

We have a lot of work to do, but we’re doing it, I guess.

B. Richard: I was certainly pleased yesterday to be able to say to Cindy directly: “I think we’re here because of you. You may not get a lot of credit for it.” Politicians, as is often the case…. The minister, in this case, is getting some credit for getting all of us together, but Cindy Blackstock pushed everybody along. So she deserves, certainly, to feel that she has done some really good work in this area. I couldn’t agree more.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Bernard. Thank you for being here today.

Everyone, I think we can recess for lunch.

Rick doesn’t want to recess for lunch.

R. Glumac: My question is: do you think it would be worthwhile to follow up with ministry staff to see what things may be able to be addressed in regards to the way things are going?

N. Simons (Chair): I think it would be good to have a ministry representative talk about that and a number of other issues that have come up over the last number of meetings. But yes, absolutely, and specific to that.

We’re recessed until one.

The committee recessed from 12:08 p.m. to 12:57 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): This afternoon we have on our agenda a discussion of the Last Resort report. That’s been on our agenda, and I’m pleased at this moment to be able to recognize and acknowledge the presence of Linda Tenpas and Peter Lang in the gallery. I understand this would obviously be a difficult discussion to witness, but we appreciate your presence here. It provides us with an extra depth of understanding, which I think is ultimately what we all hope to promote, of the system and how it can improve. So thank you for being here.

I believe the Clerk wants to make an announcement about the next meeting just before we….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Yes, certainly. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just for the information of members, you already have scheduled, for your next set of deliberations, a meeting next Tuesday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. You’ll be meeting at a different location: UBC Robson Square, 800 Robson Street. It’s classroom C130. It’s not a room that we’ve used a lot in the past. I just want to draw your attention to it. I believe it’s underground, just off the art gallery complex.

At that meeting, you will be considering the report Missing Pieces: Joshua’s Story as well as about four and a half hours of continuing deliberations on the statutory review — so an opportunity to make some good progress next Tuesday. I wish you well in those deliberations. I will be, personally, with the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts next Tuesday, but I look forward to hearing of your progress.

N. Simons (Chair): We’re not sure how Public Accounts outranks us, but something in Kate’s planning has allowed her to remain on the Island. That’s all right.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’ll just mention that my very capable colleague Susan Sourial is looking forward to attending your meeting next Tuesday.

[1:00 p.m.]

N. Simons (Chair): We enjoy having Susan with us as well.

With that, I’m going to ask Monsieur Bernard Richard, the Representative for Children and Youth, to give us a brief introduction and to introduce Alysha Hardy, who is a senior investigator with us. We still have Dawn and Alan here. Thank you for being here.

Last Resort: One Family’s Tragic
Struggle to Find Help for Their Son

B. Richard: As I mentioned this morning, the Last Resort report was released almost exactly a month before I assumed the position of representative. I would prefer Dawn to lead the presentation of the report, as she was involved with its development.

Dawn Thomas-Wightman, the deputy representative, will do that. She will be assisted by Alysha Hardy, as you’ve mentioned. Alysha was the lead investigator in the report. She will be assisted by Alan Markwart, our COO, chief operating officer. Jeff Rud, as always, is with us, our communications director. Our communications staff spends a lot of work on all of our reports. We appreciate their support.

I had the privilege to meet with Peter and Linda in September — hard to believe it’s more than four months ago — with Minister Conroy and the deputy. To hear firsthand from them and to be able to hear of their ongoing advocacy for children and youth who are in the same situation as Nick was — Métis children and youth, in particular…. I have much admiration for their ongoing advocacy. It aligns very much with our recommendations.

I certainly feel privileged to be here. I want to pass on, as I have done before, my own condolences for their loss.

I will allow Dawn to take it from here and respond to questions from your committee members.

D. Thomas-Wightman: Good afternoon. Before I begin, I would also like to thank Linda and Peter for being here.

There is, obviously, no greater loss than the loss of a child. We appreciate your presence here today, as the Chair said, to help us have a deeper understanding of the situation. It’s only what we can imagine as an extremely difficult and emotional process that you’ve been through, and it definitely helped us tell our story. So the whole office is entirely grateful for your support on this.

I just wanted to start with…. I talked to Peter before about a quote that was in the report explaining why they worked with us and wanted to help write the report. This is from Peter:

“The best way to honour him is being very honest in the report about how quickly this thing went awry and how it can happen to anybody. And if it can happen to me, and I work in the system, it can happen to anybody. And if this report will save another kid down the road, then it honours Nick, because he wanted to help. And that’s why we’re talking so much, because that’s what he would have wanted. We can’t bring him back, so it’s not about that. It’s more about trying to make sure it doesn’t happen to other people, because that’s what he would have wanted.”

I raise my hands and say thank you. We’re extremely thankful.

This report tells the story of Nick, a 15-year-old Métis youth, who died while in full-time attendance program as a condition of his youth justice sentence. As our report states, this story is somewhat different than many others we have told during the past 11 years. He was not in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. He came from a supportive middle-class home, and he did not live in a remote community, where services might have been difficult to attain.

Yet in one major way, Nick’s story is all too familiar. He was a teen with a serious substance use problem, and he did not receive the services when he needed them, and neither did his family. Nick died on June 9, 2015. As I’d said, he’d been in a full-time attendance program on Vancouver Island for less than a week. It was a place his family back in the Fraser Valley had hoped would help him deal with the substance use problems that had plagued him for the last three years. They hoped it would enable him to get back to his schooling and get his life back on track.

The only reason Nick was in this program was that his parents, desperate for a way to help their youngest of two sons, had decided that the youth justice system was where he would get the kinds of services he needed before it was too late. After Nick assaulted his mother on April 1, 2015, while under the influence of methamphetamine, his parents decided that this was the best option to get him help.

[1:05 p.m.]

Our investigators, led by Alysha, determined that there was a number of points along the way when Nick’s path might have been significantly altered had the proper supports been available and offered to him and his family when he needed them. That’s an important point and part of our recommendations, as well — that a comprehensive system be in place so that youth and families have the proper supports when they need them. There’s usually a very small window of opportunity for youth that are struggling with substance abuse. So when they’re ready to receive supports, it needs to be available to them, and to the family as well.

Despite serious behavioural issues in school, beginning in grade 4 and steadily escalating thereafter — a self-harm incident in grade 7 and a mild expression of potential suicidality in April 2015 — Nick was never given a formal mental health assessment.

One of our recs also looks at the schools coming together with the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Mental Health to have mental health supports in school and, hopefully, have a little less stigma around receiving mental health supports. If it’s in the school in a regular part of the program, maybe, perhaps, Nick could have accessed mental health supports that way.

He was described by one of his teachers as “a little kid with a huge heart.” Nevertheless, five different schools were unable to connect with him effectively and provide him an environment in which he could be successful.

Despite Nick’s mother asking for help from her local MCFD office in January 2015, she was not offered supports beyond a conference call with the two parents and a social worker.

On that point, we often ask parents to reach out for help, and that’s the right thing to do. She did the right thing, and then had a closed door, basically, with a conference call. I just wanted to acknowledge Linda and that she reached out for help — and you were looking for that for Nick — but didn’t get what she needed at the time for her family.

Despite Nick’s father convincing him to enrol in a voluntary substance use withdrawal centre in April 2015, Nick was not allowed to remain in the facility. He wanted to smoke a cigarette, and the health authority had a strict no-smoking policy.

Nick had a serious and deepening substance use problem, which began in grade 7 with marijuana and quickly escalated to meth. His very capable parents could not find a public treatment program that could help him that also didn’t have a significant wait-list. They were desperate to find some help. His mother told investigators: “It was like my boy was disappearing.”

All of this led to a situation that the rep’s office has seen and heard about a number of times. The use of the youth justice system by parents to help a son or daughter with a substance use problem, because that system promises faster assistance and is much more difficult for the youth to turn down. As our report title suggests, it was their last resort.

Even in the youth justice system, Nick and his family did not get what they needed. His Métis heritage was largely ignored, and even though his father sought out Métis-specific services for Nick, he was unable to find any such services.

He was not provided with the intensive support and supervision program worker that was ordered by the court and that could have helped Nick bridge the gap between sentencing and entering a program.

In addition, it was concerning to our office that communication with Nick’s parents, especially after they divorced, was sporadic with all supports — including school and youth justice often staying in contact with only one parent, rather than both, which should have been the case, as they shared legal guardianship.

The bottom line here is that Nick and his family did not receive the services when they needed them, and this is an all too familiar story at the RCY.

To that end, the report recommended that the provincial government create, appropriately fund and maintain a comprehensive system of substance use services that consistently meets the needs of youth and their families across the province. This was a repeat recommendation made by our office just five months earlier as part of our report A Review of Youth Substance Use Services in B.C., released in May 2016.

It is a recommendation that still needs to be addressed, particularly now in the light of the opioid crisis that is affecting so many communities and families across our province. I am hopeful that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, created by the provincial government in July of 2017, will take the lead in this area and that we will see some signal in the next month’s provincial budget.

It is obvious many youth and their families in B.C. need more than what they are getting now when it comes to preventing and treating substance use. As the report called for, we need a comprehensive system. The system needs to include community-based and residential treatment services up to and including the prudent and selective use of secure care when necessary to keep a youth safe.

[1:10 p.m.]

This report also recommended that the provincial government, in partnership with Métis leadership, develop and implement a strategic plan to deliver culturally responsive services for Métis children and youth in the areas of youth justice, substance use, mental health, child and family supports, and education supports.

What we’ve seen in the past with culturally supportive services is that if they’re served anywhere, it’s in the child protection stream, and some of the other streams of the ministry’s work are completely ignored. For instance, in mental health or substance use, the focus is on the substance use or mental health issue instead of the child’s cultural identity. We know that culture is a protective factor. So it would make sense if, in those programs, there was a culturally appropriate service in place. But it’s often lacking or completely invisible. That’s why we made that recommendation — to ensure that it included youth justice, substance use, etc.

We also, as I mentioned, called on the MCFD, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health to co-locate mental health and substance use supports in B.C. schools to increase the ability to engage youth in those services and also to help support early identification and intervention.

The report recommends that ISSP workers be available to provide year-round service, rather than relying on probation officers to assume these additional responsibilities in the absence of an ISSP worker.

Finally, to improve planning and service coordination with youth who are in conflict with the law, our office has recommended that the MCFD and the Ministry of Education develop and provide clear guidelines on what can be shared with schools regarding youths’ justice involvement.

Overall, I would summarize by saying there’s been some progress on the recommendations made in this report. However, significant work still needs to be done. As I previously mentioned, our investigators found that there were a number of points along the way when Nick’s path might have been significantly altered, had the proper supports been available or proactively offered to him and his family, including the potential option of secure care. We cannot say with certainty that receiving more appropriate services would have ultimately saved Nick’s life, but they definitely would have given him a better chance.

Now I’d be happy to take your questions.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you. Alysha, were you going to add anything?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Alysha will be helping to answer questions.

B. Richard: Alysha is available on any technical questions relating to the investigation. Alan is really our resident expert on the youth criminal justice system. He’s acknowledged as an expert across the country, actually, and can help with questions focused on that. General questions would be raised with Dawn, and I’m happy to participate on policy issues.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you. Opening the floor for questions.

May I start, maybe, with a question for Alan, then. When was the ISSP position created out of the youth probation system? Is that a new development?

A. Markwart: No. Well, it has evolved over the years. It actually goes back, probably, 30 years. In the Lower Mainland area, there were contracted services, one-to-one workers. In the early 2000s…. The number of youth in custody in the province has declined a great deal. There’ve been four youth custody centres closed. Others have been downsized. Part of that process involved redeploying staff from the custody centres out into communities to do intensive support and supervision. In the Chilliwack area, that’s where this intensive support and supervision worker came from. There are a number throughout the Lower Mainland, the Island, the Prince George and Kamloops areas, and so on.

N. Simons (Chair): I saw a reference to year-round. It’s not a seasonal employment thing, is it? What do they mean by it? Just available everywhere?

A. Markwart: What happened in this case is that the staff are redeployed from the Burnaby Youth Custody Services Centre. They’re still employees there. During the summer periods, when staff at the youth custody centre are, say, on vacation or leave, sometimes there is a need to bring the ISSP workers back into the centre to provide backfill. Therefore, the service ends up going short. It’s not filled during that period of time.

N. Simons (Chair): Does the representative’s office know if the department of corrections, within youth corrections, has done something about ISSP programming?

[1:15 p.m.]

A. Markwart: As far as I know, all that has been done to date is that they are conducting a review of ISSP programs in the Lower Mainland area. But there hasn’t been any concrete action taken so far.

N. Simons (Chair): Was there a reduction in the responsibilities assigned to probation officers when they introduced ISSP? Why wouldn’t the probation officer be the one ensuring…? I remember the old discussion was of a probation officer, a social worker or a police officer. There was partly the counselling and partly the enforcement. Did the probation officers become more of the enforcement and the ISSP more of the social worker?

A. Markwart: No. I think the ISSP worker is complementary to the role of a probation officer. It is an intensive support and supervision. Support is first. There is a supervisory role for the ISSP worker.

They spend much more time with the youth — typically, several hours a week. They assist them in a variety of ways — mentorship, getting them to appointments, addictions counselling, mental health counselling, making sure they’re going to school, all kinds of things like that. It is to basically provide additional support. It doesn’t really change the role of the probation officer.

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

L. Throness: I have several questions, if that’s all right, Chair. First, I want to acknowledge the presence of Peter and Linda. They have become my constituents. I want to give you my condolences as well. I did that once in a public meeting in a very inadequate way, and I want to apologize if that has added to your sense of loss.

As I read the report, I was struck with the heroic nature of Peter and Linda, striving for their child and never giving up and doing all they could with the system in order to give him the best chance. You’ve been through a lot, a great deal.

I just have a few questions. I also wanted to acknowledge the role that individuals within the system played with Nick. I think of the one fellow I read about, a caregiver who stayed up all night to make sure that Nick was okay. There are many instances related in the report of that. There are some very good people within the system, but the system lacks the right shape.

Something that I’ve been advocating for in my five years as an MLA is more addictions treatment services. So I wanted to ask first of all: has the representative met with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to talk about addictions and mental health services for youth?

B. Richard: Well, we haven’t met with the new minister formally yet. I’ve met informally with the minister a couple of times at events. But we have met formally with the deputy minister on a number of occasions. One of our three priorities at our office is mental health and addictions. The overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care and aging or transitions from care are the other two. But clearly, this is one of our priorities.

We’ve had several meetings with the deputy minister and his staff. We’ve talked about our recommendations in the past. We’ve checked in with them regarding these recommendations.

As well, it’s not clear yet, because the new ministry has more of a coordination role, as I understand it, and not a service delivery role. It’s not clear, in terms of their responsibility, except to ensure that the system functions more effectively, which is quite an important role. As we’ve noted in our report — and it was raised in a meeting with the minister in September — communications between service providers is a key issue in the area of mental health and addictions. There continue to be issues in that regard.

So not a formal meeting with the minister but, certainly, with the new ministry on a number of occasions.

[1:20 p.m.]

L. Throness: Previously, I was Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections, and I wrote a report about our system. I noted in that report that our corrections system has effectively become an involuntary drug and alcohol treatment facility. I would encourage you, as a representative, to continue to press on that issue, because we need something better.

I wanted to ask about secure care. You note that secure care could have helped Nick, and I wanted to ask…. Just before the demise of the previous government, there was a private member’s bill on secure care that was raised by Gordon Hogg. I’m wondering if the government has since made noises about the possibility of secure care for young people.

B. Richard: A good question for the government, but I can tell you, from our perspective, that we continue to support the idea of secure care, not that secure care in itself can resolve these types of issues — but secure care, supported by significant step-down services and supports. Some provinces — I think of Alberta — have quite successfully….

I was with the Alberta representative in Ottawa this week, and we had a bit of a side discussion on secure care, knowing that this meeting was coming up. Del Graff indicated that it’s perhaps not a cure-all, but in certain specific cases, it can make a real difference. So we’ve been….

I realize it’s a bit of a contentious issue. I’ve met with groups, with PARCA. We met last spring, perhaps. They certainly indicated, and the Civil Liberties Association has indicated on several occasions, that they’re concerned about secure care — that it can be abused and can be used in the wrong way. Certainly, I’ve noted that legislation was tabled 20 years ago or so in British Columbia. A bill was tabled again last year by MLA Gordon Hogg, as you mentioned. So it’s an ongoing conversation. Our position is that it can be a very useful tool in the toolkit, but it can’t be the entire toolkit, if I can put it that way.

L. Throness: Okay. I liked what the report had to say about a navigational path — that we lack that in our system. I know that Linda and Peter were casting about from ministry to ministry. I’m wondering if you could give a little more precision on your thoughts about a navigational path. What ministry might that single window be located in? And would that be good for Children and Family Development? Would that be an Attorney General thing? Could you just describe a little bit more about your thoughts there?

A. Markwart: Well, one of the problems is that responsibilities right now are quite fractured among the ministries. If you look at…. Even in the area of substance use services, which formerly…. Well, at one point, it was the Ministry of Health. It came to MCFD, and then it went back to Health. Even with substance use services, health authorities are responsible for civil, voluntary substance use services. However, MCFD is responsible for youth justice substance use services.

On the mental health front, you have…. Essentially, community-based child and youth mental health services are the responsibility of MCFD. However, the health authorities are responsible for hospital-based mental health services, with the exception of the Maples, which anomalously belongs to MCFD. It’s confusing to us and certainly would be confusing to parents and others who are trying to find their way through the system.

Also, when you have those kinds of fractured responsibilities, it’s very difficult to coordinate services appropriately.

[1:25 p.m.]

There are various methods around better coordination and navigation. You don’t necessarily need to reorganize, but there needs to be…. Actually, in the New Brunswick model — and perhaps Mr. Richard could comment on that — there are methods of collaborative case management and bringing together ministries and networks that can simplify and ease the navigation and ensure better cooperation and collaboration.

B. Richard: I think that the key…. Alan said the systems are complicated for us. But imagine if you’re a parent — and I’ve met with hundreds of parents over the years — dealing with the emotions of a child, a son or daughter, dealing with addictions or mental illness. If you’re sent from one door to another door, from one official to another official…. It’s virtually impossible to navigate.

The idea of a navigator…. In New Brunswick, we call it, in child protection, “one child, one file.” So all service providers feed the same file. They all access the same file. They all have the same information. Communications are facilitated by that. In other areas, we call it “the circle of care” — sharing information as well.

The system is organized to serve families, rather than having families having to determine what’s the best option for their child at the same time that they’re grieving, almost all the time, for a loss that is either imminently permanent or the possibility of a loss. I think for that kind of concept in the report we’ll be presenting to you next week, we’re talking more in the field of mental health. But we’re talking, again, of a comprehensive, coordinated system of care where officials, whether they’re working for youth justice, MCFD, education….

They all share the same information. They all have access to the same information. Therefore, the system is organized to respond to the need, rather than the other way around.

L. Throness: One more question. This is not the first report. This is the fourth report that has been done on Nick’s passing. What sorts of changes, if any, has the government instituted as a result of these four reports and their many recommendations?

D. Thomas-Wightman: I can give you an update on the ministry’s response to our report. Like I said, there’s still much significant work to be done, and there are a few changes that have happened. The previous government signed an MOU with a Métis working group to develop and implement specific strategies to improve outcomes for children and families that are Métis. That was recommendation 2 in our report.

Recommendation 3. There does appear to be an increase in school-based mental health clinicians in B.C., but there’s no provincewide coordinated plan as far as we can tell.

Recommendation 4. As Mr. Markwart had said, there is a review of the Lower Mainland ISSP services. That’s a first step, I guess, towards that recommendation.

Recommendation 5 has been completed and implemented. In September 2017, MCFD implemented a new practice directive enabling youth probation officers to share information with the schools for the purposes of service planning.

A. Markwart: Under recommendation 1, which is around a comprehensive system of substance use services, the expectation is…. There is a mental health and substance use strategy that is going to be forthcoming from the new Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Our expectation — or hope, at least — is that there’ll be some significant plans and resourcing of some new services.

N. Simons (Chair): I would also point out, in response to Laurie’s question, that the ministry did establish a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, which was called for at least three years ago, not just by the representative but by a number of advocates in the community. I think that that’s an important part of addressing some of the issues, anyway.

[1:30 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I just want to follow up, Bernard, on the “one child, one file” approach. Would there need to be changes to the legislation here in order to move in that direction?

B. Richard: I’ve heard conflicting views on that. In New Brunswick, we did have to amend the legislation. Certainly, officials, public servants, are taught to protect confidentiality, individuals’ privacy. So it is difficult for them, unless they feel that they’re protected by legislation, to breach confidentiality. Essentially, what we’re calling for is a system where all service providers readily share information amongst themselves. I wouldn’t take that for granted, that public servants feel that they can do that. They’re quite protective of that.

I’ve lived through a situation in New Brunswick. I was also the right to information and privacy commissioner. A minister resigned after having shared personal information in a file, and it created a chill in the entire public service. People felt: “Well, what can I share, even with other public service providers?” But then there are a host of private sector, not-for-private service providers, and there’s even, I think, a bigger wall there where officials feel they can’t share information. I know you’ve come across it yourself, that wall, when you’re advocating for individual files where officials are not sure if they’re entitled to give you information relating to the file, even if you have the consent of the parent.

I think these issues are best addressed through legislation. I’ve been told that it is possible to share information in the system here. I don’t know it as well as I should, I guess, but I think it would certainly clear up any hesitation if there were clear legislation allowing the sharing of information. In physical health care, it’s done readily. Dietitians, social workers, doctors, nurses — it’s called the circle of care. We think that it’s at least as important, perhaps more important, in the area of mental health and addictions as it is in physical care. So it should be done routinely, as a matter of course, in order to best respond to the needs of youth, particularly.

A. Markwart: If I could just add to that, it’s not simply legislative. It’s quite complicated. For example, you can get professional regulatory bodies involved — the College of Physicians and Surgeons, nurses and psychologists. They have different ethical guidelines, codes of conduct and whatnot that need to be addressed as well. It’s complicated.

N. Simons (Chair): In the report, there’s a lot of talk about…. Maybe it’s in Joshua’s report about step-down and step-up services. How does that…? Can you describe what those are and how they impact on our thoughts about this file?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Alan can take that.

A. Markwart: Well, step-up, step-down services are essentially voluntary, intermediate-level services between a community-based outpatient clinic, for example, and going to a tertiary care hospital setting. It’s mostly applicable in the mental health area rather than substance use, but it applies in the substance use world as well. In the mental health world, there is essentially nothing in the province between outpatient clinical services through child and youth mental health, for example, and going to the Surrey adolescent psychiatric unit or to the Maples or to B.C. Children’s Hospital.

Essentially, what a step-up or step-down unit is, is a staffed residential setting that’s specialized in providing intermediate mental health services. It serves as an alternative to going to a tertiary care hospital setting or, once you’re in a tertiary care hospital setting, as a way of transitioning out and back into the community.

[1:35 p.m.]

The same applies in the world of substance use, although you don’t find a lot of dedicated facilities in the substance use world that are tertiary care. It’s mostly community residential treatment.

In that world, there really is a want of community residential treatment facilities for adolescents. If you look at our report on substance use, which preceded this report…. I think at that time, there was a total of around 25 publicly funded community residential treatment beds in the entire province for a population of roughly 350,000 adolescents.

Since that time, there has been some improvement. What was formerly known as the Crossing at Keremeos program, now known as the Ashnola centre, was reopened. Well, that’s not really a gain. It was simply a program that was closed three or four years ago, and now it’s been reopened. There’s a new concurrent disorders treatment program in the North Shore hospital, which is a good step forward.

There really is a dearth of treatment options. In both the mental health and substance use area, there’s a huge need.

N. Simons (Chair): Well, let’s hope that that is starting to be addressed.

Do you think — when discussion is around increased services, increased investment after sort of a lack of investment — that discussions around secure care would be less relevant if in fact we had something between nothing and secure care?

B. Richard: Yeah. We’ve had that discussion between Alan and me. I just continue to believe that secure care will always be an option that will be helpful in the mix, if all of the care options are voluntary.

Unfortunately, as many parents would tell the committee members, often the numbers of opportunities to intervene are quite narrow. That’s true, I think, in all areas of addictions. There are periods, sometimes very short, where the addicted person will say, “I’m ready. I can’t do this anymore,” but that can be very short indeed. So secure care might allow a period of intervention, of treatment.

That’s when the step-down services become important, because you can’t keep a person in secure care indefinitely. You eventually have to let them out in the community, and you need to be able to provide step-down services at another level than just send them back home.

What Perry Kendall — soon to be retired, he tells me…. Well, I don’t know if he’s publicly announced that. Did he? I’ve been away.

N. Simons (Chair): Oh yeah. Don’t worry. It was on the front page.

B. Richard: Okay. Good. I was invited to his retirement send-off, but I didn’t know if he’d announced it publicly.

What he would say is that there’s a risk of providing treatment and then releasing a person back into the community. If they’re going to use again, their system is less resistant to a product like fentanyl, and they may be even at greater risk of dying from an overdose than they would be if they were continually using. So it’s, again, a very complex kind of area.

Even being able to place a young person in secure care, providing treatment, sometimes against their will…. Maybe after two, three, four days, they’re in withdrawal. They’re thinking: “I’ve had enough of this. I want out.” With secure care, you could keep them in treatment against their will. At some point, eventually, they will have to be released into the community. You can’t keep them indefinitely. So having a slightly lower level of treatment is necessary to get them to a place where they can resist the need to use again.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Markwart: Well, if I could just add to that, I think a precondition really should be that you should have a robust system and a wide array of voluntary services first and that we should not be resorting to expensive tertiary care or involuntary treatment in the absence of appropriate voluntary services. It’s a given that if somebody volunteers for services and if they’re readily available, that’s going to be a more effective route.

Perhaps in the next case, he did go to a detox centre and, absurdly, got kicked out because of smoking. A cigarette is seen as a greater priority than methamphetamine, which is astounding.

That said, secure care is an appropriate option at the end of a continuum, but it really should be a last resort. Sometimes it may need to be a first resort in an extreme case. But it’s a matter of general principle.

N. Simons (Chair): Well, we have the Mental Health Act if it’s in fact an urgent situation. It would have to be because of…. Or the Criminal Code if there’s a threat.

I agree. I think it’s a very interesting discussion. I tell you, though, from…. I’ve had to convince kids to go and get assessed and stuff, and it was never because there was a threat that if you don’t, I can do it on my own. I think there’s room for discussion about what happens when there’s that in your back pocket. Your role suddenly changes. When I go into a family, if I have the capacity to remove a child without a warrant, they’ll see me differently than if I don’t.

B. Richard: Oh, absolutely. I understand completely. You’re a social worker, and I’m a lawyer. We have a different world view, I guess, because of that.

I just think that given the addictions crisis we’re facing, we can’t afford to leave any option off the table. That’s my ongoing view. Secure care versus attending your child’s funeral? I’ll take secure care any time.

N. Simons (Chair): It’s an interesting discussion, and it’s obviously one that people have wrestled with for a long time. In some communities, it’s probably worth a look at other jurisdictions. Definitely, we here are open to good arguments.

B. Richard: I want to say, as well, that there are many areas in which B.C. is leading the country in youth criminal justice. Alan has played a big role in that. I left a province where, in an average month, we’d have roughly about 50 youth in closed custody. I came to a province with about a six times bigger population where in any given month, you have about 50 youth in closed custody.

Certainly, B.C. has made good use of the new legislation — the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It’s made significant use of alternative measures short of closed custody. It’s done some great work in that area. I do want to point that out. That’s been a significant learning for me coming here that B.C. has done some good things as well. I just think that given the nature of the crisis, we can’t leave any option out.

N. Simons (Chair): Did you want to add something, Alan?

A. Markwart: Well, just that I completely agree that one of the ironic by-products of that is precisely what happened in this case. It’s that the best way to get mental health or addictions treatment services in this province is to go through the youth justice system, and that’s wrong.

B. Richard: Yes. I can’t help but want to extend that talk. I couldn’t tell you how many parents I’ve met that have told me that they’ve been counselled indirectly by service providers. They’ve been told: “If only your child would break the law, then treatment could be part of a court order.” It’s just, to me, a perverse way of getting at it.

A. Hardy: If I can just add briefly, it also is contrary to the Youth Criminal Justice Act to use criminal justice in the absence of social support services.

[1:45 p.m.]

Parents and community members may be doing the best they can do for that child, but using the criminal justice system that way not only is perhaps not the best way to go about things, but it is also contrary to the YCJA.

N. Simons (Chair): Unless a criminal offence has occurred.

A. Hardy: Even so, using the criminal justice system, even with the criminal…. In this case, certainly, quite a high-level criminal offence was committed. It’s obviously outside of our mandate to speak to court decisions. The court decision in this case was likely in keeping with what happened, but the intent of using the criminal justice system to get services that B.C. isn’t providing is not in keeping with the YCJA.

N. Simons (Chair): It’s just wrong. Exactly.

R. Glumac: Reading through this report, it’s really tragic to see how many people tried to help and how the parents tried so hard to help. It just didn’t seem like the right tools were there to help this particular child. As a parent reading through this and just imagining how that could happen, where it starts so small and just spirals out of control, I can’t imagine what that must be like. It must have been so hard.

Then it says in there that there was never a mental health assessment done. That, to me, is the big thing that stands out: the fact that that was never done. I’m no expert on this at all, but it certainly seems like that would have been really helpful early on in this whole process. I’m also looking forward to the mental health and substance abuse strategy, when that comes out, to see how we’re going to fix this system, because it’s clearly broken. I feel for everyone that was involved in this. There are a lot of people that really did everything they could.

R. Singh: I was going through the report, too, and it’s so sad. Having worked in the field myself — I was an alcohol and drug counsellor — I always struggled when parents came to me and were looking for resources. There was such a lack of resources and big waiting lists. So I know that firsthand — how to help the parents deal with this. Going through this report, I can see the gaps that these parents were facing, and I feel so sorry for you. Whatever we can do, with this report, with the recommendations, to fix this problem…. It’s a really big issue. That’s what I can say.

N. Simons (Chair): At some level, we’re talking about resource requirements. I think what I’ve seen is that almost every report issued by the representative has mentioned, in some form, the lack of adequate resources. I rarely meet anyone in this sector who doesn’t try. When the system fails, even the people within the system working in it…. That’s where our emphasis is going to have to continue to be.

I don’t know if you’d like to make a….

B. Richard: Member Singh referred to wait-lists and wait times. That’s something that comes up constantly in our office, in our advocacy work. In fact, parents…. You would hear the desperation in their voices, and you read it in the letters or emails they send. They almost want us to intervene and say: “This child should be ahead of the list.” The need is great, and the wait times are…. Really, if you are a parent, waiting a year or two years for an assessment — it’s not even to access services but for an assessment to determine what services are necessary — is hell. It’s excruciating. It’s desperate for parents to have to go through that kind of a situation.

[1:50 p.m.]

I would say that the committee could be helpful, in making its own report, either supporting our recommendations or addressing parts of them. I think that’s a role…. You’ve indicated, Mr. Chair, that you want to play a more robust role in the work that you do, in reviewing our work and the ministry’s work. I think every voice matters in this kind of situation.

N. Simons (Chair): Alan, do you want to add something?

A. Markwart: Well, I just wanted to…. On the issue of wait times, I think it’s really important to underline that wait times really erode the effectiveness of services. It’s not like youth are constantly saying: “I want help and treatment.” Often they’re resistant, but they go through periods. There are moments in time when they say: “I really need something.” But if you tell them, “You have to wait three months,” they’ll just throw their hands up in the air, and you’ve lost that window of opportunity. You’ve lost that real potential for success.

N. Simons (Chair): Yeah. You’ve probably had an impact on the trust level too.

A. Markwart: Yeah.

N. Simons (Chair): I just thought, at this point, if Peter wants to say a few words about what you hope the committee might be able to accomplish or what our focus might be…. At least this, perhaps, gives you an indication that we are interested in your perspective. I’m sure you speak on behalf of Linda as well. Thank you for being here.

P. Lang: Thanks for having me. I raise my hands to all of you for the work you’re doing.

I guess I’ll just start by saying that one of the biggest factors for me in this whole thing was that I was surprised by the lack of cultural competence right from the very get-go, from our time in the courts — so sharing with the court-appointed lawyer and the probation officer that Nick was Métis, knowing full well that that triggered a lot of the Gladue principles.

I work in a healing village. I’m a deputy warden for the federal government, and I work in a healing village in Sts’ailes traditional territory. I know Laurie has been there for some ceremonies. I thought I was walking into a system that was culturally competent like our facility.

Our facility is recognized by the correctional investigator as kind of the shining beacon of marrying government policy with Indigenous traditional teachings. Our healing village specifically is always singled out. I was always really proud of my results there, of the number of guys who were getting out on day parole and the lack of escapes and those kinds of results-oriented stats. I was constantly comparing myself to healing villages in other parts of the country. We’re the only healing village with a longhouse on it.

I guess I was naive or something. I figured that within the province we would have some sort of similar engagement if I was to say: “My son’s Métis. Culture is important to him. He responds well to elders.” I know that because I’m his dad, and I’ve taught him his whole life about the importance of his culture. So has his mom, who is not Métis, right? She’s Dutch. So he learned about all of those cultures and the importance of it. But he was really, really fond of his Indigenous heritage. We explained the difference between Métis and First Nations. But I said: “These are like your brothers and sisters.” All of his close friends were First Nations. So that was the biggest thing.

I think, as a committee…. I’d love to invite anybody up to Kwìkwèxwelhp Healing Village to check it out, especially for a ceremony or as a committee, as a group or something — we could arrange it — just to see how the staff and the offenders engage with each other.

At the core of everything we do are the elders. As much as there’s a warden making the decisions and me as the deputy warden, we always defer to the elders when it comes to, really, anything — and the community as well. The community of Sts’ailes is a full-on partner with us.

I don’t know. It’s just a really good, good arrangement. I would love to see something similar. You mentioned the word “robust,” and I heard the term “circle of care.” We use a term in federal corrections called “continuum of care.” So when somebody comes into the system as a maximum security inmate because they’ve, say, murdered somebody or something and they’ve gradually cascaded down through medium and then…. But if they’re Indigenous, they will be connected with an elder right from the start. That is a given, if they want. If they say, “No, I’m not interested in my culture,” that’s their choice, but most will eventually come around.

[1:55 p.m.]

We opened up, when I was the assistant warden at Kent institution, a pre-Pathways facility, as we called it. It was a place to get them engaged from the beginning. I wish we had something similar within the youth justice system — not necessarily a prison, obviously, but that sort of cultural competence within the youth justice probation system and the Ministry of Children and Families as well. I just want to see it integrated throughout the ministry. Given the number of Indigenous children that are in care, I think it’s just something that has to be done if we’re going to make a difference.

I really believe…. Something positive that has come out of this, if you can pull any positives out of the death of a child, is that I’ve started to take mental health a lot more seriously, not just for myself but for my staff as well, just trying to normalize that conversation. I’m very open about sharing my story.

I was just over on the Island, in Nanaimo, earlier this week, conducting a workshop called Mental Health in the Workplace, trying to normalize the conversation. It’s all health. Mental health is health. It’s just like breaking a leg. If you have anxiety, which I suspect Nick had — we won’t know if he did, but we suspect he did, in hindsight — that’s health. Addiction is health. To me, it’s all one thing.

One of the positives, like I said, that has come of it is just looking at, possibly, why I’m here. Like, why am I here in this world? I sort of defer to the Creator and kind of go: obviously, this has happened for a reason. I think that we’re here to try and improve things for other people down the road.

It’s just strange how life has put us in this position. I never, ever in my entire life thought I’d be sitting…. I used to watch question period just for fun, just because my best friend Steve over there and I are political junkies, right? We always have been, since our twenties, but I never, ever in a million years thought I’d be sitting here talking to you about the death of my son or changes to the system.

I really believe the Creator has put us in this position so we can make a change, make a positive change, regardless of what our political affiliations are, and just decide that the most important thing here is supporting our youth — our Indigenous youth and our non-Indigenous youth — that are struggling with addictions and mental health issues.

Steve and I were just talking outside the room here. He’s a corporal with the Langley RCMP, and his jurisdiction is Walnut Grove. He was saying that every day he sees kids just like Nick. These are kids coming from middle-class homes who have methamphetamine addictions because it’s $20 a day. That’s easy to find, picking up pop cans and beer cans on the street, if you want to, or maybe shoplifting something and selling it. It’s easy to support that habit no matter what.

He sees parents that are struggling in the exact same way Linda and I struggled. They’re alternating between wanting to support their child and then putting down that hard line — like we did when we took Nick’s cell phone away the night he assaulted his mom — and saying: “No, we’re doing this for your own good.” Then violence happens and….

It’s not just us. It’s out there in every community, in every type of home, from every socioeconomic group, Indigenous, non-Indigenous, so we need to do something soon.

I do believe that secure care is worth looking at. I don’t like throwing people in custody. It’s just not my thing, even though I’m a deputy warden at a prison. My belief is that the best work will come through…. I do believe that there is a place for secure care or at least to look at it. Look at which models in other provinces are working well and why they’re working well.

I do believe, also, as I said in my email, Nicholas, that it needs some strict oversight, though, so it’s not abused. And it should not be necessarily sort of a fail-safe….

A Voice: A default.

[2:00 p.m.]

P. Lang: Yeah. It’s not a panacea to everything, but it is something that is a good tool. I think one of the examples that was pointed out by somebody in another province is that they find it very effective when underage girls are being pimped out into the sex trade and stuff like that — breaking that sort of connection between the pimp and the victim, who is essentially a youth. So there’s that issue as well. It may be worthwhile looking at.

As I said, I raise my hands to all of you for the work. This is a tough portfolio for anybody, and we’re here now to help. We want to make sure that this death was not in vain.

N. Simons (Chair): Okay with some questions?

P. Lang: Sure.

N. Simons (Chair): First of all, thank you very much, and thank you, Linda. We learn from you so that we can generalize the lessons as much as possible.

Sonia has a question for you.

S. Furstenau: Actually, my question is coming from you, and I’m going to direct it over here.

Peter, thank you. Your wisdom and your strength comes through in all of your words.

P. Lang: Thanks.

S. Furstenau: You talk about this lack of cultural competence, and I think we’re seeing this in other areas of what we’re looking at in this committee and with this work, and then listening to the need for recognizing, particularly in this case but generally, the role for action on mental health and addictions — a far more proactive place for that to be coming into play. And overlay that with the cultural competence, which you talk about, that we need.

I’m wondering about how to break down the silos now that are in danger of being created between three ministries looking at this. We have MCFD, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and we have the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. To achieve what you’re speaking of and what I think is so needed, we’re going to need coordination between those ministries.

My question to you is: how do you see taking steps towards that happening? Are you seeing some steps being taken? Or, conversely, do you have any red flags at this point, seven months into this new reality?

B. Richard: Certainly, lots of red flags. In principle, I believe that the role of the new ministry can be a very valuable one, because collaboration, sharing of information, wraparound services, circle of care, continuing care — all of those principles — all speak to the same thing: the need for public services.

Sometimes it’s not even an issue of money. It really is about working together to provide the services that are needed at the right time. I think there’s a role for the new ministry, but I also worry that it’s just one other silo to a bunch of silos. I know — I mean, it’s secondhand knowledge — it’s just something you have to discuss with the ministries themselves. We’re not service providers, but clearly, I’ve heard that there’s some resistance with creating a new ministry.

There’s an existing Ministry of Health. The money is there. Maybe the efforts at coordination and collaboration are here, but the money is there. There’s some resistance, I think, to relinquishing the money, because the money is the power and the ability to do things. There’s always need in the health care system. I couldn’t agree more with Peter when he says that mental health is health.

I have a good friend who is a psychiatrist and was on the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s child and youth committee. He would always say that mental health is the poor cousin of the health care system, and youth mental health is the poor cousin of the poor cousin. So resources are important in this conversation.

Certainly, coordination, collaboration, is vital, but I think I’ve spent enough years working with bureaucracies. They create their own walls and barriers and sometimes operate in silos because budgets are attributed to ministries and not to efforts.

I think it will take some very, very strong, determined leadership at the very top of the political world to say: “Listen, boys and girls, we obligate you to collaborate.” Because it doesn’t happen naturally in bureaucracies. I think that’s the nature of bureaucracies.

Alan, you’ve been around for decades more than I have. Well, a year or two at least.

[2:05 p.m.]

N. Simons (Chair): Alan, do you want to respond to that?

D. Thomas-Wightman: Can I speak to the Indigenous cultural competence piece, though?

N. Simons (Chair): Yes, please, Dawn.

D. Thomas-Wightman: I think it is a crisis, and we never look at it that way. I think in mental health and substance use it’s even worse than in child protection, which is bad enough in there. It’s 2018, and I can’t believe we’re having the conversation, but it has to be mandatory — and not just one training program. It sounds like where you work, it’s an integrated part of every decision you make.

That’s not going to happen, though, without Indigenous leadership in these organizations. I know that the Ministry of Mental Health does not have any Indigenous leadership there. In fact, the whole PSA has one or two, maybe, now — it used to be zero — Indigenous leaders in ADM or DM roles. When is that going to change so that some of these things around cultural competency can change?

We know the research is really clear that culture is a protective factor, so why is it never considered in some of these programs? To me, it’s a huge issue. I’m glad you brought it up. Thank you. It’s 2018, and enough is enough. My gosh. It was completely ignored in this situation, which, unfortunately, is all too common.

B. Richard: A good point. It doesn’t happen by itself.

I think I mentioned to the committee that we’ve recently applied for, and received, an exemption to recruit new employees on an Indigenous-must criteria. It needs to be exempted by the Human Rights Tribunal to be able to do that. So 10 percent of our staff are Indigenous. But 65 percent of our clients, to put it that way, children and families, are Indigenous. So we need to be more reflective of that. I think ministries like Health, Mental Health and Addictions, and MCFD should be much more robust in recruiting Indigenous staff at the higher levels.

N. Simons (Chair): That was well said, Dawn. I concur. I would point out that we have a First Nations minister as well, and we have a Métis Finance Minister as well.

I do think that there is a change in that perspective. It might take awhile, but I agree that it’s a crisis. I appreciate you pointing that out and for you raising that issue and making sure that it stays at the forefront of our discussions.

The committee is intending to, at least, hold an upcoming session in a First Nations community where there’s an agency. We’ll keep that at the forefront of our minds when we talk about these kinds of things.

On behalf of the committee and the representative’s office and everyone, thank you for being here — and Linda, too, and Steve, for your support. I appreciate it very much, and I’m sure we’ll have more conversations.

Committee members, if there are no further questions on this report, we have a fourth item on the agenda, which is further business. Earlier, there seemed to be none, and there still seems to be none.

B. Richard: Can I take the opportunity to thank the staff of our office?

N. Simons (Chair): Can I ask Bernard to please thank the staff of his office?

B. Richard: I particularly want to do it in light of Peter’s comments. Sadly, these kinds of situations are situations which we work with and work on and research and investigate every single day, and advocate for. They take a toll on our own staff. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to bring issues to light and to help us articulate the possible solutions.

Just for the sake of Hansard, having been an MLA for a number of years, I think it’s important for posterity to say that as well.

N. Simons (Chair): It’s very much appreciated. None of us, probably, really know the challenges. I think we can acknowledge, also, everyone who’s made an effort to improve the lives of children and families in our province. That is something we’ll continue to do. I thank the committee, thank Hansard, and Alayna and Kate, and everyone.

I guess that adjourns our meeting. Someone needs to move that we adjourn. Because I’m the Chair, I’m not supposed to do that. Okay, Michelle, the Deputy Chair, and seconded by Sonia.

We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 2:09 p.m.