The committee met at 10:04 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, committee members. It’s a pleasure to be here to discuss a couple of important reports from the representative.

[10:05 a.m.]

Thank you to Deputy Michelle for her help in getting the agenda and organizing a time for us to be here in this busy first week back.

I wonder, first, if everyone has had a chance to look at the agenda, and I wonder if there are any additional items anyone would like to add.

Notification of Child Welfare Cases

L. Throness: Just one other point of business, and that was that we were at some point going to talk about the possibility of passing legislation so that opposition members could be informed of difficult cases. I’m just wondering where that is.

N. Simons (Chair): That’s exactly correct, Laurie.

I’m not entirely sure. I believe the next step was that the Deputy Chair and I were going to meet to talk with the ministry about specific ideas they had around that and the legislative framework that would be required. The issue was that this committee wasn’t going to examine what legislative changes would be required. We’d leave it to the ministry, with their legal counsel, to figure that out, and then they would come back to us with a more fulsome proposal.

L. Throness: Perhaps could we ask, then, that a meeting soon take place so that that could be discussed?

N. Simons (Chair): I’ll ask the Clerk.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): I believe that we’ve circulated to committee members — probably about eight weeks ago, six weeks ago — some correspondence on this matter. I will undertake to receive an update from the ministry with respect to their work in considering legislative change. I know that once that had been determined, there would be some more information available to the committee to assess what model would be available to consider going forward, but I will endeavour to provide an update to you all.

L. Throness: Thank you, Chair.

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

Welcome, everyone. Welcome to people in the gallery and those who are listening in on Hansard television.

The first item of business today is consideration of the representative’s report Delegated Aboriginal Agencies. I believe this was issued in March of 2017. It’s a pleasure to welcome the representative, Bernard Richard.

Consideration of Representative
for Children and Youth Reports

Delegated Aboriginal Agencies:
How Resourcing Affects
Service Delivery

B. Richard: Bonjour. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I’m very pleased, of course, to be back here at the committee to present on two reports, actually, this morning. Both were released in early 2017. They’re, in fact, the two first reports released by my office after my appointment in November 2016. Oddly enough, in the last year, we’ve presented on several other RCY reports, and these, I think, are the last two outstanding to present to the committee and to interact with you about.

I want to introduce the senior staff members who are here with me. Alan Markwart is the acting deputy representative. I’m sure you know — at least, I hope you know — that Dawn Thomas-Wightman is on secondment to the First Nations Leadership Council for one year. It’s a great opportunity for her at a very exciting time in terms of Indigenous child welfare, lots happening and yet to happen. It’s a great opportunity for Dawn. I’d actually invited her to attend this morning and thought she might until about 15 minutes ago. Unfortunately, she can’t be here.

I’m also pleased to introduce Carly Hyman. She’s new to our office. She started in January. Carly is right here. Carly is our new chief investigator with our team who conduct investigations of critical injuries and deaths of children and youth in the care system or recently in care. Carly’s experience runs deep, and we feel very fortunate that she has chosen to work with our office.

She has a law degree from the University of Victoria, a sure guarantee of expertise, and nearly ten years experience with the Office of the Ombudsperson. She was the first manager of the Ombudsperson’s systemic investigations team. Her experience in that office gave her expertise in conducting individual and systemic investigations into complaints about provincial government bodies in B.C., and she developed a specialization in services to children and youth.

[10:10 a.m.]

Most recently before joining the RCY, Carly was director of policy, legislation and issues management with the court services branch, Ministry of the Attorney General. In the short time she’s been with us, Carly has shown she will be an extremely valuable contributor to the organization. So please join me in welcoming Carly to RCY.

We also have two other people with me here. Colleen is our executive director of monitoring services. She’s particularly joyful about your recommendation to make monitoring a permanent part of our organization. We’ll be working on legislative changes to make that happen. And Karen Nelson is the senior investigations analyst with our office.

First off I’ll present on the DAA report. It was released end of March — I think March 30 — last year. The title was Delegated Aboriginal Agencies: How Resourcing Affects Service Delivery. The report examined the funding of the organizations that deliver child welfare services to many Indigenous communities across B.C. — not all. MCFD delivers some services as well. DAAs also deliver services to many Indigenous children and families living outside of First Nations in urban centres, like greater Victoria, greater Vancouver.

There are now 24 DAAs in B.C. that serve about 47 percent of all Indigenous children in care. When we completed the report, there were 23. The province has added — in September, I believe — a 24th agency and a second Métis agency serving Métis families in the Kamloops area.

Our report involved many interviews, and second and third interviews, with DAA staff who work in child protection around the province. It included an extensive international and national literature review of staffing issues in Indigenous child welfare systems, and it included an analysis of more than 150 related documents provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well as a review of the many reports released on Indigenous child welfare in Canada in recent years.

We had conducted a similar review of MCFD offices and services in 2015, and we believed that it was time to look at the perspective and experience of workers in DAAs. This was direct engagement with team leaders, front-line staff and agency directors.

What we found in our review was not encouraging. The report highlighted a funding and staffing system that has historically provided inequitable supports and services for Indigenous children and families in B.C. compared to what their non-Indigenous counterparts receive.

It documented a system that did not account for the fact that the need for services is greater in DAAs in order to address the intergenerational trauma caused by residential schools and other colonial policies in Canada. It documented a system in which DAAs have been chronically understaffed, with child protection workers carrying heavy caseloads in excess of 50 percent more cases than recommended by provincial standards.

In addition, it showed that DAAs struggled to pay competitive salaries, making recruitment and retention of workers difficult because wages were not equal to those paid by MCFD. The result of this underfunding was that Indigenous children and youth were being removed from their homes and placed in care because funds were not available to provide support services to their families and because the funding formula they operated under encouraged them to take children into care.

We’ve talked about this in the past — that the INAC funding formula provided 100 percent reimbursement of costs when children were in care, yet there was very little funding for prevention services and family supports.

[10:15 a.m.]

In January 2016, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the federal funding model has discriminated against Indigenous children by not accounting for the real needs of children and families living on reserve in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada as well. Not surprisingly, the results of our review were in line with this finding.

Our review also found that funding problems existed with the provincial government. Confusing and inconsistent funding arrangements between the province and DAAs meant real differences in the types of supports that were available for B.C.’s Indigenous children, depending on where they live in the province.

We also found that MCFD did not have a clearly defined approach for determining the funding of DAAs based on the number of Indigenous children, youth and families in need of services. Funding is provided to DAAs on a regional basis with no overall provincial rationale.

There’s no standardized method for accounting for the unique needs of remote and small agencies, increases to inflation, cost of living, changes to provincial standards, the need for comparable salaries and benefits for MCFD staff, training and other key operational costs.

A lack of trust and communication between DAAs, MCFD and INAC have negatively affected service delivery to Indigenous children, youth and families. DAAs staff told us that relationships with INAC are almost nonexistent, and because of high staff turnover in many MCFD offices in the regions, relationship-building with MCFD social workers and team leaders is time-consuming and sometimes difficult.

DAA staff interviewed for this report said their ability to provide all-important culturally based prevention services was severely limited by staffing and funding issues. As one worker told us: “I’m coming to work to put out fires for that day, until another one starts tomorrow.”

It is widely recognized that Indigenous families and children struggle with the negative effects of intergenerational trauma caused by such policies as residential schools and the Sixties Scoop. Another DAA worker told us: “Families have been colonized, invaded, murdered, assimilated, and it’s as raw as it was 15 years ago.”

Legislation and standards to protect Indigenous cultural connections are in place, so the funding to provide these services should follow. But in many cases, it hasn’t.

Many of the issues covered by our review weren’t new, but this report set an important baseline by which promised improvements to Indigenous child welfare services in this province can be measured.

In the wake of our report, the Minister of Children and Family Development released a statement agreeing overall that delegated Aboriginal agencies require additional support and that federal funding through Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada — INAC is now divided into two ministries, but the prominent one for this discussion is DISC, the Department of Indigenous Services Canada — must focus on prevention and family preservation rather than child protection alone.

The minister said our report included valuable feedback from DAAs but added that it didn’t reflect many of the recent improvements and commitments the province has made to help ensure better outcomes for Indigenous children, youth and families.

I certainly can agree with the minister to the extent that reflections from DAA staff were gathered for this report prior to the current provincial government taking power but also prior to significant investments in last February’s budget in the area of child welfare and certainly before the quite important and significant national discussion on Indigenous child welfare started in earnest, I think in the last 12 months.

Minister Conroy has pointed out that $150 million over three years has been budgeted by the B.C. government to address the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John in his November 2016 report Indigenous Resilience, Connectedness and Unification: From Root Causes to Root Solutions. She also said, following our report, that the ministry would invest $14.4 million in the ’17-18 fiscal year to ensure that delegated Aboriginal agencies are funded at equitable levels to the ministry.

[10:20 a.m.]

In the context of this meeting, it bears repeating that in the last year, Canada’s Prime Minister went to the United Nations and described our Indigenous child welfare system as “our national shame.” At about the same time, the federal Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott described the situation as a “humanitarian crisis.”

Not long after Minister Philpott called January’s emergency meeting on Indigenous child welfare in Ottawa, Indigenous Services Canada sent a letter to all 105 First Nations child and family services agencies across the country, promising that the federal government would immediately begin to cover agencies’ actual costs as well as reimburse them retroactively to 2016.

Have these changes made a difference on the ground for DAAs, their workers and the families they serve? Certainly, that’s our expectation. I think it’s a bit too early to say. Certainly, our ongoing work with the delegated Aboriginal agencies indicates that not much of the new funding is flowing to front-line services yet.

Minister Philpott told the media recently that the federal government has turned the corner and fully complied with the orders of the 2016 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, but others think otherwise. Cindy Blackstock, the force behind the CHRT complaint, has publicly disagreed with that assessment.

More money is being budgeted, but we’re yet to see tangible improvements and money flowing to help children in Indigenous communities, whether they’re in care or not. That will be the true test, I think, when it comes to these changes. Are they making things better for Indigenous children and families?

I think the same questions must be asked about provincial initiatives. Will new commitments in Indigenous child welfare translate into real change on the ground? Recent cases involving Indigenous newborns and families point to the same old ways of delivering services with the same old disappointing results.

Will legislative amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act fully reflect the government’s commitments in its initial throne speech and in the minister’s mandate letter? Early indications are not promising. With the help of the baseline established by this report, we will continue to monitor this important issue.

In closing, I’d like to publicly thank the front-line social workers and other DAA staff who told us their stories. We continue to meet with them in individual cases and in our advocacy work, of course. Their assistance was greatly appreciated and extremely critical to the DAA report.

It’s an area of child welfare that has changed dramatically and is changing dramatically as we speak. It’s an area where we will, of course, be monitoring progress. All the committee members are familiar with the numbers, the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care. Unfortunately, that’s not changing.

We still are struggling. I’ve got some recent numbers. For example, whereas the total number of children and youth in care in British Columbia continues to go down gradually, the number of Indigenous children in care stays virtually about the same. So the percentage of Indigenous children in care continues to grow.

More of them are being served by delegated Aboriginal agencies. When we did our research and released this report, roughly about 43 percent of Indigenous children in care were served by DAAs. Now it’s over 47 percent. That percentage, I think, will continue to grow. And while that is a good thing, what’s not a good thing is that we’re not having the same success in reducing the numbers of Indigenous children in care that we are having with non-Indigenous children in care.

[10:25 a.m.]

I’m happy to take any questions and to hear comments from the committee.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks very much, Bernard. We really appreciate your summary of the report.

Before going any further, I want to say that I warmly welcome a new member of our committee, Ronna-Rae Leonard, Courtenay-Comox, who is replacing Jennifer Rice, whose other commitments have prevented her from being able to attend. Welcome, Ronna-Rae.

I want to say that having worked in the delegated agency for ten years, I recognize many of the concerns that have been raised. It’s sad to point out that they’ve been raised many years, successive years, by the delegated agencies themselves, the directors forum and the various iterations of governance.

I’d like to open the floor for questions from members.

L. Throness: Thank you for that report on the report.

I want to point out that this was a report of the prior Representative for Children and Youth from last March. As usual, it is an encyclopedic compendium of tragedy. It seems that that is the ongoing litany that we hear from the RCY.

However, the past government was not less well-meaning than the present one. I think they are both well-meaning. If there were problems before, it is likely due to high competition for funds. Competition for funds will always remain, so it could be that there will be continuing problems in the future.

The thing that strikes me is that the problem is often not in the lack of funds but in the allocation of those funds. For instance, you mentioned confusing, inconsistent funding; poorly defined funding models; no standardized accounting; a lack of trust in communication and relationship with government. I would just cite, as an example, my own litany, which is foster care. If we were able to set as a goal that we would eliminate contracted care, which is five times more expensive, we would free up a lot of budget that we could present to Indigenous agencies and so on. So it seems that there is structured dysfunction in the ministry.

My question is to you, the new Representative for Children and Youth. We understand that there is tragedy and there always will be, and we need to report on that. But could you undertake a more positive technical assessment of the structured dysfunction that exists within the ministry and recommend, in a more positive way, solutions that take into account that there will always be funding pressures — and in the midst of those funding pressures how we can yet move forward?

B. Richard: Well, thank you for the comment and the question. Certainly, as part of our ongoing work, we will continue to monitor any changes, improvements…. I wish I could come to the committee and give good news. I don’t feel that new, especially today, because today is my 67th birthday. So I’m feeling quite old today, to be honest. You gave me an opportunity to say that.

The news is not good. It’s just not good. It’s not much better since the change of government. I want to be clear on that.

This is very much my report. The work started and a lot of it was done during Mary Ellen’s time, but it was released under my leadership, and I take full responsibility for it.

It’s hard for us to report on good news. Carly and her team review roughly about 100 cases of critical injury and death of kids in care every month, about 100 suicide attempts in the last three months. There’s not a day that we go to work that we receive a lot of good news. It just doesn’t happen all that much.

[10:30 a.m.]

It stands to reason that’s why we exist. People come to us because they’re struggling, whether that’s in Indigenous child welfare or elsewhere. So we have a responsibility.

I’m a former member of the Legislature, a former minister. Line departments are not inclined to share bad news. It’s just not in their makeup. Bureaucracies aren’t either. They want to protect the minister or protect the government, whoever is in government.

I’m afraid I have to say we’ll have to continue providing news that is not great, but we’ll certainly look at…. This is such a period of significant change that I think there’s a wonderful opportunity to fill some of these gaps. Communities are standing up for their right to raise their own children and take care of their own children. They’re standing up to government. That’s a wonderful thing, but they need the tools with which to do that.

I hear, all the time, good intentions. I heard it from the previous government. I’ve heard it from the current government. Even very recently we see that…. What’s needed? Of course, new resources, new legislation, an improved framework. More importantly, a change of culture, a confidence that First Nations communities can take care of their own children — supporting that and ending our paternalistic ways of dealing with Indigenous child welfare.

It’s out there. I’ve seen proof of it in the last weeks, and it’s concerning. It’s not in my character to use very strong words. It’s just not how I was raised. It is very discouraging to see some of the stuff that’s still going on out there, and we will continue to report on that.

L. Throness: Perhaps I could give one follow-up comment, Chair.

N. Simons (Chair): Sure. Go ahead, Laurie.

L. Throness: I’m reading a book right now about the history of mental illness in England and North America over the past 400 years, when the first institution for the mentally ill, Bethlem Hospital, was founded in about 1600. The history of these institutions is that the need is recognized. An institution is built. It is immediately overcrowded. New institutions are built. Huge institutions are built, and they are immediately overcrowded and swamped.

That is the history of institutions for the mentally ill over the past 400 years. There have been enormous good intentions and enormous reform movements to try and change that, and that always seems to be the way it is.

As a word of comfort to you…. It seems to me that in the private sector, there are the laws of supply and demand. Supply rises to meet demand. In the public sector, it’s the reverse. You have supply, and demand rises to meet supply, not only to meet supply but to exceed supply. That is the way it works in the public sector. I think, in the public sector, we will always be hard-pressed with a paucity of resources. We will always be met with an excess of difficulty and need because the well of human need is inexhaustible.

I want to encourage you in that. This is nothing new. I want to encourage you to come forward with very specific and concrete recommendations as to positive steps that we need to take to make things better. If there is no standardized accounting, tell us what to do about the accounting so that at least we can get that right.

B. Richard: Thank you, again, for your comments. I don’t disagree, fundamentally, with a lot of what you’re saying. My hope is that we’ll….

One institution that we haven’t done a good job of supporting and building is the family. Families struggle, for all kinds of historic reasons. We’ve tried to find institutional solutions to that by building and contracting with churches and building hospitals and hospital wings and taking children from their families. That hasn’t worked. I think we can all agree on that. We haven’t succeeded. Building the institution of the family and supporting the family as an institution — I’m all for that.

[10:35 a.m.]

I’ll take you up on the challenge, Member. Thank you.

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

A. Markwart: I would agree with you. There’ll never be enough government funding to do everything that’s required. One thing that is completely unacceptable is when there is inequitable funding based on race and race alone. That’s what this report talks about.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for your report and presenting. My question is about the Aboriginal children and the numbers in care and the increase of the number of children in care.

Are these children that are primarily living on reserve or are they off reserve, or is it a combination? Do you know what the breakdown is?

B. Richard: I don’t have the breakdown. We know that 70 percent, roughly, of First Nations members in British Columbia don’t live on reserve. So certainly, large numbers are living in urban centres across the province — Vancouver, greater Victoria, Prince George and other cities. It’s a fact of Indigenous life in Canada and certainly in British Columbia.

That’s one of the reasons some of them are served by the ministry and others are served by delegated Aboriginal agencies. It’s a complex world, because it involves the federal government as well as the provincial government and Indigenous agencies, so finding the right balance is not easy. If it were, I think everyone, as MLA Throness has pointed out, is well-intentioned, wants things to improve, but it’s just a very complicated set of facts.

What I’ve heard from Indigenous leaders is they want us to go back to the fundamentals — the family, the history of Indigenous caring methods and practices and customs — and that they can work. Of course, they exist now in a very different world, so they need the kinds of supports that are necessary, and it has to be equitable.

I’ve said many times that even equal funding for delegated agencies would probably not be sufficient because they face challenges that are much more complex, particularly in Indigenous communities. We all know about the rates of poverty, housing prices in Indigenous communities and, obviously, the fallout from intergenerational trauma as well.

N. Simons (Chair): Joan, a follow-up.

J. Isaacs: Just a separate question, Chair.

N. Simons (Chair): Go ahead.

J. Isaacs: With regards to the letter from the federal government, where they reimburse costs back to 2016 and have now brought some extra funding in, you mention that the funding is not flowing through to the front lines or to the Indigenous community. Do you have any sense of why that is not happening? Why is that money being held up?

B. Richard: I wish I knew. I mean, a lot of new funding has gone to fund new initiatives, and some of them are very promising practices across the country. Some of the new funding ends up gobbled up by the bureaucracy. This is a very, very huge federal bureaucracy, INAC, and it takes time to make its way to the ground level.

I remain hopeful overall. This is April. It’s the first month of the budget year, federally as well as provincially. It’s normal that…. Even the requests for retroactive funding are still being treated, as far as I know. But I am concerned that additional funding alone might not make the kind of difference we all hope to see, if the way we deliver these services doesn’t change as well.

J. Isaacs: One last question on the funding formula. Is there a breakdown of how much money for the overall budget comes from the federal government and how much is provincial funding?

B. Richard: Yeah, there is a breakdown, but I don’t have it for sure. For some delegated Aboriginal agencies, they’re totally funded by the province — VACFASS in Vancouver, Surrounded by Cedar in Victoria.

N. Simons (Chair): Would it be fair to say any off-reserve…?

[10:40 a.m.]

B. Richard: Yeah, the off-reserve ones are funded by the province. The on-reserve ones are funded by INAC, but all of them receive some funding from the province because there are initiatives around prevention and other initiatives and certainly challenges around recruitment, especially for those agencies that operate in isolated parts of the province where everyone struggles to get equitable services by reason of geography and the way our system delivers services.

I hope that answers your question.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Bernard, for the report. I think, as MLA Throness points out, there are a lot of reports that have come in. Well over 70 reports have come in. If you read through them all, it’s a pretty dire story that’s being told.

I’ve two questions for you on that. One, can you speak a little bit — I know you have, a little bit, to this committee before — about some of the success stories of delegated Aboriginal agencies? I’m thinking, particularly, of the ’Namgis First Nation as an example and a model.

Secondly, to follow that up. On a wider scope, what strikes me is that we’re looking at all of these discrete elements and, in many ways, failures of the system. From my perspective, what seems to be lacking is a destination we’re trying to reach. We haven’t completely and clearly stated what the goal of children and family services ultimately is.

To me, the success of children and family services would be that we don’t need protective services in B.C. anymore because the ministry has achieved the success that families are thriving and that communities are able to ensure that children are doing well in their communities.

Can you speak to what you would see as an appropriate end goal? And from your point of view, is that lacking in the overarching conversation? This comes partly from the work we’re doing in Cowichan. We’re trying to establish: where do we want to go, where do we want to be, and what’s the outcome of all of this work? I don’t see it reflected in much of what the ministry is doing. We’re sort of always in these discrete conversations about certain sections.

So there are two questions for you.

B. Richard: I think systems, bureaucracies, will always be busy managing and dealing with day-to-day operations and never busy enough imagining how things could be different. They’re always looking for new resources but end up using those resources to do more of the same things that aren’t working in the first place.

Of course, we all hope for a society where all children will be able to reach their full potential, whatever that potential is. That’s, unfortunately, not true for many B.C. children — the 7,000 that are in care, for instance, and many others, of course, struggling with addictions and mental illness. But at least that they can reach their potential — that’s what we hope for, for sure.

‘Namgis is a wonderful example. It’s not a fully delegated agency, I hasten to say, but that means that they’ve worked very closely with MCFD and the ministry in establishing their goals. Their goal was to not have a single child taken into care from their community, and for the last ten years, that has happened in this small, admittedly isolated community. But they’ve made that happen. In fact, in some cases, they’ve taken parents into care.

That’s a model that really exists in other parts of the country in some areas. It’s a model that I find extremely interesting. Children are not removed from their homes, but parents are removed if they need treatment, if they need supports. Children stay in the home with a family. Usually, extended family members move in. So they stay in their rooms, go to the same school, don’t leave their communities, stay within their same culture, and we try and help the parents.

[10:45 a.m.]

I really like that model. It’s being applied elsewhere. I’ve promoted it, I can tell you. There’s a really interesting video, and I’ve sent it to so many people because I really think that they’re onto something.

There are good things that happen and, actually, without spending more money. It does mean the community taking responsibility and being supported in doing that.

We had a very difficult case — I won’t discuss the details of it, but a lot of it has been made public — over a newborn, Indigenous baby in the Port Alberni region. That case was headed for terrible outcomes. And with not a whole lot more resources, the mom is now in her community, supported by her community, breastfeeding her baby as she should. Really, the difference is more in the approach.

I think ’Namgis is a good example of how a different approach can reap much better outcomes, but it requires…. More and more First Nations communities are standing up now and saying: “This is how we want to operate.” I’m encouraged by that — very much so.

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

S. Furstenau: Just a follow-up, thank you, because you brought up the Huu-ay-aht case there.

Another piece of what’s come up in Cowichan, in our discussions and work with the community and with MCFD, is to begin with the notion — and this was a midwife who put this out — that a mother and an infant are a single unit and to work from that premise. Those two people, ultimately, should be kept together. That connection needs to be protected, so not divorcing the well-being of an infant from the well-being of that infant’s mother.

I think that these are ways of thinking that we need to evolve into the practice of the work that’s being done — to recognize, again, from evidence and research, how essential that bond is for the outcomes and potential of that child through his or her entire life.

I’m wondering. Well, I’m just putting it out there. I think that that would be another avenue that we should really be putting at the forefront of our conversations around this — that we protect the child, particularly the infant child, by protecting that child’s mother.

B. Richard: I can’t disagree with that. Yeah, I think that the Cowichan initiative…. I’ve spoken to the ministry about it, just last week, in a meeting with the senior members of MCFD staff. They’re coming around, I think. It requires a different frame of mind. We have to admit first that what we’ve been doing hasn’t worked that well.

Of course, children will remain at risk because there are addictions and mental illness and all kinds of issues that play out in families across the province. That won’t disappear overnight, and the children will be at risk. But finding more, may I say, organic ways of responding and protecting children — I think there are really good examples that can be done.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for the presentation. I was going over the report last night, and there were a couple of things that you said that have sort of come to a point for me. This is my first conversation on this subject matter, so forgive me if I kind of sound a little scattered.

The report makes reference to the Plecas report — that it lacked Indigenous perspective, that the delegated authorities hadn’t been sought for their input and that their analysis was ignored. On top of that, you have Grand Chief John’s report saying that we need to improve relations between all of the players here.

[10:50 a.m.]

My question, then, is: do we have a position, a solid position, from Indigenous peoples on the way they want to see going forward? Is there a recommendation from your office regarding how we can reframe how we deal with this?

I keep feeling like we’re hearing from our paternalistic side. We can say we have to change that, but it seems to me the first step is to give voice to the people who are being served.

B. Richard: Certainly, I had the privilege of attending the federal ministers emergency meeting on Indigenous child welfare in Ottawa in late January. There were 400 people there. The vast majority were Indigenous, Indigenous leaders. They expressed very eloquently how they see child welfare improving, how they want to play a much greater role and that they feel that they can improve the system if given the right resources and the possibilities.

Of course, there’s no unanimity. You’re well-placed to know that it’s hard to find unanimity anywhere, including in a legislature. Certainly, that’s true for First Nations leadership. There are 203 First Nations in British Columbia. There are many Indigenous cultures and languages. They don’t all have the same customs and traditions and see things in different ways. But on the fundamentals, in my view, they are very well aligned.

They’re expressing their vision for the future. They’re doing it in the context of legislative amendments that are being prepared currently by MCFD. I just got a peek at them late last week. I know Indigenous leadership wants to play a significant role. They want to make sure that commitments that are made — in throne speeches, for instance….

I just happen to have a copy here of a section of the September 8 throne speech, where the government says:

“Your government will embrace the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and address all of the calls to action issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission into residential schools.

“These are important commitments which your government takes very seriously.

“We cannot continue to push these actions further down the road to a day that never comes.”

It’s very eloquent, and I support that view. Yet we see recent cases, in legislative amendments that are proposed, not quite living up to this promise. So there will continue to be tensions until we can reach a much better place.

On the other hand, certainly I have to echo that I think there’s no lack of good intention, either in the current government and, in my view, in the previous government as well. People want to be catalysts for improvement and change. They want children to be healthy and happy and safe. Every government I’ve known has wanted that. Just to make that happen requires not thinking that we can do it ourselves.

The main and principal responsibility is with First Nations and First Nations communities. It will continue to be complex. First Nations children are not neatly packed into 203 First Nations, and 70 percent of them live scattered all over British Columbia. So it will require not only delegated Aboriginal agencies to be effective and able to do the work that’s required. It also requires the ministry to do the same thing in the regions where there are no delegated Aboriginal agencies.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Bernard.

Rick, just mindful of the time.

R. Glumac: All right. I’ll be quick.

Thank you for the report. My background is in engineering. It’s a problem-solving mindset. When you have a problem, you come up with a solution, you try it out, and you try to solve the problem. I see in here…. What I don’t see are solutions, necessarily. I see findings, but even the findings…. Many of the findings point to funding issues, but as you said, the funding may not solve the problem. It’s the way we deliver the services.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’m feeling like when we are finished here today, nothing much will come of all of this, and I’m disappointed by that.

Picking up on what Sonia said, there are successes out there, and maybe a valuable thing that we can accomplish is to articulate what those successes are so that we can learn from them and we can propagate that out more effectively. I feel like there needs to be some follow-up, something to advance this and move it forward. Otherwise, it’s feeling — I don’t know — like we’re not really getting anywhere.

B. Richard: I get it. I think it’s a really good point. It was very purposeful on our part to establish a baseline. Where are we at the end of March 2017 in the context of a truth and reconciliation report released with calls to action in 2015, a Council of the Federation report on the overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in care in July of 2015, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal report with a decision in January of 2016, the Ed John report in November of 2016?

I think the solutions are out there. They have been described. What we do as an organization that sometimes makes recommendations but sometimes monitors the quality of public services is we establish baselines. It’s “Where are we on March 30, 2017?” in this case. Then we’ll report back to you. Have we made progress? We don’t deliver services, as an organization. Our 60 staff members cannot compete with the 4,500 staff members at MCFD. We’ll never be able to do that. But we can report to members of the Legislature.

We’ll give you the real story. Are things actually improving? Are they getting better? Are we just shifting numbers around? We’ll give you the real story every time. I suspect civil servants give you the real story. I don’t want to say they won’t. But they may present it in a way that looks more favourable to whatever ministry. That’s my experience being in government and in opposition. We’ll give you the real story because we’re independents. The whole value of this role is the independence of the office. We’ll give you the real deal every time.

This report was to establish a baseline, and we’ll measure from that baseline moving forward. If we don’t make progress, we’ll let you know. We’ll hope that as legislators on the government side, you will push your government to make things change and that on the opposition side, you’ll be asking the right questions based on information that we can provide to you.

This report was a little unique because we didn’t make recommendations, but we did that on purpose.

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

R. Glumac: You said there were a number of reports that have come along over the years and there are solutions proposed in those reports. Are you saying that you will summarize those solutions as we go forward and see if we are actually working towards them or not?

B. Richard: What I’m saying is that our office, which has a responsibility for advocacy, investigation and monitoring, will monitor the progress. The responsibility for making the change lies with government, their partnership with Indigenous leadership, Indigenous organizations, government ministries. But we will monitor and report to you on the progress that’s made. If there’s no progress, we’ll report on that.

R. Glumac: Just one more. It’s fine to monitor the progress, but the role of this committee, I think, would be more effective if we can somehow…. I mean, this is what’s been happening all along. We’ve been monitoring progress, haven’t we, and it continues to be a challenge. Can we do something differently to advance this, to move it forward? As I said, maybe outlining the successes clearly. Maybe that’s the way to do it.

[11:00 a.m.]

For me, again, it’s like an engineering mindset, “Here are the things that we need to do. Now let’s report back on where we are, working towards those things” — very clearly. Not like a year from now, or whatever, we report, and it’s like, “Well, things are still not that great, a little bit better here, a little bit better there,” in kind of a vague way. It seems to me it needs to be more structured. I think it gets back a little bit to what Laurie was saying earlier as well.

B. Richard: I think, actually, those are really great questions for caucus, when the minister is in the room. Ask the leader: “What are we doing? Why are we always hearing that things are not changing? Why are we not doing a better job at this?” That’s a really good place to ask those questions, in my humble opinion. Here, as well.

S. Furstenau: Just on the questions that Rick is raising, and the answers, I think one of the pieces that we’re sort of silently sitting here and not really talking about is the legislation that governs the actions of MCFD. Where in that legislation does there need to be changes that will actually achieve the outcomes that we’re all striving to see here?

I think that it’s really important that we look at the root of the actions in the form of the legislation. There’s only so much that can be done from RCY and so much that can be done in the committee if the legislation that’s governing the ministry and the ministry staff is directing them towards these outcomes that we’re seeing over and over again. It’s that notion of: if we keep doing things the same way and expect a different outcome, we’re insane.

Ultimately, I think there’s a need to actually delve quite deeply into that legislation and recognize where in the law we are creating the outcomes. And how do we change the law for the outcomes that we actually want to see?

B. Richard: I am told that we’ll be seeing legislation in the coming weeks in the spring session. I’ve had an advance peek. I’m not sure if that’s the final that you’ll see. What I’ve seen, in my view, requires a great deal of scrutiny and study, so I can’t disagree with what you’re saying.

Because it is the foundation, of course. The legislation is always the foundation for how we deliver services. That will be, I guess, some important work, as MLA’s, that you’ll be doing in the coming weeks.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks for the preview, Mr. Bernard.

B. Richard: I was required to sign a letter of confidentiality, so I can’t get into too much detail.

N. Simons (Chair): How did that work out?

B. Richard: It never works out.

N. Simons (Chair): I’d like to just add a few comments. I think sometimes we are under the impression that we started looking at the issue of addressing the discrepancy in the numbers of Aboriginal and First Nations children in care and non-Aboriginal kids care. That happened long before the previous government took office, and there were efforts made.

If we’re going to look at reports that attempted to address this, we can at least go back to Thomas Gove and the recommendation he made and the resulting actions the government took in the late 1990s. We had a sound training system that was generally run through the ministry’s Aboriginal services division, but it was made up of the directors of the First Nations child welfare agencies, the delegated agencies.

They ran a training program for social workers. They had a working group on operational standards that met regularly. They had a working group on practice standards that met regularly. And at the time, they were capable of billing the federal government under the 20-1 system, which you see referred to regularly in this. They could access funding if the children were taken into care voluntarily.

Now it seems that governments since then have said that it requires a court order in order to access federal funding. Back in the day, there was no provincial funding on first services on reserve, as they call it, generally speaking.

I think that sometimes we can look at previous efforts, and when they were cut short of achieving their goal, it does not mean they would not have been successful. I don’t want members of the committee to think that this is hopeless and we haven’t tried new things, or that previous and successive governments haven’t made efforts. They haven’t been successful, necessarily, but they haven’t all been allowed to play out completely either. I would point out that Cindy Blackstock was an active member of the directors’ forum in 1999.

[11:05 a.m.]

There are answers out there, and the representative has pointed out successes in other First Nations agencies. How do they manage under the same funding formula?

It may not all be money, but we should look at a 25 percent tax reduction in 2001 affecting 11 percent of the budget of MCFD and up to 25, 35 percent of other ministries, and we can look at laws that changed in 1996. What we really need to look at is practice. The practice is defined by the First Nations that operate the delegated agency, if they’re given enough elbow room.

I think it really comes down to a combination, obviously, of all these factors. But I wouldn’t want people to think that efforts haven’t been made. They are being made, and they need to be made in another way, obviously.

I appreciate the report very much, and I thank the representative for his answering the questions today. I think that probably concludes the discussion around this particular report.

I’m looking at the time and noticing we have a fairly significant discussion around the foster care project that I don’t want to give short shrift to, but as well, I don’t want to try to rush through Broken Promises.

B. Richard: I’m happy to come back, Chair, if you think that’s best in terms of your schedule for today.

N. Simons (Chair): Let me just have a little discussion here.

Any comments from the committee on that? Do you think we have enough time to proceed, or do you want another special meeting for the Alex Gervais…?

L. Throness: I don’t want to take…. The vice-Chair may have something to say about this. Why don’t we talk about the foster report first, as a priority, and then get as far as we can with Alex? Is that an idea?

N. Simons (Chair): I would like to deal with the Broken Promises report with enough time to have a discussion, because there is a lot to learn from it, I think. It’s a story that is important for us to completely understand to know where our focus should be. I think that we should reschedule Broken Promises for another time to give the proposal that Laurie has put forward with respect to foster care some fair discussion.

With that, Monsieur Richard, would you like to make a few closing comments?

B. Richard: Well, nothing on the report.

I always appreciate the time that is given to me at the committee. I appreciate the existence of the committee. I always like to say how much I appreciate Ted Hughes’s vision for the work of our office, how he’s designed this office. I’m very familiar with similar offices across the country, and I really think this is the right formula.

Notice of Resignation of
Representative for Children and Youth

B. Richard: I did have a bit of a statement I’d like to read. I consider myself very fortunate to have been asked to move here and serve the province’s most vulnerable children. Our time in B.C. began on the heels of the difficult birth, in Vancouver, of our eighth grandchild, Alexandre. It has allowed us to be close to our Saltspring son and his family in ways that would have been impossible otherwise.

Being the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth is a gruelling task. There are endless numbers of heartbreaking stories to deal with as we investigate critical injuries and deaths of children and youth in care, advocate for often desperate children and youth and their loved ones and struggle to find the right solutions. Abuse, addictions, violence, mental illness and suicide are constant issues that come to our attention.

Trying to work with any bureaucracy has its share of frustrations. That being said, having done similar work before, I knew exactly what I was getting into, and there have been few surprises.

On the bright side, the model envisioned by Ted Hughes is the right one. I was pleased that the committee has recently recommended the model’s integrity be maintained while our mandates are enhanced. If the recommendations are translated into legislation, we’ll be able to advocate for even more vulnerable young adults.

[11:10 a.m.]

I’ve learned so much in a short time and recognize the privilege I have of doing this work day in and day out. Moreover, I am supported by a team of very capable colleagues who share my values and commitment to do all we can to contribute to improvements to a child welfare system that is still falling short of its goals.

The RCY, though still relatively young, has already accumulated lots of history. Much of it has been exceptionally good. Admittedly, some of it has been somewhat raucous. In fact, much of my efforts since arriving have been spent working on resetting the relationship with government officials, believing, as I do, that this is in the best interests of B.C.’s children and youth.

I’m pleased to report that we are on a path to accomplish that objective. We have established relevant working groups, and the communications with our most prominent ministry, MCFD, are consistent, and they are constructive. Much of the credit for this has little to do with me. An approach on both sides that is more proactive and less reactive is reaping positive results. The change started to happen with the previous government and continues with the current one.

Ours is, and will continue to be, a very difficult field of work. Tensions between an oversight body and the entities it oversees are to be expected, but they should never stand in the way of progress for B.C.’s most needy children and youth. There’s no doubt that B.C. politics rank amongst Canada’s most colourful and dynamic. I’ve been able to attend four throne speeches, three budgets and one election in 16 months. For a political junkie, being so close to the fireworks has been an added bonus.

All that being said, it is time for us, Annie and myself, to return home. So I’m announcing today my decision to resign from the position of B.C. Representative for Children and Youth as of August 31, 2018.

There is no thought of retirement in my immediate future — actually, in my long-term future. Instead, I’ve decided to answer the call of Chief George Ginnish and spend the next two years supporting an Indigenous child welfare initiative in New Brunswick, based on a model of service that I helped develop before coming to B.C.

Ironically, Chief Ginnish was one of my references when I applied for the RCY job in September 2016. I have great respect for him and look forward to supporting him in his capacity as chair of the Mi’kmaq Child and Family Services Agency, which serves seven Mi’kmaq First Nations.

No one should think that the decision to go back was any easier than the decision to take the RCY position in the first place. As I grow older, finding the right place to contribute at the right time and in a way that also best supports our large family has become my priority. Many factors played a role, then and now, and the job I am going to is not likely to be any easier than the one I am leaving. In the end, family is the reason we headed west in the first place, and it is the reason we have decided to head back east. An aging father, lonely grandchildren and divided loyalties became just too compelling to ignore.

I’m confident that it is the right thing to do and that now is the right time to announce it. It will give the Legislature almost five months to find a replacement, as I continue the important work of RCY. Hopefully, a new representative will be selected soon enough that I will be able to support the transition in leadership.

I do want to thank the committee. I hope to be back to present the Gervais report, certainly, or in other contexts. I truly enjoy my time at the committee. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity. Even though I was seven years the Ombudsperson and five years the Child and Youth Advocate in New Brunswick, I just never had the kinds of opportunities to present to sitting members of the Legislature, which I thoroughly enjoy. I think it’s a very important part of the process.

I want to thank all members, now and past, for their patience with me, and I hope to see you soon.

N. Simons (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Monsieur Richard.

[11:15 a.m.]

I have to say I was a little suspicious when I saw the esteemed press gallery wander in this morning. I wondered what exactly I might have done to deserve that. I thought it was my moustache or something.

I think I speak for all committee members — in fact, all MLAs from all sides of the House — when I offer best wishes for the future, not without thanking you for being here and doing what you did at the right time.

I think your explanation for the reason that you’re going to make the trek back east is one that we can understand: when a chief calls you for help and assistance, to use your knowledge to contribute in another way, in another place. I think that your time here was not as long as we would have hoped, but it has been valuable. I think your approach has been appreciated, and your words of wisdom have been also appreciated.

As I said, I think all we can do is wish you all the best and thank you so much for your service.

B. Richard: Thank you.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): I would certainly just echo everything that the Chair has mentioned. It’s been a pleasure to work with you. You have done great work in a very short time, and I know that you were here for families and children, and you’re going home for families and children. We understand that.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Deputy.

With that, I’ll call a short recess.

The committee recessed from 11:17 a.m. to 11:29 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): We’ve taken the Broken Promises: Alex’s Story report off the agenda for this meeting. We will reschedule that. Monsieur Richard will be back for that, we hope.

Foster Care Project

N. Simons (Chair): Now we’re moving to a special project as proposed by Laurie — appreciate that — in the long-view mirror.

[11:30 a.m.]

Thank you for putting it forward. I thank Alayna for providing an outline of the possible scope of a review of the foster care system. Has everyone had an opportunity to look over it? If so, would anyone like to add?

Laurie, perhaps you could…. Maybe, Alayna, you could help just sort of overview what you found to be a potential scope of review.

A. van Leeuwen: In preparing this brief outline for your consideration and discussion, I referred to the motion that was adopted by the committee last December for a general sense of what the scope of interest was and proposed, essentially — of course, this is always in the committee’s hands to scope timelines and all of those things — a potential approach to examining a project on foster care.

One thing I would say, in the basic amount of research I have conducted so far, is that there are quite a few reports and recommendations on various facets of the foster care system out there, but sometimes I have found that maybe the data is either lacking or difficult to work with. So that could be a potential area where the ministry could play a very useful role in providing a general update on the foster care system and perhaps some of the statistical information that would be of interest to members.

I also did some initial work to identify what the potential foster parent associations would be, if the committee wanted to undertake some consultation — whether that’s in the form of simply inviting written submissions or whether you actually wanted to meet with any of them. I do have a list generated, not reflected in this outline because I wanted to keep it brief. But I have been making some consideration of the kind of information that the committee might need if they wanted to launch a project along these lines.

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

When I looked it over, I just thought it did capture, essentially, what I thought was what Laurie had put forward to reflect his concerns. Do you want to comment on this?

L. Throness: I have a couple of comments, Chair, if that would be all right.

There is, under key stakeholders, a real focus on associations. I think it’s important that we hear from them for sure, but we should also hear individuals, and we should hear, specifically, foster parents — from individual foster parents and long-term foster parents. What are their issues? We might hear from prospective foster parents.

I would note that there were information sessions, four of them, in Chilliwack recently. There were 60 prospective parents who attended, but only one applied to be a foster parent, which suggests that…. We need to find out why the other 59 were not interested.

The other thing I would say is that we need to be representative of all geographic areas of B.C., and the committee may want to travel, maybe may want to go to Fort St. John or somewhere where it may be difficult for foster parents to get down here. I don’t know. It’s just an idea to throw out. But otherwise, I think it’s an excellent outline.

N. Simons (Chair): My thought was that when I’ve met with foster parent associations, it’s usually with veteran foster parents because they’re often part and parcel. But I get the point — that it would be interesting to just sort of randomly ask some foster parents.

L. Throness: And foster parents who are no longer foster parents.

N. Simons (Chair): Yes, I’ve heard a lot from foster parents who may have stopped being foster parents for one reason or another — and to find out what brings a person into the system and what doesn’t. I’m hoping that that one person who applied to be a foster parent was just the first and, in fact, that others may have gone home to think it over. It would be interesting to look at the different ways that jurisdictions do their recruitment.

As I mentioned before, I thought our focus, while looking at foster care, could also be looking at other issues in the child welfare system that may be, in some people’s minds, a bit of a higher priority or a parallel or equally important priority. So I think any potential travel could potentially be combined with other work.

Do you want to say something?

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): I was just going to say that on the travel part, you and I have discussed about taking the committee to a delegated agency, whether that be Prince George or Kamloops or a location like that. We could certainly do it in unison.

[11:35 a.m.]

N. Simons (Chair): Right.

Any other comments?

S. Furstenau: I think we have an extraordinary opportunity as a committee. We’ve finished the work that we are required to do in terms of the review of the RCY legislation, and then we’ve had all these reports. Even in the conversations today, we’ve said: “We get these reports.” It’s report after report. Where are the solutions? What’s the path forward?

My concern with the project here is, again, we’re looking at one discrete piece of this. We’re not looking at the bigger picture. I think we have this capacity and this opportunity here in front of us to say: “Let’s be part of the solution-making here.” This is what we were saying to the representative just now. Rick said it. Laurie, you’ve always got great input into this.

I look at the scope of this, and I think either we keep it in a very small scope…. And then it’s just an exercise, because there aren’t even children who have come through the foster system on this list. There aren’t parents whose children go into the foster system — the experience of them.

Either it stays very small and it’s literally a discrete exercise — and I have trouble justifying our time and effort into that — or, as a committee, we say: “Are we here to do the work? Are we here to do the big work?” Are we here to say: “Let’s identify a vision of this community”? Let’s identify what we would like to see in terms of the future of the well-being of children in this province, and then let’s put our efforts into that work.

That’s where I stand on this. Now that we have a new task in front of us…. Right? We just got the news today that we are going to be tasked with at least finding an acting representative, so that adds other elements to our plate.

I put it to the committee. Do we want to look at a discrete aspect, or do we want to participate in shaping a future for B.C.’s children in a much broader scope, but in a way that…? If we’re going to travel — again, the use of taxpayer money for us to travel — let’s put that to good use. Let’s have purpose in that. Let’s have an outcome defined that we want to be (1) working with a vision and (2) all of our work goes into that outcome — into purposeful, meaningful steps towards that outcome.

I’m feeling less than lukewarm about this when I think…. We have such an amazing opportunity in front of us, and we can seize it. We can do incredible work together, and I’d really like to.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Sonia. That really raises the issue of what other special project ideas we might have and if it’s possible to accommodate Laurie’s concern about the state of the foster care system. It could be part of a larger discussion. I have some views on what I think the committee can accomplish. I talked to Michelle a little bit about it.

This is a very broad issue area. The welfare of children encompasses a lot. Where we want to focus is worthy of a discussion. I think we need to look at the legislation. I think we need to dig a little bit deeper into the process of restoring authority for child welfare and a number of other issues. There are a lot about funding — all those things.

The question is: what does the committee want? What’s the committee’s wish? I thank you for your input, Sonia.

Laurie has a comment.

L. Throness: I would agree, Chair, that there’s a lot that we can do and that we ought to set our sights high. When you think of an analogy, a meal is eaten one bite at a time. It’s impossible to eat the whole meal at once.

[11:40 a.m.]

I think we could set the course, but I think we need to take one step. I would be disappointed if our study on foster care, which I think is really important, an important bite out of that meal, would be subsumed by something else. I would hope that we would still have a — I don’t like to use the word “discrete” — definable report that focuses on foster care as part of, perhaps, a larger agenda, and I would be happy to undertake a larger agenda.

R. Singh: I think this is a very, very important issue — foster care. As a committee, I think that whatever we can do, any kind of extensive report that we can come up with….

I agree with Sonia on this thing, that this is something very important. Rather than brushing it off, we have to go to the depth of it. Because we know. We have heard the stories from the families who have experienced it and their experience with it. I would say that in our capacity, what is possible for us to do, we should do all that, to get that, to get to the bottom of it.

R. Glumac: I’d like to hear maybe a bit more from you as Chair, in terms of how you would envision that this committee move forward, and how would something like this fit into that broader agenda and goal. What would be the concrete sort of next steps? Would we come up with a proposal — something like this — that would outline over the next few weeks exactly which areas we want to focus on? I’d like to hear some more thoughts from you on that.

N. Simons (Chair): Good point. I’ve done some thinking about potential directions, and I’ve had some help, obviously, from the Clerk’s office in putting some of those thoughts into a structured design. The issues were fairly broad, and we’ve done a few drafts for potential special projects, because I do…. I agree with Sonia, and I agree with all members, that we would like to be effective and useful.

One of them was to review the act and, without really great specifics, to see if it’s meeting the needs of our communities. I don’t think the act has really been reviewed in depth, but then I find out today that there are some proposed changes to the legislation that we don’t know about.

How about, with the input of members here, in terms of our individual perspectives, we come back to the committee, or we email the committee, with potential special project ideas and go from there?

I’m not talking about eliminating any that we’ve talked about so far, but when we have potential options in front of us, we might be able to say: “Well, this is a priority. This is a side issue while we deal with this priority, or we’ll deal with it after.” I think that there are a number of possible options. We sit when the House isn’t sitting. We can continue to work. We can work throughout the year. [Inaudible recording.]

I think the draft ideas that the Deputy Chair and I have been working on…. We can send it out. That was the intention. We were just going to fine-tune it a little bit more.

One of the potential special projects is obviously what we talked about, the foster care review, which we envision being a couple of months’project. We can do a broader look at care systems, the spectrum of care. That would be a little bit of a bigger project.

We can also look at what programs and services are working well. We can actually go and find out and report. Our job is to inform the public and MLAs of the functions of the child welfare system, so whatever we can do to shed light on it.

[11:45 a.m.]

L. Throness: Perhaps we could have a little bit of time as opposition to come up with some projects that we think would be beneficial for the committee. We have our special role, to hold the ministry to account, so I think we would have special things to say about projects. This is the first we’ve sort of been seized with it, so I hope we could have a little bit of time to think about it.

S. Furstenau: Yeah, I think time to think is really important, and I think, ideally, we begin with purpose. There are nine MLAs in this room, and none of us have a shortage of things to do on our plates.

To me, what’s really important is that we define a shared purpose, and we identify why we are putting our time into work that we’re going to do together. I think that that’s an absolutely essential first place. Otherwise, we’re doing busy work, and I don’t think any of us are interested in that.

We’ve had a great example of the purpose, which we just went through with the statutory review and having a clear outcome defined in that. I think that if we are going to have this discussion, then we come back with all of us prepared to discuss how we’re going to reach a shared purpose in this work.

N. Simons (Chair): I don’t know if that contradicts Laurie’s suggestion that one side of the committee should come up with an idea. Maybe it is more of a collaborative thing, and as much as maybe the non-opposition side will be aware of potential…. We’re all aware of the politics around every sector, because we’re in this building — understanding, having been in opposition, that sometimes the primary goal is to hold government to account.

I think our committee is charged with doing that by making sure people know about what the system is about and how it’s working, but that’s really a collective responsibility of the committee.

I wouldn’t want to see us, necessarily, having an opposition-focused study or a government-defence study, but I understand that. Maybe that discussion that you envision among your colleagues would be one that we envision together. Maybe we need to just have a meeting just to talk about possible special projects and maybe use that as the foundation to figure out what vision that is reflecting.

I agree. I think we all want to be doing something that’s useful. I think we do have that huge potential to do so.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): By way of background, the committee, as you may recall, has a component within its terms of reference to allow it to set a special project.

In the past, topics included an examination of child poverty in British Columbia and also youth mental health. This is a new opportunity now, as some time unfolds in front of your committee, that you may wish to define by way of a special project.

The Chair mentioned earlier that he and the Deputy Chair had been working on a variety of different options, and we certainly welcome your input in shaping and refining a special project that best meets your area of interest.

We had brought forward the foster care example, in particular, because that had already been placed before the committee for consideration, and it will continue to be in your hands to shape as you see fit as we go forward.

In terms of considering the scope of a special project, I think just about any topic that you might wish to explore is quite scalable in terms of the timeline for the examination and the methodology that you might wish to use.

In the past, the committee’s special projects have been more focused in connecting with key stakeholders, key participants in a child-serving system — organizations and Indigenous representatives who have been invited specifically to come to the table — and in the context of a public meeting, provide information to the committee, answer questions, provide written materials.

Another option that can be considered, as was mentioned today, is the opportunity, let’s say, for a broader invitation for input. In our office, we have the capacity to support broader public consultation initiatives, which can be on-line-based — sort of a call for written submissions or even on-line surveys, if that is helpful.

[11:50 a.m.]

The committee also has the ability within its terms of reference to travel, so if that also supports the vision that you might wish to undertake with respect to a special project, I’m happy to lay out some logistical options for your consideration.

We are fortunate in this committee because the parameters of this haven’t been defined and handed to you by a motion in the Legislature. It’s very much yours to shape. So as was discussed earlier, you can take on one or two projects, if you wish, and have them more expanded — a sort of medium- or long-term vision — or, as was proposed initially with the foster care examination by Laurie some time ago, a fairly succinct in and out: do a literature review, maybe some examination of other jurisdictions, hear from key participants in the system and see where we land at that point.

Interim reports can be prepared, and final reports. I think it is a conversation best left to the committee as a whole, and input from all members is certainly welcome. With the help of the Chair and the Deputy Chair, we can refine some of the initial proposals that they had already identified as possibilities. We would welcome your input and guidance as the discussions unfold.

L. Throness: If I might. I don’t want to draw things out, but what Kate just said about the possibility of written submissions could be applied to the foster care thing as well. We could send the thing out to associations saying that any foster parent who wants…. I think that would be really helpful.

R. Glumac: For clarity, would it be appropriate at this time to bring forward a motion to table this special project until such time that the committee has had a broader discussion on the goals and visions going forward?

N. Simons (Chair): We can talk about it more. We can talk about it when we have the full context of other possible options.

R. Glumac: Okay. But nothing further is going to happen with this for now.

N. Simons (Chair): I think that’s fair to say. But I think that it’s definitely part of the discussions about what our focus…. I don’t want to shove it aside or anything, but we won’t be starting on it at this point without that fuller discussion. Is that fair?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Perhaps, if it’s helpful, we will refine some of the preliminary draft ideas that have already been under consideration. I share them with all committee members and, in the context of setting your next meeting, give you sufficient time to turn your mind to what you would like to add or refine within those initial drafts. Then we’ll set aside some time at your next meeting for further discussion.

Committee Meeting Schedule

N. Simons (Chair): Members, we have a lot of weeks left in this session, and I’m wondering how scheduling meetings is fitting in your calendars. Any particular comments about when you would prefer to meet? We have the Friday option, the Wednesday morning option and the weeks-off option. I think it’s good just to get an idea so as many of us can be here.

Sonia, do you have a comment?

S. Furstenau: The only comment I have is just the Fridays are not possible. Those are constituency days, and those are booked well into the future. That’s the one time, but any other time.

The work of this committee is a real priority for me, so within the time that we’re here and the weeks off, as well, I’d be able to create that space.

L. Throness: We could potentially meet in an evening, while the House is sitting. Maybe not?

R. Leonard: I’m not available on May 1. I do know that. But other than that, I’m good.

N. Simons (Chair): Okay. Well, what we’ll try to do is suggest a few options, and hopefully, we’ll all be able to make it.

Essentially, I think we’ve decided that our next discussion will be focused on determining what our next steps will be in terms of our special projects. I think we will be scheduling the review of the Broken Promises report, and we’ll have Bernard back, I guess, for his final visit here.

Any further comments? Any other items to discuss?

Motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

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

The committee adjourned at 11:54 a.m.