The committee met at 12:04 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Hello, everybody. Welcome to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth meeting for today. We have a meeting today, and we have a meeting tomorrow. Today is highlighted by our opportunity to meet the new Representative for Children and Youth and to introduce ourselves to her and give Jennifer Charlesworth an opportunity to introduce herself to us.

[12:05 p.m.]

It’s a privilege and a pleasure to say welcome, Jennifer Charlesworth, to the committee meeting. I guess, for all our sakes, we’ll introduce each other as well. So welcome. You have the floor.

Introductory Presentation by
Representative for Children and Youth

J. Charlesworth: Thank you, and good afternoon. As I was coming up here, I realized that the last time I was in the Douglas Fir Room, I was 8½ months pregnant with my first daughter. That was 26 years ago. A lot has happened in those 26 years. She’s quite a wonderful young woman, I think. Having heard many wonderful debates and conversations in both cabinet and parliamentary committees….

I’m honoured to be here today to meet with members of the committee for the first time since my appointment and confirmation as B.C.’s third Representative for Children and Youth. My understanding is that today is to be an introductory session of sorts, which is a wonderful opportunity for me. I look forward to reporting to and working with the committee over the coming years. It’s truly a privilege to have such a direct line of communication with the elected members of the Legislature. I recognize the honour and the privilege that this situation affords me.

I’m confident that you’re all aware of my background coming into this position, so I want to take this opportunity to lay out some of my ideas for the office during the next five years. I’m happy to answer questions if you’re curious about the background after I’ve shared my remarks.

I feel very fortunate to be following in the footsteps of two strong previous representatives, both of whom distinguished themselves in unique ways through their notable work on behalf of children, youth and families in B.C. I also feel very thankful for the staff I have inherited at the representative’s office. I frequently say to anyone who will listen that I have a team of bright, hard-working people with a very diverse variety of backgrounds and deep experience who are dedicated to advocating for children and youth and bringing about change to help the most vulnerable amongst us.

A few of them are supporting me here today. You may know each other. You may know them more than you know me, but I’d like to introduce my two deputy representatives — I’ll speak a little bit about structure in a few moments — Alan Markwart and Dawn Thomas. Also supporting us is the executive director of communications, Jeff Rud.

As you know, I began acting representative duties on August 31 and was confirmed on October 1. During this initial six-week period, I’ve spent a tremendous amount of time both externally and internally. I’ve taken some time to consult with staff and others, assess the operations and reflect how I think we should be focusing our efforts going forward and what kind of a contribution I want to make during my term.

Not surprisingly, I agree with my predecessors on the primary areas for focus of this office, and without question, Indigenous child welfare is number one. As you’re all aware, more than 60 percent of the children and youth in care are Indigenous, which is a gross overrepresentation when one considers that Indigenous children and youth make up less than 10 percent of the province’s overall child and youth population.

Our office must continue to push for changes that will result in better supports for Indigenous families to remain together and fewer Indigenous children being taken into care. We must also advocate for much better services to Indigenous children and families when they do come into contact with the ministry.

The RCY has a number of other priorities. I’m sure you’ll be familiar with some of these, based on your knowledge in this field as well. Those include services for children and youth with special needs and their families. In fact, our first investigative report that I will release as representative in the coming weeks, in early December, will focus on a child with severe special needs who was seriously injured, and we will offer our recommendations for systemic improvement as a result of learning from that case.

Our priorities also include services for children, youth and families who are dealing with mental health challenges and, increasingly, those who are dealing with substance use issues and the complex interplay between the two.

Another upcoming report, one that we expect to release in November, will include an aggregate study of children and youth who have been injured or died as a result of substance misuse — and within that, a very strong youth voice and youth perspective. This aggregate will be accompanied by the forums from 18 communities in which we heard from youth directly about what services and supports they need. It will also be accompanied by an update on a 2016 RCY report that detailed what services are available in B.C. to help children and families deal with substance use issues.

[12:10 p.m.]

Hopefully, these findings will help to inform the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions’ current planning process and the subsequent implementation of that ministry’s forthcoming plan, as well as highlight the urgent need for government to provide fulsome new funding to address the current inadequacies in the delivery of accessible and youth-focused substance use services.

We will also continue to focus on government’s planned overhaul of the residential care system for children and youth that was sparked by the office’s public statement in June expressing serious concerns about the oversight and staffing at a number of contracted residential agencies.

Another area of priority reflects helping to identify the needs of youth that are aging out of foster care or, as I would like to refer to it going forward, aging into a healthy adulthood. We will advocate for supports and services to address those needs. We’ll also continue to address the related issue of youth homelessness in British Columbia.

Related to that is focusing on proper planning for children and youth in care. As you may be aware, children and youth in care have a care plan. We are going to be doing a qualitative review — it’s underway now — of care planning. Our particular focus will be on permanency planning, cultural planning and planning for youth as they age into a healthy adulthood.

Nevertheless, the most prominent and overarching issue that intertwines with all of those areas of priorities will be Indigenous child welfare. I believe that this is a watershed time for Indigenous child welfare in B.C. and, indeed, in Canada. Federal legislation that could potentially enable Indigenous communities to take full responsibility for their own child welfare services is in the works and expected sometime this fall. The provincial government has recently expressed a great desire to partner with Indigenous communities and stakeholders to change the child welfare system, and is currently in the midst of implementing the recommendations of the Chief Ed John report of 2016.

The ongoing federal inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls has focused a great deal on the effects of the child welfare system. The inquiry’s final report will no doubt bring further calls for change. Indeed, in the special session held last week in Winnipeg, that was identified as the number one issue that they are hearing across the country.

We continue to watch for changes signalled out of last winter’s federal emergency meeting on child welfare, as well as for the continued progress toward the implementation of Jordan’s principle, the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the implementation of the rulings of the federal Human Rights Tribunal in relation to Indigenous child welfare. There’s a tremendous amount going on, and there’s no doubt in my mind that the landscape is shifting when it comes to Indigenous child welfare. I believe that our office has an important place in this landscape.

In order to address this area in the most strategic manner, I’ve decided to modify our leadership structure in a fundamental way. Effective this November, we will be transforming to a new model at RCY, and we’ll feature two deputy representatives. One of those deputies, Dawn Thomas, will head up our Indigenous strategies and partnerships team, while the other, Alan Markwart, will oversee general operations in the RCY as a whole.

Most of you will know Dawn from previous times here. You may not know that she’s been on secondment to the First Nations Leadership Council for the past six months. She will return to the RCY next month to lead our strategic focus on Indigenous issues, a lens that’s now more important than ever.

I’m delighted that you’re coming back.

One of Dawn’s priorities will be to determine how to use our tremendous staff and considerable resources and influence to best address Indigenous child welfare issues in the most impactful way and to ensure that Indigenous voices and perspectives are featured in our projects and planning in a thorough and respectful manner.

She’ll also ensure that RCY is in constant contact with First Nations and Métis leadership in this province, developing relationships with those leaders — she has many already — as well as the key players and organizations involved in delivering services to Indigenous children and families. I will be working very closely with her on that, because that is a dual responsibility that we carry.

The basic structural change is the most obvious difference in how I plan to lead RCY. It’s more of a strategic shift than a change, since Dawn has served as deputy representative for RCY since January 2015. However, I’m delighted that she’ll be able to focus her attention in this single vital area going forward. We believe that that focus is warranted.

[12:15 p.m.]

In fact, one of the first things I did when I became representative is meet with the ever-gracious Hon. Ted Hughes. In fact, he called for this model in his 2006 review, the B.C. Children and Youth Review. He recommended that we have two deputies and that, at the very least, one of these three senior people be Indigenous. I’m thankful to Hon. Hughes for his ongoing guidance as we move forward.

I’m also thankful to arrive as the representative as the organization has gone through an extensive process to develop a strategic and operational plan, the first ever in the history of the office. It outlines our priorities and the actions that we’ll be taking to address them. This plan is a living document. In fact, we continue as I learn and as I bring myself and my background into this. It’s evolving, but those key priorities that I’ve identified will continue to guide us.

As we go forward, there are some new areas in terms of our methodology and approach that I wanted to alert you to. I would like to do more aggregate reviews of injuries and deaths. In fact, Hon. Hughes called for this in his initial vision. I also plan to make greater use of our own advocacy case data to inform and bolster our work. Indeed, when we take a look at the aggregates of information from critical incidents and deaths and the advocacy, we see some significant trends and patterns. Those we want to surface and highlight.

I want to continue the process that Bernard Richard began in terms of ensuring that our mandated program areas — monitoring, critical injury and death reviews and investigations, and advocacy — are working together, effectively and strategically, to amplify what we are learning through our privileged position. I’m also looking forward to the implementation of proposed changes to the Representative for Children and Youth Act arising from the very thoughtful and helpful recommendations of this committee’s February 2018 report on its review of our legislation.

We’re especially pleased with the committee’s recommendations, through that process, which affirm the ongoing role of RCY’s monitoring mandate, the expansion of our advocacy mandate — in relation to young adults who were formerly in care as well as young adults with special needs — and the clarification of our mandate regarding services for children with special needs.

As the committee members know, the responsibility for following through on its recommendations for legislative change rests with the Attorney General. For your information, we have had exchanges of correspondence and, most recently, a meeting with senior staff about this. We have been advised that the process of policy work consultation and drafting may take another six months or perhaps more, with uncertainty thereafter about how long it will take for the proposed legislative changes to be introduced. It appears that the amendments to the RCY Act may not be in place for a least another year, perhaps a year and a half.

Quite frankly, we’re disappointed with the slow pace, because this delay literally prevents us from helping young people who are too often desperately in need of support. For example, we’re aware of the poor outcomes of youth who age out of care and the difficulties they can encounter with securing appropriate transitional support services, yet we have no legislative mandate as yet to advocate on their behalf.

Thankfully, there may be a quicker means of addressing these concerns, at least partially, by way of changes to the RCY regulation. For example, prescribing agreements with young adults and the provincial tuition waiver program as designated services would at least give us a mandate to advo­cate on behalf of young adults in relation to those programs. Similarly, our mandate in relation to services for children with special needs could be clarified by way of regulation. Our discussions with senior officials of the Attorney General’s Ministry indicated some openness to this approach, so we’re hopeful that we will see some progress over the next few months, and we’ll keep you apprised of that progress.

These are some of my preliminary thoughts and plans. I wanted to share these with you today and open it up for conversation and discussion. I am extremely excited to be holding this role and to work with this amazing group of people and thankful for the opportunity to meet with you today and to do our work together over the coming years.

N. Simons (Chair): Jennifer, thank you very much for those opening comments and a description of some of the projects you’re undertaking now. I’m sure that my colleagues on the committee have some questions or some words of welcome of their own, so I open the floor to my colleagues.

Any comments? Any questions?

You were quite thorough.

[12:20 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Welcome, Jennifer. It’s great to see you there.

I’m also delighted to hear that, Dawn, you will have this focus on Indigenous work, which I think is so necessary. Hopefully, the burden can be shared by having the two.

Just one point that you made, Jennifer, when you said that the report’s coming out looking at a specific case, and you’re focusing on the systemic issues. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? I know that we’re going to get the report and see it. But can you elaborate a little bit on that and, perhaps, speak to how systemic issues have maybe not been enough of a focus, if that’s your perspective? I’m not sure. I’m just wondering if you could give us more insight into your thinking on that.

J. Charlesworth: There are a couple of ways that I want to respond to that. One of the things that Hon. Hughes said to me in his parting comments was: “Go for change.” So one of the things I’ve been reflecting on is: what are the best ways that we can inspire, invigorate, advocate and agitate to bring about systemic change? There are couple of ways that we’re thinking of doing that.

One is that the investigative reports are a useful tool. One of the challenges is that when investigative reports on a single case come, it’s all too easy, in my experience in the field in B.C., for people to say: “Well, that’s an outlier. That is not the common occurrence.”

While we aren’t shying away from doing investigative reports, when we do that, we want to surface those things that, by virtue of other information that we’ve been able to gather through critical incident and death reports, through our advocacy complaints and through our own research and monitoring, bolster that particular situation and allow us to understand that from a systemic point of view, not an individual point of view. That’s one area, for sure.

The other thing that you can expect is that we will be doing more of the aggregate reports. What that looks like is taking a look at the 200-plus reports that we receive every month of critical incidents or deaths of children. We sit as an executive. We take a look at those. We look for patterns. We look for things that are going on. We’re servicing populations that, perhaps, haven’t had much care and attention paid to them and trying to bring those forward to you, to the broader public, so that the awareness and the issues that are facing many young people in the province are serviced.

I’ll give you a concrete example. One of the things that surfaced when we were taking a look at more recent reports was issues around LGBTQ2S young people and the higher incidence of vulnerability and risk to those young people. So it may be that we offer either a position statement or an aggregate report or something to that effect that helps us understand those increased vulnerabilities and the kinds of things that would make for a more responsive system to those young people.

It’s not like we’re shying away, but we’re trying to add to our repertoire and our toolkit to service some of the issues that were seeing amongst children and youth. Does that help answer the question?

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

Any other comments or questions?

R. Leonard: Thank you very much, Jennifer. It’s a real pleasure to meet you. I appreciate your demeanour. I think that you will be a breath of fresh air in terms of engaging all the many different sectors that you have to deal with, and I look forward to being able to work with you. I really am new to this.

J. Charlesworth: Well, we have that in common, then.

R. Leonard: So it’s an opportunity to learn.

I really appreciate how you’ve laid out how you are approaching things, and I particularly appreciate your taking up the recommendation from Ted Hughes. I think that it was just so glaring that we needed to have a very particular focus. I really appreciate you taking that on, and I look forward to seeing you in the months and years to come.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you.

L. Throness: It’s really nice to meet you again and to congratulate you on taking on this very difficult role. I really appreciate your positive outlook, and I hope that that lasts, given all the difficult files you’ll have to look at.

[12:25 p.m.]

I just wanted to ask whether the change in the management structure that you’ve instituted is reflected in changes to the organization lower down and among employees. What do you expect in the future? Do you expect growth in your office? What kind of change in your office do you expect?

J. Charlesworth: Yes, it will reflect a change in the management structure, by virtue of having two deputies and wanting to ensure that we have sufficient resources deployed to support the Indigenous strategies piece.

I feel at this point that we have sufficient capacity within our organization. I think that it behooves us to do our very best with what we have this year. Then if we have identified, through our strategic work, ways that we need to amplify and will need to expand our capacity — particularly, should the regulatory changes with legislative changes come through and we have greater responsibility for youth that are aging into adulthood or are in that transition in the early adulthood years — then we will come back. But for this year, we’re going to work within our existing complement and capacity.

The kind of change that will unfold with the management structure will be done in consultation with Dawn, coming back at the end of November, and with our executive team. So I can’t give you the big reveal yet. But certainly, by the time we come back later in the fall, we’ll be able to give you a more fulsome picture of our organizational chart.

J. Isaacs: Welcome, Dr. Charlesworth. It’s refreshing, as people have said, to hear a new voice and a new perspective on things. You’re very thorough in your comments, and I think you’ve got a good handle on what some of the issues are and how we can move forward.

On that point, I’m very happy to see Dawn come back. I think the structured move, with an Indigenous focus, is the right step to take this committee forward and take your work forward.

I welcome Dawn back as well. She was missed for the six months that she was absent. I wish you all the best, and we’re all going to be working on some tough issues. I hope that we keep our dialogue open and solution-oriented and, as you say, we advocate for the right reasons — to enhance the lives of the many children that we’re representing here.

J. Charlesworth: May I add to that, please?

One of the other things…. I’ve been in this field for 42 years, so I don’t think I’m going to go anywhere in the next five. This is definitely my passion, and I have held different files and worked with difficult cases over the years, so that’s not daunting.

One of the things that I do feel very strongly about, though, is that we also have to, in this office, inspire and invi­gorate as well as agitate and advocate.

One of the things that you will also see as we go forward is…. We have the benefit of seeing not only the very difficult cases but also exemplary practice. It’s exemplary practice in various parts of this province and also in other jurisdictions.

One of the things we want to do is to be able to point to the points of light as well, as ways of inspiring people to imagine what could be as we go forward and to also appreciate that it’s not hopeless, that there are things that we can do that will enhance the quality of the experience of young people.

That will also be a shift that you will see — us taking a look at what are some of the promising practices. What are some of the ways that we can share what we are learning, including giving feedback when we do comprehensive reviews? We provide feedback to the bodies, the organizations, whether it’s a delegated agency or the ministry, but are also able to provide feedback where we see really strong practice. So that’s also part of, I guess, my demeanour or my approach in trying to make sure that we are looking for solutions and positive exemplars going forward.

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

Any other comments or questions from the committee members?

I just want to say how pleased we all are that we’ve had this opportunity to meet. We’re looking forward to interesting reports, strong inquiries into the system that bring attention and awareness of our child-serving systems.

I don’t know if Alan or Dawn has anything to add. Jeff is always quiet, despite his title.

A. Markwart: No, I have nothing to add. Thank you.

N. Simons (Chair): It’s nice to see you all. Thank you very much for coming today.

We have a few other items of business to conduct. You’re welcome to stay and listen as we go through that in our short meeting today.

Thanks again, Jennifer, for coming, and all of you for coming.

Let’s take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 12:29 p.m. to 12:33 p.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Special Project

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Members, for staying. I know we’re all so busy this week, but it’s a great opportunity to at least begin the discussion around our special projects. As you know, our committee has some latitude in terms of determining what area of particular study we may be interested in pursuing in order to increase legislators’ and the public’s awareness of the child-serving system.

You have in front of you a summary list of possible topics that were put forward voluntarily. I have to say that we’re not locked in on anything. We don’t have to make a decision today. We’re all on a number of committees, probably, and we all have a busy schedule coming up this session. I thought I would just open the floor to committee members to perhaps make a case for pursuing one or two or another number of possible areas of study.

[12:35 p.m.]

Some of these may be short-term studies. Some might be a long-term examination in depth. Some of them might require witnesses to come and speak to us here. Others may call for us leaving the capital and going to further-flung regions to hear from people and service providers in our further-flung areas.

I saw Sonia would like to say something, so I can start with Sonia and Michelle.

S. Furstenau: When I look at the ministry’s service plan for 2018-2019 to ’20-21, goal No. 1 is: “Work with Indigenous peoples and partners to strengthen the child welfare system by addressing the root causes of overrepresentation of Indigenous children.” An objective is to “reduce the number of Indigenous children….” That’s objective 1.1. And 1.2 is: “Indigenous children and youth are supported to remain safely with their families, extended families or in permanent homes and have meaningful, lifelong connections to their communities.”

I’m pleased to see that that is the No. 1 goal of the ministry. I think that from my point of view or my perspective, the ways in which this committee can complement that work and provide additional insights and information and re­sources…. I think it would be the most effective use of our time. With that in mind, the three proposals here I think are quite complementary and could work together.

That’s the experiences with the child- and youth-serving system. So it’s bringing those voices that are almost never heard in this discussion, and those are the voices of families and children who have had interactions with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The successful approaches to keeping children out of care, so looking at best practices. If the goal of the ministry is to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care, recognizing that there are some success stories out there and bringing those people forward to share those success stories — how they came about, how they are working…. I think of ’Namgis First Nation as a perfect example of this. There hasn’t been an apprehension in that community in 11 years. Wendy White offers some extraordinary insights into how they’ve made that happen.

Finally, the collaborative child and welfare approach is looking at specific ways to make the system one that supports families and their children as much as possible and recognizes that the idea is that families and children are given the opportunities and the support and the services that they need in order to be able to truly thrive as much as possible. That should be the goal.

With what the Ministry of Children and Family service plan is, I would like to make a case for us looking at a combination of those three, which really complements the work that the ministry is intending to do this year.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Sonia. I appreciate those comments.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): I, as well, appreciate those comments. But I think one of the things we need to look at, as well, as a committee is that we’re not here to necessarily complement what the ministry is doing. We’re here to provide effective insight so that we can find improvements to a situation or an area where there are obviously gaps, where there are children in our province who continue to struggle and face complicated bureaucratic challenges.

When I look at the list that we have here today, there are a wide variety of things for us to look at. I think in this particular committee, there will always be a wide variety of things for us to be looking at improving and ensuring that we keep the children at the centre of our support and our improvements.

I think there’s opportunity for some of these to be collaborative or combined. I would say if we looked at the foster care review as well as the adoption review, because foster care often can lead to adoption as well, if we could combine those two as one project, I think that would be beneficial.

I also would strongly advocate for us to look at the review of supports and services to children and youth with special needs. We have an increasing amount of children with special needs in our province, and we have to continue to make sure that we are putting them at the forefront of it.

[12:40 p.m.]

When you look at the year 2004 in our province, we supported roughly 250 children with autism. Now we are well over 13,000, I think, 12,000 children with autism that the government is supporting, so we need to ensure that there is some focus on children with special needs and youth.

At the same time, I would like to add to that the services that we provide and the education tools we provide to the families of those children. It is often the biggest challenge. Parents are confronted with the birth of a child with a severe disability or a disability of some sort, and they don’t have the resources or the education on how to raise that child. I think we, as a government, need to put a focus on how we inform and guide those parents so they can better parent those children successfully at the end of the day.

The other comment I would just like to make is in reference to Rick’s submission earlier today. I think there certainly is some critical information from the article that you shared with us, some eye-opening thoughts, as I’ve heard in my own community of similar situations for families who have experiences with MCFD. I think, for us, a great place to start with that would be to have MCFD staff come in and allow us opportunity to ask some questions and investigate from that point.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks, Michelle.

Before we go to Rachna, I was just going to say that I think it would be good practice for our committee to actually take some of these suggestions and discuss them, obviously with our own independence, and to ask the ministry if there is something specific happening. If we’re going to study something that’s in the midst of being changed right now, it might not be the best use of our time.

I think your suggestion is a good one — that we have the ministry answer some questions, maybe before we make a decision or in conjunction with making a decision. Thanks a lot.

R. Singh: Yes, looking at it, every topic seems very, very important. But I do agree with Sonia. I would really like to…. As you mentioned, Chair, we should definitely check with the ministry, like what they are working on, but I’m really concerned about the number of Indigenous youth and children who are in care. It’s a systemic issue that we really need to find out. The three topics that Sonia brought up, I totally think we should be looking at those.

Having heard you too, Michelle, the issues that you are bringing up, those are equally important. That’s why we have to find…. I don’t want any kind of overlap happening — I think some connection with the ministry, finding out what’s happening at their level so that we are not repeating the same things.

N. Simons (Chair): Sure. I think Michelle would like to respond, as would Sonia.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): I appreciate those comments as well. I just think our committee is also large enough that we could almost have a subcommittee and have some people working on one project and others working on another project so that we could tackle more.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks for that comment.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate that, Michelle — that we could look at subcommittees. I just wonder about the effectiveness of stretching out. Also, that would impact the Clerk’s work as well and kind of double their burden, as well as our Chair’s burden.

The one thing I wanted to just reinforce…. I mean, we have a federal government minister saying that this is a humanitarian crisis in Canada, the overrepresentation of Indigenous children. I would say that as a committee focused on child and youth in B.C., this is the single greatest crisis we’re seeing in the province.

I think we really need to recognize that to shy away from that, from really facing that crisis and bringing that up into the light through this committee, would be a shame — to not take that opportunity at this time.

N. Simons (Chair): Let me just add to that. It may not be that we would necessarily have to strike subcommittees. But if we choose, for example, to explore one particular area of child welfare, it will inevitably have a component relating to different communities that are in our province. We can do things simultaneously. If we happen to travel somewhere for committee meetings, we could possibly hear witnesses on different topics that we might be examining at that time.

[12:45 p.m.]

I think that any study that we do, or any special project that we engage in, will necessarily include, specifically, the impact of child welfare policies and the system on communities that are overrepresented in the child welfare system.

Any other comments?

L. Throness: I would counsel patience, in that we do have three years left. We can do a lot in three years on a whole lot of different topics.

I would suggest that we travel less and that we invite more commentary, like through Skype and through written submissions, because that would allow us to cover a lot more ground and talk to a lot more people without actually being physically there. That might make things more efficient and less costly for us too.

R. Glumac: Being new to this committee, I’m not familiar with how it’s necessarily operated in the past, but in my mind, we have an incredible opportunity to engage with people that have gone through the system and families that have tried to work with the ministry, and to try to find some common patterns that we could identify and highlight as we move forward.

In my time as an MLA, I’ve heard from people in regards to their interactions with the ministry. I’ve seen situations where children are put in foster care, seemingly taken away from their parents, and situations where it seems to me like it’s unfair and there isn’t a lot of oversight over some of the powers that the ministry has and things like that.

I think talking to people is the best way to understand how this has been working. I agree with Sonia in her approach, that the experiences with the child and youth–serving system is a great place to start, and looking at successful approaches, looking at places where we see that there is success and highlighting that and hopefully seeing that propagate through other areas of the province — good examples of collaborative child welfare approaches.

We do have three years to do this, and to me that seems like a great place to start, to dive into this and understand, from the point of view of the people that are going through the system, about how we can improve.

While I am a big proponent of technology — I like the use of Skype and all that — I think there does need to be some face-to-face interaction with people. I think it’s a much different dynamic when you’re in a room and you can hear the stories firsthand. But certainly, I think there are other opportunities to utilize technology so that we can get more input as well. So I support that approach.

R. Leonard: My mind is kind of swirling around, as I’m still trying to get a grasp on just how we function here, because we have a Representative for Children and Youth here who’s got some incredible background and priorities for working. I feel like…. Should we be doing work that will help support her work? Where’s the synergy here to make things work? Is it with MCFD? I mean, we’re sitting here as elected officials, so our focus should be on policy and what feeds what in terms of moving forward.

I totally agree with the issue of addressing special needs and the growth, and some of the special needs that are happening out in our world. They’re very real problems. They’re often life and death problems. I recognize as well that we have this systemic issue around Indigenous children and a whole need for change there. I don’t think it should be one or the other. I want to do it all, but recognizing that we really can’t.

[12:50 p.m.]

I would like us to be a little bit guided by, at least, the representative’s priorities to begin with, just so that we develop that relationship and create those synergies.

I have to agree that I like the idea of not having to travel, having had to travel a lot over the four months of this summer. However, I do totally agree in whole-body communication as well, and I think that if we’re dealing with vulnerable people, we have to be present. It’s a difficult challenge but one that I think we’re going to have to take up. I think we have a distinction in the province between urban and rural in terms of the challenges that people face, and I think that we need to be in both places to serve the people well.

I haven’t landed on anything in particular, other than a general gist. I hope that that makes some sense. I appreciate the opportunity to blither on.

N. Simons (Chair): Absolutely, that’s fine.

As you all know, Ronna-Rae is the Chair of the Agriculture Committee, which had us in every part of the province over the summer. She doesn’t want to travel anymore. I understand that.

Interjection.

N. Simons (Chair): I know, and Finance too. It’s obviously something….

I understand the idea of, I would say, less being guided by the representative but informed by the representative’s activities. I think you meant that, and I agree. I think we should also be cognizant of the fact that the ministry itself is engaged in some processes of realigning their service, and we’re not entirely sure what they’re in the midst of doing. It may be that some of their actions or their plans would inform how much we want to look into various issues. But I take your point.

I believe that Teresa had a comment.

T. Wat: I think all the topics that you brought out are all good topics, but I just want to find out: do we have to pick a few? What’s the direction?

N. Simons (Chair): I wanted to be as collaborative as possible. I think that all of these issues would be worthwhile investigating further. I think we have the opportunity to do a longer-term study, a short-term study. We can also ask for research to give us preliminary reports on things to see whether we want to study those issues further.

I actually think that in my history with this committee and in the field, the issue of special needs children has been one that has been overlooked a little bit. We do tend to focus on the child protection side quite a bit, and necessarily so. But there are a number of factors influencing the quality of life of little people, children, who have special needs, and their families, as Michelle pointed out. It’s quite true. So I’d like to be able to do that, whether or not we do other, longer-term studies.

Did you want to continue, Teresa?

T. Wat: Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your clarification.

First of all, I do agree with my colleagues Laurie and also Ronna that I don’t think we should travel that much. I think that many of us are quite busy with our own responsibilities, even though I do agree with Rick that I always like to have the face-to-face interaction. Then you hear the story. It’s more impactful. But I think we should be more aware of our time.

For me, I agree with my colleague Michelle that we should study children with special needs. I come across a lot of my friends who have a lot of children that have special needs, and they don’t know how to really raise their children. There are not sufficient services provided for special needs children and youth. So personally, I do think that we should focus on that one.

Adoption is another area that I think we should focus on, because I think that ultimately, we want to take care of our children. I think adoptive parents should be the way to go because they really have a lot of devotion and a lot of passion for the children they adopt. I would like to see more attention being paid to this issue and, also, to foster care. That’s my personal will.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Teresa. I appreciate those comments. We all do.

I have a suggestion. I mean, I make this suggestion that….

Oh sorry, Joan. Go ahead.

J. Isaacs: Thank you for putting the list together and getting this all identified as the issues. Kate, thank you for doing that.

[12:55 p.m.]

There are obviously some overlaps on the issues. They’re all connected one way or another. I guess the primary focus for us is that it does affect children in one way or another. That’s why we’re here. It’s to try and ease that burden, try to make it easier, whether it’s policy or direction or guidance that we’re giving someone else.

Definitely, the Representative for Children and Youth has their role to play. They report to us, and we help guide. We get their feedback, and we give them feedback. But we also do need to hear from the ministry. I wouldn’t mind…. What are their topics? Are they in line with this? Do they have something else that we haven’t thought about that is more pressing, more urgent? I think it would be worth our while to take the time to meet with them.

Having said that, and just looking at this list, foster care is still one of those issues where it affects Indigenous people as well as the rest of the population, whether it’s Asian or any other ethnic group. It’s common. So it’s great that the Representative for Children and Youth will have a focus now, a dedicated focus, but we can help shape the guidelines for that as well.

I still think that that is something that we should be seriously looking at. We’ve heard before that foster care does lead to adoptions. But the adoptions can’t happen without the foster care, necessarily, right? They can complement one another. So I think it makes sense to look at both of them and the special needs.

Again, this isn’t exclusive to non-Indigenous families. It’s also in Indigenous families. I think we can help, again, shape and guide some of the recommendations, some of the policies, by taking a focus of that. Special needs, then, enter into foster care, and it makes it much more challenging for people to come to the table if they have to deal with another special needs child that might be in foster care or in the system.

Lastly, in terms of travel, just because of our time and our commitments, I agree, Rick, that we should have a face-to-face. It’s much more personable, I guess. We can dig a little bit deeper. But if the person or the groups could come here and we would have access here, I think that would benefit all of our schedules.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks a lot for those comments, Joan. What I hear is that there’s a real interest in looking at the experience of families with the child-serving system, and that could somehow be partly combined with successful approaches, looking at more larger, systemic issues and the collaborative approaches. I think we could maybe work on getting those into one particular topic.

Adoption and fostering, I think, also could be looked at combined, because they are both important aspects of the system. I think I’ve heard people say: “We would like to look at families with children with special needs.”

Those three seem to emerge as the three likely areas of further study. I do think that it would be useful to bring the first of those, the one that talks about those three areas, to the ministry to ask them some questions. Ask them to come and speak to us here to talk about what’s happening already so that we don’t duplicate, necessarily. We use our time most efficiently.

S. Furstenau: I’m just wondering if you need a motion to that effect, Mr. Chair. Do we need a motion in order to move that forward?

N. Simons (Chair): I don’t think we need a motion to consolidate these topics of discussion. I think it would be nice for us to agree that we would like to talk to the ministry.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Thank you, Members, for the helpful discussion today. On behalf of our office, we can take forward the discussion, as the Chair has outlined, to prepare a preliminary proposal along the three streams. We can incorporate into that initial briefings as might be required by either the ministry or the Office of the Representative and also look at opportunities to reach out to different child, family and community–servicing agencies and look at the options for submissions — possibly, public hearings and whether we perhaps connect with some of the organizations using technological means or also incorporate some face-to-face discussions.

We’ll try and incorporate into those summaries how the committee will benefit by learning of the experiences of Indigenous children, youth, families and communities as they might relate to those three topics.

That will be a preliminary document that we’ll be pleased to prepare on your behalf and, working with Chair and the Deputy Chair, hopefully will have something ready to return to you very soon.

N. Simons (Chair): I think that’s an excellent option. I would like to, tomorrow, maybe talk about our timing a little bit, when we get back together, and possibly having nice short meetings like this.

Thank you all, committee members. Thank you very much to the presenters.

I move to adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 1 p.m.