The committee met at 8:05 a.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

J. Arril (Committee Clerk): Good morning, Members. As this is the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fifth session of the 41st parliament, it’s my honour, as Committee Clerk, to oversee the election of the Chair.

Do we have any nominations for the Chair of the committee?

R. Leonard: I nominate Nicholas.

J. Arril (Committee Clerk): Nicholas, do you accept the nomination?

N. Simons: Yes, delightfully.

J. Arril (Committee Clerk): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? A third and last time, any further nominations?

The question is that Nicholas Simons take the chair as Chairperson of the committee.

Motion approved.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

J. Arril (Committee Clerk): Congratulations, Chair.

N. Simons (Chair): We will now elect the Deputy Chair. Are there any nominations from the floor for Deputy Chair?

R. Leonard: I’ll nominate Michelle.

N. Simons (Chair): Ronna-Rae has nominated Michelle Stilwell. Look at that.

Michelle, do you accept that nomination?

M. Stilwell: I would be so honoured.

N. Simons (Chair): Oh good.

Are there any other nominations? Are there any nominations? Any further nominations?

Okay. The question is that Michelle Stilwell take the role of Deputy Chair.

Motion approved.

N. Simons (Chair): Congratulations, and here we go again. Very good.

Well, thank you for indulging us there at the back of the room.

It’s a pleasure to be back chairing the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. We’ve accomplished a lot in the last while, and we’re excited to be here again for the fifth session.

The first item of business, following the election of the Chair and Deputy is the consideration of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth’s report…. Oh, we have a general update first.

Well, Jennifer Charlesworth, it’s a pleasure to see you again, and thanks for being here. Maybe I’ll let you introduce those who are with you, and then we can hear your update.

Update from
Representative for Children and Youth

J. Charlesworth: Wonderful. Thank you, and congratulations to the Chair and the Deputy Chair.

I’d like to start in a good way by acknowledging that we’re gathering together today on the traditional and unceded territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples, also known as the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations, with cultural, familial and economic ties to the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples.

We’re grateful for the opportunity to meet with the select standing committee in your first meeting of the fifth session of the 41st parliament. We look forward to continuing to work with the members who’ve agreed to continue on with their work on this extremely important portfolio and to working with the new member, MLA Adam Olsen. Thank you very much for agreeing to be a part of it. It’s wonderful to have the diversity of perspectives and ideas when we bring forward issues.

I’d like to introduce you to the RCY staff that are with me today. Acting deputy of operations Alan Markwart you know well. Blair Mitchell, who you have known as the executive director of advocacy, has been gamely doing the acting deputy role for advocacy and First Nations, Métis and Inuit relations, which is a new role that we are posting for right now. The ED of communications, Jeff Rud.

I’d also like to introduce you to Katherine McParland, who will be speaking about the youth voices report shortly. Katherine is the executive director of A Way Home Kamloops, and you will learn a tremendous amount by listening in to her today.

Today we’re going to bring forward two items for your information and discussion. First, I’m going to provide an update on the work of our office. There are a number of things that we’ll be bringing forward to you over the coming months, and I wanted to give you an update on that. Then we will bring forward the report on youth homelessness.

Our special report is entitled Raising Young Peoples’ Voices on the Issue of Youth Homelessness. Appended to that is the report entitled From Marginalized to Magnified: Youth Homelessness Solutions from Those with Lived Exper­tise. Katherine was the author of that report, working with young people across the province.

To situate our presentation today, I want to speak briefly to the three legislated mandates. I have a beautiful colour version of our…. This is the RCY in a nutshell.

[8:10 a.m.]

We have three legislated, or mandated, areas of work. I’ll give you a brief update on each of those.

Advocacy is at the top of the circle. Although we get a lot of profile for investigation reports, I think that advocacy is really the backbone of our work. It’s really the way in which we connect out with the public and with people that are in need of services.

We have advocates in three offices — Victoria, Burnaby and Prince George — and these are our front-line staff who meet with and take calls from young people, families, caregivers, service providers, etc. As we’ve talked about in this room before, sometimes the services can be very difficult to navigate. It could be a labyrinth or, in some cases — right on cue, because I can remember you speaking about it — the spaghetti of services.

The advocates work with young people, walk alongside them in order to make sense of their experience with the systems. But they also teach people about self-advocacy and the ways in which they can act for themselves and speak up for themselves.

Our advocacy mandate includes the ability to advocate for young adults up to their 24th birthdays, who are receiving or eligible to receive Community Living B.C. services or who are receiving or eligible to be on agreements with young adults or the tuition waiver program.

We remain hopeful that the recommendations from this committee for legislative amendments will go forward. Those were recommended in 2018, before I arrived, in fact. We are hopeful that they will be addressed in fall of 2020 or spring of 2021.

These amendments, I should emphasize, are of great importance to the young people aging out of care and not yet able to participate in the AYA or tuition waiver program and who are at greatest risk of homelessness, as we will hear today, as well as exploitation, mental health and substance concerns.

To give you a sense of the volume since 2007, when our office was created, we’ve opened more than 22,000 advocacy cases. This year we’re undertaking a project to streamline our case management system not only for the benefit of the front-line work but also to be able to extract from that a greater understanding of the systemic issues that are coming up through advocacy.

Our second program is our critical injury and death reviews and investigations unit. That’s a mouthful. This team is responsible for reviewing and investigating the critical injuries and deaths of children and youth in government care or those who’ve received reviewable services, which are defined in our act, in the past year. It includes services provided by MCFD, primarily, but also mental health and addictions services.

To give you a sense of volume there, we get between 250 and 290 reportable circumstances each month, about half of which are in mandate and reviewed by our investigative analysts and then brought forward for review by myself and our senior leadership team. This number has been steadily increasing, and we are projecting a further 27 percent increase in the number of reportables received this year. I want to clarify that this does not necessarily mean that there are more injuries happening to children. Rather, we think it’s because there’s greater compliance with the reporting.

It’s possible that this number will increase even more this year if we are able to secure the health authorities’ com­mitment to complete the reportable circumstance reports. They are actually required to do so under our legislation. However, to date, that has not been done.

My predecessor, Bernard, began to address this, and it’s a priority of mine this year, because as you will hear from reports that we’ll be bringing forward in the coming months, there’s a tremendous value in understanding what’s happening within the health authorities and particularly with acute care hospitalizations.

As you can imagine, with this many reports, we learn a tremendous amount about what’s happening for some of the most vulnerable children and youth in British Columbia. We’re getting better and better, I believe, in identifying those themes and patterns, which, in turn, helps us determine where we can best put our attention and efforts in the RCY.

For example, to give you just a few highlights, the highest-risk ages are between 15 and 18. Young people that are approaching their 19th birthday when they age out of care are at higher risk of injury. We see a significant in­crease at 18½ to 19. As you will hear when we talk about youth homelessness, that’s often associated with fear and the concerns about what’s going to happen after they age out, whether that’s around homelessness or the lack of transitions into safe community relationships.

[8:15 a.m.]

Another trend. Over 50 percent of the children and youth that come forward in our reportable circumstances have experienced domestic violence in their short lives. We see a growing number of children who are suffering emotional harm due to the death of one or both of their parents or caregivers associated with the toxic drug supply. Sexual violence and exploitation is an all-too-often reported critical incident, especially for female-identifying youth between the ages of 13 and 18.

There is tremendous complexity in the lives of those young people. It’s rarely just one thing. For any of these critical injuries, it’s often a constellation of things that are coming forward. Obviously, it’s hard to hear that that’s what’s happening to our children and that we have that kind of volume, but these trends are so important for us to understand, because it helps us hone in on where we can add value and what it is that we need to illuminate.

After we review these reports every month, we can decide to undertake a comprehensive review. We can refer it to an advocate. We can raise it as a case of concern. Those latter two are new areas that we’re doing now. We can raise it as a case of concern to the ministry for follow-up, or we can proceed to an aggregate review or an investi­gation.

Now, our comprehensive reviews are not publicly re­leased. However, we now share our findings with the public bodies that have been involved in that case, because there’s a great opportunity to learn from them to support changes to practice, programs or policies. As you know, any full investigation that we undertake results in a public report on our findings with recommendations to prevent similar incidents.

In addition to the investigations on individual children that our office is well known for, we have authority to do a range of other reports, including aggregate reviews. These types of reports are key opportunities for us to address the themes that we’re seeing. We’ll be bringing forward a number of those in the coming months.

Our third mandate area is monitoring. Researchers in this area monitor, review and conduct research and analysis on government programs and services and monitor the implementation of our recommendations. Their research results in reports, such as our report on educational outcomes and our upcoming report on those experiencing fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. As you know, under my legislation, I can speak on matters of public policy and investments where child well-being is of concern and could be improved. The monitoring team provides important work there.

One of the things that the monitoring team has also done is we’ve developed a process where we review our recommendations. We’ve bounded it by the last couple of years. Reviewing the recommendations, seeing what the status of progress is…. That will now get reported out on our website. In fact, the first posting should come out this month.

Now, you’ll see, around those three mandated areas, two very important things. Supporting our work is relations with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous folks — I’ll speak about that in a moment — and then youth and community engagement. Without a strong working relationship with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous partners and community stakeholders, we could not do our work.

We have completed or are nearing completion of three working agreements with First Nations Leadership Council, Métis Nation B.C. and the delegated Aboriginal agencies’ directors forum. This work is significant in the context of nation and community-based work and moving forwards to resumption of jurisdiction in child welfare. I can say, in fact, that we had affirmation on Friday, when we were at the release of the youth homelessness report, that that work is going well and that the relationships are deepening. We’re having those really important conversations about going forward.

As you will see from the report that we’ll share with you shortly, youth engagement is a priority for our office. We’re developing a new framework that guides our engagement in all areas to be ethical, meaningful and sustainable. Of course, collaboration and partnership matters. We can be independent but not isolated. So we collaborate with and amplify the work that other independent offices, research bodies and groups are doing, where they’re working on matters of significance to child, youth and young adult well-being. Notable relationships are with McCreary Centre Society, with human early learning partnership and growing relationships with some of the research bodies in the post-secondary institutions.

All of this, of course, is delivered by an amazing team of 70 or so staff — dedicated, passionate and smart. It’s a real privilege to work with them.

I’d like to now refer to projects that are underway and that we’ll bring forward in the spring and the fall. We circulated, in advance, a backgrounder for your reference. If you find this helpful, we’re happy to do this on a quarterly basis. My interest here is about being more transparent about the work, what we’re doing and what some of the issues are that we’re going to be bringing forward.

[8:20 a.m.]

My hope is also — and the Clerk has been incredibly helpful to our office; thank you — to make sure that when we do our reports, we’re tying the tabling in the Legislative Assembly very closely to a meeting with each of you, with the committee, so that you can bring forward your questions, your considerations and your concerns, and then also empower you as champions for child and youth well-being in the Legislative Assembly. We welcome feedback on these new processes.

I want to bring the following to your attention. Of course, there are many more reports — I won’t go through everything here — but of a few that are pending that will be coming forward, one pertains to mental health detentions. That is on page 3, Mental Health Act and child participation.

This is an interesting one. It’s the first in a series of reports that we’ll be bringing forward on child’s voice, representation and involvement in decisions that impact their lives. We know that it makes a significant difference in their well-being if they are agents of decisions that affect them. This will be coming forward.

We have identified a number of things to pay attention to on the basis of the research data, on the basis of understanding the lived expertise and experience of young people who have been involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act, sometimes up to 20 times in their adolescence and young adulthood.

This report will consider whether the safeguards are in place, the kinds of things that can happen from a therapeutic point of view and how is it that we can ensure young people have the opportunity to exercise their rights, which are in the legislation of the Mental Health Act but are often not executed in a good way. There is no youth-specific approach to this. That’s one that we’re excited about and that, as I say, will be the first in a series.

Another one I think is important to bring forward is on page 5, the investigative report. This is the first of its kind for the RCY, in that has integrated Indigenous ways of knowing and being into our practice and bringing this forward and has had deep engagement not only with the people that were involved in this young person’s life before her passing but also with our First Nations and Métis partners.

I think what’s important about this is that it will illuminate, so tragically but also importantly, the phenomenon of intergenerational trauma. What happened to this child’s child happened to her grandmother and to her mom. We’re looking forward to bringing that one forward. I think it will signal a change in the way that we want to do our investigative reports, particularly when they pertain to the experience of Indigenous children and youth.

Another one that’s important is on page 6, our fetal alcohol spectrum report. Again there has been a different methodological approach of being very closely connected to the young people, family members and caregivers of folks living with FAS. What we have illuminated through that are the enormous inequities in the supports and services that are available for that population of young people.

I’m very grateful to the Chair and the Deputy Chair for coming to a gathering of the young people and their family members and decision-makers across the ministries that have responsibility for this. That is an important one, both for how we’ve done the work — it will give you some insights into different ways of doing that — but very significantly illuminating the inequities for this population — and the potential, if we can address the inequities.

Finally, in terms of the highlights, today we will be bringing forward, over a series, the findings pertaining to our review of care plans. That’s important because what we know is that when a child has a good plan of care and it’s robust — it has included stakeholders; it has included the young person in the family, if possible — then the outcomes improve. So we’re taking a look at transitions to adulthood, the experience of permanency and cultural connections. We will have some important offerings there, I believe.

That goes through just some of the highlights, as I say. I hope that’s helpful. I wanted to take this opportunity, as we begin our work together in this session, to situate our work — where we’re going and some of the things that we’re trying out. I look forward to continuing with it. We will be busy together over this spring and the fall, and I’m looking forward to the dialogue that will happen. I’ll just stop there.

[8:25 a.m.]

Now, I’m aware that you received a letter from the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies directors table. I’m happy to speak to that if you wish, but I’ll leave it to your discretion.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much, Jennifer. I think that’s a really good way to let us know what’s happening, just that brief summary of what to expect. It gives us all an opportunity to prepare ourselves for hearing about those particular issues. Sometimes things come upon us really fast, and we have to put it all into the proper context quickly.

I think that’s a good summary. I’m wondering if there are any questions about what Jennifer has spoken to us about.

I have a little question about the compliance with re­spect to the reportable circumstances. I think it’s the re­port­able circumstances. Is it better compliance, or is there a new understanding of what needs to be reported? Clearly, critical injuries and deaths, as such, without a doubt need to be reported. Where’s the uncertainty, within the child welfare system, as to what needs to be reported?

J. Charlesworth: That’s a great question. I would say it’s both. It’s both a greater understanding of what needs to be reported and greater compliance.

I’d like to believe that there is a greater understanding of how and why we use that information and why it matters that ministry staff, in particular, and delegated agency staff, also, complete the reportable circumstances. That’s one thing. It is also, to give credit to the CID team, a clarification of what constitutes a reportable circumstance.

A good example of that is the category of emotional harm. One of the things that we’re seeing is a better understanding that…. If a child has been harmed by a caregiver, a foster parent or a group home provider or whatever, that actually constitutes emotional harm. That’s a trusting relationship, and when they get hurt — sometimes physically, sometimes emotionally — then that should be reported.

The other thing is, and I think the numbers would suggest…. We have been clear that emotional harm is also caused when a child loses a parent, especially a parent to the overdose crisis. We’re seeing that get reported now, whereas it hadn’t been reported in the past.

I think it’s both — clarification but also trust.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you. Along the same lines, I’m curious about the issue around advocacy. The file numbers seem to be increasing. That’s never a bad thing, but is it a reflection of a role that the ministry no longer does? Is every complaint directed at the RCY now, as opposed to trying to find resolution within local offices?

J. Charlesworth: That’s interesting.

I’ll look to Blair.

B. Mitchell: When you look at our numbers, it fluctuates. So it’s hard to say where that sits.

I think what we are seeing, though — and I think we talked about this before with the committee — is cases that are more complex. Advocates are generally involved. Twice as long as they were a few years ago. There are more people involved in cases. There’s far more correspondence and email. There’s a need to escalate files up the chain of command to look for solutions around, often, a financing situation or extending respite or looking for care providers that can deal with more complex behaviour.

The numbers fluctuate. Certainly, the issues over the last couple of years and the files are more complex.

N. Simons (Chair): I understand that the acuity of cases going to the ministry seems to be higher. That helps.

Any other questions here?

My other question about the advocacy and your work with the ministry. Do you categorize which have been resolved to the satisfaction of the family versus the satisfaction of the representative? Is there a clearance system for when requests for advocacy come in? Are they opened and closed? I know I’m looking for a simple answer to a complicated question, but can you describe a bit about what happens when you close an advocacy file?

B. Mitchell: Jennifer talked about our database system. We’re making…. They’ve done that in the CID program area — to clean up how we capture the data and then report out on it, on how we understand outcomes. We’re now in that process in our advocacy program area.

[8:30 a.m.]

What we will have to wrestle with is the outcome piece. Of course, a ministry or a social worker could still have the same decision at the end of the process. So the young person that’s brought the issue forward may not be satisfied. How are you measuring that outcome?

What we’d like to see in a situation like that, though, is that the young person has had the situation explained to them in a way that they can understand, that they’re given information about why the decision was made. They give an opportunity to ask for a reconsideration.

There are different elements to the final outcome of the case. Often, parents phone us, or caregivers — foster parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles — looking after children, and they want to see a certain outcome happen. Our role in explaining to them is that we’re the advocate for the child or the young person. We’re not their advocate.

Sometimes the advocacy issues and interests are counter to what the adult calling us wants to see happen. Again, there’s a difference of who’s calling and the outcome and what the advocacy issues are. But we are working on a process of trying to better understand.

The life of a file. When it comes in, it gets opened and assigned to an advocate. The advocate gathers perspectives from collaterals and others, talks to the young person, attends meetings if necessary, talks about rights, voice and views. Then, when we go to close the file, we don’t just close it and end our involvement. We keep it open for three months so that if anybody phones back, they go to the same advocate, at which point, after that, the file is closed if there’s no further activity.

N. Simons (Chair): Jennifer, you wanted to add something.

J. Charlesworth: It’s just a great question. One of the things we’ve been talking about is from our point of view of quality improvement and quality assurance of our office. How are we going to wrestle with what the outcome measures are that would let us know that we’re being successful? That’s this year’s task.

N. Simons (Chair): That sort of leads me to another question about that process of advocacy and the potential learning that can take place from that. What is the social worker’s response to the involvement of the representative’s advocacy?

How is that either addressed or measured? Is there an opportunity for other social workers, perhaps, or supervisors to hear about the successes or failures of other approaches? Is the advocacy helpful to the broader social work field?

J. Charlesworth: I would have to say, and I’ll turn it over to Blair, that we see tremendous variability across the province in terms of regions and teams with respect to our involvement.

In some cases, some executive directors of service and team leaders will come to me and say: “I’m so glad that the advocates are there, because it helps us do our work in a good way. It holds us accountable, but it also sometimes is really helpful to have an independent voice in difficult situations, particularly with the complexity.” In other areas, we are aware that team leaders basically say: “Don’t phone the representative’s office back.”

We do have some considerable variability. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is demystify our office a little bit — spending time in the ministry’s headquarters. We’ve been trying for months to spend time with the executive directors of service as well, to help them understand that our job is not to make their lives more difficult but to centre on the children and youth, and actually, we can be helpful.

It is a challenge, but I’ll turn it to Blair if you want to add some more nuance.

B. Mitchell: Every relationship is…. You never sure how you’re going to be received. The way we reach out is an initial email communication to the social worker and team leader. Then it goes from there.

As Jennifer said, it kind of varies across the process. What we find is that some social workers are doing their absolute utmost for the child, and they, themselves, are dealing with a system that’s full of barriers to things they’d like to see happen.

Social workers quite often really appreciate our involve­ment because they know that we’re going to escalate a file within the service region. If we have to go to the team leader or the director of operations or the executive director of the service region, then we’ll do that.

Quite often social workers are frustrated themselves and happy with our involvement. But there are areas or workers who are reluctant with our involvement, or they just haven’t had involvement before, so they’re not sure.

[8:35 a.m.]

We try and talk about the process. But through that, we try and focus it on the child. I think some workers feel like we’re advocating for parents that they, perhaps, are in conflict with. Understandably, through a child protection process, for example, there is a lot of conflict. The ministry has lawyers. The parents or parent will have a lawyer. There’s disagreement around planning. Then we step in with questions and curiosities around what’s happening with planning, and people feel like we’re advocating for the parents’ sort of agenda. So we really try and keep a focus on the child’s rights, voice and views and how the child is being considered in planning.

I won’t add anything further.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much. I am curious as to whether or not there’ll be a reduction in the number of calls for advocacy since we increased the kith-and-kin payments to be level with foster parent payments and whether you’ve seen any outcome from better support to extended family.

J. Charlesworth: I would say we haven’t seen any obvious change in the number of advocacy calls pertaining to that. Having said that, we haven’t looked for it. I think, really, the important point is that for many of the advocacy calls that we’re getting, it is a multitude of things that are happening for the child. The reality might be that it’s much better, because the extended family is getting the financial supports that are necessary.

That having been taken care of, now there are mental health concerns and the need for wraparound, and there are substance use issues and all of those other things. So it’s hard to parse out one particular policy shift. That’s the challenge in our work.

N. Simons (Chair): That’s right. I guess so. That’s a good answer. Thank you very much.

I’m thinking we should probably take a three-minute break so that we can all get our coffee. So we’ll just take a recess of five minutes.

The committee recessed from 8:37 a.m. to 8:41 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): The next item on our agenda is the consideration of the Office of the Representative’s report Raising Young Peoples’ Voices On the Issue of Youth Homelessness. I’m very pleased to welcome Katherine McParland, the executive director from A Way Home Kamloops.

Thank you for being here and for giving us your time to explain what you found in your comprehensive report. I look forward to hearing from you.

You have the floor.

Consideration of Representative
for Children and Youth Reports

Raising Young Peoples’ Voices
on the Issue of Youth Homelessness

From Marginalized to Magnified:
Youth Homelessness Solutions
from Those with Lived Expertise

J. Charlesworth: I will begin. What you have before you is an unusual report that we’re bringing forward to you today. You have perhaps the shortest report on record from the Representative for Children and Youth, a two-pager entitled Raising Young Peoples’ Voices on the Issue of Youth Homelessness.

What that essentially does is encapsulate the issue of youth homelessness as a significant concern from the representative’s perspective and then introduces and appends the report entitled From Marginalized to Magnified: Youth Homelessness Solutions from Those with Lived Expertise. Then it becomes a much bigger report, when you take into account the appendices.

What this is about is…. It’s a reflection of our commitment to elevating the voices of young people with lived expertise on issues of significant public policy concern. Katherine McParland is the author of that. She came to the RCY as a graduate student to do a practicum. That should have just been about three or four months. Two years later, we have this rich relationship with Katherine — lots of connections and support from every team of the RCY — and a report that….

I have to say that when we released on Friday, and there were eight of the young people that had been youth leaders, it was an affirmation. It was humbling to see how important it was for these young people to have their voices elevated and to be heard.

Without further commentary, I’m going to pass it over to Katherine, who will go through the report.

K. McParland: It’s cold, dark, and the snow is falling. Your feet are numb, with fingers like icicles. You need a place to be warm. Your tummy rumbles as you try and remember the last time you ate. Loneliness sets in as you remember loved ones from the past.

A car pulls over. You get in. You don’t know who the person is. In desperation, you place your wet socks on the dashboard, praying that they will dry. Does this person have a place that you can go?

[8:45 a.m.]

Every hour is a struggle of survival. Is there anyone to help?

This is the voice of youth homelessness and was my own experience as a young person. As a permanent ward of the foster care system, I learned homelessness. I was moved rapidly from home to home, with all my belongings in garbage bags. The shelter was used as a placement, and I often ran away from the system in search of belonging.

When I aged out of foster care, I felt it recreated the trauma of apprehension, and I was not yet ready to be an adult. I ended up meeting a violent, abusive man and, shortly after, ended up on the streets and experienced all different types of homelessness.

Things began to change when I received housing and I had a stable foundation to rebuild my life. I discovered the silver lining in these experiences and learned that sometimes our greatest wounds can become our greatest life purposes. This invoked a great passion in me to elevate the voices of lived experience, as the young people who have survived homelessness have developed expertise that can help transform our systems and policies to ensure that no other young person has to go through what they have endured.

The report we have released magnifies the voices of marginalized youth to ensure their expertise is heard. It recommends that the government listen to these voices and put in place a provincial plan to end youth homelessness by January 2021. This is an ambitious timeline, but it speaks to the urgency and significance of the problem. No young person should be without a home in our province. There is no time to wait.

Before I get into the details of the report itself, I would like to acknowledge the amazing staff at the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and the representative herself for your ongoing mentorship, support and wisdom to provide a platform to elevate youth voice.

I would like to offer a special thanks to the young people who made this report possible, a group known as Youth Against Youth Homelessness B.C. These 16 youth leaders come from 12 different communities across B.C. and have lived expertise of homelessness. I acknowledge their strength, resilience, passion, wisdom and commitment to making a difference.

Youth Against Youth Homelessness B.C. helped create interactive youth forums that were rolled out in each of their communities. This is in alignment with this report’s methodology, which was developed based on the principles of participatory action. The core value of this work is for a provincial plan to be FirstVoices led by truly elevating the voices of youth with lived experience and creating opportunities for youth, who have so often been silenced, to make their voices heard.

A total of 163 youth with lived expertise participated in 13 forums across the province. These forums created a safe place for youth to share their experiences of homelessness and the recommendations for change. Youth from surrounding areas travelled to the forums, and some of the forums lasted as long as five hours. There was a particularly significant turnout in rural and remote communities such as Cowichan and Nelson, as youth there have not yet been consulted on this issue.

After identifying the preliminary themes that arose during the youth forums, an online survey was developed. A total of 68 youth participated in this survey. Responses highlight the need for the province to invest in initiatives to prevent youth homelessness. Unfortunately, 53 percent of youth who participated had their first experience of homelessness before the age of 16.

[8:50 a.m.]

Youth identified five significant pathways into youth homelessness that government must address. The first is unsafe family home experiences. Often young people are homeless because they are fleeing abuse, neglect, conflict or intergenerational experiences of homelessness, such as their parents’ episodes of housing insecurity or poverty.

These situations put youth in the difficult position of either remaining in an abusive home environment ruled by adult caregivers or leaving and balancing the challenges of never having lived independently and not having anywhere safe to go. Youth highlighted that the investigation responses from MCFD were often insufficient, and in many cases, youth were not provided supports, which resulted in homelessness.

The second pathway identified by youth is an unsafe and non-responsive foster system. Youth spoke of being removed from their own family home that was deemed unsafe only to be placed in another environment in which they were retraumatized or abused. Inappropriate placements and poorly planned transitions from foster home to foster home result in a lack of stability or permanency for youth in care. Some youth felt that there wasn’t enough room in safe foster families.

Many youth said that they were unaware of their rights and, in the absence of that knowledge, made decisions with their feet by running away from the system that had failed them, despite the fact that they had nowhere to go.

Youth also cited significant barriers in accessing a youth agreement from MCFD. Some youth reported that when they were denied youth agreements, they had to prioritize survival activities, like finding employment, over developmental milestones, such as education.

The abrupt process of aging out of care, with the lack of aftercare support, is also an issue. Youth spoke about a lack of preparation and transition planning for aging out, which resulted in their experiences of homelessness.

MCFD’s aftercare program, agreements with young adults, does not work for most youth that are able to access it. A key issue is that AYA only benefits the highest-functioning youth who are ready to access post-secondary education, something that many youth aging out are not ready to do.

Another pathway into youth homelessness can be substance use and mental health issues. Youth talked about addiction being a form of self-harm and a coping mechanism for trauma and emotional pain. Youth spoke about caregivers not knowing how to provide support and facing complex barriers to get into detox or treatment, which was especially pronounced in rural and remote communities.

A lack of support and harm reduction services for young people can result in youth becoming homeless. Once homeless, substance use can be a way to cope, to survive, and youth are stuck in a cycle. As one youth said: “Using substances keeps me warm in the winter and the concrete softer.”

Another pathway is the housing affordability crisis. For youth still at home, their parents may not be able to afford them, and a lack of family housing can split up families.

Youth who are independent of caregivers are hit especially hard, as they cannot afford housing with the existing income support programs, such as the youth agreement and AYA. Income assistance provides $375 for shelter, which puts youth in precarious situations where they are forced to look for shared accommodations in which they may be exploited or unsafe.

Finally, discrimination is a significant pathway into youth homelessness as it can force youth to leave unsafe homes and stigma creates barriers that prevent them from securing housing. For example, some LGBTQ2S+ youth reported being disowned because of their gender or sexual identity, which resulted in homelessness.

[8:55 a.m.]

Other youth reported experiences of discrimination based on Indigenous cultural identity. For example, in Prince George, there are rental ads that outright discriminate against Indigenous people accessing their right to housing. In other cases, youth connection to culture was not supported, leading to a search for belonging that impacted their experience of homelessness.

These pathways into youth homelessness show a need for our province to look upstream and prevent youth from experiencing homelessness in the first place. The young people who informed this report provided solutions that could transform the system and ensure that all children and youth realize their right to a safe and secure home. Each of these solutions should inform the key elements of a provincial plan to prevent and end youth homelessness in B.C.

The most important solution is for government to develop a continuum of housing options for youth. Government must invest to support community organizations to develop youth-specific housing. These programs should include around-the-clock supports, case management and transition housing programs that help youths develop the critical adulting skills that they need to thrive.

Additionally, government should allocate a designated percentage of existing housing stock for youth, and it should develop a rental subsidy stream that is specific to youth. This would have an immediate impact on youth homelessness by providing financial support that bridges the affordability gap into market housing for young people as they stabilize their education and careers. Even a small investment in rental subsidies will go a long way in preventing and responding to youth homelessness.

Another solution to prevent homelessness is to improve the foster care system for youth in and from care. This will be achieved by improving foster care placements by conducting proper background checks and providing ongoing training and monitoring of caregivers to improve safety. MCFD should ensure that youths in care know their rights and that placements are a good fit. When youths are housed with a good fit, there is less likelihood of moving, which improves permanency and stability.

Next, government should improve access to youth agreements and ensure they are approached using a rights-based lens so that youth are able to access the supports they need to end their experiences of homelessness. All efforts should be made to be flexible and reduce barriers.

Finally, the AYA program must be amended to provide comprehensive, inclusive and adequate after-care support so that all former youth in care are automatically eligible. We know that youth who age out are at increased risk of homelessness. So our government should ensure that all youth have access to supports post-19. MCFD must work to increase the inventory of designated life skills programs by providing funding to community-based organizations to ensure that education is available to all young people in care.

Another key solution is to improve the emergency response to youth homelessness. Government must develop a comprehensive list of youth shelters and increase the inventory of those that are specific to LGBTQ2S+ youth and youth aged 19 to 24. Shelters must be reimagined to be low barrier and adopt a harm reduction philosophy. Shelters should not be considered an appropriate placement for youth in care. Time in shelters should be rare and brief, if at all.

The next solution is to increase financial support for vulnerable youths. Specifically, youth recommend increasing the income assistance rates so they are able to meet their basic needs. Government should consider developing a distinct youth income program that reduces the barriers in accessing under-age income assistance.

Another key solution offered is to increase and improve the wraparound supports available to young people. Adequate supports should be provided to families before the crisis hits, such as counselling and mediation.

[9:00 a.m.]

Culture should infuse the child welfare system, and families must be supported to stay together, to begin addressing the intergenerational impacts of genocide on Indigenous Peoples.

Youth are calling out for increased cultural supports and opportunities to learn their heritage through family tree tracing, language courses and Elders. Young people spoke about the end to homelessness being so much more than bricks and mortar but also including a sense of belonging and connections to their communities. To this end, government should provide long-term supports that promote interdependence and mirror the family privilege that other young people receive.

Additionally, youth recommend a continuum of substance use supports, including harm reduction and increased support for mental health and trauma. Free counselling should be provided to any youth who has experienced abuse, homelessness or the foster system. Finally, government must champion education and employment initiatives that help bridge the gap for homeless youth in achieving these developmental milestones.

Holistic supports in schools and opportunities to achieve a post-secondary education are critical to sustaining an exit out of homelessness. Youth need support to achieve a sense of purpose through employment and an opportunity to transcend poverty. The final solution to end youth homelessness is this: listen to the youth. As part of government’s commitment to youth engagement, the voices of lived expertise should come first in the development of a provincial plan.

This report has one clear recommendation. It calls for government to develop and begin implementing a provincial plan to end youth homelessness by January 2021. B.C. has an unprecedented opportunity and a policy window to develop a provincial plan that will eradicate youth homelessness in our province.

This plan must be informed by youth with lived expertise and built on the foundation of this report. Government should champion a plan that will provide resources for communities to provide the solutions that youth so desperately need. It will articulate the interministerial responsibilities and the policy changes that are needed to ensure that no youth are left behind.

If one ministry takes on the role of Mom and Dad, we need all the other ministries to be aunties and uncles. Today we are moving from marginalized to magnified and from probabilities to possibilities. Together we must pre­vent and end youth homelessness in our communities and our province. There is no time to wait. I stand rooted in action.

Please stand with me.

N. Simons (Chair): First of all, that was very well presented. The information you gave us is compelling. I just want to express my appreciation, on behalf of the committee, for the work that you’ve done and for the obvious care that you bring to this issue. That translates very well. You’ve made some really interesting suggestions. I open the floor to my colleagues on the committee for questions or comments.

L. Throness: First of all, I want to thank you for your presentation, Katherine, and to commend you on turning some very difficult life experiences into something positive. That’s of help to everyone.

I want to ask about the extent of the problem. In one of your boxes, you noted that in Kamloops there was a point-in-time count that was six people, but the real count was 56. That’s nine times different. What is the extent of the problem in B.C.? Do you have any idea?

K. McParland: It’s so difficult to enumerate youth homelessness, as a lot of the issue is hidden. Young people are experiencing homelessness, such as couch-surfing, are living in temporary accommodations, such as hotels, or experience what young people in Kamloops refer to as survival rape, where they’re having to trade sexual favours in order to have a place to stay. This makes it extremely difficult to understand youth homelessness. Recently, there has been a real growth in starting to understand youth homelessness. Part of that is revising the point-in-time counts with youth-specific methodology.

[9:05 a.m.]

We were able to enact different methodology that included partnering with the school district. In 2018, we interviewed all grade 10 students in the entire district, looking further upstream and understanding the fluidity of the problem.

L. Throness: Okay. I simply would point out that it’s difficult to develop a program if you don’t know the extent of the problem.

J. Charlesworth: Could I just add to that? One of the things I did was to take a look at what is known about different communities. As Katherine said, there are different ways of measuring it. If we just take a point in time, for example, in Vancouver, there are 700 young people identified who are actively homeless at any point in time. Then in other communities, ranging from Prince George to Kelowna, etc., you’ve got the variation of between 50 and 200.

So it’s a good start, as a plan, to begin to understand what the extent of the problem is, but even those numbers suggest that it’s not a small problem.

L. Throness: Another question, Chair, if that’s all right. I noticed that there was a box that talked about the family reconnect program in Toronto. It was a positive thing. Later in the presentation, it said that 20 percent of young people want to go home. It would obviate the need for special housing and things like that, if we could help people facilitate a return to their home. Why was that not one of your recommendations?

K. McParland: The young people that we spoke to had situations in which it was unsafe to return home. They required different solutions that would respond to their experiences of homelessness.

When we look at young people, if we are able to reconnect them back home and it’s safe to do so, that is the most ideal solution, because that will significantly reduce that young person’s likelihood of experiencing homelessness in the future. You will notice, in the solutions, that there is a recommendation around natural supports. Under that solution, we speak to the need for family mediation and counselling support early on to help prevent homelessness and keep families together, as that’s ideal.

However, for the young people who experience homelessness, in many cases it’s not possible to return home. In many cases, their parents may be the government.

J. Charlesworth: Just to build on that, because I think you raise a really important point, in terms of what the family support and wraparound is. We’ll be coming to you with a review in that area in a while. As Katherine said, for the young people that were part of this, things were so far advanced that going home was not a viable solution for them.

What this does is that it compels us, in the plan, to think about how you back up the bus. What are those earlier interventions with the family to ensure that there is a way of preserving those relationships, in the safest way possible? It’s actually about them. You’ve got young people where it’s so far down the line that we need to provide those services and supports and, at the same time, try and prevent and stem the bleeding, if you will, going forward.

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

R. Singh: Katherine, I really want to commend you. The way you spoke and the passion that you brought into this room was just amazing. I really want to thank the Office of the Representative as well, for involving you in this process. This is very important. We want to hear the voices of youth — how they have felt oppression and how to deal with it. The suggestions that you have brought in, and the recommendations…. I know it’s a systemic issue. It does not need a band-aid. We really need to bring the youth from the grassroots level up.

There are a few things that I understand, in the last few years, the government has tried to do. One thing is, obviously, eliminating tuition fees for the youth who were in foster care and also having a very comprehensive poverty reduction plan. Did you see any results of that? Also, investing in our community social services — that was a sector that was long neglected. The investment in all of these fields.… When you were talking to the youth and when you were doing all this research — I know that the time period is still very short — did you see any impact of that?

[9:10 a.m.]

K. McParland: Most certainly. I think we’re in a very exciting time. Young people that responded to the survey and participated in the forums spoke about the experience of the two-year eligibility rule for income assistance, where youth had to be independent of their caregivers for two years.

That was recently removed, and that was an exciting piece, to know that some of those solutions are being interacted. The tuition waiver — young people did speak about the impact. However, there are still some gaps around eligibility that could be reviewed within the provincial plan.

I think we are seeing some really great steps towards ending homelessness. The government has committed to a provincial plan, unprecedented housing investment. I think what is unique about our provincial plan is it would bring together some of the work that government is already doing and build upon that to make sure it’s meeting the distinct needs of youth.

We can’t solve youth homelessness with the same solutions we use for adult homelessness, so part of the provincial plan is also being an inspirational commitment of government to supporting young people and raising awareness across communities, businesses, philanthropists, because this takes everyone. Everyone has a role to play. Government is one important piece, and this provincial plan would show that leadership.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of quick questions and then a follow-up. On page 21 in your report, you speak about how government has created 2,000 supportive modular homes, and they’ve been completed. I just want to clarify. Those aren’t youth-specific, right?

K. McParland: There’s definitely a gap around youth-specific housing options. However, B.C. Housing is funding 63 housing projects, which are 675 units targeting youth. Thirty-seven projects are additionally targeting youth. Twenty-two are group homes in partnership with MCFD, CLBC, the health authorities and the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, as well as four shelters targeting youth.

Although there is some growth in housing, we definitely need to see more of that, as well as some of the different models of accommodations that are identified in the report, such as supportive roommates, transition housing programs and scattered-site housing models.

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

As well, the online survey that you had the homeless youth participate in…. I found that interesting. I’m wondering if you got the uptake from homeless youth, because it was an online survey, which, I would say, is restricted access for those who are faced with homelessness.

K. McParland: Most certainly. However, in my role at A Way Home Kamloops, we do notice that youth that are homeless predominantly communicate via Facebook Messenger. An online survey was promoted through different social media platforms, so I believe youth would have access to that as well.

J. Charlesworth: I’ll just offer one comment as well. One of the things that I find so interesting in the work that I did before this role, in social housing and in youth homelessness, was how many youth access media through libraries. So when we start to think of what some of the solutions are, the library system is incredibly important.

Having worked in Surrey, on homelessness there, I was stunned and so delighted to see the promising practices within the Surrey library system in terms of making sure that young people had access and would even be aware of these kinds of things. So your point is well taken. I just want a shout-out for the library system.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you, Michelle. Do you have a follow-up?

M. Stilwell (Deputy Chair): Then just one final comment. If we’re looking for a provincial plan…. Obviously, to solve this issue requires a lot of wraparound supports in different, various ministries and such, and your goal is to aim for a plan by January of 2021, less than a year away.

[9:15 a.m.]

What can we do today? Is there something specific, where government can step in and make one change that would make an impact that you think would help get you on the trajectory that you’re looking for?

K. McParland: That’s a beautiful question, and I love your urgency and the response to act, because there is no time to wait.

I would say the biggest solution that could be made, and the one that youth are calling out for, is for government to make a commitment to develop a provincial plan to end youth homelessness. We’ve yet to have that commitment in writing. What that would do is provide hope to all the service providers and young people that are experiencing homelessness and really set the trajectory of how we are going to collaborate and work ongoing with government to achieve this developmental milestone.

If I had to look at a solution that could be enacted today that would have an immediate impact on youth, I would recommend youth rental subsidies. It would allow youth to access housing, and it would address the poverty and the affordable housing crisis that young people are experiencing.

N. Simons (Chair): Adam, please. Welcome to the committee. I didn’t really do that formally. I was going to do a ceremony for you, but here you are.

A. Olsen: Please don’t. It would be appreciated if you didn’t do any ceremony. Thank you, though, Chair.

Thank you to Katherine and to the representative for investing the time and the space to do this important work.

I think one of the things I’d just like to say is that in doing this work, you have asked for some of our most vulnerable people in our society to make themselves more vulnerable in the hopes that the people in this building will do something about it. I think now that you’ve delivered your report and you’ve made the announcements and done all of the things, you’ve really turned the responsibility over to the people here to take it forward and to do something with it.

I think one of the things that is really problematic in our society is that we talk a lot about youth and for youth, and the action is the thing that’s always the issue, frankly.

Just in terms of your last answer, it was important, I think, and was kind of leading into what I was about to ask. One of the things that we’ve brought forward with government is around a basic income pilot. More than just rental subsidy, it would be a way to support people who have had very little support throughout their entire life in a more fulsome way.

I was just wondering what your thoughts are around the income assistance piece, the rental assistance piece and perhaps the opportunity for this specific demographic to be in a prime spot for this government to pilot the basic income piece. Rather than just talking about minimum wage, talk about more of a full basic income program. Any thoughts about that?

K. McParland: I believe it would be an incredible benefit for our government to invest in youth, and in the long run, there would be a cost savings.

I do agree that young people were calling out for a distinct income support plan, building off of income assistance but reducing some of the barriers, such as the earnings exemptions, to really help bridge that connection into employment where youth are not being penalized for working and starting to gain some of those skills. It would also provide youth with the basic needs that they need, such as nutrition and safe and adequate housing, which are the cornerstones of being able to move forward with education and employment.

I do agree that a distinct income support program would make a significant difference with youth.

N. Simons (Chair): Good question, Adam. You’re off to a good start.

Jennifer, did you want to add something?

J. Charlesworth: Yes. Thank you for that question and for the ideas of what public policy would look like that would address this. I do want to add, though, that one of the things we learned is that whatever is done for the young people that are in these circumstances has to be more than transactional and financial.

[9:20 a.m.]

As Katherine said, it’s more than bricks and mortar, and it’s also more than transfer payments. So many of the young people, in terms of what they’ve experienced, as you read in this report, are dealing with trauma, whether it’s trauma as a result of being in care or trauma as a result of homelessness and the circumstances that led to that. So the call for things like those life skills and transitional supports and those kinds of emotional and social supports is also really important.

I just want to add that: that, yes, I think that would be an excellent demographic to do a basic income. And we also have to recognize that, given what’s happened to them, we also need to think beyond transaction.

E. Ross: That was quite the list of recommendations for government. I hate to be the guy to bring this up, but has any quantification been put into this? The nature of government is budgets; that’s what the nature of government is. Somebody is going to have to quantify this, whether it be the advocacy or yourself. Also, when it gets submitted, the administration of the government is going to have to scrub it and find out if it fits within the government. Government has got to look after hospitals, roads. They’ve got a whole laundry list of stuff they’re trying to consider.

Why I think it’s important is because, in all of the reports I’ve ever read, there’s always a component of First Nations people that are suffering under the issues that we’re seeing in these reports. I’ve often wondered why, when it’s really the federal government that has a fiduciary responsibility to the First Nations in general, it basically gets a free ride. So I’d like to see the quantification of all of these recommendations not only for the government to actually consider but also to actually drag in Canada, which is a big part of the problem and, probably, a big part of the solution.

Has there been any consideration to quantification of this?

J. Charlesworth: I’ll jump in there, and then Katherine can add, for sure.

In terms of this report, no. We haven’t done the quantification in terms of the recommendations. Your point is well taken, though. That would be one of the elements that would have to be considered in terms of the plan and the rollout. The question was asked earlier: where would you start, and what would transpire? I think there are probably some things relatively easy to quantify: the rental subsidies, perhaps even exploring a basic income grant, and certainly, the transitional supports and life skills supports — making those available. Those are some of those early wins and actually probably quite cost-effective.

To your point about the broader array, there are lots of solutions in here that I think are worthy of consideration but may not be part of the plan. In fact, there are some here that, as a representative, I’d go: “Meh. Wouldn’t be on my list.” So that’s the important part of developing a good plan: bringing this forward, taking a look at what the most important things are. What would the costs be? And then: what are those cost benefits?

Having said that, I think the other thing that needs to be considered is: when we don’t address youth homelessness, then we end up with things like repeated hospitalizations or mental health detentions, which we’ll be talking about, as a result of substance use, mental health and all the things that are associated with the homelessness and the exploitation that happens. That’s pretty costly. To go into emergency and be then detained for three months, six months, a year because, in some cases, there is no place for young people to go is extremely expensive. We would have to take a look, also, in this planning, at: what are the costs that would be offset as a result of addressing things up front?

L. Throness: I was really disturbed by your comment — I think it was more in the press than in the report — that foster care is a superhighway to homelessness. We oversee…. I guess “oversee” is a…. We turn our attention mostly to MCFD, and the main vehicle for taking care of children who are apprehended is foster care. Half the children, or young people, who are homeless have experience in MCFD care.

What should the committee do about this? What can we study? What kind of practical…? How do you make foster care better? Could you give us some, kind of, thoughts about that?

K. McParland: Yeah. I stand by my statement that foster care is the superhighway to homelessness. That was my experience, and I think that’s the experience of many other young people. Some of things that we could do are reducing the number of moves of youth in care, finding permanency. That teaches young people homelessness — those rapid moves. You don’t even know how to put down roots.

[9:25 a.m.]

Young people also spoke about some of the residential group homes and some of those experiences just being void of a sense of belonging or connection or those relational supports that youth need. They spoke about food being locked up. That was my experience ten or 12 years ago, and that is still happening.

I think there are many different pieces that need to happen, but for some youth, the foster system has been a positive experience, so we do understand that that’s not all young peoples’ experiences. However, we do need to look upstream in how we prevent youth homelessness within the foster care system, which is super important.

As a young person, probably my first experience of social justice was…. I had aged out, and I met a group of foster siblings that I’d met in the system, and we all wrote on a piece of cardboard that youth are aging out into homelessness, and we duct-taped that sign to the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s door. I’ve come a long way since those times, but this is the reality for many young people. I want to thank the representative for allowing youth voices to be heard.

R. Leonard: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just want to say that you have a real spark, and it’s a real privilege to meet someone who has experienced the challenges that you have and come out ahead. I know that’s not the story for so many people. The fact that you’re advocating for it is a real tribute to you.

I’m wondering if you can share with us…. I mean, obviously part of it is your personality and your skills and talents. But what circumstances made it possible for you to move ahead, out of homelessness, as a youth? Because that’s one of things, as I was listening to all of the recommendations and stories…. Not everybody doesn’t succeed. You’re an example of that.

K. McParland: Finding a sense of purpose. It is the most important thing. It gives you a reason for living, hope. Sometimes that purpose can be found through understanding those most difficult experiences that you went through and finding the purpose in that. That greater purpose can be to change the system and things for other young people. That gives meaning, and it provides the silver lining of our most difficult life experiences.

I think that was a really important piece of this project. Other young people that had the same experiences and experienced homelessness…. They’re able to find purpose in those experiences by helping to elevate the voices of youth and co-create this report so that government can hear what needs to happen.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you. I have myself on the list.

I was just wondering about the relationship between young people and their social workers. I know that the system has evolved over the years in terms of what that relationship looks like. I was mentored by people who were in the system in the ’60s and ’70s, and I think that their stories have told me about the fact that they became the adult in the young person’s life and oftentimes the mentor and the person who kept in touch even years after the young person may have aged out.

What was your experience, or what did you hear, talking to young people about their relationships with their social workers?

K. McParland: Young people are very honest about their relationships with social workers. For youth that were in care, they had a really great awareness of the significant caseloads that social workers are dealing with, and they felt like they did not have the care and attention that they needed.

Youth also spoke about social workers being a positive support in their lives. It could depend on the situation, but I do think reducing caseloads would provide more time and opportunity for that mentorship, as you spoke about, because the social worker is in a really important role that can make a significant difference in young people’s lives.

One of the challenges that youth highlighted was the process around being assessed for a youth agreement and for those types of supports. In some cases, they felt that they were not heard by the social worker and, in the investigation process, that the adult’s voice was given more weight.

[9:30 a.m.]

Youth shared experiences where, as a result of that investigation process, they were not provided any support. They were told they could return to their family home and ended up walking down the road in the snow. That was one youth’s example.

N. Simons (Chair): I hear that. There was sort of a policy — unwritten; perhaps it was written — about a social worker’s relationship with young people. If the parents were fine with the young person coming home, then the social worker would only focus on that. If the parents or the caregivers said that the young person is welcome to come home, if they’ve been kicked out in anger or what have you, that was the expectation.

So as much as, perhaps, the foster care system is a superhighway to homelessness, the entry ramp onto that superhighway might be the dysfunction in a family that has not been resolved or hasn’t been addressed. To me, that’s where the most efficient focus could be — in strengthening the ability of families to accept or address the issues within their families. It could be generational; it could be not.

What do you think the focus should be when a case…? You’re just calling them cases. When a situation comes to the attention of a social worker in a home where a young person wants to leave, or the parents want to kick them out, can you just talk a little bit about that? Backing up the bus, as Jennifer referred to it — going back to the crux of the issues. How do we stop that young person from getting onto that superhighway?

Then, of course, there are the young people who are homeless but have nothing to do with the ministry. They may not be removed. They may be just on their own. Maybe you can talk a little bit about that.

K. McParland: A provincial plan would include both strategies to prevent youth homelessness as well as respond. It’s important to have a two-pronged approach and equal weight in both, because there have been decades of neglect where young people are suffering and we need to respond.

Prevention is definitely key, and starting with the families and those unsafe family home experiences is super important. In some cases, youth may need to access emergency supports while working through counselling and family mediation with their family. Looking at: how do we do that in a safe way where young people are not being exposed to more of street culture, such as in the shelter system?

There’s a promising practice happening out of Cowichan called Host Homes, where young people have an opportunity to stay with a community member and to have a period of respite from their families as they’re working through some of those issues. That prevents youth homelessness, ultimately.

Jennifer can maybe speak to that as well.

J. Charlesworth: I think Blair is next.

B. Mitchell: Jennifer might say the same thing, but it just came up recently — even backing the bus up further, just the notion of whole family care.

Often the children are removed from the situation, which is their home, as opposed to those supports and services going into the home. If an offending parent needs to be removed, then that could happen, versus the children having to be removed from the situation. So that’s backing up the bus even further, usually before those teenage years, to look at the family as a whole system that requires support and intervention and often wraparound and a multitude of different service providers.

Then to your first question about the social worker relationship, I think it’s actually really important to consider that relationship. I take your point that we need to focus on the family, but when social workers are involved, particularly guardianship social workers, how can they be supported to have the relationship that they want to have with young people? There isn’t a social worker that I talk to that doesn’t want to have the relationship that you’re describing — that they remain in contact, they go to the graduation, and they’re there when they’re needed.

But having talked to many social workers, I know immediately the ones on the phone that are that social worker, and often what they’re sacrificing is their entries into the ICM system, the sort of case management and administrative duties because they’re so overwhelmed and taxed by that, and it’s a requirement to do all these components.

[9:35 a.m.]

When you speak to them, the relationship shines through, but those things are being sacrificed. So I think it’s an important point to consider that relationship and how important it could be for young people.

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

Any further questions or comments?

E. Ross: Just a comment. That’s a great idea. I’ve never heard that before. Take the offending parent out of the equation instead of the kid and put the stigma where it belongs. As an Aboriginal leader, I’ve faced this issue over the last 15 years, and I’ve never found an answer — apart from money. Money is not the solution, by the way. But that is a great idea. I’m going to think about that some more.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you for that. One of the things that’s so important, as you know, in any report that we’re part of — and Katherine did an excellent job — is the promising practices. There are a number throughout the report. There are also ones, especially in light of that, of how it is that you treat the whole family.

There’s tremendous wisdom that we can garner from a number of First Nations across this country that created treatment environments in which the whole family came in and had that more intensive support, rather than just kind of eight one-hour counselling sessions, especially when you’re dealing with the intergenerational piece. It needs to have a much more robust response. So there are some great other promising practices that we can bring in if you’re curious about that.

With respect to whole family response, removing the offender, keeping the child safe or, as was identified at Lu’ma Native Housing, where the child stays there. Even if the foster caregivers or the caregivers need to change, the child remains in the home, and then other caregivers come and go so that the child is not displaced. Those kinds of things we know make a difference in a kid’s life.

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

E. Ross: When you’re talking about removing the parent, I mean, there’s legislation already to remove the child, and that makes it enforceable by RCMP, for example, or the sheriff, to go with you. Are there any laws that back up this idea of moving the parent? I know it’s not going to be a simple issue, because usually the spouse defends the other spouse, and then you’ve got a whole new different problem. But is there legislation to back that up to remove the offending parent?

N. Simons (Chair): I’ll just perhaps suggest that there could be restraining orders. There are sometimes restraining orders between parents and children. That would have to be applied for by a guardian, though, so that child would have to be in care but perhaps in the home.

E. Ross: Is that the umbrella you’re thinking of — restraining orders?

B. Mitchell: There’s also no-contact orders and restraining orders, but it would have to be looked at.

J. Charlesworth: And supervision orders. There are mechanisms, but they are used more to keep people separate as opposed to kind of a therapeutic intervention, right?

E. Ross: Exactly.

J. Charlesworth: That’s the shift. You can keep people separate, but then what are you going to do to repair that or restore the relationships?

N. Simons (Chair): It’s an interesting area of discussion.

Adam, do you want to say something before we wrap up?

A. Olsen: Yeah, I’m just cognizant of the fact that…. Just to my comment earlier, I’m wondering about the process here. Does the government ever respond to these reports? There’s a very clear recommendation that’s made here in request of government. Does the government ever make a response to the recommendation, or do we just receive this for information?

N. Simons (Chair): We can get the representatives perspective, and then I can perhaps….

J. Charlesworth: Yes, they do. Basically, with any of the reports that we do, there is a period of time — this is a new mechanism — in which the ministry or the public bodies to whom we’ve made recommendations have an opportunity to review. Then, within a three-month period, we meet with them about their action plan and how they’re going to respond, and then we monitor that action plan. And as I mentioned earlier, on an annual basis, we are now starting to review all the evidence in support of their actions with respect to that and then report out publicly. That’s all new.

Having said that, one of the things that we have seen thus far, since I’ve started at any rate, is that government often doesn’t wait until the action plan. They will say, “Yes, we agree with this recommendation.” Or: “We are taking the recommendation under advisement.” We typically get a pretty quick response, but within that three-month window, we go back to say: “What are you actually declaring you’re going to do in response to that?” And then: “How will we know it’s going to be actioned?”

A. Olsen: Just a quick follow-up. I guess, for me, I’ve got some interest in tracking this, in tracking this recommendation here at this committee and making sure that….

[9:40 a.m.]

I recognize that government could respond anyway. I’m not trying to say that government has to respond one way or another.

What I am suggesting, though, is that it’s really important for the people that participated in this report to know that not only has it been received here and that the author of the report has done a really good job of bringing this to life here but that this committee is also prepared to track this and to keep it on the front burner. I think that, to me, is the message that I’d like to send from this committee, if possible.

I’m the newest person here. I’m not sure how those mechanisms work. I’ll just leave it as a statement, and then we can work together, as a group, to try to follow up.

N. Simons (Chair): Sure. The representative can tell us about the tracking plan. I think all the recommendations get tracked. They indicate whether they’re being followed up on the timeline specified or if they’re waiting. Do you have a template?

J. Charlesworth: We do. This is, as I say, a new process, but we do have a template. We work with ministries to find out exactly what they’re going to do in response to that. So one of the things, because this is relatively new…. It’s a question back to the committee. We are happy to bring back our analysis of recommendations that have gone forward and where things stand on an annual basis or at the points of time, the timelines, that have been set for any of the recommendations. We’re happy to support the committee to ensure that you’re aware of what progress is being made.

N. Simons (Chair): We’ll be asking you to come back and to give us updates on these reports and keep us informed as to where government is with respect to recommendations, so it’s a very good point.

A. Olsen: One more, and then I’ll stop.

N. Simons (Chair): Quickly.

A. Olsen: Yeah, very quickly. Considering the fact that this timeline that has been given in this report is one year, I would suggest that it would be nice, from my perspective anyways — from this seat — to hear, in fairly short order, maybe the next time or the next couple of times that we meet with the representative, to have some kinds of responses. Because if it’s an annual report, then we’re going to get to a report next year that something may or may not happen.

N. Simons (Chair): Thanks, Adam.

Katherine, you wanted to add something?

K. McParland: I just want to say thank you so much for your commitment to the youth in B.C. That would make the youth that we work with really excited to hear — that you’re monitoring that recommendation.

I’d also like to inform you of an opportunity. We are going to be putting on a youth-led youth homelessness conference this year. The whole purpose is to bring together 30 young people with lived expertise of homelessness, 30 government members and 30 B.C. community members to co-create the provincial plan. I’d be happy to share that information with Jennifer as it proceeds and would like to invite the committee, to hear directly from you.

N. Simons (Chair): Thank you very much. In closing, I just want to thank you again for speaking on behalf of the young people. Can you, if possible, convey to them our interest and our respect for the fact that they’ve come forward with their knowledge and they’ve shared that with us?

Thanks for the shout-out to the libraries. I think that is an important element of our community strength.

Thanks, Blair. Thank you, Jennifer. Thanks, Katherine. Thank you, Jeff.

With that, I will pause. We’ll have a recess for one and a half minutes.

The committee recessed from 9:43 a.m. to 9:46 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Special Project

N. Simons (Chair): We’re back. Thank you very much. We have a discussion scheduled for now on special projects — whether we want to do one, what we’d like to discuss, what we’d like to think about.

For that, I think it’s best we go in camera. I seek a motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 9.46 a.m. to 9:53 a.m.

[N. Simons in the chair.]

N. Simons (Chair): Okay. We are now back. Thank you, everybody, for your comments, your questions, your interest in the subjects. I hope you all enjoy the day.

I seek a motion to adjourn.

The committee adjourned at 9:53 a.m.