The committee met at 10:02 a.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

J. Sims (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Let me start off by acknowledging that today I am chairing this meeting from the city of Surrey, from my own riding.

We sit in the unceded territory of the Coast Salish people, specifically the Kwantlen, the Katzie, the Tsawwas­sen and the Semiahmoo. I raise my hands in gratitude for this wonderful part of the province.

I’m going to ask each and every one of you to acknowledge quietly, without saying it out loud, the lands that you are sitting on and joining us from today.

I am delighted to welcome our guests. Joining us today we have a full contingency from the Ministry of Attorney General. We have Paul Craven, the assistant deputy minister; Bonnie Wai, the senior policy analyst; and let’s hope I get this right — Anita Nadziejko. From the Ministry of Children and Family Development, we have Carolyn Kamper, Sarah Gosman and James Wale.

I’m now going to ask our committee members to go around…. Do a quick introduction of yourselves, please. We don’t need your full bio; just your name and the riding you represent would be great. Thank you.

S. Chant: Good morning. My name is Susie Chant. I’m the MLA for North Vancouver–Seymour. I’m glad to see everybody. Thank you for your presentations.

M. Bernier (Deputy Chair): I’m Mike Bernier. I’m calling in from my riding of Peace River South. Good morning.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m Karin Kirkpatrick. I am very proud to represent West Vancouver–Capilano as the MLA.

K. Paddon: I’m Kelli Paddon. I’m the MLA for Chilliwack-Kent.

I’m coming from the territories of the Stó:lō people.

H. Yao: My name is Henry Yao, MLA for Richmond South Centre.

J. Rice: I’m Jennifer Rice. I’m the MLA for North Coast.

I’m coming to you today from Coast Tsimshian territory in Prince Rupert.

N. Letnick: Good morning, everybody. Norm Letnick, from Kelowna–Lake Country. Thank you.

[10:05 a.m.]

J. Sims (Chair): We do have one person who will be joining us a little bit late, but we’re going to start.

What I’m going to do now is turn it over to the two ministries to make their presentation.

Briefings on Statutory Review of
Representative for Children and Youth Act

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,
MINISTRY OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

P. Craven: Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s, as you mentioned, Paul Craven, acting assistant deputy minister of the justice services branch from the Ministry of Attorney General. At a point in our presentation, we’ll talk about the role of the ministry. You already introduced our staff, as well, who are supporting me in our presentation today.

Thank you, Anita and Bonnie, for your assistance in the preparation of our presentation and being here to assist the committee.

We have a slide deck. I don’t know if it is actually up on the presentation screen or available, if the members have them.

Interjection.

P. Craven: Great.

I’ll start, though, just in terms of what we’re trying to do in this presentation and as requested by the committee. Really it’s about a high-level overview of the Representative for Children and Youth Act, the representative’s function, powers and responsibilities, some key provisions of that act and the legislative changes that have been made in response to previous statutory reviews done by the legislative committees.

The presentation, at this time, is not designed to be a discussion of issues or challenges related to the statute and doesn’t include any recommendations for changes at this point. If invited in the future, the Ministry of Attorney General certainly would be pleased to return and provide a more forward-looking submission, if that was of assistance to the committee.

Just useful, and I’m sure the committee is aware, to make sure we’re starting from the point in terms of the statutory review. That is set out in section 30 of the act, which requires the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to complete a comprehensive review of the act every five years. That’s to determine if the representative’s functions, which are set out in section 6 of the act, are still required to ensure the needs of children and included adults are being met.

It’s important for the committee to note the scope of the review as it’s currently set out in the legislation — that focus being on the functions of the representative and whether they’re still required to ensure the needs of children, including adults, are being met. This is also referenced, I think, in item 5 of your standing committee’s terms of reference.

I think it’s important at the outset, also, for us to make reference to government’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and our commitment to implementing the Declaration Act, including section 3, which, of course, is the requirement to — this is the important element of it — in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, ensure that the laws of British Columbia are consistent with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

As the committee conducts their work, it’s important to review and undertake this review in contemplation of that obligation to align the laws with the UN declaration and to engage with Indigenous peoples.

Another important thing to emphasize…. As MLAs will remember, there have been recent legislative amendments to the Interpretation Act that have added an interpretation direction that all provincial enactments must be read so as to be consistent with the UN declaration.

This means that the Representative for Children and Youth Act must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the UN declaration, in accordance with that provision, unless the act has specific provisions that suggest otherwise. I think it’s just important to draw the committee’s attention to those obligations and that recent change in the law, which will assist in meeting our obligations under section 3.

[10:10 a.m.]

I think it’s important to go into a little bit of history of why we got here in terms of the enabling legislation. I expect that all members are fairly familiar with this, but I do think it’s a useful starting point for you. The enactment of the Representative for Children and Youth Act was part of the then government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Hughes report, the 2006 B.C. children and youth review, an independent review of B.C.’s child protection system and an important threshold in the development of the act and the approach that government has taken in these areas.

Conducted, of course, by Hon. Ted Hughes, he undertook that independent review focused specifically on the B.C. child welfare system, with that primary focus being the services and programs to children and their families provided or funded by MCFD. The development of those recommendations of the report were informed by a very comprehensive public policy review and consultations with a broad range of impacted service providers.

The Hughes report recommended that government create an independent officer of the Legislature, the representative, with three main functions respecting children and their families. I expect that in the course of your deliberations you will hear lots about these specific functions: (1) advocacy, (2) monitoring and oversight of the child-serving system and (3) reviews and investigations of critical injuries and deaths of children.

The representative provides oversight of the provision of these specific services identified in the report, including programs and services under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, mental health and addiction services for children, and adoption.

The Hughes report recognized that the modern function was an exceptional oversight function for an officer of the Legislature. In 2013, the act was amended to create new advocacy functions for the representative that enables the representative to advocate for young adults, related to specific services set out in the regulation. While an extraordinary and exceptional oversight function, that function has been with us since the introduction of the act.

I mentioned this in my opening comments, and I think it’s important for an understanding of the various ministries’ roles and responsibilities. The Ministry of the Attorney General — we have responsibility overall for the legislation and the act that you’re reviewing. This means that the ministry has the policy responsibility for making changes to the act and regulation as required.

In contrast to some of the other ministries that we’ll mention and MCFD, the Ministry of the Attorney General doesn’t have services that come under the mandate of the representative for a reviewable. That’s important, particularly related to the ministry’s role as Attorney General, to ensure that the statute reflects the independence and mandate of the office.

In contrast, the Ministry of Children and Family Development deliver and fund services and programs for children, their families and young adults, which are broadly under the purview of the representative’s mandate.

There are also, of course, other ministries and public bodies not listed on this slide that are impacted by the legislation — the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction; Community Living B.C., with services for persons with developmental disabilities under that ministry; the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, with regard to the provincial tuition waiver program; the Ministry of Education and Child Care, with respect to child care programs and services; the Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, respecting mental health and addictions services and programs; and lastly, the B.C. Coroners Service, with responsibilities respecting child deaths.

[10:15 a.m.]

You’ll hear a number of sort of technical descriptions under the act. They’re referenced here under the second column of services: designated, prescribed, designated and reviewable. What I’ll do now is just give a little bit of background in relation to those. This all relates to section 6, which sets out the mandate of the representative through these three main functions that I’ve talked about: advocacy, monitoring, review, audit research, and review and investigations.

First, the representative provides advocacy for children and their families, working directly with children and their families or advocating on behalf of a child and their family, then requiring assistance in interacting with the child service system. Respective service is specified in the act and regulations. Some examples of those services include programs and services under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, often referred to as CFCSA. Early childhood education and child care comes under that. Mental health education and addiction services for children come under that, and adoptions. These services are referred to in the act as “designated services.”

The advocacy function, though, does not stop there. It also is provisioned for included adults, and working with adults from 19 to 26 with special needs or adults 19 to 26 with a previous connection to the child service program, to advocate on their behalf and their families in respect of specified services. There are currently three such services: community living support through Community Living B.C., the agreements with young adults program and the provincial tuition waiver program. These services, in terms of their technical term and how they’re related into the act, are known as prescribed services, as noted on the slide. That’s the advocacy function.

Then we turn to the monitor, review, audit and conduct research function. That relates to the same services that I’ve talked to as designated services. I won’t repeat those, but that’s their nature, in terms of that monitoring, review, audit function — again, in reference to designated services.

Thirdly, I want to talk about…. The representative may conduct reviews and investigations of critical injuries and deaths of children who were receiving or recently received services called in the act “reviewable services,” which is really a subset of these designated services. Again, some examples of that — MCFD’s role with respect to child welfare, mental health, addiction, Child in the Home of Relative program and youth justice.

With that, I’ll turn to slide 7.

There are other important sections under the act we want to draw your attention to, starting first with section 10. Section 10 covers the representative’s right to information integral to the work and functions that we just talked about with respect to advocacy and review functions. The representative has a broad right to information in the custody and control of a public body, the ministries, that is necessary to exercise the representative’s powers, functions and duties under the act.

This right has some limitations, but they are limited by solicitor-client privilege and also restrictions related to section 51 of the Evidence Act, which deals with internal hospital reviews, which is designed to ensure that there’s free and frank discussions of hospital procedures that have, unfortunately, ended in a bad result.

The representative’s authority to disclose information under the act is described in a manner that really focuses on a great degree of the representative’s discretion — so the use of the words “necessary, relevant and appropriate.”

[10:20 a.m.]

It’s important to note, though, of course, that different functions entitle the representative to different information. For example, a report that brings in and aggregates information from a review and an investigation must not contain information in individually identifiable form. I think the rationale for that is obvious. But under section 16, the report of an investigation of a critical injury or a death may disclose personal information if it is necessary, in the opinion of the representative, to support findings of an investigation and if it’s in the public interest.

Part 4 of the act concerns reviews and investigations of critical injuries and deaths of those who received a reviewable service within a year prior to injury or death. The representative may review a critical injury or death of a child to determine whether to investigate or identify trends, in accordance with section 11 of the act. If, as a result of the review, the representative determines that a reviewable service or practice of a particular public body may have contributed to that critical injury or death, the representative may investigate, under section 12.

In that investigation, the representative has authority to compel a person to answer questions. The representative must make a report after investigation, and the disclosure powers outlined in section 16 of the act apply.

Finally, I want to just reference section 20, which provides that the representative make a special report to the Legislative Assembly with recommendations for a public body, or a report on the level of compliance with previous recommendations, or any other matter considered necessary.

Those are some key sections of the act that I think will be drawn to your attention during the course of review and that you’ll hear more about as the representative provides their presentation, as well as others.

With that, we’ll now turn to slide 8 and just do a bit of a review of some of the history of the key regulatory and legislative changes that have been in response to previous work of the committee. Before I begin that — as MLAs, I’m sure you’re quite familiar with the legislative development process — I think it’s important for a quick review of terms that also identifies what the Ministry of Attorney General’s role here is.

Of course, proposals for legislative amendments, including recommendations from statutory reviews like this, are, after that process, usually examined by staff and likely include a consultation process with affected ministries and with other public bodies to address issues of policy, privacy, fiscal and other implications. As I noted at the outset, a critical part of that engagement is with Indigenous peoples. That is an increasingly extensive and important element of our work.

All of that feedback, along with any associated research and policy analysis, is synthesized and assembled into material that includes options for direction and decisions by government, working its way through broad government committees, usually at the ADM and deputy minister’s level before cabinet. Approved proposals, of course, then go into a drafting process, where they are then presented as a government bill before the Legislative Assembly.

Of course, we all recognize that there are usually only a limited number of bills that can proceed in any legislative session. Hence, legislative proposals must, in some sense, compete with all governmentwide legislative priorities or other priorities of the Legislature — which, as you all know, has a very busy legislative agenda for MLAs. It obviously takes some time to develop proposals. Generally, you’re talking of periods from 12 to 18 months for legislation of initiatives in the main, but they can be significantly longer or shorter in some instances.

[10:25 a.m.]

With that introduction, I want to just go into the previous reports. We can start with 2013, when the select standing committee released a report out of its 2012 review in May 2013. There were seven recommendations there, some significant changes. The act was amended to establish a new function for the representative to advocate for young adults for prescribed services.

At that time, a definition for young adult was added for 18 to 23 — before your 24th birthday, essentially — the eligibility criteria being that the young adult had to be in receipt of what was known as a reviewable service within 15 months before turning 19. The regulation under the act was also amended to prescribe community living support, which was mentioned under the CLAA for purposes of the new function of the representative, who could advocate for young adults with developmental disabilities.

Their report was released out of its 2017 review in February 2018, with nine recommendations. The regulation was amended in 2019 by adding and prescribing two additional adult services that would allow the representative to advocate. We mentioned these: support services or financial assistance under Agreements, named under section 12.3 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act. That’s known, and I mentioned it earlier, as agreements with young adults, and the provincial tuition waiver program, which I also previously mentioned, administered by Advanced Education.

Beyond that, the regulation was also amended to re-establish the representative’s advocacy mandate for children with special needs.

That’s just a summary of some of the changes as a result of those reports. I’ll go on to slide 9, which starts to talk about the legislative amendments made in 2021, addressing recommendations out of the 2018 report.

I think you might be wondering why it took a little while between the 2018 report and the 2021 report for enactment of amendments in response to the review. I think one of the distinctions that we want to make here is while recommendations from previous reviews were implemented more quickly, the nature and the scope of those recommendations from past reviews differ.

The recommendations in the 2018 statutory review were very significant in the sense of terms of the representative’s mandate changes. It was, of course, important, as we talked about earlier in the process, for government to take time to analyze potential changes, to consult the broad range of impact to ministries and other bodies, and to fully understand those impacts. And as I think we’re all aware, there were the added delays due to the effects of the pandemic, primarily that impact to government resources and priorities related to work, particularly on our legislative program within the justice services branch.

When we were able to identify that opportunity for amendments for the fall 2021 session, the ministry did have an opportunity to engage with the Office of the Representative to prepare a package of legislative amendments, which were then passed by the Legislature. The act was amended at that time to expand the eligibility criteria for adults who were able to access the representative’s advocacy assistance, that advocacy role.

Specifically, there was a new definition called “included adult.” I’m sure you’ll hear more about that. It was added in place of “young adult” to set both age and other eligibility criteria. So you have “included adult” as that age and eligibility requirement, where the definition of “young adult” suggests just an age eligibility requirement.

In that, the age eligibility requirement was increased up to the 27th birthday, and the requirement for connection to the child service system was changed. The requirement for an individual to have received a reviewable service within 15 months before turning 19 was removed. Instead, any adult under 27 with developmental disabilities who receives or is eligible to receive community living support through Community Living B.C. may access the representative’s advocacy, and any adult under age 27 who received a reviewable service at any point as a child may also access the representative’s advocacy.

These new criteria did significantly expand the representative’s advocacy function with respect to adults.

[10:30 a.m.]

Also, to the extent to which that representative can advocate for included adults is modified by the eligibility criteria of each of those three programs prescribed for that function, so: community living support under the Community Living Authority Act; support services or financial assistance under agreements made under section 12.3 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act; and the provincial tuition waiver program, administered by the minister responsible; as well as other services and programs if prescribed in the future.

That’s an overview of, I think, where we’ve got in terms of statutory review. Slide 10 now — and this is where we’ll just close — we’ve put together a bit of a table sort of outlining and summarizing that in relation to the functions. You’ll see those changes made to the regulation in 2019 addressing recommendations 1 and 4, and it just provides this general overview. Further amendments to the legislation in 2021 addressed recommendations 3 and 6, partially. Hopefully, that chart will be of assistance to the committee in its deliberations.

With that, I can turn it over to my colleague.

J. Sims (Chair): We’ve got a brief presentation still from Carolyn, so we’re going to go on to that. Looking at the timelines, we are adjusting the timelines so we get to hear a report from the Ministry of Children and Family Development as well.

C. Kamper: Good morning. I’m Carolyn Kamper and the assistant deputy minister of the strategic integration, policy and legislation division at MCFD and grateful to be joining you this morning with my staff, as the chair noted, Sarah Gosman and James Wale.

Thank you for the opportunity to join you and provide you an update on MCFD’s recent developments regarding services and supports provided to children, youth, young adults and families in B.C. Just before we begin, I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of staff of our valued partners, who work so hard to support the children, youth, young adults and families that we serve.

While I’ll be speaking this morning about some of the recent developments, I thought I would first provide a little bit of context very briefly with respect to how these developments represent some of our ministry priority initiatives and how they contribute to the ministry’s goals. Just briefly, the ministry’s service plan identifies four goals.

The first goal is to recognize the right of Indigenous families and communities to retain the shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and wellbeing of their children, consistent with the rights of the child, UNDRIP and the TRC calls to action.

The second goal is to support improved outcomes and keep families safely together through many different prevention and family support activities.

The third is to support youth and young adults to transition successfully to adulthood.

The fourth, final goal is to have a network of care to ensure that services and supports are provided to children and youth based on their need and focused on connection to family, community and culture.

At the same time, as the ministry advances its work, we have maintained momentum towards achieving these goals, while also reflecting on the lessons learned, as learned through the pandemic.

The recent developments to share with you this morning pertain to two of the four goals. I won’t be providing a comprehensive overview of the ministry’s work or all of the ministry priorities but just the recent developments that have an intersection, particularly, with the RCY’s mandate.

The goals relate to advancing Indigenous reconciliation and youth transitions. Specifically, there are just three areas, and then, I’ll move through each of the three areas in the following slides. The three areas are: the first, reforming the provincial legislation for child and family services. As my colleague Paul noted, it’s called the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or if I may refer to CFCSA in short.

[10:35 a.m.]

The second recent development to share with you this morning is the work to support Indigenous communities who are seeking child welfare jurisdiction.

Then the third area is our work to improve services for youth and young adults that are aging out of government care.

I’ll first begin by talking about the work underway for reforming the child and family services legislation, which is required to complete a systemic transformation of child and family services. The CFCSA has not been substantially reformed since it was passed in 1996. There were some amendments, most recently in 2019, to enable the ministry and Indigenous communities to enter into agreements to support greater collaboration and planning in carrying out services for children, youth and families. However, we recognize that those changes are not enough.

Changes are needed to the child and family service system to meet the needs and goals of Indigenous peoples and improve services for all families. Particularly, these changes need to align with the federal act, which is called An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, as well as the Declaration Act, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

We also need to make change to the CFCSA to promote prevention and family support to maintain children’s ties to their culture and communities, to uphold the rights of Indigenous peoples to care for their own children and, also, to enable other short- and longer-term legislative amendments to support systemic transformation of child and family services.

Engagement on this broad legislative reform is underway, and we plan to engage with Indigenous peoples, including nations, rights holders, community organizations and anyone who has experience with the child and family services. That engagement and work is underway.

Closely connected to our work on reforming the CFCSA is our work related to support jurisdiction. The federal act that I referred to with respect to a new child welfare legislation came into force in 2019. This act affirms the pre-existing and inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services, including to pass laws over child and family services and to implement those laws.

The ministry is working with Indigenous governing bodies, Indigenous partners and Canada to exercise the inherent right of self-government by Indigenous peoples and to coordinate with Canada based on the self-deter­mined choices of Indigenous governments. We’re undertaking this work very collaboratively, working with Canada, Indigenous governing bodies and those impacted, through a two-step model.

The first step is needing to move forward this year, later in 2022, to pursue necessary legislative changes that are required to eliminate legal barriers to support Indigenous governing bodies to exercise jurisdiction and for effective coordination of laws to support a multi-jurisdictional approach in B.C. The second approach links to what I just spoke to, in the broader reform of the CFCSA, and that is required to complete a systemic transformation of child and family services.

We will continue to work with Indigenous peoples, our partners and Indigenous leaders over the next two years on this systemic reform. Any recommendations for the removal of barriers that could not be included in this first phase, which is aiming towards fall of 2022, will be then taken into consideration and rolled into the longer-term reform, which I spoke about first — the legislative, systemic transformation, including reform of the CFCSA.

Currently there are four communities that are ready to assume jurisdiction in 2022, so we must proceed with this work to be able to remove barriers to allow for those conversations and jurisdiction to be exercised.

[10:40 a.m.]

In addition to supporting nations to pursue jurisdiction under the federal act, we work with communities to provide support and guidance on jurisdiction as it’s envisioned by the community.

I just wanted to highlight one important and historic agreement that was just announced earlier this month, which was a co-created child welfare agreement in B.C. that was signed with the Simpcw First Nation. This allows the Simpcw First Nation to ensure the meaningful involvement of Simpcw in all planning and decision-making for Simpcw children and families under child welfare legislation. This agreement is an interim measure for Simpcw First Nation as they work through a community-driven process to develop inherent jurisdiction and exercise legislative authority in relation to their children and families.

I’ll move to the next slide, which is the third goal within the service framework, with respect to supporting youth transitions. This work has been underway for a number of years. Particularly over the last four years, there has been a concentrated effort with respect to facilitating targeted and public engagement.

We have engaged with about 2,500 British Columbians, including Indigenous partners, youth and young adults, foster parents, staff and community partners, and we heard about many challenges of the current system — such as young adults leaving care without the life skills they need to transition into adulthood successfully, the greater likelihood to experience poor outcomes, homelessness, mental health crises and the limited eligibility and restric­tive criteria to access the one program that MCFD has, which is called the agreements with young adults program.

The pandemic actually further illuminated these challenges. Measures were put in place during the pandemic to make the agreements with young adults program, or AYA, more flexible and accessible, to ensure that young people did not age out of care during the pandemic. We put in those emergency measures while we continued to work on a systemic change.

Earlier this year, Minister Dean announced funding for a comprehensive approach to support young people transitioning from government care to adulthood, up to the age of 27. This slide highlights what those new supports and services look like, to highlight the many different approaches, because we really need a holistic approach to support youth transitions with a complement of many wraparound supports and services.

We first looked at housing and helping young adults with the cost of housing, including making the temporary pandemic measure for housing and support agreements permanent. We’re introducing a new rent supplement program and also providing young adults priority access to B.C. Housing where it’s appropriate. We’re also hiring new transition workers who will help connect youth and young adults to appropriate services, and begin transition planning at the age of 14.

We’ve provided funding for training and life skills and cultural programming We’ve provided funding for enhanced medical benefits, including dental and counselling services. We’re also moving to expand eligibility to include young adults with 24 months of cumulative time in any legal care status between the ages of 12 and 19, and increasing the program duration from 48 months to 84 months.

In addition, we’re looking at moving to implement a no-limit earnings exemption, an unconditional income supplement for 12 months up to the 20th birthday, and a financial support up to the age of 27, based on the participation of the young adult in programming. These changes will take place in a phased approach. Some of the services and supports we can move ahead and implement this fiscal, some in the following fiscal, while we work towards legislative changes in 2024.

Engagement is underway. Certainly, we’re reaching out to our partners, making sure that we hear the voices of youth and advocates and making sure that the users and those that support youth and young adults have a voice, as we continue to develop policies and programming with this new funding.

[10:45 a.m.]

Then, the next slide — one more slide — is just a link here. There are so many other activities and initiatives. I’ve only highlighted a few of the most recent developments, but there’s a link here, an external website, that links and describes all of the ministry’s priorities, a description of what they’re about, the progress and links to the engagement efforts that are underway.

I’ll just reference — I believe it was last month or earlier this month — where my colleague Jan White, the executive director, and I joined the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to report out on the RCY report Excluded and spoke about the work that the ministry has underway with respect to children and youth with support needs and the transformation towards a new service delivery model. We continue to work on that model, of course.

I wanted to share that the CYSN service framework was posted publicly earlier this week, as well as a survey asking for input from families, service providers and our partners. We continue to do this work, and we continue to work with our partner ministries. Definitely, like our other developments that I highlighted, we need to work across government, ensure that there is strong collaboration and look towards holistic, systemic solutions.

That’s the conclusion. The last slide is, I think, questions. Thank you very much.

J. Sims (Chair): Well, thank you very much to the presenters for both of those very in-depth presentations. I’m now going to turn to members to see if they have any questions. I’m sure they will. Both I and Karan will keep a list to make sure that we don’t leave anybody out.

K. Paddon: Thank you so much for that and to both of you for the presentations. I have a lot of notes and a lot of acronyms.

My question, I believe, is for you, Carolyn. It may be a broader question that requires a broader consideration and maybe recommendations in the future. As I take a look at the considerations around the Indigenous communities that are engaged in assuming the jurisdiction, which is fantastic movement forward, I’m trying to think of how the representative’s role will interface with that as we consider the act. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts. I understand that that will be a bigger answer, and I might, for the rest of the committee, ask that question about six times.

C. Kamper: It’s really up to the Indigenous governing body — the nation, the community — to self-determine for child and family services and how they would like to interact or work with the RCY. It would be up to the nation to determine the linkage with the RCY. It might be helpful — because I highlighted two efforts.

There are many steps that a community can consider towards jurisdiction. They can consider, under the CFCSA, a type of agreement called a section 92.1, which is actually what Simpcw First Nation did and which included some elements of the federal act. They can consider a delegation-enabling agreement. They can also look at the federal act, where they have the right of self-government and jurisdiction.

The federal act enables Indigenous communities to exercise jurisdiction in one of two processes. The first is to work with Canada, adopt a new law and provide a notice to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada and the province in which the community is located, or by sending a request to Canada and the province in which the Indigenous community wishes to exercise jurisdiction to enter into a tripartite coordination agreement.

Then there’s another path, which is under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. In particular, section 7 of the Declaration Act provides the opportunity for the province to enter into decision-making agreements with Indigenous governing bodies.

[10:50 a.m.]

Lastly, there are self-governing agreements, which are generally tripartite agreements with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the federal government. Agreements such as treaties or reconciliation agreements would fall under this category. I think, to your good question there, the path to jurisdiction is self-determined by the community. We would look to the community on how we can work with them, support them. That would include working with the RCY.

K. Kirkpatrick: A comment and a question. I’ve got more, but I’ll limit it so I don’t take up all the air time.

Thank you to MCFD. I was really pleased that on slide 5, you’ve got that transition to youth. There are a lot of things in there that I think are really, really important, and you’ve done a lot of wok on that. I just wanted to acknowledge that. That’s great. I won’t acknowledge the CYSN, because you already know what my views are on that.

I did have a question. It’s on slide 10, I think, Paul, in the presentation, if you or one of your team can address this. I understand that in 2018, there were nine recommendations that the committee recommended, in terms of changes, from the last review of the act. Three of those, I believe, have had movement on them — you’ve listed a couple of them in the presentation — but they haven’t been fully implemented. Then the remainder of them have not been addressed at all.

A question I’ve got…. I want to clarify. On page 10 of your presentation, is that kind of the high-level overview of what those nine recommendations were? In the column that says, “Future consideration,” is that saying that there’s not a plan at this point to move forward with those? I’m clarifying that page 10 is actually setting out what those recommendations were and where you’re at with them. Is that correct?

P. Craven: Yes, that is a summary of those recommendations. The ones under future consideration — there are no current plans in terms of their implementation. That’s partly because we’ve come upon a review again, so we would probably be waiting, in terms of that. What was considered in terms of the legislative window that we had in the time and what we thought would be appropriate at that time…. Now, with a review upon us, probably appropriate to consider that at that time.

K. Kirkpatrick: May I have one follow-up, Chair?

J. Sims (Chair): Go for it.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to understand the process. A lot of time and effort was put in by the representative in 2017 in coming up with these recommendations and review, the nine recommendations. There was a lot of time put in with this committee in that initial review, in terms of making the recommendations for these changes. A concern for me is that a lot of heavy lifting is now going to be done. The representative has made recommendations. We, as a committee, are going to be reviewing this and putting a lot of effort into it.

If, at the end of the day, the majority of those recommendations are not actioned by the Attorney General’s office…. I just don’t want to discount the importance of the work that we’re doing. How do we know the process in terms of how the Ministry of Attorney General makes a determination on the value of those recommendations that are going to come out of this committee?

P. Craven: I would just make the observation that there are any number of processes and statutory reviews or policy reviews of legislation. They are all valuable but not always…. For various reasons, some things may not be acted upon. Those reasons may vary in certain circumstances. I don’t want to prejudge anything in terms of what our next analysis will be.

What we have to do, once we’ve got the benefit of a report, is to examine those, go through the steps that I talked about earlier in the presentation, ensuring consultation implications before advancing legislative proposals. In some instances, that results in all recommendations being met. In some instances, it may not.

[10:55 a.m.]

I’d say that generally, not just with respect to the work of this committee, which is in a third generation of reviews. I think, as I noted in the presentation, that the recommendations last time were a little bit different from the ones previously, in terms of their scope, which entailed different considerations. That’s generally the process we will go through.

J. Rice: Just a quick question for Carolyn.

What are the four nations that are getting their authority for their own jurisdiction this year? Sorry. I didn’t articulate that properly.

C. Kamper: I thought that question might come up, so I do have the nations here. The four nations pursuing jurisdiction this year include Cowichan Tribes, Sts’ailes, Splatsin and Gwa’sala-Nakwaxda’xw Nations. There are other nations and communities which the ministry is having formal agreements with, so other tables, but those four nations are pursuing jurisdiction this year.

H. Yao: Thank you so much. I’m not too sure whether my question is within the calibre of this committee, today’s meeting. I was just watching Carolyn’s presentation talking about youth in transition. One thing I noticed in that piece that feels like it’s missing is the continuation of cultural and heritage preservation among youth in care, especially with such an imbalanced representation of Indigenous youth when it comes to youth in care. We are looking for ways to continue the culture and heritage lineage, a continuation.

I’m wondering. From the perspective of the Representative of Children and Youth in regards to the capacity of representation, is there any potential discussion due to the fact that there’s overrepresentation of Indigenous youth, that we could actually incorporate a component to talk about continuation? Or what can we do to foster the connection of the culture and heritage?

C. Kamper: There’s such a number of supports and services which I’m proud to share with you this morning on youth transitions. I probably didn’t highlight enough the connection to supporting youth and young adults to their culture, community, language and family. So if I may, I’ll just take a moment.

One of the measures that we took during the pandemic was to make the agreements with young adults program more accessible and flexible. We had a number of efforts to do that, reducing the number of hours required to participate in the program, allowing online learning and allowing a life skill program to be a connection to culture.

Through the measure, we knew that we needed to look at what we had and to quickly support young adults connecting to culture. We’ve made that flexibility and that access to culture permanent, so the AYA program now has a broader reach to support culture. Then, in addition, in the future, what we’re moving towards…. There is $5,500 for up to two years for extra life skill training or connection to culture. It’s a very important aspect that I didn’t highlight, so thank you for letting me do that.

Certainly, we know that there are about 1,100 youth that age out of care each year. The majority are Indigenous youth and young adults. We need to make sure that we have a focused effort to connect to culture, which is our obligation to support youth, also under the Declaration Act, also under the federal act — in addition to supporting all youth and young adults connected to their culture, whatever it may be.

H. Yao: Chair, may I just have a follow-up question?

I think the question really now is more for Paul. It’s going to be along the same topic too. What can we do as a committee regarding the discussion, I guess whether expanding or increasing the Representative for Children and Youth, to be able to explore the possibility of cultural heritage connection for youth in care?

[11:00 a.m.]

I’m not too sure whether I’m speaking out of line or I don’t know what I’m talking about, but with the overrepresentation, it felt like there should be a stronger emphasis, quite a stronger emphasis, not just allow our youth to stay connected to culture but allow a cultural community group to have a stronger say on how they can connect and support youth in care. That way we can create a lineage and heritage that can slowly rebuild and repair a culture.

I know it doesn’t sound like something that the Representative for Children and Youth should be looking at, but it seems that with the overrepresentation, it is something that we should be starting to shift focus and put extra emphasis on.

I would love to hear your feedback on that part.

P. Craven: I guess the question, first of all, relates to jurisdiction, so the broad advocacy function and what services are covered. What we’re talking about appears to be — and Carolyn can confirm — something that is in relation to what MCFD is already doing with respect to that. It’s something that, in the course of that advocacy or commentary, the representative could emphasize or focus on.

The question for the committee really is: is there a jurisdiction limitation here that would prohibit the representative from commenting, supporting, advocating related to that? I think that’s the question you’re asking.

C. Kamper: I was thinking of youth transitions in my response, and as I now reflect on the jurisdiction and the larger, broader CFCSA reform, you’re absolutely correct. That is a direction where we need to embed in the CFCSA that accountability, responsibility to recognize the inherent right of Indigenous self-government and right to be connected to community and culture.

That would be part of our broader legislative reform, to make sure that there are aspects in our legislation that can have that connection for youth to their community, culture and language and family early on and embedded in the legislation.

J. Sims (Chair): I want, on behalf of the committee, to thank you for a very thorough presentation, all of you. Thank you for joining us, and we’ll bid you adieu as we move on to the next item.

Just so you guys know, we are a little bit early, so we are going to take a comfort break and a little bit of a break for you to stretch your legs and do whatever else you have to do. We will reconvene at 11:30 sharp.

The committee recessed from 11:03 a.m. to 11:31 a.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

J. Sims (Chair): Joining us for this part of the meeting, of course, are Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth; Pippa Rowcliffe, live stream; and Alan Markwart.

I’m going to turn it over to you to start with your presentation. We’re not going to go around and introduce all our committee members. By now, you know us, because you have all our faces in your office memorized.

Over to you, Dr. Charlesworth.

OFFICE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Charlesworth: Great. Thank you so much.

We may be joined by David Loukidelis, who is our legal counsel. He currently is in the U.K., and I believe he is going to be joining.

Actually, Alan, if you wouldn’t mind just checking in with Carissa to find out if David is going to be joining us.

Lovely to be here with you today. Always good to see you in the virtual circle, but even better when we can be in person, so I look forward to doing that next week.

As you mentioned, Chair, Alan Markwart is joining me. Pippa Rowcliffe is on the live stream, and we do hope that David Loukidelis will be joining us as well.

I’m gratefully joining you today from the lands of the W̱SÁNEĆ people — the Pauquachin, Tsartlip, Tsawout and Tseycum First Nations. I’m very grateful today to be on their lands and to be able to do this important work with you.

I want to acknowledge that we were listening in to the presentations from the Ministry of Attorney General and the MCFD. There are questions that were asked then, and I hope to do my best to connect the dots between some of the material. The Ministry of Attorney General did an excellent job of providing some history, definitions and some distinctions in the current scope as well as past recommendations and current status, so that makes my job a little easier.

MCFD spoke very much to the CFCSA, the act that they are bound by, not so much our act — in fact, not at all our act. But there were some things that they identified with respect to First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and jurisdiction and youth in transition that I would like to come back to, because I think that might be helpful for the committee.

We did forward to you our rather hefty written submission. You’ll be happy to know that I am not going to go through everything. I will keep my remarks to the higher-level issues that I think are important, that we wanted to share with you to stimulate the thinking as you proceed with your deliberations. It’s going to take me about 20, 25 minutes to go through this, and then we’ll have ample time for conversation, etc.

We welcome the statutory review, obviously, as an opportunity to determine how the mandated functions of our office can be clarified or improved and what next steps should be taken in the evolution and the role of our office. As was suggested today, we are in a very dynamic time not only because of all of the things that are happening in the world and through COVID but also because of the developments within First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous communities.

We also welcome this review as a means of revisiting several of the nine recommendations from the previous statutory review that was completed by this committee in 2017-18. As implied in the submission, I’ve been disappointed with government’s response to these thoughtfully developed and important recommendations from the committee. We will be picking up some of those.

As outlined in our submission, only one of the nine recommendations has been fully actioned. Two have been partially addressed. While that’s been welcome, we look forward to the opportunity to revive and further discuss the outstanding recommendations along with several other important matters that have arisen in the ensuing years.

[11:35 a.m.]

Let’s move right in. I’m going to start with RCY as a rights-based organization. You’ll see in the submission that I speak to two conventions and a declaration, so I’m going to pick each one of those up here.

Fundamentally, we are a rights-based organization, and one of the fundamental underpinnings of our office’s work is the United Nations convention on the rights of the child or, to add another acronym to the list, UNCRC. This has been the case for RCY since its inception in 2006. However, recognition of the UNCRC is not embedded in our legislation, nor is formal recognition of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples or the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Our submission proposes that action be taken to remedy these omissions. Although, in practicality, we operate with these nearly universal, accepted international conventions firmly in mind, we think there is a value in articulating them, not only for the benefit of me in this role but also for future representatives.

Just to take a look at the UNCRC, it was ratified in Canada in 1991, and it sets out the civic, political, legal, social welfare, educational, health and cultural rights of children. The responsibility to implement the UNCRC is shared by Canada, the provinces and territories. Reflecting these jurisdictional responsibilities, the governing statutes of comparable child and youth advocacy offices in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Yukon and Nunavut all make reference to the convention. However, the UNCRC is not referenced explicitly in any legislation pertaining to children in B.C.

During the 2017-18 statutory review of the RCY Act, the previous representative, along with parties like UNICEF Canada and First Call, recommended that the RCY Act be amended to reference the UNCRC. And this committee, actually, made the same recommendation, stating: “The act be amended to require that, in undertaking the functions under the act, the representative reflect the principles contained in the UN convention on the rights of the child.” As you know, this was one of those recommendations that was not actioned by government, so I’m bringing it back.

My office routinely references the UNCRC, as you’ll see in our reports, as a guiding framework in carrying out our functions, and we’ll continue to do so. But we believe it’s important to expressly reflect the UNCRC in the RCY Act because this visibly and affirmatively reflects B.C.’s commitment to the values, principles and aspirations set out in the UNCRC.

Another thing with respect to the UNCRC and one that’s been previously proposed is to take that and broaden the representative’s functions to include a responsibility to be more affirmative and proactive and have a role in the education, promotion and monitoring of the rights of children set out in the UNCRC. That would be quite a different role for us, and it would be a significant addition and have some appreciable resource implications. But it’s something we wanted to raise up for you, and I expect that you will hear that in submissions coming back to this committee.

Moving on from that convention, I’d like to speak to the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, or UNDRIP, which sets out the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples to cultural and ceremonial expression, identity, language, employment, health, education and other matters.

As you’re all aware, UNDRIP was ratified by Canada in 2016. In 2019, B.C. was the first province or territory to enact a specific legislation to address that with the enactment of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, which, among other things, calls for the province to affirm the application of UNDRIP to the laws of British Columbia and to contribute to the implementation of the declaration.

I’m just going to take a step back and provide some context for the RCY Act. As you know, as Paul Craven was speaking, this was born out of the Hon. Ted Hughes’s review, and that was prompted by the deaths of two Indigenous children who were receiving child welfare services. It’s important to remember that history.

Colonization, residential schools, the Sixties Scoop, the millennial scoop of Indigenous children into the child welfare system and the continuing racism and discrimination evidenced by the recent federal human rights rulings and settlements have left a tragic legacy, as you all know, of overinvolvement of the child welfare system in the lives of Indigenous children and families.

[11:40 a.m.]

To put a finer point on it, an Indigenous child in B.C. is over 18 times more likely than a non-Indigenous child to be in government care. Given this context, I believe it’s morally necessary for the representative to be required to take into account UNDRIP when carrying out her functions under the act.

Our view is that DRIPA does not appear to require amendments to the RCY Act to achieve consistency between them, because on the face of it, the functions of the RCY do not appear to be in conflict with, nor inconsistent with, UNDRIP. However, we acknowledge that determination of whether amendments are needed to ensure consistency must be made by government in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples.

Additionally, we feel strongly that the RCY Act is dated and inadequate to the task of reflecting history, experiences, needs and interests of Indigenous children and families and young adults. For example, the word “Aboriginal” is only referenced twice in the act, and only in incidental ways. Given this, the act is at least inconsistent with the spirit and the intention of the declaration and needs to be modernized.

We’re proposing that at minimum, section 6 of the RCY Act be amended to require the representative to take into account UNDRIP in carrying out functions under the act. We also recommend that the committee engage in a process of consultations with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous peoples in British Columbia about how the RCY Act can be strengthened to better reflect the experiences, needs and interests of First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous peoples.

The third convention is the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, UNCRPD. But I will just speak to this convention. It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2006 and ratified by Canada in 2010. It, too, sets out some fundamental principles and rights, including inclusion and autonomy, that, like the UNCRC, address children. We think that that must guide the work — and it does guide the work, currently — of our office in relation to advocacy services to young adults who are eligible for CLBC services, as well as children.

Although we’re guided by that, we think it’s desirable for the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities to be statutorily identified within our legislation, especially in relation to young adults who are eligible for CLBC services.

That’s the bucket of conventions and declarations which sets the broad context for us. Now I want to dive into talking about our role, how that’s evolving and scope of services. Let’s pick up on the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the DRIPA act. I want to speak about the evolving state of child welfare for First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban Indigenous children and youth. You had a taste of that from Carolyn Kamper’s presentation, but how does that relate to us?

Several nations or Indigenous governing bodies in B.C. are in the course of designing their own laws and systems of services to support the exercise or assertion of jurisdiction over child and family services. This is enabled by the federal Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, and, as Carolyn noted, through amendments to the CFCSA that allow for nations to resume jurisdiction under agreement. Undoubtedly, more will be coming forward in the future.

Once an Indigenous governing body under the federal legislation establishes full jurisdiction, we don’t have jurisdiction over those services. Our role ends. So these changes will obviously have a significant impact on us in the years to come. If you’re still on the committee in five years, I’m sure that there will be a very robust conversation at that point, because much will have changed. But in the interim, Indigenous governing bodies that have asserted jurisdiction might choose to implement the equivalent functions of the RCY, like individual advocacy, systemic reviews or investigations.

They could do that on their own, or they may wish to engage us to directly carry out one or more of those functions, or assist them in developing their own internal capacity. In fact, some Indigenous governing bodies have already made informal inquiries about the possibility of having an ongoing relationship with RCY. We’ve worked really, really hard to build strong working relationships, so this is coming from a place of curiosity from those Indigenous governing bodies about what might be possible.

Given this, we recommend adding a provision in the act to enable RCY to enter into agreements with Indigenous governing bodies to support them in developing the internal capacity to carry out one or more functions, or for us to directly carry out one or more of these functions for them.

[11:45 a.m.]

Section 22 of our act enables the representative to enter into agreements for the purposes of exercising powers in performing the functions and duties under the act. But we suggest that for clarity, that section be amended to expressly permit RCY to enter into agreements with Indigenous governing bodies. under which RCY may exercise its powers, duties and functions as a service to them.

If we don’t have that change — essentially enabling a permissive opportunity clause — then questions could be raised about our authority under the act. We think that in these next five years, there is going to be a lot of change, and we want to be prepared for that — again, in the spirit of providing support and options. So that’s one piece.

Now let’s talk about what’s included under our jurisdiction. We’ve talked about the Hughes review. In particular, when Ted was doing his work, he was attentive to the serious concerns that were being raised about children involved in the child welfare system who are a subpopulation of children and youth who have need for extra supports from government. In other words, these are children who are vulnerable. Yet our jurisdiction actually extends well beyond child welfare to include additional children and youth with extra support needs.

As Paul spoke about, designated services are the services that are subject to our individual and monitoring advocacy mandates. The definition of designated services is principally targeted to children and youth with extra support needs, but not entirely so. The inclusion of child care services can be seen to be inconsistent with the principal focus of the legislation on vulnerability.

While some components of child care services, like supported child development, infant development for children with special needs or the use of child care as a protective measure would be directed towards vulnerable children, the vast majority of child care services embrace the general child population.

This raises a question. I bet you weren’t expecting me to suggest that we have things removed from our jurisdiction, but just hang on. We wonder whether the inclusion of child care…. There are a couple of things to consider. One is: should we be a full-service office with a broad mandate that includes, in effect, all publicly funded services for children, as was suggested in some submissions to you in 2017? That may come up again.

That approach would align our mandate in relation to children with broad jurisdiction, like the Ombudsperson has or Human Rights Commissioner has over all publicly funded services. It’s also what other jurisdictions in Canada have — Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Yukon, for example — and what’s in place in New Zealand, England and several other jurisdictions.

So that would intersect with the potential reframing of the role that I discussed earlier around the UNCRC — that we would actually have a broader mandate: education, promotion and monitoring of children’s human rights under the UNCRC. Obviously, that has some significant considerations, both in terms of our capacity and the resources that would be required, but also in a way of focusing our attention.

Something that will probably come up in submissions to you is “go big.” But if we are to go back to our primary intention of a focus on vulnerability, as Ted Hughes was suggesting, then we still think that there are some amendments that need to be made, because the way in which designated services are right now, it’s a bit muddled and a bit varied. Sometimes it’s more about programs and ministries, and sometimes it’s general areas. We think it can be improved with greater clarity about the scope in services.

I think it’s important because, as you’re well aware, sometimes programs and services can shift from one ministry to another. A good example is that nursing support services used to be in one ministry, and then it’s now over in the Ministry of Health. So if we’re really lining ourselves up only with ministries and the way they define programs, then it gets a little bit muddled.

What we are suggesting is to describe all the services that are to be included in relation to vulnerable children and youth in a clear, generic manner, as we have in some areas, like mental health services for children and youth or addiction services for children and youth, and then give legislative authority and responsibility to the representative to negotiate formal agreements with the ministries and public bodies as to which specific programs and services are in scope.

[11:50 a.m.]

That would mean taking out child care, because that’s not a service primarily for vulnerable children, and including child welfare services, mental health services, addiction services, services for children and youth with special needs, special education or inclusion services for children and youth, youth justice services, early childhood development services and services for youth in their transition to adulthood. It’s similar to what we have right now, but more generically described, so that we’re not dependent on trying to chase things down when they move from ministry to ministry.

It’s acknowledged that if we had an approach like that, where we were negotiating agreements, about what would be in and out, with the ministries, it could create a little bit of uncertainty and, potentially, disagreement. But what we’re suggesting is that if there is disagreement about — depending on perspective — overreach by the representative or resistance by the ministries, these disagreements could be resolved by way of a referral to you, as the committee, which would provide for a public, transparent and non-partisan process of decision-making. That’s something for your consideration.

I want to narrow in on another area. It is really the scope of services for children with extra support needs. It seems strange to me that education — a universal, publicly funded service that, next to the family, is so central to child development — is excluded from our jurisdiction.

We’ve produced several public reports documenting the need for systemic reforms to public education services for subpopulations of children with extra support needs — in particular, children in care, children and youth with special needs, and youth justice — but we’ve not been given a mandate to provide individual advocacy for children in receipt of, or eligible for, special education or inclusion services, nor a direct monitoring or systemic advocacy mandate over those same educational services.

If we think about a whole child and a child with multiple needs, then it doesn’t make sense to exclude that area of service and support for the young person and their family. We can talk about situations that we are dealing with where that fragmentation is actually not serving the child. Again, if the decision were made to include special education or inclusion services within our purview, we know that there would be a resource impact. So it’s something for the committee to consider, for sure.

Another emerging area with respect to jurisdiction that could be considered by the committee is services to transgender and non-binary children and youth or gender-fluid youth. It’s a small but high-needs population of children whom we frequently encounter in our critical injury and death reports and in advocacy cases, but only to the extent that some of these children are involved with reviewable and designated services.

Again, if we take a whole-child approach, we think that for that particular population, especially because of their vulnerability, it’s important that we consider them, because their needs, in terms of the health care system, are significant as well. It’s something to consider around scope.

The next scope area is around young adults. I appreciated the questions that were being asked previously with my colleagues from Attorney General and MCFD. Let’s see if we can unpack this a little bit more.

From our inception, the definition of “designated services,” for the purposes of our individual advocacy and monitoring mandate, included services for youth and young adults during their transition to adulthood. While “youth” is defined in the act, “young adult” was not defined in the original iteration of the legislation, and that overly general description, “transition to adulthood,” created uncertainties like transition of who, from what, and how.

The representative’s mandate, in relation to services to young adults, has been subsequently clarified, but to a very limited extent, over three stages. We think more changes are necessary, particularly in light of where government has recognized it’s important to go with respect to supporting these young adults. At present, we have individual advocacy jurisdiction in relation to young adults under the age of 27 who were formerly youth in care and eligible for an agreement with young adults or a tuition waiver, as well as those eligible for or in receipt of CLBC services.

[11:55 a.m.]

Our mandate is very limited, statutorily. That current narrow scope does not nearly satisfy this committee’s unanimous 2017-18 recommendation that the representative be accorded the authority to advocate with respect to services and programs necessary to support them in their transition to adulthood. At the time, the committee also stated that: “The categories of services should be carefully defined so that the representative’s mandate does not inadvertently exclude young adults who would benefit from support in accessing services they need for a successful transition into adulthood.”

If the goal of individual advocacy is to improve services and outcomes for young adults with extra support needs, then again, a whole-person approach demands that at least the core services necessary to support them in their transition to adulthood be able to be addressed. That includes mental health and addictions services, housing supports, financial supports or, in the case of CLBC and young adults who have concurrent significant medical needs, specialized health services and supports. We’re, again, often frustrated by trying to advocate for a young person but not being able to see them as whole.

We’ve now had several years’ experience with advocacy for young adults involved in CLBC’s service system, and there have been many examples where we just, again, have not been able to help them do the necessary supports in the transition to adulthood because of the limited responsibilities and the authority we have.

As was shared by Carolyn, there have been some very significant, very positive developments. It’s been well documented that a whole-adult, whole-young-person approach is needed. That’s been recognized. We want to see that recognized in terms of our scope to be able to do the best job possible and broaden beyond those three areas.

I recommend that the committee consider amendments to enable the representative to provide individual advo­cacy services to young adults in respect of services necessary to support their transition to adulthood, giving the authority and responsibility to the representative, again, to develop agreements with ministries and public bodies as to which particular services and programs are to be included and, in the event of disagreement, the authority to refer this matter to you for decision.

If you decide to maintain the current approach of designating services to young adults by way of regulation, at minimum the scope of services should be expanded to include mental health and addictions services for young adults who were formerly in care or eligible for or in receipt of CLBC services. Then we also think that the committee should give consideration to the inclusion of housing services for young adults and specialized health services and supports for CLBC young adults who have significant medical needs.

That gives you some options. As we go forward, we’re also recommending that “young adult” be defined in the act more clearly as adults under the age of 27 who are eligible for or in receipt of CLBC services or are eligible for the full range of extended placement, housing, financial, transition worker, life skills, and mental health supports set out in the recently announced government initiative to enhance services and support for young adults formerly in care.

We also suggest that you think about the language “young adult” and more broadly considering that as a young person formerly in care under any legal status or agreement. Right now, for example, if you’ve been a young person on a youth agreement, you wouldn’t be eligible for, for example, AYA.

That gives you some scope considerations. Just a couple more to talk about.

Systemic advocacy is a really important area for us, as you know, because we’re trying to find those patterns and those trends and ways to intercede and to make suggestions and recommendations to public bodies to ensure that improved services are provided.

Section 6(1)(b) focuses the representative’s monitoring, review, audit and research functions on the provision of designated services by one or more public bodies. These services were, and continue to be, administered not just by MCFD but other ministries, as Paul was speaking of: Health and health authorities, Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, Community Living, Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction — and the Ministry of Education, because of the transfer to child care services recently.

[12:00 p.m.]

Clearly, our monitoring mandate isn’t limited to just child welfare services nor to just MCFD. We’ve been working with trying to address some of these broader issues under our monitoring mandate, calling for systemic reform or service systems improvements, which fell under a variety of ministries.

What we want to do is…. Our act currently doesn’t even mention systemic advocacy. What we’re recommending is that section 6 of the act be amended to expressly include systemic advocacy as a primary function of the representative, linking this function to the current monitoring mandate. So just again, we’re trying to practise in that way. I think we all agree that it’s important. We don’t want to just tinker at the edges. We want to see those fundamental reforms that are necessary to make for a better system and better outcomes for kids. So let’s acknowledge that in the act.

I’m going to talk briefly about information-sharing and transparency. There are several matters related to information-gathering and disclosure, most of which are connected to RCY reviews and investigations, that we think require your attention.

We have extraordinary powers to gather information. Paul Craven spoke about that. These powers are in turn balanced by extraordinary limitations on the disclosure of that information. The information we receive and review is obviously deeply personal and saddening, and sometimes tragically so, especially for the parents, other family members and caregivers for a child who has been seriously injured or passed away.

We carry out a fairly small number of full investigations, typically around two a year, because they’re very intensive and require a lengthy period and significant staff resources to complete. In those investigations, others involved in the case, including parents, are obviously aware of the action taken, because we would reach out to them. We would keep them apprised of what’s going on. And then that report is publicly released, so the family would be able to see the fullness of our investigation and the recommendations.

Much of our work is not in the investigative realm. We do dozens of comprehensive reviews of individual cases, and those include detailed examinations of a child’s or a youth’s file, a family’s files. Due to the strict limits on confidentiality and disclosure set out in the act, all reviews of critical injuries or deaths that don’t go to investigation — in fact, almost all of our hundreds and hundreds of cases — are carried out in complete confidence, with the representative being legally unable to disclose to parents or others the findings or actions taken.

This means the results of a comprehensive review by our office of an injury of a child or death of a child may be disclosed only to the public body or the director responsible, with all others, including parents and close family members, being left in the dark about the results of the review. The inability to disclose any information at all, even generally or in summary, to parents, especially in cases where the child has died, in my view is simply wrong.

Imagine a circumstance in which your teenage daughter is caught in the thrall of addiction well beyond your or any parent’s capacity to care for. She’s placed into care and a group home and then dies of an overdose. The coroner has decided that there will not be an inquest, which is most often the case. Very few cases go to inquest.

As a parent, you know your daughter’s death will be, if not fully investigated, at least reviewed by the representative. I have these conversations with parents all the time. Yet when you ask the representative for information — when you ask me for information, because it’s personal — the representative is legally unable to disclose any information. I have to tell them that. I’ve been in a position of having to deliver that message to parents many, many times, and it never feels morally or ethically right.

I know there are reasons for that in terms of…. It’s complex, it’s challenging, and it’s not going to be an easy thing for you to consider, because there are liability and legal implications for sure. I’m not asking, for example, to support having power to disclose to parents the detailed case records gathered for the purpose of review, or detailed reports of reviews that are disclosed to public bodies. However, I do believe that it could be beneficial to have discretion to disclose summary written or oral information to parents about the key findings and decisions made in the review.

I’m mindful of a very recent conversation with a parent who was so hopeful that they would learn something and basically said: “I just wanted to know that my child’s death was not in vain.” Those are very hard conversations to have.

[12:05 p.m.]

I recommend that the act be amended to give the representative the discretion to disclose limited summary information of the results of reviews of critical injuries and deaths to birth or adoptive parents of a child, regardless of whether that parent has or had guardianship.

I recognize that disclosing even summary information may open the door to further action by the parent, which perhaps could be mitigated by a prohibition against subsequent disclosures — a non-disclosure agreement or something like that. But the existing section 23(5) of the act, which prevents the representative and RCY staff from giving evidence in court proceedings, could possibly be adapted for this purpose.

One final piece, section 30. As Paul Craven noted, section 30 basically says that these reviews happen every five years to determine whe­ther we even should exist or whether the functions of the representative are still required. It sets out two clear questions for the committee to assess in its review. First, are the needs of children and young adults in B.C. being met? And therefore, are the functions of the RCY still required?

As we’ve laid out in considerable detail in our written submission, we think the answers to those questions are clear. Although there have been many improvements and there is constant improvement with respect to the child- and family-serving system, the needs of many vulnerable children, youth and young adults are still too often not being met. Therefore, the functions of the representative are still clearly required.

What the then representative stated in a 2017 submission to the committee remains equally true today, and I’ll quote Bernard: “To remove or limit one or more of the representative’s functions, this committee should have before it real and substantial evidence that gives the committee the confidence to inform the public that the child-serving systems under its mandate are on such a firm, long-term structural footing that the representative’s independent functions in a particular area are no longer necessary.” In my view, there’s no real and substantial evidence to justify such a conclusion.

The requirement that the committee undertake a comprehensive review every five years to determine whether the functions of the representative are still required was established from the outset of the act. I know Ted had many good reasons for it in 2006.

While the requirement to review the effectiveness of RCY’s monitoring functions flowed from the 2012 legislative review, this committee’s 2017 review concluded that ongoing reviews that are based on determining whether the representative’s functions are still required were no longer necessary. Instead, the committee unanimously recommended that the five-year reviews should focus on the RCY Act itself, not on whether our functions are still required. In fact, none of the submissions that the committee received in 2017 suggested that one or more of our functions were no longer required, and most of them actually recommended expansion.

I should say that no other Canadian child and youth advocacy office is subject to the kind of review of having to prove the value of its existence. The legislation for five jurisdictions requires periodic reviews on the effectiveness of the statute, but none ask whether any of the functions should continue.

None of the other eight independent officers of the Legislature are subject to that kind of a review. Certainly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner have prescribed statutory review provisions, both of which require reviews by a special committee, but not the need of the officers’ functions to exist.

More than four years after this committee’s 2017 report was published, government has failed to act on that recom­mendation to stop reviewing to determine whether the representative’s functions are still required, so we’re bringing it back again.

We think that the time has come for all of the current representative’s functions to be recognized as an important and enduring feature of publicly funded services to children, youth and young adults and their families in B.C. and agree in pulling up the 2017 recommendation that section 30 be amended to provide for a general, periodic review of the RCY Act, which is useful since issues relating to the effective functions in the act will continue to emerge over time, much as I mentioned with respect to First Nations, Métis and Inuit children.

That concludes the formal part of my presentation. Obviously, the written submission goes into a number of other things. I hope that our specific recommendations, as well as identifying those areas for your deeper consideration as you undertake your review process, have been helpful to you.

I will open it back to you, Chair.

[12:10 p.m.]

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Charlesworth, for your presentation. Very passionate, as always, and very thorough.

I want to remind my colleagues now that this is not us going to be discussing the legislation. This is us asking questions of the presentation you have heard for clarification and for that kind of thing. We will have a separate time where we will do our review. Today is a contact setting and an opportunity for you to get the backdrop as well as the inside scoop on this particular piece of legislation.

I will take questions of the presentation that was made. As you have gathered, there are links between all three presentations, so I’m sure you are aware of that.

Okay. I have MLA Chant.

S. Chant: Thank you, as always, for your presentation and for your review of things. Two real quick questions.

One, the UN declarations, the three that you cited that you are…. Have any of those been updated? A number of them were implemented many years ago, and I’m wondering if they have been updated and if we have incorporated those updates. That’s question one.

Question 2 is…. If child care came out from under your jurisdiction, my perception is that you would still be able to investigate an unexpected death in a child care environment. If it came out from your jurisdiction, would that still remain your mandate, or would that go to another body?

J. Charlesworth: Thank you for both questions. First of all, with respect to the UN conventions and the UN declaration, they are reviewed periodically. We’re actually in the process of an international review on the UN convention on the rights of the child, so there are some considerations given. It’s a very laborious process. It takes a very long time, as you can imagine, with something like that. But rarely do you see changes to the fundamentals of the conventions or the declarations.

However, there are things that are appended to them. They call them general comments, so those things provide greater clarity in the interpretation of the conventions or the declarations. That’s typically what we see, but they are reviewed. I’m not entirely sure, Alan, if it’s every ten years or every five years. I’m not entirely sure about that, but I do know that we’re undertaking….

In fact, that’s one of the things I’m doing today. It’s taking a look at the submissions that we are making as the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates to the UN on the act. But they typically manifest themselves in things that are appended for clarification, not to the substantive intentions of the rights.

Your second question with respect to the death of a child in a child care setting. We would not have jurisdiction over that if the child was not receiving other reviewable services. For example, if the child was in a protection situation — the child was in a foster home and then had passed away in a child care centre, for example — we would have to see that connection between the services that they were receiving, the decisions that were being made, and that would determine our authority.

Even if we didn’t have child care, but if that child passed away in a child care setting…. I’m thinking if it would have a very clear link to the decisions that were being made…. I’m looking to Alan here, in my little screen. If there was a very clear link to the reviewable services — the decisions that were made, for example, to place the child in that child care centre — then we could review. But it would be a little iffy. We’d have to really see those clear connections to services.

Anything you wanted to add there, Alan?

A. Markwart: Well, I think you got it right. There would have to be a connection to reviewable services, which could only be services under the Child, Family and Community Services Act. It’s probably a pretty slim likelihood. Any investigation would be done either by a coroner or the licensing officers under Health, because they are licensed facilities.

[12:15 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Again, a comment and a question. The K to 12, that recommendation, I think, is fabulous. I would not have appreciated that, actually, until recently. I have many families coming, asking me about advocating, because they’ve got a young person who is receiving special needs funding within their classroom. They need to advocate for their young person to get enough support, but right now they have to go to…. As an individual parent, they have to go to the school trustee. They have got to go to the superintendent.

If I’m understanding it correctly, I think that that recommendation makes a lot of sense, so those parents can have that kind of support and advocacy.

Question. It’s a smaller one. Early childhood development services. When you talk about that, are you talking to those related to only those young people who are receiving designated services?

J. Charlesworth: Thank you very much for those questions, Karin. I just want to pick up on the special education. You and I have had a recent situation where we’ve been dealing with a child who…. This is important for everybody to understand. We are seeing greater and greater exclusion of children from public education. For example, the child that Karin and I were discussing was only in school for 45 minutes a day, and their parent, actually, the week following our conversation, was told that the child could no longer attend school.

That’s very difficult, if we can’t advocate, because then the parent is in this situation where they’re quitting work, and they’re having to cobble things together in order to provide support for the child, and we can’t provide a fulsome advocacy support. I think it’s really important that you raised that.

With respect to early childhood development, that includes things like infant development, Aboriginal infant development, supported child development, Aboriginal supported child development and early intervention programs. So there’s a suite there that would still be very much within our authority, so we would be able to both advocate and, if there were critical injuries or deaths in any of those situations, then that enables us to do reviews as well, if that’s part of a reviewable service.

Does that answer your question?

K. Kirkpatrick: Those children having access to that — they are within the system though. They are designated or family preservation or whatever it is. Okay.

K. Paddon: Thank you so much, Dr. Charlesworth. I know some of the conversations that you’re describing are incredibly hard, and I just appreciate that we saw that. That’s important for us to see as well.

My question is basically asking to make sure that I fully understand the current situation, because every time I think I do, a little fact comes up, and it makes me re-examine it. I’m wondering if you could describe currently what your role is with regard to youth transitioning into CLBC, and where things extend and where they stop, because I want to make sure I have an entirely accurate understanding in considerations moving forward.

J. Charlesworth: If it’s any consolation, I, too, day to day, find things that I didn’t fully understand, and I am trying to figure it out as well. Alan, I’m going to cue you to help me on the CLBC area. But right now, the authority that we have is the services being provided by Community Living B.C. But for example, a child who has special needs might be served by CLBC or eligible for services to CLBC.

What is not included right now is any kind of advocacy around the health services that they might need or supports that are required there. That’s the kind of subtle thing that we’re speaking about with respect to youth in transition to CLBC.

But I’m going to pass it over to Alan to add some more clarity there, if you wouldn’t mind.

A. Markwart: Well, yeah. We can only advocate in respect of services that are funded and provided by CLBC itself. For example, if you have a young adult involved in CLBC who has mental health issues, addiction issues, concurrent medical needs, and there are a number of those who require specialized health supports, we’re unable to reach out to those services and programs and advocate on their behalf, and even some housing services.

[12:20 p.m.]

Of course, CLBC directly provides some housing services, but there are other subsidized housing services that we’re unable to advocate on. So it’s a fairly narrow jurisdiction that we currently have. The point is, we can’t address the full range of needs of young adults with special needs.

K. Paddon: A supplemental. I’m wondering. How does it interface, or does it interface, with any of the eligibility considerations for CLBC, or is it only once a youth is eligible for CLBC?

J. Charlesworth: Good question. Let’s see, do you want to take it first, Alan? Then I’ll pick up.

A. Markwart: Very clearly, the youth must be eligible for or in receipt of…. Now, there are issues that come up, for example, where there’s an application in process, and there may be issues around assessment and determining eligibility. Yeah, we do have jurisdiction in that respect. I hope that answers your question.

J. Charlesworth: Maybe I’ll just add to that that this is one of the reasons that it’s important to take a look at that scope of practice for us, around youth transitioning to adulthood. There are many children — as I know you would understand, Kelli, based on your experience — that are not meeting the eligibility criteria for CLBC but have significant special needs. If we are limited to just CLBC agreements with young adults or tuition waiver programs, there are a lot of kids that are being missed from that.

With the recognition of that support and those transitions, including transitions from any care status, such as special needs agreements with a parent, if our scope is expanded there, then we’re going to be able to support those young people who are in that transition and need additional supports as they make their way into young adulthood. So look upon those as kind of the way in which the pieces align from CLBC and these transitions to adulthood from any care status.

M. Bernier: First of all, Jennifer, thank you so much for the presentation and your thoughtful recommendations that you brought forward for the committee on that. I think it’s really important.

It also highlights a frustration for myself. We go through this every five years, and I heard your point about “Should we or shouldn’t we?” That’s a discussion I guess we’ll have after. As you know, I sat on this committee for quite a few years, ten years ago. It kind of bothers me a little bit when I hear that recommendations are made by different groups and different representatives — and yourself, specifically, on this one — where maybe recommendations aren’t followed through with or considered, or there’s a multitude of different reasons.

In 2013, obviously, there were a whole bunch of recommendations that the representative put forward and that the committee acted on; in 2018, not so much. Are the recommendations, in your opinion, that were brought forward in 2018 maybe so complex that they weren’t able to be decided on or administered? I just want to know the difference of why sometimes they’re followed, from your perspective. Obviously, you put forward thoughtful recommendations for a reason.

J. Charlesworth: Thank you very much for that question. You probably go the impression, from the submission, that we were a little bit frustrated that the 2018 recommendations were not put forward. To your point, are they so complex? No, I don’t think they’re so complex.

I think that they were quite straightforward, and I really lift my hands up to the committee members who heard dozens of submissions, deliberated and brought those forward. I think it’s a question you’d have to ask to the Ministry of Attorney General and to the Attorney General as to why those don’t get brought forward because, of course, we’re not privy to whatever happens thereafter in the discussions that take place at cabinet.

[12:25 p.m.]

Having said that, one of the things I do want to say to the committee is that, as you know, I can’t be anybody other than myself in this role. I am by nature collaborative and cooperative and have worked really hard with the public bodies that we refer to, that we make recommendations to or that we are bringing forward recommendations to, such as this, that have some relevance to them.

We are trying very hard, this go-round, to be very transparent with the public bodies about things like scope change and having conversations with them before. It’s so that they can be more informed when they make submissions to you about what we were thinking and why we were thinking it — maybe they can come up with better ideas — and then furthermore, be able to have the conversations thereafter, speaking to having a clear agreement on what’s in and what’s not in.

My hope is that as we move forward, the combination of your work and our work in trying to create those stronger relationships and understanding about the intentions of any recommendation we bring forward will prove fruitful.

I don’t know if that answers your question. I’ll be honest: I think there was some push-back.

I will leave it at that.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you very much, and thank you for your presentation today. I thank your whole team.

What we’re going to do now is that we’re going to end this part of our meeting and wait for our guests to leave. In five minutes, we’re going to reconvene, when we will be meeting in camera. In five minutes, we will be getting back together again.

Thank you to our guests.

The committee recessed from 12:26 p.m. to 12:32 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

Consideration of Draft Report

ANNUAL REPORT 2021-22

J. Sims (Chair): Okay, everyone. We’re going to restart our meeting, and we’re going to be looking at our annual report, the draft for 2021-22.

I am going to be asking for a motion to take us in camera for the committee’s discussion of the draft report.

Moved by MLA Yao, and seconded by MLA Letnick.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 12:33 p.m. to 12:53 p.m.

[J. Sims in the chair.]

Committee Report to the House

ANNUAL REPORT 2021-22

J. Sims (Chair): Members, we are now out of camera, and we have two motions.

The first motion is going to be moved by MLA Paddon.

Did you want to read it out, Kelli?

K. Paddon: I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth adopt its report entitled Annual Report 2021-22 as amended today and further, that the committee authorize the Chair and Deputy Chair to work with Committee staff to finalize any further editorial changes to complete the supporting text.]

Motion approved.

J. Sims (Chair): We have our second motion, to be moved by MLA Letnick.

Did you want to read that out, MLA Letnick?

N. Letnick: I move:

[That the Chair and the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth present their report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity.]

Motion approved.

J. Sims (Chair): Thank you, Members. We have no other business on the agenda for today.

I want you to note that we have finished at 12:54, so all of you get an extra hour to go and play in the sunshine. Enjoy the rest of your day.

K. Riarh (Committee Clerk): Motion to adjourn.

J. Sims (Chair): Sorry. A motion to adjourn.

Moved by MLA Chant, to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:54 p.m.