Children and Youth — Issue No. 12 — Wednesday, March 12, 2008 (HTML)

2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Ron Cantelon, MLA
Chair

Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Clerk Assistant and
Committee Clerk

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
CHILDREN AND YOUTH



CONTENTS

		Page

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth		159
	M. Turpel-Lafond

Joint Special Report: Health and Well-Being of Children in Care in British Columbia: Educational Experience and Outcomes		162
	M. Turpel-Lafond
	M. Sieben
	M. Wright
	S. Kennedy
	S. MacDonald

Chair:	* Ron Cantelon (Nanaimo-Parksville L)
Deputy Chair:	* Nicholas Simons (Powell River–Sunshine Coast NDP)
Members:	* Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L) * Dennis MacKay (Bulkley Valley–Stikine L) * Mary Polak (Langley L) * Valerie Roddick (Delta South L) * John Rustad (Prince George–Omineca L) * Jagrup Brar (Surrey–Panorama Ridge NDP) * Maurine Karagianis (Esquimalt-Metchosin NDP) Leonard Krog (Nanaimo NDP) * denotes member present


Witnesses:	Susan Kennedy (Ministry of Education) Scott MacDonald (Ministry of Education) Merv Scott (Ministry of Advanced Education) Mark Sieben (Ministry of Children and Family Development) Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond (Representative for Children and Youth) Martin Wright (Office of the Representative for Children and Youth)

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'll call the meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, and thank you for attending. Are there any other additions to the agenda that any members wish to bring forward? Fine.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be back with the committee reconstituted in new form with the same membership and with no additions, I think. Everyone's the same — right? Yeah. Good.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'd like to congratulate Mr. Simons on his taking up the vice-Chair.

I want to just start, by way of an introduction, to do a bit of an update on where things are with respect to the work of my office before we go into the agenda item which is the most important agenda item today, in my view, which is an update on the education outcomes report. I would just say, on that item, that it's been almost a year since we filed that report and this committee reviewed it and accepted the recommendations.

In terms of how the representative's office functions, it's my view that it's extremely important for us to do regular follow-up on recommendations to see where they are and how they're moving along and to report back to this committee and Members of the Legislative Assembly periodically on each of the reports we produce so you will know if the recommendations that you adopted are being implemented.

With that in mind, I can just say that I'm very delighted with the work that has happened since this report was completed, with the Ministry of Children and Families, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education working very much on how we can best implement these recommendations and also have more regular public reporting, as Mr. Hughes called for in recommendation 23 — a regular set of reporting on outcomes for children so that we know if they're healthy, if they're safe and if they're obtaining the proper education milestones, particularly for those who are in state care and subject to a continuing custody order. That uptake today is, I think, a positive one, and it will give you an idea of where we're headed.

I also just wanted to update briefly on a few other items. Since receiving a confirmation that we will have the resources that we require to do some of the work that is before us under the legislated mandate of the representative's office, we have nearly completed our staffing process, and we have a full complement operating now in all program areas.

I just wanted to say that in a few of these you will receive some written updates. To best use the committee time, we will periodically provide you with written updates and not speak to those items in the committee proceedings, because there is quite a significant amount of work that we're doing, and I don't think that we would have time to go through all of it. So we're trying to prioritize that with the Chair and the vice-Chair and also make sure that you receive regular updates.

You will have seen, perhaps, that we released a monitoring brief two weeks ago on children and youth with special needs. We released that not to the committee but to the public, because the committee hadn't yet been constituted. In those instances where the committee is not sitting, it is important for us to continue with our work. In consultation with the Chair and vice-Chair, we were advised to go ahead and do that, and I think we will do that.

A monitoring brief is a slightly different document than the report that we'll do the update on today. It really looks at an area that we are monitoring carefully. That update looked particularly at the relationship between the Ministry of Children and Families and Community Living B.C. and at how children and youth with special needs and significant developmental disabilities are being supported at this point. The brief, as you will note, calls upon us to monitor this situation very carefully.

The idea is that we'd have a more fulsome report for this committee after working with the ministries a bit and allowing the Ministry of Children and Families and Community Living B.C. to resolve some issues they have before them that we've identified and that they, too, in part have identified — allow them some time to do the work that they've committed to doing and, in particular, that the minister has assured me he's very committed to doing; and allow us to report back to this committee on the status of that. Probably, that would be in the early summer months. I just give you an update on that point.

In the area of critical injuries and deaths, in a few weeks we will table our first report on the four northern deaths that were referred to the office by the committee. We had anticipated tabling that today, but we will require a few more weeks to finalize some information that we've requested. I can say that with respect to the preparation of this report, we have received a great deal of cooperation and support from the Ministry of Children and Families. There are some areas where we require information which the ministry may not readily have and which they are trying to obtain for us.

Also, we will be presenting it a little bit later than we had anticipated, as I'd like to have the opportunity to meet with family members. I'll do that, in part, next week in the north. Siblings, etc., may wish to talk about this report prior to its release, because we wouldn't want to further traumatize or make their lives more

difficult by virtue of the release of this report. Out of the abundance of sensitivity, I think it's important that we have the time to sit and take the time to talk to those family members.

More generally, in the area of critical injuries and deaths, apart from the cases that have been referred to the representative's office for review, I can report to you that in the category of active review leading to investigation, we have approximately 50 deaths and approximately 100 critical injuries. Those cluster around certain areas, as we've seen them and now have had a chance to analyze them.

Particularly in the area of injuries, adolescent injuries are a very significant complement of that group. They're largely connected to attempted suicides. Also, in the death category we do have completed suicides. The attempt-suicide and the suicide cases we are clustering together, and we would anticipate reporting to you on those, we're hoping, within this calendar year. We're looking at what the common features were. Of course, in terms of the system of support to children in adolescence, we're looking in that area at the mental health system and the extent to which these children are supported or ways in which they may be more effectively supported.

The other largest cluster of incidents — critical incidents, deaths or injuries; in particular, deaths — is infant deaths relating to bed-sharing and unsafe sleeping practices. Those include children that are in care of the ministry and children that are receiving services. This is an area where we have been working quite actively with the Coroners Service, the Ministry of Children and Families, the provincial health officer and others. You will probably see various reports and announcements coming out.

We will prepare a formal report for the committee on that cluster as well. Because of the need to do stronger prevention work, we are working very closely with a number of partners to see that there will be stronger education, particularly for vulnerable families and aboriginal families, about safe sleeping practices.

I just provide you with that update and say that the clustering of those cases is underway and that there will be periodic reports. The report you receive on the northern deaths is one report which you should really see as a series of reports that will come out looking at these.

I also wanted to indicate that on the issue of special needs, I saw that it was appropriate for my office to set up an advisory committee to advise us on issues with respect to special needs. One of the challenges we identified in preparing the monitoring brief was that while we were challenged to be able to evaluate the effectiveness and responsiveness of this system, it was extremely important that there be people who have ground-level experience to advise our independent office. Like so many areas with respect to children and adolescents, sometimes the high-level policy understanding of the system is very different than the lived experience for children and families.

We have constituted an advisory body consisting of people with a variety of experiences in the special needs system who advise us. We'll have a first meeting with that body on April 1 to review our work and ensure that in addition to the work we do with ministries, there is an advisory body of citizens, interested members of the public and professionals who have experience in this area and who are sure to provide the appropriate balance and insight to our work so that we can bring those insights, as well, to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the standing committee.

I wanted to also come back to the issue of the Hughes review and identify where things are with respect to that. Since we issued our first report in the fall, we've been engaged with the ministry in looking at a number of the recommendations. We have made a decision for 2008 to focus in particular on a subset of recommendations that we think are of the most significant importance. These primarily pertain to quality assurance, to management and organization of the ministry and, in particular, to strengthening public accountability performance measures and report cycles.

You will see at the end of today a document that will be tabled for you which will identify specifically the recommendations that we have set as a priority. Of course, all of the recommendations are significant, and we're working with the ministry. We've received some very helpful information from the ministry with respect to these. You will have an opportunity to see, from the independent office's perspective, which ones we want to see progress on this year.

You can expect to hear back from us in a few months on where we are with those specific recommendations. It's a discrete subset of approximately eight to ten recommendations. It will be a very focused work. We are working very collaboratively with the ministry on those to suggest how we see them, why we think they're significant, and the ministry has been providing us with information. We look forward to that report.

The final point I would just come to before we move on to the next agenda item is that I made a public comment, and I was very pleased to see that the Premier of British Columbia adopted Jordan's principle at a meeting of the first nations leaders and Métis leaders, as well, a few months ago, in a significant conference that they held called Children at the Centre. There was an announcement that the province would adopt Jordan's principle.

As many of you will likely know, on December 12 the federal House of Commons passed a resolution adopting Jordan's principle. Not everyone understands what the significance of this is or what it means. In furtherance of that for the members of this committee, we have prepared a briefing note that will be circulated to you after the meeting just to suggest, for British Columbia, what is important about this.

I think it is a very significant and positive step, particularly for children with complex medical needs and special needs, ensuring that the system of support reaches them regardless of if they're resident on or off reserve and regardless of jurisdictional conflicts between levels of government. This is a very significant development.

My office takes a great interest in that. We thought it was a very positive development, but of course, as with all of these matters, the implementation and the acceptance of this on the ground will be a significant priority. It would appear that the commitment was made in a very positive light to move it forward. We are, again, looking at engaging with a variety of ministries that would have responsibilities for the systems of support for vulnerable children to determine how they see this being implemented.

We will likely take as a priority for our office children and youth with special needs. You will note in the monitoring brief we filed that we did detail the cases of a number of first nations children who were required to travel a great distance to receive support or who were sometimes caught in gaps in the system. Being able to close those gaps will really create a very positive opportunity in British Columbia, so we look forward to working on that.

With that, I will just complete the update and, of course, be open to responding to any questions now or at the end of the other presentations.

Thank you for that. Do you anticipate doing any monitoring briefs on the implementation of Jordan's principle?

M. Turpel-Lafond: The way in which the office has prioritized items would be that if we prepare a briefing note or a backgrounder for this committee, it will be an area that is targeted as a very significant area for us. Generally, it will lead to a variety of things.

We will likely start with an information note for the committee, which may develop into a monitoring brief to see how it's going, then develop into a full report and then possibly monitor implementation. That is sort of how we would see matters developing, and that would give us the chance to get the feedback of this committee. If the committee, in preparing a briefing note, wanted to hear more or, in reviewing a monitoring brief, wanted to see more, we would have the opportunity to delve more carefully into these matters and report back.

I failed to mention that one other area where you will receive a monitoring brief fairly soon is with respect to children in the home of a relative. That's a good example of where we started with an information note, we'll move to a monitoring brief, and then we will look more specifically at how the system is working. Has it changed? Is it strong? Can it be strengthened? And so on.

So I think, with respect to Jordan's principle, that you can expect it to move forward. However, it does go into every system of support, from education to health and other areas. We will likely produce a monitoring brief, and then it will show up in all of the reports that we do.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I worry that Jordan's principle is misunderstood by a lot of people, in that the first comment I heard was that they would start negotiations for the implementation of Jordan's principle, when in fact, Jordan's principle is supposed to address the concern and then have the negotiations occur after.

It's often referred to in terms of children with complex medical needs, but in fact, most of the first nations social workers talk about access to simple counselling for children who have experienced trauma of some sort. Currently there are social workers who are not able to access services to their children on reserve because of the lack of equity or lack of access to equal services.

While Jordan's principle is a new concept in terms of having a name for it, the first nations across Canada have been asking for the provinces and the federal government to agree. If in fact it encompasses all services to children — on and off reserve, primarily — that will certainly require a huge commitment.

Your first monitoring brief will be the state of affairs as they are. Would that be a fair…?

M. Turpel-Lafond: The significant thing from my perspective as representative is that I think it's very significant and historic that British Columbia is the first government to accept Jordan's principle.

Really, the significant point is that the House of Commons adopted it at the federal level, but it really is the provincial systems that will fund this and maybe recapture that funding through some other arrangements with the federal government. But it is a significant step to make that commitment. I noted particularly in the Speech from the Throne that it was recommitted to and that the government said that it wishes to strengthen the services for aboriginal children.

My office has looked very carefully at the issue of aboriginal children. We'll talk again today about education. As members of the committee know, there are significant gaps in the health, safety and well-being for aboriginal children, including those with complex medical needs and special needs.

Certainly, it's not going to change overnight. But we need to drill down, if you like, and really look at where the system of support can be strengthened. Again, it's another area where stronger, more regular accountability and public reporting on the outcomes for aboriginal children would help us to know if, perhaps, we're getting there or not.

A monitoring brief that we will prepare for you will really identify those areas where there have been gaps. But as you see in the monitoring brief for special needs, the majority of the cases we profile are aboriginal children, both on and off reserve, where the system hasn't met their needs. However, could it meet their needs? Of course it can.

We'll be looking at it very carefully, and we are also contemplating, of course, special reports that we will do with respect to aboriginal children. This is an area that we're certainly looking at, but it primarily relates

to access to health care and access to some supports with respect to children that have been traumatized and children in care being required to, say, move outside their community in order to be supported. We'll be monitoring that carefully for the committee.

B. Bennett: Mary Ellen, obviously, you're keeping your eye on all the balls that the Hughes report has put in the air. But you've said you're going to focus on eight to ten recommendations, I think. I'm interested in knowing the process that led up to that decision. In particular, was it a fully collaborative process with the other ministries, where you all eventually came to this position that these are the eight to ten that we ought to start with?

M. Turpel-Lafond: No, I can't say it was. There was some collaboration. But if I take one recommendation…. For instance, in recommendation 23 the Hughes review said: "The ministry should establish a comprehensive set of measures to determine the real and long-term impacts of its programs and services on children, youth and their families and then monitor, track and report on these measures for a period of time." So there is a key recommendation from Hughes.

Whether or not a ministry may feel that its current reporting is adequate, for instance. It may not see that. I think there has been a great deal of interest in what we see as the priorities. We have tried to set as the priorities the real fundamental building blocks that come out of Hughes. There are some frills, if you like, in Hughes, and we are trying to set the building blocks.

Very significant issues like a central quality assurance function, regular reporting and the outcomes that the ministry wishes to influence with respect to vulnerable children — those are what we have set as priorities. But we have notified the ministry early and discussed it with the ministry and the minister, as well, and said: "Here are our priorities for this year to measure and monitor progress." That has been put before them. In terms of identifying a common idea of which ones should proceed, I don't think the system is really amenable to that at this point.

R. Cantelon (Chair): One last quick question. We do have a number of witnesses who are on time lines as well.

B. Bennett: I guess the interest that I have in that question is focused on making sure that the process we're all partners in — your office, this committee, the main ministry and the other ministries — ends up…. It's not that your office is somehow required to achieve consensus before you come up with an opinion. That's certainly not what I would suggest.

At the same time, they also have service plans. They also have priorities and focuses in those ministries, and we need to make sure, if their focus is going to change — and this is hypothetical, as a result of your recommendations — that there is long-term commitment to that focus by everybody and that we all start rowing in the same direction.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yes, I think that's very significant. I think, though, from the independent side, that to maintain the independence of our office with respect to what we see as significant….

On the key recommendation from Hughes, for instance — recommendation 23 — we need to have an understanding of how the ministry will implement that. If that is not the number one priority, that's fine, but we need to understand, two years after Hughes, where that stands and, in particular, the notion of reporting and performance measurement.

I do note that the service plan for the Ministry for Children and Families has fewer performance measures than in the past. That would seem to be contrary to the notion of having a more robust, active reporting process with respect to Children and Families as a unique ministry. These are really significant priorities for us.

However, I appreciate that in my discussions and in my staff's discussions with the ministry, we're really trying to work collaboratively on these core matters and also to report on others where they are.

The independent office will maintain an independent perspective with respect to progress — first of all, having a comprehensive set of measures and then reporting regularly on them. We want to understand what the measures are, what the reporting cycles are, and so on.

That work is progressing well, and I think we will have a report that will place that in a valuable way for the committee members to see how things are proceeding.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I know we could have other questions and that we could pursue the direction that we are heading in the Hughes report for some time. I noticed Mark was wanting to enter the discussion, but we have witnesses to deal with the main topic today. I'm going to introduce them now, and we'll move to that.

We have with us Martin Wright, the deputy representative for the children's representative. From the Ministry of Children and Family, Mark Sieben.

From the Ministry of Education, we have Scott MacDonald and Susan Kennedy. From the Ministry of Advanced Education, Merv Scott.

I'd like to call us to the next order of business, which is the further consideration of the report of the Representative for Children and Youth, a joint report entitled Health and Well-Being of Children in Care. It's a very extensive report.

Joint Special Report:
Health and Well-Being of Children
in Care in British Columbia:
Educational Experience and Outcomes

M. Turpel-Lafond: I, too, would like to again recognize the work of officials within the three ministries on this area.

Today will be a bit of an update, and I think Mr. Sieben from the Ministry for Children and Families will probably lead that. We did prepare a joint PowerPoint presentation, for which you will have the printed slides to indicate where matters are. As well, you'll recall that in the report we'd asked the Ministry of Education and the Ministry for Children and Families by December 2007 to produce a report on where the children in care are with respect to their education and how they're proceeding. I understand that will be tabled as well.

I think the best way to proceed at this point, because this is a very collaborative item, would be, perhaps, to ask Mr. Sieben, as I think he can probably lead the discussion on it.

M. Sieben: Good morning. I'm pleased to be back again in order to speak to the topic of achieving increased educational outcomes for children in care here in B.C.

As the representative noted, over the course of the last few months since we last visited with you, we've had a series of meetings amongst our colleague ministries, as well as from staff at the representative's office, to develop a collaborative approach to responding to the recommendations and the themes of the report. This work will continue, and we're looking forward to perhaps speaking with you again at some point, relating to what the results of that are.

I'd also note, given the opportunity now and as a follow-up to the last agenda topic, that MCFD looks forward to attending, along with the representative, to speak to the progress made towards implementation of many of the Hughes-related recommendations. Those that Mary Ellen noted are going to be subject to the notes that will be tabled with you, as well as others. That's work yet to come before you. But also as noted, there continues to be discussions following on the tabling of the report in December, following the provision of supplementary material from MCFD to the representative's office in regards to the implementation of the Hughes recommendations.

With that said, what we'd like to be able to do with you today is first identify and table the report that Mary Ellen referenced. While allowing you an opportunity to browse through quickly, I'll speak a little bit to how it came about, what's in it and where we intend to go from there, as it very much is a starting place for us. Then we'll move to the slide stack that is provided. Between me, Scott, Susan and Martin, we'll speak to the individual points in the slide stack and identify the work that's to occur in subsequent weeks and months.

The report that you have in front of you now, the Educational Experiences of Children Under a Continuing Custody Order, is in fact the first work of its kind, following on the heels of the report that was tabled by the representative's office. It's the first time, really, that we've been able to go as deep as we can in terms of data matching in order to not only identify an issue but speak to some of the characteristics surrounding the issue.

The result, we're thinking, is that we're going to be able to have more effect as we're developing plans, particularly for achieving educational outcomes for children in care and, specifically, children who are on continuing custody orders. We'll be able to build onto this report in the future. We'll continue to engage in discussions with the representative's office as well as the Ministry of Education about how we might subsequently add to the report for other groups of children who are in care, particularly for a longer term where there is opportunity for us to meaningfully impact the rate of success in terms of achieving educational objectives.

Duration in care affects the ability of the ministries to positively affect educational outcomes. That's part of the reason why we started with children who are under continuing custody orders. It is also a population where, undeniably, the director under the CFCSA and, we'd suggest, all of us on behalf of government, owe a particular duty and responsibility to work towards achieving better outcomes generally for these kids. They truly are…. The state is the parent in these cases.

The report is part of a commitment to improve planning, monitoring and coordination for children in care not only within MCFD itself but amongst our partner ministries, whether it's the Ministry of Health, Education, MEIA. This particular report was developed with the Ministry of Education. It serves as a baseline for measuring our progress, and it largely responds to recommendation 1 in the representative's report, tabled with you last spring.

As of January 2008 there were 9,184 children in care, and 57 percent of this total — or 5,250 — are under a continuing custody order. In 2006 and 2007 there were 3,992 children under a continuing custody order enrolled in B.C. schools; 57 percent of these children are aboriginal, and 54 percent are male.

The difference between the total number of CCOs and the total number of children under a CCO enrolled in schools can be accounted for in a number of ways. First of all, we'd note, and as framed up in the introduction to the report, that we achieved an 85 percent match between our data and the Ministry of Education's. We'd look to improve on our matching capacity for subsequent reports.

It's also worth noting, and probably what first occurred to you, that not all children under continuing custody orders are of school age. Some are between the ages of zero to six and, therefore, wouldn't show up in the match. Also, at the other end of the continuum, there are a set of youths who are in care under CCOs who may not be attending school any longer.

Part of the promise that is offered in this report, as you'll see reflected in the colourful slides and maps, is that we're able to indicate, match and to a certain extent track where our kids are, specific to school districts. We have some ability to identify where we have more or fewer clusters of children who are requiring services.

This provides opportunity for us to speak not only provincially but also locally amongst superintendents,

regional directors, teachers and social workers about what specifically we might do in order to service need in particular communities and target larger groups of children in care who are looking for a greater accomplishment of educational outcomes.

You'll also see reflected in the report, and also as was noted in the representative's report, that a significant proportion of children in care under CCOs are involved in special education programs offered through the Ministry of Education and through school districts. In 2006 and 2007, 47½ percent of children under continuing custody orders were in special education programs.

What this speaks to, to us, is that there's a fair amount of consistency in approach that we might be able to marshal through our colleagues in education as well as social workers, and how the specific programming that's available to vulnerable populations through schools can be used in a targeted way for children in care.

The trend results that you see in this report are consistent with what the representative identified in the report tabled with you last June. I won't call out too many of those trends to you. They'll likely ring familiar. But, generally, the educational outcomes for children under a continuing custody order are significantly below those of other kids. That wasn't news, but it's important that it's an agenda item that we seize upon and marshal resources around.

There are significantly fewer children who are CCOs that are in their age-appropriate grade. Test results are consistently below those of other children. At this point less than half are still likely to complete school successfully.

As noted, this is a place for a beginning for all of us. It's also worth noting, however, as indicated in the report that you see, that the trends, while showing great areas for improvement, are already heading in the right direction. Specifically, if you turn to page 18 in the report, the percentage of age-appropriate grade by school year, you'll see that the difference in age-appropriate grade attainment between children who are CCOs and the regular population has decreased over the course of the last six or seven years. Whereas, while in 2001-02, the difference was over 20 percent, it's now 13 percent. So 13 percent is still way too much, but it's a lot better than 20 percent.

The graph on the other page next to it is also worth noting, because it's perhaps here where we might begin to have some of our discussion both locally and provincially with our colleagues about initiatives that we might consider and where we might target them. Indicative on this slide is that the grade attainment is closer at an earlier age and then gets wider as kids get older and you get into the high school years. Interestingly, right at the end of the students' career in high school we see an upswing.

We're not completely sure why we see an upswing in age-appropriate grade attainment there. Part of it, we're thinking, is that in fact there are kids who aren't receiving any great success at school who choose to drop out at that point. The result is showing accomplishment, when in fact there may be not a whole lot of accomplishment.

Just to conclude and wrap up on this portion of the agenda, and before we move over, with the assistance of my colleagues, into speaking to our approach to the response more generally, I want to identify again that we're very much seeing this as a benchmark and a starting point. This is work that will continue. Over the course of the next months and years we'll be able to able to mark our progress in terms of achieving better outcomes for children in care.

I'd also note that one of the direct impacts associated with this work was a change in the ministry service plan. While necessarily needing to confine ourselves to the directions of corporate government to limit the number of measures that we might have to six, one of those measures now is specific to educational attainment for children under continuing custody orders.

Our measure for this year is percent of children in care under continuing custody orders whose grade level is prescribed for their age. The 2007-2008 target is 81.5 percent, and our 2010-2011 target is 83 percent. This is a new measure to our service plan that is reflective of the work that's gone on jointly between our ministries to more accurately be able to share information and data match, and as influenced by the representative's report and the opportunity for us to come to speak with you and others about achieving better educational outcomes for children in care.

R. Cantelon (Chair): We'll take a little pause here for questions. I think this is the way we'll do it. Through each ministry we'll entertain questions from the members here.

M. Polak: On page 12, "Aboriginal Status, Number and Percent of Children Under a Continuing Custody Order." I'm looking at the percentage shift. In other areas there's a slight percentage shift, and the numbers are small, so it's not hugely significant. Maybe it might be something that is a little more complicated than one answer now could give, but I'll try it.

To what would you attribute what appears to be a really significant shift in two opposite directions between the non-aboriginal and the aboriginal? Is that a reflection of just something as simple as higher birth rates in the aboriginal population and declining birth rates in the mainstream? Or is it something…? Do we know?

M. Sieben: No doubt it is a conglomeration of a number of different factors that are coming together, some of which are likely demographics, some of which are history and experience and some of which are the degree to which first nations, aboriginal people and children, can identify with the systems that they operate in, whether it's child welfare or education.

M. Wright: Good morning. I'm Martin Wright. I'm the Deputy Representative for Children and Youth with respect to monitoring, research and evaluation. I

think, with respect to this particular question, that we're seeing this throughout the children-in-care population, but it's clear, in terms of out-of-home placements that are not in care, that the ministry deserves a lot of credit in rolling out, in recent years.

They've been far more successful for the non-aboriginal group, so what we've seen is generally a reduction in admissions into care for non-aboriginal children, but that's not really been the case for aboriginal children. It seems that aboriginal children are much more likely to be admitted into care, and once they're in care they also are much more likely to become permanent wards or under a continuing custody order. So there's work to do there. There are differences in the two populations in terms of their trajectories.

M. Polak: Yeah, and there are all manner of different questions that one could dig through with that, really. I have to say that I am so pleased to see such a tremendous amount of data brought together, and I know that while it represents a scant few pages of paper, it represents a ton of work to try and put all that together. It's no small feat. For everyone who worked on it, thank you very much. I think this really is tremendously helpful, because it does allow you to start asking those questions and to mine the data.

M. Sieben: Part of our experience, following up a bit on what Martin says, is that it has, as he says, shown a fair degree of success in being able to utilize the non-in-care options, the family-based and community-based options for looking after children, particularly on the non-aboriginal side. Part of the issue or the barrier there has been the federal funding rules through INAC, through directive 20-1.

We're hopeful, and the indications are that we're going to see increased flexibility there and be able to utilize many of these same options that delegated agencies and first nations communities are telling us that they want to be able to use in a way that is consistent with what we do on the non-aboriginal side. We're hopeful to see some swing in these trends.

J. Brar: On page 10 what we see is by age. The number between four to nine has gone significantly down, whereas the number of children between ten to 14 and between 15 to 19 has gone up or stayed the same. Is there any comment on that?

M. Sieben: Sure. Having a child under a continuing custody order is a necessity in many cases. However, it isn't a measure of any form of success. We're placing a fair amount of emphasis on developing plans that will continue to strengthen the bond and linkage between child and family and community so that we might avoid having to go to court to seek a continuing custody order.

As noted the last time I appeared before you in conjunction with this report, a continuing custody order effectively vitiates the legal bond between biological parent and child. Under a CCO, the director under the CFCSA becomes the guardian of the person of the child and the public trustee becomes the guardian of the estate.

It is difficult, particularly for longer periods of time, for a fulsome parental relationship to really be meaningful in this context. Our desire is to continue to find innovative ways to provide services to vulnerable populations and children in need without necessarily having to go to court and vitiate that primary bond.

J. Brar: We see in this report clear numbers between the aboriginal community and the non-aboriginal community. Is there any data available to compare the immigrant versus non-immigrant community? Is there anything there?

M. Sieben: There is but not as much as there is on the first nations aboriginal side. Martin actually knows that stuff better than I do.

M. Wright: Well, it's a coding issue in the data. We're not able to accurately identify various ethnicities or whether somebody has been, for example, a refugee or a new Canadian. Over the years we've done some sort of high-level statistical work to try and get a handle on that, but to be honest with you, there are no estimates on that. It's an area that needs to be strengthened.

Maybe if I could just add, though, on the continuing custody orders piece on the previous question. Some of this trend you're seeing in terms of the younger age groups declining is related to what Mark has been talking about. But it's somewhat statistical, too, because it's much easier to prevent a continuing custody order than it is to actually, of course, change that outcome when a child is subject to a continuing custody order.

A child is much more likely to be brought into care at a younger age group than an older one, but once they're in care and become a continuing custody order, they tend to stay in care. So consequently, a younger child gets older, and they move into these other groups, which is why you're seeing more continuing custody orders in ages ten to 14 and 15 to 19. So it's encouraging, actually, to see the decline in numbers of continuing custody orders for the four-to-nine age group.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Just a couple of comments for the committee. As I said at the opening remarks, I'm very delighted with the report that's been prepared. I think it's of great assistance to the committee members. I think that there are areas where we would like to see the reporting strengthened. Again, these are for CCOs — continuing custody orders.

Of course, children that have come through the child protection system more generally and are not necessarily CCOs show, in some instances, more vulnerability than those that are in the CCO population. So we want to make sure we capture all of those. As we move forward — this is a fabulous start, though — we want to make sure that we capture that.

From the representative's office side, we also acknowledge that aboriginal children as a group are more vulnerable in terms of their education outcomes, whether or not they're in care. We know that in any given month, one in ten aboriginal children are not living with their parents, so there is a unique set of vulnerabilities there.

When we talk about the aboriginal community, particularly — is it demographics, is it…? They're doing poorly, generally. I think that's the starting point. They're facing some very significant disadvantages throughout all the systems. This group is doing poorly, but those that are coming into temporary care and returning short term are also doing poorly.

Whatever strategies that we're looking at…. From my office, in collaboration with the other ministries, we're always considering for the CCOs, but then how about the other children that are cycling through and going back out?

One other point I just wanted to make with respect to the report. If we look at page 34, as an example, we would like to see…. As I say, this is a fantastic beginning, and I’m very delighted with the work that's been done. A few points, though.

Fifteen percent of the children were not tracked. We want to make sure that we know where all the children are and that we have as accurate data as we can. Also, in some of the reporting…. This reports, as an example, in the grade 10 English percent pass, only those who sat for the grade 10 test. It's very significant to look at all of the children, not just those who sat for the test but all of the children.

When we look at the reporting process and as we fine-tune this as we move forward, we want to make sure that we don't just report those who sat there — the 200 who took it — and forget the 200 that were not seated in the class or didn't take it. We want as accurate as possible reporting so that you'll have the information to know how they are doing in comparison to other groups.

At this point, this is a very good start. I'm hoping that in future years, and as future reports come out, this will become a more robust process and look at not only CCOs but all of the children that come through the child protection system and those children who display vulnerabilities — children living with relatives, aboriginal children more generally.

I am in complete agreement with the fact that this is a good place to start, but in the interests of a fulsome report, we want to make sure that we look at all of the children.

J. Rustad: I think you might have just read my mind in terms of my question that I had. I wanted to actually ask you about the report. I know there's a lot of information in here in terms of the FSA results and how that is measured — the students moving forward and some of the challenges that might be there. Obviously, that can be used to develop strategies.

I wanted to ask you — and to give you an opportunity, actually — about the value that you see in the FSA and what more that we need to be looking at in terms of testing and being able to measure, within the school system and within the process, so that we can perhaps be able to be more targeted in terms of the programs.

I recognize there are some challenges because of time in the school system. There's a heavy educational agenda to be able to get through in terms of actually teaching kids as opposed to just testing and trying to find out that process. I guess the question is to offer some thoughts as to how that process could perhaps become more focused, to be able to drill down to some more of those details that might be needed.

M. Turpel-Lafond: In response to that I would say a few things. I've had the benefit, since this report was completed, tabled and adopted by this committee, to meet with almost all of the education partners personally and to speak to their major gatherings. That would include teachers, principals, superintendents, school counsellors, parent committees, special education resource workers.

I've had the chance to go out and meet with a variety of those who are responsible for the system. Obviously, at the high level, ministries are responsible and the state is responsible, but it comes down through the system, as you know.

The first point I would say is that there was a very strong, positive reception to this report and the work that this committee did in this area. Being able to follow up on that with strong and helpful information for those on the front lines of the education system will be really important. So we have a very strong appetite for: what can we do to do things better? How do we know who the children in care are? How can we better support them?

That was probably the single strongest message that I received throughout all of these processes. I continue, and my office continues, to meet with school districts and so on and first nations, as well, and the First Nations Education Secretariat.

It became very clear to me that, first of all, it is important to know how we're doing. The only way we can know how we're doing is with FSAs, at this point. Of course, in terms of other tools, the early development instrument — the EDI, which will be rolled out on an annualized basis this year — is a very significant and positive development from my office's viewpoint as well.

Again, if there could be more sensitive tools developed that show success…. That, I think, we'll talk a bit about in the second part of our presentation — which is: what are the strategies that we'll take to see these numbers improve?

What is a given, from the representative's office side, is that we need the testing. The notion that testing is harmful to children — in particular, these children — is one that is not supported by the evidence.

How school testing is interpreted in some instances…. I know it's not favoured by some people in

the B.C. Teachers Federation. I've had discussions with them on an ongoing basis, taking the position that we need to know how children are doing. It's one snapshot, but it's a very significant snapshot.

It's not used as an individualized tool for the student, and that's a drawback. There may be other, better individualized tools. The EDI might be more of that in the future. But knowing how we're doing and having these tools is essential. Are they a perfect depiction of everything? Absolutely not. But they're very strong and very important.

To be able to have strong data systems that link, for instance, FSA in individual pupils with the data system in the Ministry of Children and Families…. This type of linking — again, which was strongly promoted in the Hughes review — is important so that we can know if we're making progress.

Around the issue of testing…. Testing is essential. The representative's office takes a very strong view that we must maintain that. In particular, we need to make sure, as this report indicates, that we're capturing all the children. Again, a very significant number of these children are not tested. They need to be tested.

We need to understand where the vulnerability is. Are some of the strategies that we'll talk about working? If it's the StrongStart centres, if it's stronger early childhood intervention, if we move toward a full-day kindergarten, a part-day kindergarten, junior kindergarten for four-year-olds, three-year-olds…. How will we know if we're making progress if they're more ready to learn and they progress better through the system?

We'll only know if we have that testing. So we're taking a fairly strong position — that we need to keep it. It doesn't represent the whole task of nurturing the learning spirit of a child, but it's important for you to know how things are going, and for parents to know if the system is a strong system.

It's just a little bit of a different question in terms of that and in terms of the tracking. For the first nations kids that are in care, do you see, or have you tracked, or do you have any ability to notice any trend differences between, perhaps, children that are on reserve versus off reserve? Are those sorts of statistics available, or are there any trends in there that you've had a look at?

M. Turpel-Lafond: The data is fairly limited. But there is a hypothesis that for children that are in care and remain in their community, the community plays a protective factor, and they will have better education outcomes, for instance, because of the protective factor of the community. The evidence isn't there yet to support that, but we are looking at that and dealing with the First Nations Education Secretariat and the first nations leaders as they move to implement the first nations jurisdiction in the 130 schools in B.C.

I've been in discussions with them and strongly, strongly advocated to them that they also use the same testing and that they make sure that we have the same data system for the children that are on reserve so that the on and off reserve …. We won't have different systems of information, or there may not be a gap.

I think that these are challenges, and we need to strengthen our understanding. But to say categorically what the differences are is difficult. For the CCO population that we're looking at here…. Obviously, better permanency planning — mainly meaning getting a more permanent placement, an adoption placement — would be significant. That does appear to be a significant challenge for the aboriginal children that are CCOs — adoption placements, etc.

So this sort of weaves into another area, which we're looking at carefully, which is permanency planning because that's correlated with some better academic success too. But for first nations children, there's a bit of a lag there as well.

Then, of course, once they do get placed we want to know: how did they do? Did that permanence break down, did they maintain that permanent placement and did they show success as a result?

Tracking the safety, health and well-being of children as they come into the system and as they come out is really valuable for us. For the first nations children on reserve, we have some significant gaps there.

M. Sieben: I’d note that within MCFD these data capabilities…. We don't do as great of a job as on reserve or off. But within the 9,200 children that were in care noted at the beginning of January…. That's inclusive of children in continuing custody, children under short-term custody orders, voluntary care agreements, special needs agreements, inclusive of children in delegated agencies and inclusive of children who are in care at Community Living British Columbia.

In support of what the representative noted, we can identify children that are in care through delegated agencies who are, for the most part, first nations children and are able to compare now, given what we've done, what results there might be in comparison to what others are. It's too soon to be able to really identify any trends, but the member's question is exactly the type of point that we're able to move forward on, given what we've done now.

I'd also note that, to a certain extent, some of what our presentation speaks to amongst our colleagues is in response to some of the questions that are coming up. So we might look to get through that. That may answer some questions and likely lead to others and to a more robust discussion at the end.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I see Nicholas Simons is willing to withdraw. We'll proceed to the next phase and entertain questions after that. So carry on.

M. Sieben: I'll switch now to the slide stack that you've got in front of you, which as Mary Ellen noted is

a result of work that was done through all three respective ministries as well as the representative's office.

Truly, this was a great beginning opportunity for us to work together on a common purpose. There are key areas of focus in terms of going forward, both as far as continued work — as I indicated in the tabled report with you — and specific initiatives are concerned. That concerns the planning and coordination of early assessment and child development and then specific supports for youth as well.

The educational outcomes report for CCOs is an example of the commitment towards improved information-sharing and data collection. I'd look to respond favorably to the representative's invitation to build on this base. We'll continue to have ongoing discussions amongst our colleague ministries and the representative's office about how we might best add to the scope of this report. It makes sense to me, both from a practical consideration as well as perhaps legally — as well as for some privacy reasons — to continue to focus on children who are in more long-term care.

However, as we get better at this, our ability to add to what we're able to look at and also to begin to expand past long term…. They will also be business items that we attend to with the representative's office.

S. Kennedy: The next slide, which talks about planning and coordinating between the Ministry for Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Education about school moves…. This was recognized by both of our ministries as a really significant area. So significant that as we're working towards improving it, we felt it was important to signal to schools in the interim about the importance of this.

The deputy minister of the day, Emery Dosdall, wrote to all superintendents and principals at the end of 2007 and called on them to pay attention to this critical area and to make every effort to minimize school moves, and further, that when children do move to a new school to ensure that the supports they need to address their vulnerability are in place right away and that the children are not made more vulnerable by the fact that people in their new school don't know.

One of the things that was in the recommendations was that there would be immediate response from the Ministry of Education to social workers with respect to school moves. One of the limitations in our data system is that the ministry itself only receives information about where children are enrolled in school twice a year. We are now moving towards…. With our new BCeSIS information system that school districts are implementing, when a child is enrolled in a new school, their web-based file, which has information, goes immediately to the new school.

As more and more schools and school districts implement the BCeSIS, it will give new schools immediate information. They won't be waiting for a paper file to follow a month or two months later that will give them information about a child's needs. We think this will be a very important thing for better planning and better systems of support when a child is at their most vulnerable. Moving to a new school is another trauma in a child's life, in some instances.

We'll continue to work on this, but we also feel that some of our work will be focused at the local level so that social workers, front-line workers in schools, principals, teachers and foster parents will all be encouraged, with some work that we're planning, to share information right away and support children when it is necessary for them to be moved.

M. Sieben: Slide 5 further emphasizes the issue that Susan noted about trying to put information and a greater emphasis in the minds and the hands of people at a local level. Based on the trends and the information in the representative's report and the work that we've done since between our colleague ministries, we've taken a look at the policy requirements and developed a guideline that will be directed towards both teachers and social workers to give advice on how best to manage these interfaces that we're targeting.

We're confident that we'll be able to provide this guideline to our staff and school district staff in advance of the next school year so that the work that we've done here has a more powerful opportunity for engagement at a local level.

Also, as noted on slide 6 and by the representative, continued opportunity and work rests in the early development instrument. MCFD has been a longtime supporter and contributor to the utilization of EDI here in B.C. The Ministries of Health and Education are currently looking at ways by which we might continue to build on this B.C.-built tool for use more consistently, in order to inform, both at a local level and provincially, the policy and strategic initiatives.

S. Kennedy: On that same slide, which is entitled "Assessment," we wanted to mention that we took very seriously the notion that children in care — it's important, whenever possible, that they are able to take the tests or to demonstrate their learning through those tests — should be included. The guidelines this year for FSA have been strengthened, and the messages that are going out are strengthened, about the importance that every child who can participate should be participating.

The greater emphasis on this has taken place this year, and we expect it to continue.

M. Sieben: Slide 7 speaks to the topic of youth supports, and this, too, is an area of strong interest. I am aware, and MCFD is aware, that the representative has and I expect will be speaking to this committee about it again. MCFD would look forward to do so as well.

What we're speaking to here is continued efforts by which we can get information to social workers and to youths about the educational opportunities that they might have — increased opportunity for hands-on

learning such as apprenticeship programs, for example, and access to the ABE courses on an increased basis.

Also, as noted in my minister's response to the budget recently, within MCFD we're continuing to do work to look at how to support youth transition in general and what further supports we can bring to the 16-to-19-year age cohort group, as well as what supports might be made available past the age of 19.

A particular mechanism for youth support is the youth educational assistance fund, which was put in place in 2002. Since 2002, $2.9 million has been distributed to 408 former youth in care in pursuit of educational post-secondary plans.

One of the topics for discussion that arose out of the representative's report, between ourselves and Advanced Education and the Ministry of Education, is that further work can be done in order to make sure that there is awareness not only within the MCFD system, among social workers and supervisors and foster parents but also increased awareness to what was already there in the education system and the advanced education system so that people know that YEAF exists, and they know how to draw upon it. So we've taken steps to be able to make sure that that's the case.

Included in this is making sure that YEAF information will be available basically at all places where a young person might go in order to talk about the increased opportunities for post-secondary….

The last slide speaks to the particular need to address educational outcomes for first nations aboriginal children. Included within that are the first nations and aboriginal children that are in care and under continuing custody orders. It is safe to say that, following the tabling of the representative's report in June, this was a topic of great interest amongst the first nations aboriginal leaders that MCFD people have spoken to, regardless of whether it was through delegated agencies or through the first nations leadership council or in other discussions.

Our experience is that where we're able to seek significant change, in any form of outcomes with first nations aboriginal peoples, it's very much when the first nations and aboriginal communities and their leaders get to define what the strategies and the initiatives might be, in order to facilitate the best outcomes for their kids. The initiatives that you see framed up here are very much consistent with that continuing content and commitment. And the same is said for Métis children and families as well.

M. Sieben: Lastly, we've spoken a little bit on where we might go on from here in terms of next steps. There will continue to be increased and regular data-sharing so that we might build on the current report in order to inform both the issues that we need to address as well as the strategies which we might use to address them.

We'll also be looking at each of the areas that we spoke to in this quick handout, in terms of our early identification; continued supports to youth; greater amounts of monitoring, research and evaluation; and working with our partners in first nations communities.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the report. As it goes along, there are more and more questions in my mind, but they push the previous ones out, so I'm always with the current.

I think one thing that really hasn't been mentioned specifically is: what are the underlying factors that promote success in school? When you look at what actually works for kids, it's consistency and permanency, some stability, attachment to people who are promoting school, etc.

And what I find is that we miss the fact that, really, the underlying factor that is common to all children in care — pretty much, like over 90 percent — obviously, is issues around poverty, poverty and neglect.

We're talking aboriginal, non-aboriginal. We could probably be talking people who have access to services and people who don't have access to services. I think it's sort of wrong in a way to consider first nations experiences exactly the same as aboriginal off-reserve experiences, because they're different.

I also think we need to take into consideration the fact that almost every single CCO has also been in and out of care probably a number of times or been in care under temporary order or various other legal or quasi-legal categories.

One thing we don't measure is the fact that the number of non-aboriginal children in care might be going down — the number that are under supervision orders or other out-of-care options that didn't previously exist. We need to figure out if they are suffering from the same kind of lack of success in school. So are the kids who have been maybe in and out of care and then, finally, there's a family development response, which keeps the child out of care but under a supervision order in the home of someone else….

Those are also factors that could even have a greater impact than someone who's in a continuing custody in the same foster home. We can dissect all of the variables and what we will come to, eventually, is a realization that the children who are successful in school have had access to supportive systems.

I don't what to get this into a partisan thing. We are talking about the amount of time that social workers have to work with children. We see recommendations coming out of coroners' reports saying that social workers should see the children in their care twice a year. I'm seeing a major disconnect between a social worker who's attempting to provide supports to a child in their difficult and obviously disrupted-type life…. The social worker promoting that but not having the opportunity to really stay with it….

I'd like to see some measurements that will demonstrate that consistency, even prior to a child coming into continuing custody, has a major impact on that child's success. We have to admit that some CCOs are in care with extended family. We don't know. Maybe

we need to figure out…. Maybe the CCOs that are with non-family are doing worse or better.

Maybe we need to analyze their attachment to the community. The CCOs that are on reserve under the authority of a delegated agency…. The delegated agency has guardianship for the child. Maybe that's something that we need to measure, as opposed to just CCO. There are so many variables within that category that will have a huge impact.

I'm saying that this is a good start. I have to say it’s a good start. There are many steps that we will need, if we are going to do it this way. There are tons of variables to measure. We should be looking at the Hughes recommendation that says implement the basic tenets of the Kelowna accord. I think we'll have dealt with so many of the factors. That's one of the Hughes recommendations that I think would address so many of the other issues that we are talking about here. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think the significant point from my office's perspective is that we want to reduce the vulnerability of any child that's vulnerable. If it's because of socioeconomic circumstances, if it's that combined with not living with their parents, if it's that combined with facing certain barriers by virtue of the fact that they are aboriginal…. These things can get layered up.

But any time that there's a particular vulnerability, the goal of the system has to be seamless, sort of from cradle on to adulthood, to reduce the vulnerability of those children to having a poor outcome. As I say frequently, we can't guarantee results. We can't say everyone is going to be this. But we can have that equality of opportunity.

When children are more vulnerable — either because of poverty, if they're in care, or what have you — then the system has an enormous responsibility to reduce those vulnerabilities. It isn't a single system. Obviously, it's the system of supports within the health care system if there are developmental disabilities and assessments required. But the education system is such a fundamentally significant one. So ensuring in British Columbia that we have the education system that is really focused on and successful in reducing vulnerabilities, to be the best has got to be the goal. So from our side, that's one part of it.

The other point that you raised, though, which is really significant, is: what can we learn about the resilience of some of these children who do succeed, and how do they succeed despite the fact that they have these enormous vulnerabilities? Well, what we learned about their success is that the system of support is very significant to their success. It isn't an individual sort of light bulb that just goes on. It's a system, and inside that system there are certain things we know.

From the representative's office, I'm very interested in evidence-based approaches. I'm not interested in the flavour-of-the-month theories. I'm interested in evidence-based approaches. I know that the ministries, particularly the Ministry of Education, has a very strong commitment to that approach as well. Evaluation and research are significant.

What do we know? We know that better school attachment is correlated with better outcomes. We know that something called social inclusion — namely, that you're welcome, you belong, that you feel part of it and that your family, your caregivers are part of it — these are very significant things.

We also know that identifying special needs and adequately supporting children is important. For the CCOs that we're looking at today, the largest special needs category is a behavioral category. It isn't necessarily a cognitive impairment. It's a behavioral category.

That also speaks out to the issue of…. These children may be traumatized. They may have experienced neglect. They may have experienced abuse. Things happened to them before they came into care, and when they come into care, we don't want the system to exacerbate it. We want it to ameliorate that.

We want to reduce the vulnerability, not enhance the vulnerability. At this point it appears that coming into care may enhance your vulnerability, not reduce it. So we want to…. It's sort of the Hippocratic oath approach, but we want to times that by a thousand and say that we want to reduce vulnerability.

Certainly your point, I think, is a very strong point, which is that this is a wonderful report back to show that the attention is coming to this issue. We need to look carefully at how these children are doing. We need to have accountability. So to say: "Well, we will give first nations the responsibility for aboriginal children and let them address it…." Of course they need to be key players in this process. But the accountability is at every level by everyone in the system, because whether it's aboriginal children, it's new immigrant children or refugee children, they will be all over the province at different levels and different systems.

So we need very strong accountability for how they're doing. Not just accountability for who's responsible for them. That is important. It's not saying: "Well, you're under the control of this agency or that agency." That may be relevant, but what's more relevant to the representative's office is: how are the children doing no matter whose authority they're under? And that's what we want to get behind and really track, and then determine what are the best approaches that are working.

The idea in the future will be that this work will develop into some strategies. Today you've had the "here's how we've come together, building on work that's being done and great opportunity to do more work." But I think you need to know more about the how. How are we going to get there, to better outcomes? You won't just see the same numbers coming before you or numbers coming before you and saying: "Well, we don't really know how they changed, but they changed." We want to know how we can change those numbers, and we want to use evidence.

There is evidence to suggest how you can do it. The idea is marshalling the troops, if you like, making sure it gets there. As Susan indicated in her comments, the enormous challenge in this system of support is to get the information to the front lines of the system. To do the research, to do the knowledge transfer and then, of course, to know that the best planning is there for children, which means time on the part of social workers, time on the part of those in the education system, and attention.

It requires the attention to track them, not just when they come in but over a longer period of time. So if those CCOs are in care for…. In the adolescent years, yes.

The other key point that Mr. Sieben mentioned that I just wanted to come back to, because it was raised by Mr. Simons, is the transitions out of care. The report suggested that the YEAF program, the youth leaving care financial assistance program for post-secondary…. It's been retooled, it's been strengthened, but a very small number of children use it and access it — under 10 percent. We want to see that enhanced.

And in the direct work that I've done with children that are leaving care or have left care and have been successful…. I've had a chance to talk to a number of the children, now adults, who obtained a university degree or a trade despite all of these obstacles. The biggest thing they speak to me about is the fact that they didn't have the support and how enormously difficult it was to get there. I mean, they lived in some very abject circumstances, in terms of not having healthy food, having very poor living circumstances. But through sheer determination they succeeded.

We need to create those incentives so it's not that sheer determination but so they make it. One of the things that's crucial for us to remember about this very vulnerable group of aboriginal children is that these are often the children of adults who themselves were in care.

In reducing the vulnerability for them, we want to break some intergenerational cycles. The adolescent support…. It may require support for an adolescent in care who is pregnant or has a child already or will have several children. How do we make sure that the support is there for her with respect to the child, that the child bond continues and that education becomes a priority for her through support and for her children?

These are the types of strategies that we will really be looking at to see: is our system a strong one? Where is this working? What builds resilience? How we're going to get there is something that we need to work further on, obviously. We've identified the issue. We can track the issue, and now we have to understand how we are going to be successful.

M. Polak: I'll try to get to these points quickly. They're just questions that I took down as we were going through.

The first is with respect to Susan speaking about the improvements, I hope, with respect to information-gathering within school districts. Are we at the point where we now have, across the piece, a common information system that they all use? If not, how far down that road are we? I know it's been a struggle for some years to get a common student information system happening across districts.

S. Kennedy: I'm going to defer to Scott, because he actually has a lot more information about this than I do.

S. MacDonald: Scott MacDonald, assistant deputy minister, Ministry of Education. What you're referring to is our common student information system. It is referred to as BCeSIS. Implementation is rolling out. We have approximately 59 percent of the schools using the system actively. The number's about 1,059. We add schools weekly, and that's changing as we speak.

S. MacDonald: With that system in place, you have standardized data, standardized elements. The mobility and tracking of students becomes much simpler and easier.

FSAs. You have mentioned on a number of occasions the need to have all students participating who would be able to participate. There have been longstanding differences of views around the utility of the tests or whether or not, in fact, they're harmful, etc. Fair comment. People will discuss that and debate that, I'm sure, in an ongoing way.

But the situation we confront annually in school districts around the province is very aggressive negative messaging to parents. In some cases this past year, there was some very direct messaging to parents telling them that it is going to hurt their kid if they send them in for a test.

What plans do we have to counter that? You mentioned trying to encourage more school districts to ensure that students are taking the tests. What plans do we have, if any, to get out the message that, in fact, this is a positive move? It might not be the whole thing, but it's something we need to do.

S. MacDonald: I'll speak to this again. There are a number of things we've done. First of all, there is tremendous pressure to make this assessment not a census-based assessment. It is maintained as a census base, which means all students participate. All students take the assessment.

We've changed the time lines this year. We've made a number of changes this year. First of all, the assessment is now administered in February. This gives us an opportunity, first of all, to have those results available sooner, so they're more timely. They've become accessible to people, and hopefully they're using them in a more timely way.

The results of the assessment are also returned home to parents. So parents actually will be receiving the results home over the next few weeks, and they'll be able to see what the test is, what's included on it and what the students' marks are with that assessment.

Much of the assessments in the past have been a mystery — haven't been seen by people. Hopefully, being able to have more close interaction with the assessment will be helpful in that regard.

M. Polak: Last of all, the data collection that we have didn't report on something that I actually kind of expected to see. Maybe I missed it. I'll stand corrected if I did. That was data reflecting the success of students in that transition point between elementary and secondary. I know it's an indicator that is widely considered when people are engaged in assessing whether the system is being successful or not.

If I missed it, I'll be happy to be corrected, but if it's not there, I suppose I would say…. Well, I would first wonder if you have plans to use it. Second, if you don't, I'd encourage you to.

S. MacDonald: It's not included inside of this report. We do have fairly robust other data sets that we produce within the Ministry of Education. One of those is tracking transitions from grade to grade, so we do have that data. We can make that available if you're looking for it. For example, each year we produce a summary of key information, which shows the kind of progression of information across the board in grade-to-grade transitions.

M. Polak: Yeah. I just know from past research in other districts across the province — and, actually, across Canada — that that transition from elementary to secondary in particular can be a pretty strong indicator of whether or not we're being successful in helping these kids. It's also a key intervention area.

M. Sieben: Thank you for the point. We'll look to follow up on that. The closest that we have in this report is on page 19, the graph that I noted that shows the age appropriateness according to grade.

M. Sieben: We can extrapolate from that somewhat that as kids hit high school, the gap between children in care, here CCOs, and non–children in care increases.

V. Roddick: Basically, my comments or questions are connected to how we present this information. You're all the experts, and all of us are involved to a certain extent, but we've got all sorts of things here.

You've got the recommendations that you've referred to in the Hughes report, and we've got all the recommendations that are referred to in this joint special report that we're dealing with today. But all the presentations don't actually correlate with the numbers.

I'm sure they do. By jumping back and forth, I can kind of tie them up. I don't want to have this so rigid that you can't move, but I wonder if there is a way — for the general public as well as ourselves, if they want to follow this and want to make sure that these recommendations are being acted on — that you can tie in what you've presented today with what we're actually doing.

And maybe some descriptions as well, or maybe a little more…. For instance, on page 4 of the slide presentation you deal with moves, and that's obviously quite an important issue. But there's been no description about…. Is it because parents are moving — or a parent is moving — or is it behaviour that is causing these moves? One school is saying, "I can't look after this child anymore," and sending it on to another school.

I think this is a huge issue. If the parent is moving, obviously the child needs to move with the parent. I think maybe if some of these descriptions can be there not only for our benefit but for the general population…. This stuff is very, very important. Just your last description of a lot of things kind of covered this, but not to the specifics so that it's a bit easier to track.

M. Sieben: I agree. What we're looking to do, as identified on the last slide, is exactly that — develop something that you can see that is responsive point-by-point. There's a tendency, to a certain extent, to see a report such as this one and to anticipate that the opportunity to follow up on it and to possess it is somewhat modest in terms of effort. This took months to do, and it's not as any badge of pride or honour. It's frustrating for those of us who are looking for the change, as you are, that it takes months to data-match, to this extent, so that we can extrapolate and get information, as we've presented here.

But it truly is the place where we have to begin, and go from what the information now informs us to where we might be able to turn into action. As Susan, myself and the representative noted, most meaningfully, at the local level, between social worker and teacher and school principal…. That's really where it's going to make a difference.

Specific to school moves, a big component of that for children in care is foster parent moves, or when a child is moving from their home, their parental home, into a foster care home. And there's provision in the act and by policy for that to be minimized as much as possible. But what does the data really tell us in terms of what is happening? Given what we know, how can we, from the school-move point of view as well as from the MCFD, minimize that when it does happen? As Susan has noted, how can we minimize the trauma associated with such events?

I take your point. It's a point of frustration for those of us that work with the data, too, and we look forward to being able to bring that to you.

V. Roddick: I would just like to say thank you. The information that is in this is absolutely incredible, and

What I'm saying is that one more…. I'm sorry to ask you to do even more, but the fact is…. Because you are amassing such terrific data and information, is there just one more step that can be done that will allow more people to understand what you're actually producing and how you're coming out of all of these recommendations?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yes, I appreciate the member's question and comment, because I think it…. When we prepared the report and it was tabled, discussed with this committee, and the nine recommendations were adopted, it's always difficult to know how to report back on progress. For instance, recommendation 5, that the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Children and Families know within 24 hours of a school move and do something. That was the recommendation.

Instead of reporting today, "Well, we're not there," I think it's really significant for the committee to have this opportunity to see the work that's going on to try and get there. So we are working toward that; we're not there yet. I didn't see a lot of value in producing a report on the nine recommendations that said, "Not there, not there, not there," which really wouldn't demonstrate, at all, the enormous effort that's being made to get there.

But also, there were nine recommendations, and in having the discussions and the collaboration, we see that there are probably ten other things, too, that were like the icing on the cake and that can also be done. So if I just track these nine today and gave you a report, I don’t think it would be fair to the ministries that are working really hard on some of the other issues, like the electronic file for students or other efforts around permanency planning that affect education outcomes.

Obviously, the education outcomes for children that are in care are a fundamental concern to my office. Whether or not it's nine recommendations ticked off today is not as pressing a matter.

In my respectful view, the work that's coming together to do it…. In a year's time we want to see some real progress from where we are today. We've come together, and we're working. I'd like to be able to report back to you, say, in a year's time: "Guess what. We're very close to these, and have maybe even gone beyond." I think it's quite possible, with the discussions we're having, that we're going to go beyond this.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I would say, probably, that my independent office would be able to produce something — if not within 2008, then within 2009 — as a follow-up to say: "What happened? Are we in the right direction?" Then we would have the regular public accounting that would come out about how the children in care are doing. It wouldn't have to come out from my office, but it would come out from the ministry's.

I feel that we're making some strong progress, but I don't think it would be valuable to go through the nine and do a sort of tick-off right now.

V. Roddick: No, I wasn't considering that. It was just trying to equate…. I take your point, and I appreciate that.

D. MacKay: Just an observation and a comment. As I sit here and look around this committee room today…. It's the child and youth representative, and we're trying to make life better for the children that are facing some challenges. Just take a look around the room at the number of people here, and we're talking about children.

The one thing that seems to be missing, and you kind of alluded to it, Mary Ellen, when you talked about the supports for these kids…. What's missing, in my view, are the adult parenting skills for these young kids that are having the challenges. You did touch on it very briefly.

I have a daughter who teaches at an Indian reserve. It's called Moricetown. She comes home some days, and she's in tears because of the lack of parenting skills of these people who have had these children. The schools….

We can do so much for children, but to me it's the parenting skills that are so lacking. We don't seem to be talking about what we can do to improve the parenting skills that are so lacking in these people who have these children who are, as you say, vulnerable in our education system and in their long-term lives as they move forward. To me, it's the parenting skills where a lot of this problem starts, and we don't seem to be addressing that.

I'd just like to ask for your views on that, and I have one more short question after that.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Certainly, I think the evidence is pretty strong that certain parenting styles support resilience. I think with first nations communities in particular, where we're dealing with the legacy of historic injustice around residential school and the complete breakdown of families in many instances, and the pressure that's placed on extended family members and, say, lone grandparents, etc….

I think we have to understand the challenges in those communities. Obviously, a very good way to assist in doing that is to start that discussion about what styles support good achievement with the children.

The First Nations Education Secretariat in British Columbia is a very good example. Not only do they reward school attendance…. The children who have good attendance records get prizes. For instance, they get a Canucks jersey that's signed or whatever. These are huge incentives and taken with great pride, from my experience out meeting with the first nations children, that they get rewarded for good attendance.

The First Nations Education Secretariat also has a parents club, and it rewards the parents for the good attendance as well. It recognizes that it's the parent or

the grandparent or whomever that gets the child up and to school. In some first nations communities, particularly remote locations, the devastation wrought on those communities through all kinds of policies makes it really challenging.

I think what's really wonderful is when we have the child focus and we bring it forward in a really respectful way and look at how we can build and support and really close the gaps for those children. Everybody is on the same page.

It's supporting that and making sure that in those first nation communities, whether it's aboriginal delegated agencies or other supports in the school, constantly give that information out. "If your children are in school, they're going to achieve more. If you're involved in the school, you're going to achieve more. What kind of parenting is really connected with good outcomes?"

For generations that went to residential school and were deprived that opportunity, it's really significant to be clear that it's not an authoritarian style of parenting that you may have experienced at residential school. It's not an extremely permissive style of parenting, where you didn't have exposure, but it's the authoritative style of parenting. How does that relate to the cultural values that are there?

I think there is a lot of work being done on that. In my travels I see a lot of positive work being done. Could there be more? Absolutely, there could be more. Many of those schools struggle, but I think the key is to keep the focus on the children and to support the children. When the families have breakdowns, these systems of support like…. In a first nations community, where there aren't food banks and other systems — you know, hospitals and what have you — the education system is such a vital part of the system of support there.

It puts a lot of pressure on it, I know — but also to rise to the occasion in that. With first nations building more control and support in their education system, I really see that the dedication and the commitment are very strong in British Columbia to do it. We're not there, but I see really strong leadership, particularly by the First Nations Education Secretariat.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased to hear that that is in place. But as you say, I think we've got a long ways to go. I believe it is totally lacking when you get out into the northwest part of our province — this rewarding of the parents because their children are going to school.

You talked about the residential school as being, perhaps, one of the problems that parents are experiencing. I would be interested in your thoughts on the fact that in Moricetown, once again, a lot of the parents there send their children to school in Smithers because they want their kids to mix with the non-native population and there's a little more discipline in the schools, according to some of those parents.

Now we have the total aboriginal school proposed for Prince George. I just wondered, with the negative thoughts that are attached to the residential school system…. I don't believe for a moment that every child that went to a residential school was abused. I think a lot of aboriginal people benefited greatly from the residential school system, but we never hear from them. I would be interested in your thoughts on this going back to a totally separate school for the aboriginal students, given the fact that Calvin Helin, who's an author….

He was a native fellow from Prince Rupert. He's a Tsimshian lawyer. He talks about the need for the aboriginal students to compete with non-aboriginal students throughout the school system because in the real world, that's who they're going to compete with for jobs and placements, as they move forward. So I just wondered what your thoughts are on this totally segregated school.

M. Turpel-Lafond: First of all, I think there are a number of different strategies we need to look at. We always have to come back to the evidence but also look at the human rights issues sometimes. For indigenous children in particular, it's the importance of them in the school system — being able to have that indigenous knowledge, their languages and their cultures recognized.

For some of those languages that will no longer continue to exist in British Columbia because the cycle of transmission has been broken, it's very important that they have an option, and inside every school — and particularly, in some instances, a special school, a freestanding school where you can have that indigenous language and culture alongside the core curriculum.

As you know, there have been instances across Canada — Winnipeg, Toronto and elsewhere — where separate first nations schools have developed, and there has been real success. The issue is just that we have to norm excellence for our first nations children and that the first nations schools should not be a place where you send the children because they've been thrown out of all the other schools. The challenge is how you do it.

Could you do it well in British Columbia? I'm sure you could, because we have so many enormous strengths. But aboriginal children have to do well everywhere, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that aboriginal children do well in excellent schools. They don't have to only be aboriginal schools.

Norming the highest expectations for aboriginal children, making sure, as a matter of human rights, that they can have the benefit of having the transmission of their language, culture, knowledge of the environment that is unique to them…. Maybe other students in British Columbia need to have that. The idea of having some choice and also respecting their culture and their heritage — it's a very significant human rights issue as well as an achievement issue. So we need to close these gaps, and we certainly have a long way to go.

Just to conclude, I'd say that certainly around residential schools — myself having parents and grand-

parents that attended residential schools — we're very grateful for the fact that we learned how to play hockey, for instance, and were pretty successful. In fact, my own daughter will be in provincials next week in Prince George, playing hockey. I have to thank a certain Father at the St. Michael's Indian Residential School for teaching her grandfather how to do that and going down 50 or 60 years of hockey players.

Were there good things? Absolutely, but were there some very terrible things? Yes. Most significantly, not being able to have that distinct culture and language continue. For children and vulnerable children, we really see that strengthening that seems to really assist their self-image, their feeling of achievement, etc. So it does assist, but it should be in all levels.

The representative's office wants to see accountability at every level for all children. If there's a separate stream…. You know, that might be appropriate here, yes, but that's not the answer. That's one of many strategies.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Now we have three speakers. We're coming to the top of the hour. I'm going to caution members, if they can as much limit the preamble, get to the question and also direct the questions to the report at hand.

J. Rustad: I have to apologize, first off, because I want to make one quick comment about the school component, and then I want to go into the question.

When I was a school trustee, we had the pleasure of taking a trip to Edmonton to look at some examples in Edmonton of a school that had aboriginal culture and heritage intertwined into the education process. The outcomes at that school were phenomenal.

That was a huge component of it, but I also think the other huge component was the commitment and engagement of the entire family in that education process for the child — the commitment by the family as well as the child signing off on going to the school, making the commitment to get there on a daily basis and to go through and to be prepared to learn and those whole processes. It was very successful.

We actually looked, in Prince George, at modelling around that school at one point. I'm interested to talk with the board about how that's going to play into the future of a potential school in Prince George.

I wanted, actually, to talk from experience as well about this whole idea of the kids moving between schools. When I was a trustee in Prince George, we had three schools in particular — it also ranged out to another three schools, but three core schools — that were considered inner-city schools.

They had between 30 and 40 percent of the children move throughout the year — every year 30 to 40 percent turnover of the kids in the school. What they found was that the kids went from one school to the next school to the next school — and, in some cases, rotated back around through — over the course of their elementary years.

That amount of moving created a real challenge for the schools and for the education system to be able to deliver the programs. One of the things that was initiated in Prince George was what was called an early literacy program, where they made an attempt — particularly in the grades 1 to 3 range — to intentionally have smaller class sizes for these kids that were moving and going through, to be able to have that additional focus and a real heavy focus on the literacy but also an attempt to coordinate the programs that were offered at each school so that it was more going from classroom to classroom…

I'm just wondering. That program has now been in place for about five years. It was the intention of that program to be able to develop some analysis around it, to develop some measurable success points around that to see whether it was worthwhile doing and what the opportunities were there.

I'm wondering if you've had the opportunity to look at that program, whether you've had an opportunity to see the results of that and whether you think that might be an opportunity for other areas where you're seeing the high instance of kids moving around schools.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think it's very significant to look at where there is success. Certainly, one of the things that our office looks at, for aboriginal children generally and of course for children in care, is what school districts seem to be doing well.

If I take one school district — school district 61, for example…. You know, the FSA results for the aboriginal and non-aboriginal children are almost the same recently. It's not an outrider. It appears that there really is some significant success in closing the gap.

We can look at some other regions in the province where we see that as well, including in northern regions for particular school districts and schools. When we then go into the schools and see what's happening, I think what you're identifying is absolutely accurate, which is: what has been the early childhood education exposure? How seamless has that link been between early childhood education, readiness to learn and then, where children are moving around, the literacy and numeracy support?

You have to target them. Something different has to happen inside the school. Where it is happening, we need to build on those successes.

From our side, we're looking at that very carefully. I think it's a really significant area to learn. I know that the Ministry of Education also tracks that quite closely. I think that more public accountability, more reporting out and saying, "Here's something that's working," would be really significant — so that parents, as well,

can understand that there are enormous successes inside these systems and that they could be strengthened.

J. Brar: First of all, thank you very much for making this joint presentation. I think it's a good start. I think the goal is to better strengthen the relationship between the different ministries. I think it's a good one. I think the greater goal is, basically, to probably have better coordination among all the players, which includes, of course, social workers and parents as well.

This report has identified different areas, which include data and monitoring school moves, information-sharing assessment, transition support, youth support and aboriginal children.

My question is that…. This report is going to serve as the foundation and a kind of springboard to move on to the next level. Where does the capacity issue fall in — whether we have enough social workers to do the work we want through this cooperation? Where do — as Dennis, I think, asked about — the foster parents in this situation fit in? Do they need any additional support? Is there any effort to look into that through this report as well?

M. Sieben: I'm learning. Speaking of educational outcomes, I've picked that up.

That's a great question. Martin and I have talked about this a fair amount. There are a number of things that we think we can do within the scope and the capacity of our current systems. For example, Mary Ellen referenced recommendation 5 that spoke to school moves and making sure that there was contact between the two systems. Usually what happens if there is a need to move a child is that the social worker ends up contacting the school and advising. But frankly, that's probably too late.

One of the areas where we might, as Mary Ellen noted, go past the recommendation is on what work gets done beforehand — if there needs to be some type of move, how to minimize the trauma, how to make the arrival as welcoming as possible and how we can better coordinate the efforts between a local school level and the local social worker level. That's stuff that likely can be done within the construct of what we currently have available.

Following the tabling of the report in June, foster parents were likely the first people to call me and others in MCFD to want to talk about this. They see themselves as having a primary role associated with achieving better outcomes for kids generally, including educational outcomes. It's a matter of great interest to them.

To a certain extent, they wanted to identify efforts that they were doing already at a local level but also engage with us in a discussion about what we might look at to add to what they currently have available, in terms of more flexibility for using support funds for things like tuition or supports for kids that are associated with school as well as being able to engage more directly with social workers and teachers around some of the planning.

Lastly, what we spoke to is that as our efforts will go forward, we'll identify what we can do within the scope of what we've got — and what, perhaps, we might like to do that's outside of that scope — and then, necessarily, bring that forward to those who make decisions, including myself, Lesley and our leadership team, and the same on the Ministry of Education side and our minister, and at the end of the day approach government about whether or not there might be more that we can do.

We take the point. Frankly, it's probably a mix of both. We can do things withinside what we've got, and then if it makes sense, we can approach new ways with new resources to do additional things.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I'm glad that the ministry is looking at those systemic issues — what can happen, where resources can go.

I'm wondering if the Education Ministry is recognizing that the closure of small schools has a direct impact on first nations children and their success rates. Moves don't only happen because a foster parent moves or because a child gets placed in another resource. They happen when schools such as Koksilah are closed, with a huge proportion of first nations children attending there — the first very positive school-community relationship. That could actually just be the result of systemic funding formulas that result in significant challenges to children and to their families.

Are there systemic things that the Ministry of Education can recognize as having a direct impact on children — that is, in the bigger picture as opposed to the specific issues around supporting children individually? That's a question to the deputy minister, I suppose.

S. MacDonald: Thanks for your comments. I appreciate those. The comments related to closures of schools are an ongoing conversation inside the education system. It's largely attributed to declining enrolment across the school system. Close to 50,000 students have left the system. It's one that we continue to be challenged with.

Your specific comment relating to the school inside Duncan…. I believe those discussions are still underway at the local level with their school board. But the point is well taken. What are we doing around ensuring that we've got maximum opportunities for kids? How are we making opportunities to ensure that in small, remote communities there is access to services? How do those communicate with other service agencies across government?

It's an ongoing challenge, I think, for all of government and for the ministry to begin to be working with our locally elected school boards around how they're making those local decisions to achieve the best outcomes for kids.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Right. Obviously, the school boards are curtailed by the funding that they

receive, and I'm just wondering if the system of funding actually can sometimes be a detriment to children in smaller schools because of the per-student funding. It's not necessarily needs-based or child-focused, and maybe that is something that from a systemic perspective can be looked at as a contributing factor to the success or failure of children in schools. That was a rhetorical question not requiring a response.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I think the ministry can take it on notice that it was a rhetorical question and at the periphery of our discussion — today at least.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'd like to conclude this part of the meeting and thank all the witnesses for coming and all the members for engaging in quite a good discussion. We have further business for the committee to do, and after a brief recess I would entertain a motion….

R. Cantelon (Chair): Yes. We'll have a recess. I'm going to recess as soon as I have the motion to go in camera — after recess.

R. Cantelon (Chair): So we'll recess till 11:15, and then we'll reconvene in camera.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

		Office of the Representative for Children and Youth:
		• Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth
		• Martin Wright, Deputy Representative
		Ministry of Children and Family Development:
		• Mark Sieben, Assistant Deputy Minister, Integrated Policy and Legislation
		Ministry of Education:
		• Scott MacDonald, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance and Accountability Division
		• Susan Kennedy, Executive Director, Diversity, Equity and Early Learning, Governance and Accountability Division and Partnerships and Planning Division
		Ministry of Advanced Education:
		• Merv Scott, Director of Special Projects

Committee Staff:	Jonathan Fershau (Committee Research Analyst)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
CHILDREN AND YOUTH