Children and Youth — Issue No. 15 — Thursday, June 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		205
	M. Turpel-Lafond

Representative for Children and Youth Report: Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena: From Loss to Learning		206
	M. Turpel-Lafond

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:	John Greschner (Office of the Representative for Children and Youth) Cory Heavener (Office of the Representative for Children and Youth) Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond (Representative for Children and Youth) Martin Wright (Office of the Representative for Children and Youth)

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'd like to call the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth to order. I thank you all for coming and being present. We have three items on the agenda, and we'll get to business forthwith.

If you're prepared, then, Mary Ellen, the first item is to give us an update. The floor is yours.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Good morning, everyone. I first wanted to speak to a very brief operational update for members of the committee, just to report on a few activities.

First of all, the representative's office presented in the House of Commons last week to the Senate committee on sexual exploitation. That's the committee chaired by Sen. Roméo Dallaire. We did have an opportunity as invited guests to speak to the issue of sexually exploited children, in particular the challenges for children in care. I thought I'd make committee members aware of that. I also had a chance to speak a bit about the importance of this committee in terms of addressing some of the issues in that regard in British Columbia. That's one point of information.

In addition, I would bring to the attention of members of the committee that you will shortly receive an invitation to a children's summit that the representative's office is organizing for the 20th and 21st of October here in Vancouver. There will be some very significant presentations, including by Senator Dallaire, Stephen Lewis and others, and in particular by a variety of recognized international experts in the area of child-serving systems from around the world.

The focus of that summit will really be on improving systems and on what are the qualities and characteristics of systems that are truly extraordinary when we look around the world. I just make that note for members of the committee.

As well, I am going to provide you with some copies today which are updates on items that we've had discussions on in the past. You'll receive a package from the Clerk, I think perhaps at the end of the meeting, because we've got quite a bit of paper to go through already.

In that package you will see that I've provided an information note bringing you up to date on the ongoing work that the office is involved in, in terms of children and youth with special needs. The monitoring brief that we released in February and actually provided to this committee in April, when we spoke briefly to it, has been a subject of fairly significant work in my office and the Ministry of Children and Families and CLBC.

What you will receive is an information note from my office identifying the ongoing work. It's sort of a joint briefing note from MCFD, CLBC and my office on the activities to date in terms of the progress that has been made and, as well, some materials from CLBC and MCFD that we pass along in terms of the workplan and how the work is moving forward in that area. That, I know, is a significant matter of interest in terms of vulnerable children in British Columbia. I leave that with you to look at, and depending on the level of interest, you can drill down into some very specific details around some of these issues as well.

The other item you will see in that information package which is somewhat pertinent to the report on the child deaths is an update for the committee, an information note, on the Child in the Home of a Relative program. Really, it's an information note to describe for committee members the status of the program, the screening process that's been adopted and some preliminary information in terms of what's been happening since December 2007, when screening activities were commenced by MCFD and MEIA. You'll see some information on that program.

Also, that information note just informs members of the committee of the type of evaluation and analysis we're doing of that program and, in particular, as it is contemplated by MCFD and MEIA as that program moves over to MCFD, how we see the evaluation of that program as it's transitioning into the Ministry of Children and Families. You'll see the proposed evaluation.

As I indicated in the past, the one area that requires some ongoing work, which we are engaged in, is ensuring that injuries and deaths of the children who were in that program are reported. That continues to be an area of interest for the representative's office where we are engaged or in activity.

Those are some items with respect to an information update in terms of the function and operations of the representative's office. I'll just stop there to see if there are any questions, Mr. Chair.

J. Rustad: Just one question with regards to the tracking of children that are in the home of a relative. You were talking about children that have been placed in the home of a relative through the MCFD process. Or are you talking about any child that's in the home of a relative?

The reason why I'm wondering is that I've had a nephew who has come and stayed with me for periods of time and has gone back. Would that be something that would be required to be tracked as part of what you're proposing, or is it something for somebody who has actually entered into the system?

M. Turpel-Lafond: It has to be someone who's entered into the system, so it's through the MEIA Child in the Home of a Relative program. You'd have to be receiving financial support for that child under a specific arrangement with MEIA for us to be tracking that child. Of course, the interface between the child protection system and the program is of interest to us.

We are looking at an evaluation that looks at that interaction and looks at the impact of the criminal

record checks that are now being conducted and also the MCFD file checks — more importantly, looking at health, safety and education outcomes for those children and options to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of that.

Of course, the evaluation that we're doing looks at a whole range of kinship placements outside this formal program. We will include an analysis of that. However, the administrative data that's available is really with respect to those enrolled in that program.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Great. So I'll table that. I want to move on, then, today.

Representative for Children
and Youth Report:
Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena:
From Loss to Learning

M. Turpel-Lafond: At the last appearance before the committee we had an in-camera session. At that in-camera session I was able to table the report From Loss to Learning. It was left with members of the committee for their review, as I was then releasing it to the public.

Today is the opportunity to come back to that report and review the recommendations, and the recommendations are before you for adoption. What I propose to do, Mr. Chair, is to actually go through the recommendations.

There's some supplementary information that I have available with respect to one of the areas — but go through them and leave them for the members of the committee, following process to adopt those recommendations as is appropriate.

R. Cantelon (Chair): As a matter of procedure, what I plan to do is have you review them. We'll have a fulsome discussion of the recommendations as they come through, and then we'll deal with them in total at the end. So we can have a complete discussion of the recommendations, and then we'll consider a motion to adopt them in total.

Then what I would propose to do is just go recommendation by recommendation, and pausing to take questions after each might be more appropriate than at the end. My assistant John will kindly lead us through.

Just to refresh the memory of those who've had a chance to review it but might have sat for a bit, 11 groups of recommendations are aimed at the provincial government and ministries, agencies, service providers and educators in the north. The overall finding of the report was that the ministry must strengthen practice and supervision in assessing child safety in the north region to prevent injuries or deaths of children in circumstances similar to those of Amanda, Savannah, Rowen and Serena.

I would just note again that the approach we took was one of a systemic approach, as opposed to a blaming approach, to try and find ways to strengthen the system. With respect to that, we need to do that learning. So a real focus of these recommendations is learning from these circumstances and ensuring that that learning returns to the front lines and to those who are responsible and to have legislative authority with respect to the CFCSA or have other responsibilities to interact with children and families in crisis and particularly with children where there's abuse and maltreatment.

You'll note that in terms of the safety assessment and planning, a concern expressed in the report was that the practices for safety assessment and planning had not shown marked improvements since the deaths of these children. The report reviewed, in addition to these four cases, all of the other deaths and the injury in the region. Today I will have a chance to just talk a little bit more about the review process provincewide. There's a bit further analysis that I can speak to as I go through the recommendations on that point.

Delving right in, then, the first recommendation is before you. I'll just put them up on the screen as we go through. The first group pertains to supervision and training and, in particular, that MCFD "review its training activities to align them with their quality assurance program and make them more immediately responsive to observed issues in practice." That's 1(a).

In that regard, the reason for the recommendation is that the information that comes from reviews, for instance, which identifies challenges that might be in a particular file that might be more widespread informs the training activities and that there is a plan for training that aligns them with these practice issues more directly.

Next is "that a comprehensive training plan for front-line staff of the ministry and delegated aboriginal agencies be developed within six months of the release of this report" and, 1(c), that the MCFD "report annually on the program of training offered for front-line staff of the ministry and delegated aboriginal agencies" and, 1(d), that MCFD and delegated agency team leaders and potential acting team leaders — that is, the supervisors in child welfare programs — "be provided as soon as possible with enhanced, appropriate training in management practices and clinical supervision." The supervisor training is a significant challenge that we identified in this review.

L. Krog: Do you have any sort of time frame in mind with that? You've talked about six months to get the comprehensive training plan out there. What are you thinking of in terms of a time line?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Recommendation 1(d) is suggesting as soon as possible. As soon as possible, immediate training would be valuable in this area — in particular, ensuring that the supervisors, who in some instances may not have as many years of experience as supervisors elsewhere, receive that training. One of the reasons why we've asked for the report — an annual

report and some updates within the next few months — is because we've felt this was very significant.

I believe, in terms of the discussions that have been held between my office and the ministry, that there was a commitment to look at developing that comprehensive training plan within six months from the report's release. I think that we will, of course, hear from the ministry down the road in terms of how they move forward with that, but I think that there should be some return, particularly to the front line in the north, rather quickly in terms of the training.

I appreciate that that hasn't yet happened since the release of the report, but I have certainly been encouraging the regional executive director and the senior officials in the ministry to have that training in the north region as soon as possible.

J. Rustad: Just in terms of the overall training — and this is perhaps not a fair question — and in terms of the post-secondary education programs that are in place, do you feel that the curriculum that is in place for those programs is adequate for the challenges we have in the system?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think the new program, for instance, at UNBC has a great potential. Obviously, the curriculum that's being offered is a strong curriculum. I think there's always an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the ministry and the contracted service-providing sector and the post-secondary institutions so that they have a better understanding of what skill sets will be required in the future.

I'll speak to that a little bit more when I get to the recommendations around recruitment, training and retention, and the need to understand why there still are challenges there — so that we're seeing people leave — and how we can have a better understanding of that. I don't think it goes to the issue of curriculum. However, I do note that the child welfare specialization training pilot project that they've started at UNBC certainly can help fill some of the gaps we're identifying here.

But the post-secondary level is one thing. It's the ongoing professional training linked to quality assurance activities that must happen. In particular, given some of the challenges identified for the north region, it needs to happen specifically in the north region as soon as possible.

J. Rustad: The reason why I raise that issue is that in other professions, sometimes there can be a disconnect between the curriculum and what's happening particularly in things like trades.

J. Rustad: So there's always a continual need for that update and that process to be ongoing.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think there's a great opportunity to do more work in that area throughout British Columbia in terms of strengthening and supporting the post-secondary institutions so that they're offering that.

Particularly what I'm concerned with here are those that go into a child welfare specialization — in the social work program there is a child welfare stream, if you like — and to make sure that the child welfare stream is relevant and has strong content around decision-making and how good decision-making can happen in practice.

But of course, people who have worked in the field for a long period of time will tell you that in addition to the training, it's the ongoing supervision and support that's required for social workers to be able to discharge their responsibilities to the highest standard.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I had a question. You mentioned briefly at the end of the recommendation that there are challenges in the north region. I think that the challenge in the north region is that if anyone goes to training, then their caseload gets completely ignored. It's hard enough when social workers are off for a day. Then their caseload piles up.

I'm wondering if someone has drawn the line between the lack of ongoing training or updating training, which is partly what we're talking about, being influenced by the fact that there's no time for anyone to do it or no resources — that being time and people — to do it.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think it's very fair to say that in that region, from our analysis of the situation in these circumstances, the issue of FTE burn, if you like — to ensure that everyone is in the position and operating and whether or not they have the flexibility to participate in training…. There are some legitimate concerns about that. Later in this recommendation I do talk about some alternative modes of training that I think are important.

Although it's not a recommendation, I also speak in the report about the fact that I felt that some of the newer approaches to child welfare — like collaborative approaches around child protection, mediation, family group conferencing, working with families as opposed to against families…. At times the investigative route can lead to real challenges. I felt that would have presented some good opportunities in these cases to see some different results here.

I do note that that requires a greater investment of time. The KIDS program, which is the workload management tool used by the Ministry of Children and Families, estimates that a child protection investigation takes 12 hours, for instance. That's the workload management tool estimate. I know that if there is to be a more collaborative response, like a family development response, that will take 24 hours — estimated time. I haven't evaluated if that's appropriate or not. I'm just reporting what the system is now.

I think that the uptake of any collaborative practice in the north has been nominal — extremely nominal. Probably less than 5 percent of any of the cases in this period have had that approach. Of course, the collaborative approach has been possible since 2001. It isn't a

new approach. It has been available since that time in the family development response.

If there was new training and a sincere effort to implement a new approach around how families will be engaged and how child welfare practice will be conducted, there would be a serious need to look at the FTE complement and workload management in the north region.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Just to follow up, if I may. The workload measurement tool that they use is widely criticized by social workers because it doesn't…. It's the same ministry that estimates how much time it takes to do director's reviews, and I won't get into that.

Just to clarify for the social workers who were doing family development response before it was called family development response…. It was more time-intensive, and it has been in existence. It's just a new label for a collaborative approach. I just think it's important that that is recognized while there is more emphasis, perhaps, now that those people doing that are being taken away from the front-line investigations.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, I think that as the ministry has some plans to put some more emphasis on collaborative planning…. Again, I just want to be very clear with the committee members that the representative certainly supports that approach. However, it requires planning, and there would be some fairly significant shortfall in terms of resources on the ground and in terms of uptake.

Just looking at other jurisdictions that have had a serious effort at family development response, it has also come with a fairly significant investment in recognizing the time required to do that. But those collaborative approaches would have been valuable in a number of the cases that I reviewed.

J. Brar: I have a comment and then a question. I think it will probably be helpful for us to actually go through the complete set of 1(a), (b), (c), (d) or whatever, and then ask questions. That's just my recommendation.

The key here is the comprehensive training plan. The time line for this was six months, and we are already in the middle of that time line. I would like to know where we are, but I would also like to know who is finally responsible for ensuring that the training plan is comprehensive and meets the requirements and standards and needs of the day.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think from my role as an oversight body, I will be paying a lot of attention to that issue. The ministry has certainly accepted the idea of the comprehensive training — that there is training and the need to look at it again — and to be reporting regularly on who is taking it, the content of it and so forth.

I know that MCFD has a committee. I mean, they're working on it. But of course, from my side coming out of this review, it's the training at the front line that is really significant. Training programs that go to, say, strategic shifts and policy are important. But the training around the actual work that is done in child protection investigation field….

Whatever plan is developed certainly will be evaluated and reviewed. If these recommendations are accepted today, it can be expected that I would track that and monitor it and come back to the committee to say: "Has that happened, and is it responsive to this recommendation?"

R. Cantelon (Chair): Thank you, Jagrup. Your advice to the Chair will be taken as noted. We will look for cooperation from the members. On the other hand, I do want to encourage a fulsome discussion as the questions come forward.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yes, 1(e) — reporting annually on the program of supervisor training as well. Then 1(f) — using alternative methods of training delivery, particularly being mindful of the circumstances of those in remote or rural locations, such as on-line, self-paced training program packages, where travel from these locations would be required, provided that those can ensure equally strong learning outcomes. So some investment there.

Then 1(g) — that the north region of MCFD, the delegated aboriginal agencies, RCMP and northern SCAN clinic undertake some joint training activities. I can note on that front that there was a bit of a multidisciplinary conference on May 7 and 8 that focused on some evidence-based approaches around maltreated children. It didn't look at the report and the findings of the report, but there was an event that was held since the release of the report, which I think is a positive sign.

The involvement of the RCMP is a significant component of that — that collaboration between police, the medical and therapeutic professionals, the ministry and involving the delegated aboriginal agencies. So that is recommendation 1.

First of all, the recommendation, again, is driven by the observation in the report that over the period of time examined, there were enormous challenges at times in meeting the resourcing requirements, but as well, today there is a more full FTE complement on the ground. However, there are some challenges for the future. If new approaches, as I say, are to be truly adopted and put in practice, there will be some significant issues here.

The recommendation is that MCFD, as part of its current recruitment and retention activities, undertake a comprehensive study to determine whether staff turnover remains a barrier to high-quality service in the north and to report publicly on this by April 2009.

Then 2(b): that MCFD and the delegated aboriginal agencies develop a comprehensive recruitment and

retention plan for the north region and report publicly on that by 2009 as well — identify the need projected into the future, not only on recruitment but on retention.

So those activities, as you will see in the detail that I provided in the report…. It was my recommendation that in doing this comprehensive recruitment and retention strategy, particularly for the north, partners like the B.C. Public Service Agency, the BCGEU, the delegated agencies and the University of Northern British Columbia should also be involved in that process, because they are very important partners in that.

So I did stipulate in the explanation around that recommendation who I thought needed to come to the table to participate in that discussion because, while there are some discussions occasionally with some of the partners, I felt that it would be valuable if it could be formalized.

M. Polak: I was glad you brought up the issue of collaborative practice and talked a bit about not having made it as a recommendation. It was one of my wonderings as I read through the analysis and recommendations that it wasn't actually sort of a tangible recommendation. I hear your thinking about it, and I appreciate that.

I wonder, as we look, in particular, at recommendation 2(a)…. Considering that for the foreseeable future we are going to be short of people and we're going to have challenges retaining people and recruiting them, even in the best of all possible worlds, just because of demographics, is there or should there be an ongoing, overall view to addressing changes in practice that would move us closer to a collaborative, more multidisciplinary approach, as opposed to what is, I guess, a more traditional approach in social-serving types of engagement such as education and child care, where models in other fields are moving more and more, based on research, toward cross-disciplinary approaches, whether it's education or child care or what have you?

Is that something, as an overall direction, we ought to be incorporating into staffing and recruitment planning, such that you have a better ability to retain continuity when there is staff turnover?

I fear that some of this sounds more like: "Maybe we'll get away from turnover." I don't think we will, just on a practical level, even if we do the best.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think we need to understand the reasons for the turnover. I think there are some unique circumstances there.

I think on the issue of collaborative practice…. I didn't make it a recommendation, because one of the challenges was — even though it has been in existence in British Columbia since 2001 in some form or another — that if you are going to adopt it, I am certainly of the view that we need some stronger information around outcomes for the children. Where the collaborative and family development response approaches to child protection activities have been rolled out — major jurisdictions where they've been rolled out — they've been very carefully rolled out by developing a new set of service standards training.

The key thing that happens on the ground, of course, is that a call comes in that there is an allegation of child abuse or maltreatment. How that call gets coded is really important at first instance. Now in British Columbia the majority of those calls will be coded into the investigation child protection stream. Less than 4 percent or 5 percent will be coded into a family development response. How other systems have developed this has been with a lot of care and attention to (a) the practice and (b) the outcomes for the children. So child safety has got to be secured in that system, and it has been elsewhere. It's a major concern.

But what happens in these systems is that, as we have somewhat in British Columbia now, those calls will be given various levels of priority by the person who answers the phone, and maybe Cory can speak more to this. There's a priority system. So if it's a major sexual assault, it'll have priority 1, and it goes down to priority 2, priority 3, priority 4, and that will trigger how it's coded and what then happens.

But as I saw in the cases I reviewed here, we're dealing with multiple reports of abuse, maltreatment and neglect. In these cases, you know…. At the first instance the coding could have allowed, perhaps, for some planning with family. A lot depends on if a family will consent to share information, if they can work together and so on, but also on the apprehension of risk to the child. The idea that a child will remain in an unsafe environment where they will face a recurrence of maltreatment, for instance, while we develop another response is not necessarily appropriate.

You have to have in place the tools, the practice directives, the information system to support that process and, of course, information about the outcomes for children. We're still dealing with about a 30 percent recurrence of maltreatment. In the north that was a concern in these cases, leading to some very poor outcomes, obviously — deaths for children. We need to significantly…. If we are to go down that road, which shows great promise elsewhere, then the system has to be put into place to make that happen.

I didn't find evidence in the review in the north that the system has been put in place to go down that road. It can be, but all the more reason why things like recruitment, retention, training…. So we can see that supervision is there to make these extremely delicate decisions. Also, of course, effective prevention services have to be available too. These are all other parts of it.

On the issue of the resources and the staffing, I think it's a great value for any ministry that's in the human service area, but especially this one, to make sure that there are available trained people in the positions able to follow excellent practice.

M. Polak: Just one second one that's fairly quick, hopefully, which is in the same recommendation 2(a), in the bottom notes. John Rustad actually sort of started down this path.

One of the things mentioned in terms of looking for some better results is around program content, and I know that you haven't said: "Oh, gosh. It's awful." But it made me ask the question. Who's responsible for developing what the program content would be in whatever programs are provided — be it at UNBC, or wherever — and what, if any, role does government have in that as times change? Who comes in and says: "Gosh, we need to update the program, and here's how"? Who has that call? Is that the university, or is there some kind of partnership in development?

M. Turpel-Lafond: There are partnerships, but you have also the issues of academic freedom. The institutions, in terms of a social work training program, will have a curriculum based on some national and international standards around what's needed, and then there is the specialization side.

One of the key things for our office, in terms of looking at jurisdictions where I think they're very strong, is that there is a very significant training around evidence — what works in evidence-based outcomes — around how we know how these systems are impacting children. When those programs have a very strong link to outcomes for children and working with vulnerable children, then the students can be very well prepared to move into that system. But, of course, if you have that type of training and then you come into a system that doesn't have that in it, you won't be able make that contribution.

Because social workers, especially in the stream we're talking about here, make such important decisions, it's important that they not be making that decision on their own — that there is a process for decision-making, a risk assessment element involved in it and supervision. And the decisions that are taken have to always keep in mind the child. Those are some of the key things.

There are opportunities. Could they be improved? Of course, I think they could be improved with greater clarity. If the ministry has greater clarity about what its child protection practice will be, then it's possible that the universities can contribute to that more effectively as well and can be supported and funded and so on.

R. Cantelon (Chair): John will have the last question on this section, I hope.

J. Rustad: Under recommendation 2(a), under the details, it says: "If staff turnover is determined to be a barrier…." I'm just curious. With regards to this analysis, was staff turnover contributing to the results? Also, I'd be interested in knowing if you've looked at other jurisdictions, both in Canada and outside of Canada internationally, about staff turnover and in particular at strategies around that issue.

The reason why I'm asking the question is that with the changing demographics and with some of the challenges we're facing with the workforce, we may not be able to be successful. Instead of a certain percentage, we might be able to decrease that percentage, but we're still going to have staff turnover. That is a reality in just about any industry that you look at, not just in this industry.

The reason why I'm asking these questions is…. Are other jurisdictions looking at strategies to manage the staff turnover in terms of trying to make sure that the issues that may have contributed to these cases can be dealt with under an environment of some staff turnover? Or are other jurisdictions kind of in the same boat, in that we need to maybe find a way to forge forward in terms of dealing with the inevitability of some turnover and in how to best manage that particular situation?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think, John, that if you turn to page 78 of the report, you will see from the analysis that the turnover rate fluctuated. The turnover rate for child welfare social workers and supervisors in the north region from 1999 to 2007 was pretty carefully evaluated in preparing this report. It fluctuated from a high of 16 percent in 2003 to a low in 2006, and then it bumped back up again.

I think it's important to understand what that means — one fully delegated social worker per week on average in the 1999-to-2000 rate. Then that has declined, but it still is a significant point, because in part, you're dealing with, in that region, 35 staff members with six months or less experience, 19 with six months to one year of experience and 11 with only two years' experience. When you look at it, that's a very new group, and you're still seeing it.

Now, the important point…. Consistent data was not available. Some of this had to be reconstructed by my office. It wasn't as though it was readily available. "Could you give me your staff turnover rates, and is it all analyzed?" It wasn't, so it had to be put together, which in and of itself suggests to me that there could be a better process of evaluating this, regularly looking at the trends and planning for them.

While we do see issues around recruitment and retention and labour force development across all sectors in British Columbia, the important thing for this is that this is child safety. We can't afford not to have the people in these positions to respond to the phone calls and to do the work that's required. If you don't have people responding to it, you can have some very dramatically bad outcomes here.

We may be dealing with certain realities, but we're going to have to deal with certain realities in a way that's effective and responsive and that puts child safety as a priority. So those positions need to be filled. It's not an unlimited pool of money to fill those positions, and the staff that comes in needs to be retained.

One of the things that I recommend, as we get into this a little bit more, is that idea of, when someone is leaving, surveying them to understand why they are leaving. Are they leaving to work in the child-serving sector somewhere else, or what is it? Not everyone is cut out for child protection investigation. I appreciate that. Maybe they want to go into a different field.

But you need to have that cohort there to do the job everywhere. It can't just be child protection in the

Lower Mainland. It has to be available everywhere, and it shouldn't be dealt with by an emergency team flying in from somewhere else.

While in some of these times, you know, they'd borrow staff from other regions, or they got permission for out-of-province graduates to do the work without the same qualifications, some of these strategies may compromise the quality assurance that you require in this area too. So a strategy that involves good information, that also is creative and publicly accountable, is essentially what has driven the development of this recommendation.

J. Rustad: Further to that, then, the intent of asking is…. I'm just kind of curious — the differences between the north region and other areas, other jurisdictions, whether that's in the province or that's been, in particular, outside of the province and even outside of the country — to know what the magnitude of the difference of staff turnover is.

There's no question, in my profession before going into politics, staff turnover was a huge issue. You get people trained, they understand how to do the job, they move on, and now you've got to start that process again. So there are always those kinds of issues, but you try to manage that through processes.

My intention in asking this is…. In the perfect world, it'd be great if we could retain everybody. The reality is that we won't. There will always be a certain amount because of people's situations. As you say, some people may go into the business, decide this isn't for them, move on, etc.

I guess the question is: have you had the chance to compare what is happening in the north with other jurisdictions inside and outside of Canada and, in particular, looking at strategies to either mitigate those issues or try to reduce those issues?

M. Turpel-Lafond: We've attempted to do that. It's very difficult to do an interjurisdictional review, because the information is spotty and it's not always broken down by region. But if the question would be: "Would you be surprised to find some similar challenges in the north region of every province?" Yes, but I'm not sure they are to the extent that we see here.

Also, the idea of a career in this field is that you've come in, you're well supported, you're supervised, and you eventually have the opportunity to become a supervisor. You know, you have satisfaction in the position. I think we need to understand if lack of satisfaction or frustration with the environment or what have you plays a key role in the fact that we don't have the retention here. Or is it something else?

If it is that lack of satisfaction or not feeling that you know enough about the outcomes for the children that you're serving, those are things that can be remedied. That's where we really need to drill down and see why this is happening. While we have a fuller FTE complement, we shouldn't be seeing that resource leaving at that rate.

J. Rustad: I'd like to say, though, just in terms of those strategies, because the recommendation coming forward, of course, is to look at and try to address this…. That's why I'm kind of thinking that if there are other jurisdictions that have been successful at this….

Maybe there haven't been successful strategies in place. That is possible. They may be struggling with the same thing — in which case, then, we have to forge ahead. But it would be nice to know if there is something out there that we can be looking at in terms of trying to mitigate the issues or trying to reduce that turnover number.

M. Turpel-Lafond: In similar jurisdictions…. If you take Alberta, when they made a fairly significant effort around family development response and collaborative practice, there was a significant influx of new FTEs. They have had a more stable northern employment base in this field, but they also increased it to recognize that more people are going to be needed to do the work.

They are delicate issues. I've broken this one out as being this part, but of course, it's related to other parts. But to have this strategy…. I can say that the Ministry of Children and Families has recognized that this is a major issue. It's just that I want the process here to get to some strategies, some reporting and so on to see that it's being addressed in some way.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, I hope we can retain the Chair in this very meaningful discussion.

This is just a follow-up question. When we talk about the retention, I think one of the key components is the capacity of the workforce. Do we have the full capacity in terms of quantity as well as the quality of training?

In this situation what we're talking about…. We have a significant percentage of these cases coming from one particular group. So when we talk about capacity, I don't know where we actually….

In addition to the numbers and training, how is the cultural component of the aboriginal community a factor? And how are this whole training program and the recommendation we're talking about going to address that component, which in my opinion is very, very important from a workforce point of view?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think one of the reasons why I made recommendation 2(b), "MCFD and delegated aboriginal agencies," is because in my discussions with the delegated aboriginal agencies, they are performing the CFCSA function in this area — those that are fully delegated in that region or other regions. They have more aboriginal employees, but they want to have the workforce as they take on greater responsibilities as well.

Working together, but also for 70 percent of the aboriginal children that are not with delegated agencies but dealing with ministry staff, there need to be improvements in terms of the numbers of aboriginal staff that are serving in these child protection investigation functions. The ministry certainly has identified that, but dealing with cultural barriers and dealing with other challenges will be significant.

So it may very well be that if there was a major approach to collaborative child welfare practice, you might attract a larger group of aboriginal staff, for instance. There might be greater interest in that. But there has to be some clarity around those issues.

There's a very significant cohort in the north of youth who would be available to be trained in this field, so I think there is a great opportunity to develop it with some appropriate strategies in place. And has it been developed to date? I don't think so. There are some promising elements, but it just hasn't been yet. So it really has to move out to that level.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Just a quick question. In recommendation 2(b) you referred to the ministry and delegated aboriginal agencies. In 2(a), did you have that same intention — that the review would include both the ministry and the agencies?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think that MCFD needs to have a complete plan to report on the staff turnover issue for its side. I'm not asking the delegated agencies to report on that, because they have enormous challenges with the reporting demands placed on them. They have experienced being under-resourced in various respects, so I didn't think it would be as reasonable that they could actually produce that. I'm sure they'd be interested, but I didn't want to make the demand on them.

M. Turpel-Lafond: All right. No. 3, which comes into the issue of service standards — again, this comes on the heels of much of the discussion we've been having — is that the ministry review its current child-in-care standards, child and family service standards, and the AOPSI, or aboriginal operations and practice standards and indicators, alongside current policy by October 2008 and affirm or amend by April 2009.

On that, again, it was very significant in this review to see that if standards need to be reconsidered, they should be formally reconsidered, adopted, trained to and so forth — so to set some time frames around that. That has been a planned activity for the ministry for some time, but it hasn't come to completion, so it's in the great interest to the representative's office that that planned activity be completed and moved toward completion.

I can certainly say that in discussions I had yesterday with the directors of the delegated agencies, they're aware of it with respect to the AOPSI process. But there needs to be a time frame. Standards are standards; there will always be changes. But to do the major changes that are required…. It isn't really appropriate in the review to say: "Well, the standard is a barrier to dealing with the challenges here."

Then that has to be addressed, reviewed and changed as is appropriate, and changed with a greater evidence-based approach around what will work in this field.

Of course, that really does affect the quality assurance activities as well, which we'll speak about later, because the performance management piece…. It's performance auditing to standards. So on the other end of it, the quality assurance side, they say, "We're not evaluating it because some of the standards don't make sense," or what have you. Well, then we have to make sure both sides of that system are working and the continued improvement is happening where they're not doing it. So by April 2009, it would be my expectation that that work should be completed.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I have a question. I am aware, and you're aware…. I believe Sandra Griffin is a new deputy minister that's been appointed specifically to look into the area of quality assurance. I wonder if you have any comments on what progress you see in that regard from that deputy.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, I think that's very promising. The fact that there's an ADM of quality assurance is really promising. There are two sides of the ministry that have to work together in tandem. One is the policy side, which deals with standards. The other side is quality assurance. They can't be separated. They need to be very close together. The policy side has been working on this.

From the perspective of the representative, policy development in the Ministry of Children and Families has historically, from what I can see, involved…. A policy paper will be developed. There will be some limited discussion with staff, supervisors and possibly front-line staff at some locations around the province, so maybe 200 staff will be consulted. Then there will be a new thing. That's a valuable process.

The representative's view is that there should be evidence in that process. What staff think and believe is important is crucial. But also, what about the outcomes for the kids? If we're going to embark on any type of new standard, what is the relationship between that standard and outcomes? The staff that are working may actually not have any of that information. So how the policy process happens is important.

Yes, it has to be informed by the practice but also the outcomes for the kids — the health, the safety, the well-being. That's the outcomes information. The quality assurance side of that equation should have that outcomes information. Those two pieces should work together. Some of those pieces have just recently been put in place, and they need to move from these various silos to a systems approach. I appreciate that they have made a commitment to do that.

I think that's very positive, but it will be trying to see evidence of that relatively soon. It has been in planned activities for many years, so at least by April 2009, we want to get the standards part done so we can then evaluate that.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Do you see an ongoing role for the representative in doing the measurements of these outcomes and contributing to that analysis?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Absolutely. The office of the representative, in the monitoring function and the research and evaluation function that we have, can play a very significant role to assist with the policy side, to assist to keep the outcomes focused — to strengthen and provide that. There's a great chance for us to collaborate with the ministry, and I can say that, in fact, we are in many respects on that.

Ultimately, we would like to see those two pieces come together. From our evaluation of these critical incidents in the north, the impact of having those silos and leaving that system without that integration is fairly significant on vulnerable children. I think it can certainly be improved.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Now, you've got time lines here to April. I hope and presume that you're not going to wait till April to see how that's going and then begin evaluation. I presume it's an ongoing process with the ministry now. Is it not?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, it's something that…. I certainly would like to have that information sharing, so I can see what's being developed and what's rolling out. So I'm reviewing what they have to date. This has been a planned activity for a while, so I think the challenge will be to see if the planned activity has got the focus and attention to get it there.

I think providing some time frames from this committee would probably be very helpful in that as well.

M. Turpel-Lafond: All right. This cluster of recommendations, which are fairly detailed for good reason, has to do with quality assurance — the other end of that policy, the quality assurance side. The MCFD…. The recommendation is that they take immediate steps to strengthen quality assurance standards and publicly report on these activities, beginning October 2008.

The items that are identified — I'm looking for some progress with respect to these by October 2008. You'll see a December deadline as well. I'm looking for some immediate steps — particularly focused on the north, although it would be of great value if it were all over British Columbia, but at least in the north region — responding to the circumstances I've seen.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Monitoring reportable circumstances reports, aggregating them and reporting semi-annually on recurring findings and circumstances — is none of that occurring now? In other words, is there nobody in the ministry monitoring trends, so to speak?

M. Turpel-Lafond: With respect to the quality assurance activities that are there now in terms of No. 4, the representative is of the view that the quality assurance standards are inadequate.

There is an audit function. The audits are not comprehensive. They're not audits of all service standards, and they're not in all regions. The sample sizes are so small that they are, in many instances, statistically insignificant. You cannot draw any conclusions from them. So then there are significant gaps, and that covers these standards.

So the audit program that was developed was, I believe — and perhaps Cory can correct me — revised around 2003-2004.

It was developed. The idea was that all of these areas would come on line, and it hasn't been fully ruled out. And then there hasn't been that refreshing of it.

The other position that has been a bit of a challenge from the perspective of the representative's office is the accountability and transparency. It's the view of the representative's office that audits should be publicly available and posted, and that should be true for delegated aboriginal agencies and ministry offices. So that hasn't happened routinely. Some are posted; some are not.

In a quality assurance system, it should be completed. Where there are challenges, there should be new strategies to bring practice up. Then there should also be regular public accounting around the performance of that system.

So this is a great opportunity to improve this. It's a longstanding issue certainly going back to the Gove inquiry, where there was a recommendation that there be a strengthened quality assurance system. But given the review in the north over this period of time, clearly this is still of enormous importance for the performance of the ministry and meeting the needs of the children.

On the issues, the detail that I provided in the report, which is at page 110 if you want to see the detail, is recurring issues; the reportable circumstances, which I'll talk about more in recommendation 5; the tracking and annual reporting — what happens with the recommendations that are made.

In particular there is an item that I think is of enormous significance for quality assurance, and that is surveys of children in care, their birth parents, caregivers or foster parents around satisfaction — what's working, what's not working, short-term surveys, longitudinal surveying and, of course, regular external program evaluations and public reporting on that. So an external evaluation of the foster program, for instance — with the public reporting on it, the constant process of doing that, and recommendations being implemented — is crucial.

J. Rustad: If I may, just out of curiosity…. I know that university students from various institutions often take on longer-term projects, the more longitudinal-type studies as well as short-term studies with regards to that. Do you think there would be any potential value in engaging a post-secondary institution in terms of perhaps tracking or monitoring of information? I mean, I understand that the information is sensitive, and that could also present an issue. I'm just kind of wondering whether or not there would be a potential role there from the research perspective.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yeah, absolutely there is. There are national sort of longitudinal looks at child abuse and maltreatment which British Columbia feeds information into, which is really important. But obviously ongoing research is significant to look at outcomes for children.

So once we can have better outcome information, then it's easy to have anonymized data sets, for instance, that researchers can use. That is extremely valuable as well as the in-house research function. Certainly through my office we are involved in a number of research projects in collaboration with universities, the ministry and others to see that the quality assurance system has the strength that it needs to do that.

If you look around at other systems that are very strong, some of the U.S. states and elsewhere, you'll see that they had a very significant investment in looking at outcomes over a period of time, looking at how outcomes have improved with new standards and so forth.

But most importantly, there has generally been a significant improvement when there's been accountability and openness around how the system is functioning at the level of things like how many visits the social worker or the guardianship worker had, how long it takes till permanency planning and so on.

I'll speak a bit more about those after, but there has been significant improvement once the information gets out.

R. Cantelon (Chair): A question to you, Representative. You've mentioned external programs, and you're talking about surveys. What role would the representative's office have in these surveys and perhaps in overseeing the surveys around external programs? Would you be directly involved or indirectly involved? How do you see yourself either working with the ministry to get the information you need to satisfy…?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think in the immediate future, in particular, it will be of great value in all these areas if the representative's office was involved. It would be very easy for us to say: "Look, this is a very strong survey. Clearly, it demonstrates consistency in its methodology with other jurisdictions where we've had a very strong survey."

That type of relationship would be very helpful. We can look at it after the fact, but if there are issues, it's probably better that we do that.

Also, there are the issues, of course, of our independence. But there are issues of other ministries, like the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, where we need to move to see the children that I saw in this investigation into deaths essentially as a vulnerable population of children in British Columbia. That vulnerable population of children will be served by a variety of systems. These are the most difficult ones in the sense that they face immediate risk of harm and death, and so the child protection investigation part of that system is there. But as we'll see in the recommendations, the health system and others are too.

That approach to evaluation and so on…. It has to be through the various ministries. The Ministry of Children and Families can take leadership on that, but the representative's office will want to see what has been the interface with the Ministry of Health and what has been the interface with the Ministry of Education. Is this up to a standard…? Would an independent researcher who has conducted very significant research on large populations find that this meets the standard?

J. Brar: The ministry's response to this has been what they call the integrated case review framework document. This report certainly suggests that your office states that "the new framework does not demonstrate enough detail to serve the interests of public accountability and continuous organizational learning and is not fully responsive to Mr. Hughes's recommendations in this area."

Can you provide some update as to where we are in terms of that? There has been, I think, ongoing communication between your office and the minister's office.

Just on recommendation 4, which is on the quality assurance framework. The Ministry of Children and Families new plan, which they presented to the standing committee as well and described, speaks to an integrated quality assurance framework, which of course my office is very committed to.

However, the integrated quality assurance framework is not yet there for us to evaluate. It's under development as we speak, if you like. As soon as we have it, we will provide the analysis. So we can't speak to that.

Just with respect to your question, I'll get into recommendation 5 with the permission of the Chair.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I did want to pause on this and spend some time on this recommendation. I have some additional material to file on it.

In evaluating and investigating this range of deaths, including the four deaths referred by the committee and other deaths during that period…. One of the issues of quality assurance is doing reviews — reviewing critical incidents, learning from critical incidents and bringing that information back to the front line of the system.

There are two documents that I'm going to provide to you, by way of supplementary information, where I've gone back and taken a closer look in support of my recommendations and findings.

You're going to receive two documents. One is background on 5(a). Looking at all of the deaths, in addition to the ones I've looked at, and all of the incidents in the north, how robust has this review process been up to present?

The second document. I looked at it for the entire province, not just the north region but in all regions and for all reviews, particularly since — it's a fairly narrow time frame — the jurisdiction of my office came into play, which is in June 2007. It's of all the reviews that I've received since June 2007 pertaining to any critical incident anywhere in British Columbia. So it broadens out the analysis a bit.

The first one I'll speak to is the document dated April 2008. That is in support of recommendation 5(a). Now, recommendation 5(a) is a recommendation that the lead responsibility for director's case reviews come back to the provincial office. This responsibility was devolved to the region four years ago, and I've recommended that it come back to provincial office. But I also want to identify that there have been some challenges at provincial office with respect to observing time frames. In any event, there has to be a strengthened role for this function.

This didn't just say "for the north." In particular, that was because the Ministry of Children and Families was of the view that it should be phrased for the entire province. Although they didn't necessarily accept it, they wanted it phrased for the entire province. I wanted to satisfy myself that the evidence supported that recommendation.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I'm sorry to interrupt you here, but I just need to clarify something. We have two documents.

R. Cantelon (Chair): One is dated April 2008, on which you've got "not for distribution." Is that intended for the use of the committee, I presume? If so, perhaps we should discuss it in camera. Or is it your…?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'd have to look at what document was circulated. No, that's for distribution.

M. Turpel-Lafond: That's fine. Right. It was not for distribution at the time that it was prepared in April 2008. It was an internal document for us, but it is prepared to be distributed today.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I just wanted to make sure that we weren't going to slide into something we should be talking about in camera.

M. Turpel-Lafond: No. I'm glad you did, because there may be a document with names on it, and we're not releasing those names. So thank you. You caused my heart to stop for a minute.

On that issue — the first one, which is looking at the north — there are two types of reviews that are done, as we've discussed in the past. There is the deputy director's review, which is a paper review. It looks at the files in the ministry. There's a director's case review, which is a fuller review that interviews people, may talk to police and looks at a variety of files.

When there has been a critical incident, such as a death of a child in care, obviously it makes good sense to use that more robust process of interviewing and understanding. The process of reviews of injuries and deaths was designed to look at the system, see how it's functioning, see if there are practice challenges, and come back and address them with a view to prevention and strengthening the system. When I examined this in the north….

There are some important time lines that the quality assurance standards set out. So for a deputy director's review, within 20 days of the incident there is a decision whether to conduct a deputy director's review — or the paper review — or a director's case review. There's a prescribed time frame of 20 days.

If it's a deputy director's review or paper review, you have 90 days to complete it. Then it goes to complete in the region, because this has been devolved to each of the regions. Then it comes back to the provincial director at headquarters. The provincial director has ten days to sign off, and the provincial director might add another recommendation. This is the way the system has been designed.

In the context of doing this investigation, I had a chance to look at the system and if it was working in the north. I expressed some views in the report, and I've given you some supplementary information today to say that I don't feel that the system is working in the north.

I've also submitted a document today to say that I don't think the system is working in British Columbia. This is more recent; this isn't historic. This is 2006-2007 to current. It's not working the way it was designed to work. As a result, I think one of the challenges that I've identified in this report is those lost learning opportunities. That information needs to be done, that process has to proceed in a certain way, and we have to see that it goes back to the front line of the system.

With respect to just the north region first, up to present — from 1999 to 2005 and then 2006 to present — I've looked at all of the deputy director's reviews and director's case reviews, including for the deaths of the children that I've examined here.

The first observation — and I made this in the report, but I will just confirm it again for the committee today — was that after Savannah Hall died and the provincial office was involved in that director's case review, there hasn't been another director's case review in the north, even though we've had a range of deaths which would require more than a file paper review. There's one pending awaiting the outcome of a criminal trial, but there haven't been any others.

Since it was devolved to the region, there were no thorough investigative reviews of these incidents. The theme of the report is, of course, lost opportunity. I think that's a very significant concern I would bring to this committee. For the ones that were done, the deputy director's reviews that were done pertaining to the north region, you will see in the document that I filed today that few, if any, adhered to the standards that were required in terms of the time frame. That was also the case for the provincial-wide analysis of them from 2006 to 2007.

Only one deputy director's review in all of British Columbia met the time line. Even that was only a paper review, but only one met the time line. Time lines aren't everything — I appreciate it — but there's some pretty egregious not-meeting-the time-lines in the sense that the time line for the director's case review, the bigger review, is an eight-month time line. So it gives you more time.

But in some instances — in too many instances, as you'll see documented in the material I provided today — an incident happened or a death happened. There has been a review, whether a paper review or a bigger investigative review. The region develops recommendations. That is then signed off in the region. The recommendations are often time-sensitive, because these are really serious circumstances. So within three months these things must happen.

Then in many of these cases, we see the sign-off by the provincial director back at head office months after those recommendations should have been completed. They're signed off, so the recommendations were to have been completed six months prior to the sign-off — in some instances sitting on a desk for 14 months instead of ten days.

I think that the concern I would express around this area is…. There is a new integrated case review framework that's been developed. I have concerns about whether that framework sets out the methodology, sets out the time frame appropriately and will allow us to see a more immediate learning opportunity. But particularly in the north region for these instances, not having another single director's case review, I think, indicates that there is a challenge. If this is a key quality assurance thing, then that's a significant challenge. The recommendations have been informed in part by that.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I'd like to know, Mary Ellen, what you think of the other agencies that take sometimes seven years to issue their recommendations. I'll speak specifically to a recent report from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which reflected concerns raised at an inquest. We're unsure which inquest, but we have a pretty good idea.

Some of those recommendations were fundamental to child safety, and it took seven years for the target audience of one particular recommendation — that doctors and psychiatrists should tell social workers when there are threats of imminent harm to a child. I'm thinking that these deputy director's and director's reviews should be timely and that the learning opportunities should be immediate, but they're not the only body that needs to learn from mistakes.

How can we continue to justify the requirement that criminal investigation and coroners' reports and other external agency reports need to be completed before other learning opportunities come along from the ministry?

So just sort of simply put, are these delays in learning systemic delays throughout the various agencies that have to do with child safety, or is it something that you see as specific, in this case, just to the ministry?

M. Turpel-Lafond: Obviously, I've only analyzed the ministry. Professional bodies and associations have various guidelines. They may have time lines; they may not. There may be criminal proceedings. In some instances these things take some time. In these cases with the child protection system, the data I've given you is only around child protection. It's not youth justice mental health. That's another whole category that has its own challenges. This is just around the child protection area, where the reason why we have the process is to have the learning.

There's always an opportunity to learn. I think that even after seven years there probably could be. But the whole idea here is more immediate learning, because we're seeing challenges in these reviews around service delivery and, of course, very poor outcomes for the children.

The key thing for me was that provincewide, since June 2007 when my office jurisdiction came into play, 36 case reviews have come to my office. Were all cases even reviewed that should have been reviewed? On that point, I would hazard a guess to say no, because I'm still getting reportables of things in a period that weren't quite there. So we're still strengthening that.

Of the 36 that came through my desk, 28 of the 36 provincially were only paper reviews. Eight were fuller reviews. It works out to be that only about 13 percent of those deaths and serious injuries are actually getting a review inside the Ministry of Children and Families provincewide. I think that's just far too low.

There's that issue, but then there's the issue of the timing. I wasn't able to assess the timing in 15 of the reviews because there were no sign-off dates. Nobody put in the date and signed it off, so it was just sort of in the system without dates. Of the 21 other reviews provincially, the ten-day calendar time frame, where it

There were some fairly significant examples of a very long period that it sat on a provincial director's desk, from 18 days to 15 months. In some instances it would have sat on a provincial director in the region's desk for eight months and then sat on a provincial director's desk for another 12 to 14 months, when in fact the recommendations were already completed, and they came in signed and nothing new was added.

Has that, in turn, gone back? Well, the people that were involved in that might be gone. The opportunity to learn may be gone. So there still can be learning, but I'm seeing that the system is not working the way it's supposed to work. These are not historic 2002. These are 2007 up to present.

In formulating this recommendation for the report, which was a provincewide recommendation, I do recommend that the decision-making comes back to the provincial office and, obviously, that there be greater sensitivity to time frames and accountability, because the public information on those 36 case reviews that is then reported out is nominal. It's all rolled up into one report. There's nothing about the circumstances or what was learned or what have you.

That's the other side of it, where the quality assurance part — the public accountability piece — needs to be coordinated.

J. Rustad: Just a couple of questions. Then I'll try to wrap. I know this is starting to go fairly long, so I'll try to keep this brief.

When you look at the percentage of the director case review versus the deputy director review at around 13 percent, how does that compare to other jurisdictions like, say, in Canada as well as around the world, particularly jurisdictions that noticeably have differences in their outcomes both from a better perspective, I guess, or a worse perspective? I'd just be interested to see what the percentage is.

The second thing is around the same thing, with the length of time for these cases to be complete. Have you had the opportunity to talk to directors or deputy directors about the particular reviews and any rationale as to why the length of time on them?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I've had extensive discussions on individual cases. Occasionally I will read reviews and have concerns arising from the reviews with respect to injuries for children on ongoing bases or what have you. It's very significant from a quality assurance perspective that the provincial director at head office has a view of the province and, where there are critical injuries, that the decision to conduct the investigation is done with some distance from where the incident happened.

Certainly for me, in looking at this around the world and other places nearby like Washington State, the fact that the provincial director in the region may be the person who decides whether or not to review a matter — say for a child in care — over which he or she had the responsibility…. I think there are some issues. I'm not saying there are conflicts-of-interest, but there need to be checks and balances in that system.

J. Rustad: I was just wondering whether or not that percentage difference is significantly different or in the same sort of ballpark as what other jurisdictions are doing.

Then, just like as you said…. I'm sure that you did have the conversations. I'm wondering if they provided some rationales, if there were reasons why cases couldn't get completed sooner or whether it was that there were just too many things piled on or whether this wasn't enough priority put into them or what the issue may have been.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think in some instances there may have just been some slippage around things sitting on desks. But in any event, the need to have the system function is significant.

The second recommendation under No. 5 is the recommendation that DCRs or the fuller investigative reviews be conducted in every case where the child dies or is critically injured in unusual or suspicious circumstances. I mean, that's what informed my recommendation to say: "Move away from the paper-only reviews." Even if there is a criminal matter, you can still do a paper review during the criminal matter, or that can be done if there are other matters. In very few of these incidents were there criminal matters in any event — maybe 2 percent.

J. Rustad: Actually, just a repeat. Have you had the chance, then, to do that comparison as to other jurisdictions?

M. Turpel-Lafond: It's difficult to compare it. Again, the policies are different. In Washington State you'll see an automatic review under these circumstances. It's posted on the website — not the name, but where it happened, what the circumstances were around what happened and what the outcome was in terms of the learning, the training, whatever came back.

For each individual incident, you'll see that posted. They also post the time frames and whether or not there are ones pending that they haven't done yet. Each year you would know how many are not completed, how many are completed and so on. That transparency would be very helpful here.

J. Rustad: But we wouldn't know in terms of the percentage of the difference between a DDR and a DCR.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, particularly for those that are done, sudden unexpected deaths almost always get a fuller investigation other than a paper review.

J. Brar: All the recommendations are important, but this one, in my opinion, is a very, very key recommendation we have in front of us. We can have the trained

workforce, full capacity and all that, but if the case reviews are not conducted in a timely fashion and we are not learning from them in a timely fashion, that is a problem.

We know the accountability is the key here. We know the gaps. We know the history, and we also know now that there were historically time frames and all that which were not respected by the system. We also know that we have a new framework in front of us which, according to your office, is not a good one to move forward.

So my question is: what steps do we need to take to move forward in the right direction?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think the adoption of the recommendations which have been framed on a provincewide basis…. I've done a bit of analysis to support it outside the north. I think the adoption of the recommendations would be extremely valuable.

The integrated model that they developed was sent to me. It's a model that would work if all these other issues weren't present. There's a lot left to discretion.

If it was a system in which we were seeing real adherence to time frames, thorough reviews and investigations, and we saw a pattern of that, and we saw a pattern of that oversight everywhere, then an integrated framework that has a lot of discretion and without a lot of methodology in it might be okay. But in this circumstance where we're seeing this challenge, and we're seeing an integrated framework that doesn't require mandatory reviews where the child in care, say, dies or so on, I think we need these strong recommendations and then to see if the system can work.

They have standards in place now which are their own standards that they're not meeting. The key thing is the learning to go back. So even after these reviews are signed off, even a considerable period outside the time frame, what went back? On that side it's not easy to track what went back, because it can become part of a very broad training activity, or it can be a very specific learning opportunity.

So that's why each of the recommendations, 5(a) to 5(f), has sort of been framed as a provincial-wide recommendation.

R. Cantelon (Chair): If I may, just a technical question. In 5(e) you recognize the sensitivity of privacy information through David Loukidelis's office. I presume you vetted that. Would not some of that perhaps apply to 5(d) when you're sharing case reviews with ministry staff? Do we not have to be somewhat cautious in that when we started to talk about the recommendations going back, have we vetted that through PIPA? I'm just questioning.

M. Turpel-Lafond: First of all, there were amendments to the CF and CSA in spring 2007 because the Hughes review called for that. So there were amendments to allow for posting of information. Summaries are to be posted, but they may be so high-level and conglomerated that there are really no specifics around what may have happened or not happened.

I think, obviously, there has to be a balance between public accountability and individual privacy. But I'm not seeing any impediments to posting individual summaries appropriately anonymized that wouldn't identify. There's nothing to say — and certainly the Information and Privacy Commissioner hasn't said: "Don't do that." It hasn't been done. So I'm of the view that that needs to happen as soon as possible.

Of course, you have to remember in this that families — so parents, adult siblings, grandparents — will not receive a copy of the director's case review or the deputy director's review. They'll never see that document. They will never know what happened. To review an annual summary that just…. Their child is conglomerated with 36. "Thirty-six incidents were reviewed, and 16 recommendations were concluded" and so on is quite meaningless.

Around public accountability, I think it's important that there be that posting. I think it's more robust, more informative, and I think that in terms of the performance of the child welfare system, certainly British Columbians should expect that information. There's no barrier there.

Around those issues for family members in particular, I think that they're not going to get those reports, and that continues to be the position of the ministry. They will get a report that my office may or may not do, but it may not be an individual report on the incident. When the child's case has been reviewed, some type of summary may be quite significant to them in particular.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I certainly would agree with that, but I'm just going to 5(d), which says "share all case reviews." Does that not mean that the specific chapter and verse would be reviewed with all of these people? Is that not the intent of that recommendation?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'm of the view that they should share them. I'm recommending certainly to this committee that they be shared. I don't see the impediment to that. I think they should be shared. The ministry has had a challenge in the past. If they do an investigation, will people speak as openly if they think it will be shared with the family later? There are those issues.

Those are legitimate issues, but I think that there has to be information-sharing with family members quickly. If this process is quicker — it can happen — it doesn't drag on for a long period of time. Again, as I noted in the report, the director's case review and the deputy director's review don't form part of the record even if there's a coroner's inquest.

It's not a document that will be seen, but it's a document developed to improve practice. It has a public accountability side to it — at least posting it publicly. But also it has to be used for that very purpose, which is going back and improving practice as well.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I think it's important to remove the immediate decision on case reviews from the regions. That should be situated in the provincial headquarters. I know you didn't say there was a conflict of interest of any sort, and that wasn't the suggestion, but there is some close proximity between practice and decisions that are made in the provincial headquarters.

From my experience…. You mention in this document that the director can add recommendations to a director's review, but they can also take recommendations out. They have taken recommendations out. I think that's when some evidence suggests that there needs to be some transparency in that decision, not just when those reviews are made but the process in which they are completed. I think it's important that there is a central oversight, that they have their own internal system of accountability.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think from the perspective of the representative, I would like to be really clear with the committee to say that I think there is a conflict of interest. I'm not saying a conflict of interest operated in each of these individual cases, but I think that there's an appearance, and there's a real conflict of interest. So the fiduciary obligation of the director, particularly for the child in care, and that same director then deciding to review it fully or a paper-only review, to me is an apparent and real conflict of interest.

To ensure that that doesn't happen, the review process has to be guided by someone who is outside that and by a strong methodology with a strong commitment to a time line and to improving practice. It doesn't have to be adversarial, but it has to have the checks and balances. So I'm recommending it be removed to provincial office and that it have those characteristics.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): You will be told of every investigation that they decide to do and every one that they decide not to do.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Recommendation 6 is the audit program. Now, on the quality assurance side, the audit program, which we've spoken a bit about earlier, is an area of significance. Again, going back to the Hughes review, the quality assurance activities in terms of the audit tool and audit program were items of concern to Mr. Hughes, and they've been items that we have been monitoring very carefully for the representative's office.

As you'll know from the analysis, it was a strong position taken by our office that not only would we look at individual cases throughout this period — and the four are referred — but we would also look at all the available audit and quality assurance data.

Now, that audit and quality assurance data was valuable. It had some significant gaps in it, and it was evident that there's a need to strengthen that audit program. I think that was also identified fairly strongly in the report from the federal and provincial auditor with respect to the aboriginal child protection area as well. So it's not anything new to anybody. In any event, it continues to pose a significant barrier around improving practice, the level of practice.

The audit program. The recommendations here are really geared to specific steps that should be immediately taken and progress reported by October 2008 on these steps.

So what was the detail around that? Well, increasing the minimum number of files examined in any local office to ensure statistical confidence and results; boosting the frequency of rotational audits to three years, including the delegated aboriginal agencies; conducting additional audits annually and randomly choosing one on child protection, one on guardianship; two local offices per each region — I think that would be valuable; sharing audit results and findings with staff; requiring that senior management in a region sign off on all audits and each recommendation in a timely fashion, of course, before sending them in to provincial office; ensuring that each recommendation is implemented and evaluated and adding the components of the plan of care — for instance, health and education as critical measures would be audited too; preparing semi-annual reports of aggregated audit findings and, of course, ensuring that there's remedial action when the audit indicates some deficiencies in terms of practice.

On that point, I would just say that there's always the issue of what is a good result. When you audit to a service standard, like maintaining child safety or assessing child safety, what's a good audit result? Well, 100 percent is a good audit result. I think it is really difficult for my office as the representative's office to say that 80 percent is a good result. What about the 20 percent?

One hundred percent is a good result. Anything less than 100 percent is not a good result. Saying that we're going to move from 16 percent to 25 percent is not appropriate. We need to go to 100 percent.

Now, whether it happens or not is another thing, but the evaluation framework on this part is that it's 100 percent. We're dealing with core issues like child safety, so this is a unique performance audit area.

The recommendation in No. 6 particularly calls for these immediate steps by October 2008. As the Chair mentioned earlier, the ministry, through the new ADM for quality assurance, is evaluating this, I know. We're certainly meeting regularly to explain the rationale behind this and encouraging them to take some of those immediate steps.

No. 7, then. In the reviews, of the four cases referred, only one, Savannah Hall, was a child in care. Obviously, they're all touched by the child protection system, but only one was a child in care: Savannah Hall. Of the others that we reviewed, which we didn't give the names or the circumstances of in detail, there

were other children in care. Better reporting on outcomes for children in care is considered to be a significant part of responding to what we saw — in particular, recommendation 7.

Now, would this be of value for the entire province? I think it would be. We've only framed the recommendation for the north, but I certainly would encourage this type of reporting provincewide.

For the north, I would like to see, as of December 2008 and then semi-annually, a report on the children in care that includes their progress at school — the receipt of support services geared to promoting their academic achievement, for instance; participation in early childhood education; their health status — and this was a significant issue for Savannah Hall — especially comprehensive assessments of any delays, needed therapy and support; comprehensive plans of care and permanency plans; the number of face-to-face visits by guardianship workers in the preceding six months; the number of moves; for those who would return home or return to another setting, the recurrence of maltreatment — if there is another child protection investigation in the preceding six months, if it's every six months, or the preceding year; and advocacy services sought and received.

This is an interim step. I'd like to see these reported on. I think these are very significant indicators.

The health information. Let's talk about the health status. What would that include, to know about the health status of the child in care in the north region? Well, what I saw in this investigation was not necessarily adequately supporting the health needs of the child — things like immunizations. Was there chronic disease? Was there an issue around supporting better nutrition if there was a diabetes situation? So really seeing some good information around their health status. That, I think, for the north, for the 1,070 children in care in the north, would be very valuable by December 2008.

Recommendation 7(b) is that the same report for children in the care of a delegated agency be prepared in collaboration with the agency. That's not only the ones that are in the care of the ministry but those with the delegated agencies.

I recognize here that the delegated agencies are of the view that they don't have the capacity to prepare these reports, because they feel they're understaffed. I think it's very important that the ministry ensure that they have adequate staff and support to do this as well.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Just on that issue, will the federal government acknowledge its responsibility for funding those on the reserve, or what?

M. Turpel-Lafond: The report has been provided to the Department of Indian Affairs. I think that it is significant when we look at renewing funding, etc. Of course, some of these children move between the MCFD and the delegated agencies. They may not all be on reserve.

I'm on to 7(c). The ministry begins in 2008 to report on key measures for aboriginal children in care. As we know, in particular in the north, in excess of 70, close to 80 percent, of the children in care are aboriginal. So this investigation identified a number of deaths and injuries where the aboriginal identity wasn't appropriately identified and also where the plans of care did not include measures to strengthen aboriginal identity.

For the aboriginal children in care in the north, that that reporting process include reporting on the number of aboriginal children, their identity — like, if their band has been notified, and if there have been those appropriate notifications, if a delegated agency has been notified and particular measures taken to support aboriginal identity — and also the work that's been done with aboriginal communities around safety assessments.

Again, in many of these instances…. Savannah Hall is an example. There may have been a relative which would have been an appropriate placement, but that wasn't investigated, and Savannah Hall was placed in a non-aboriginal foster home. So ensure that those aboriginal resources and that work in the aboriginal community occurs to find those aboriginal resources — reporting on that as well as reporting on measures to sustain cultural identity and whether adoptions are planned.

This is a very thorny issue, of course, for the aboriginal community. Some aboriginal communities in British Columbia take the view that none of their children should be adopted under any circumstances. But there is a process within the Ministry of Children and Families that the adoptions exceptions committee has to have a cultural plan. So I'm calling for some greater reporting around how many adoptions are occurring, how many of them have a cultural plan and have gone through the exceptions committee. That would be a valuable component of that reporting process.

Finally, 7(d): the idea of an aboriginal children's council for the north region. This recommendation…. Obviously, the Ministry of Children and Families works with communities, and delegated agencies work with communities. That's important. Those are our front-line connections.

It was a view of the representative, though, that the degree of attention to the safety and well-being needs of vulnerable aboriginal children in the north is not what it could and should be and that there should be a council meeting regularly with full information about the status of the children. How many children are in care? Are they in school? All of this information should come to that council so that it gives people an opportunity to work more effectively to support them. It's a much more holistic approach.

So the Ministry of Children and Families may have a discussion, but there may be some very significant issues for a teacher, for a principal, for a particular school where there can be lost opportunities to do the work. Because so many of these children are invisible, even at times to the first nations leadership, I think that we need another mechanism.

I'm not suggesting that it be a political mechanism. I mean a non-political council that could be a focal point for considering, given the demographics and trends in the north, how we can better secure the

safety, well-being and good outcomes for those extremely vulnerable 1,000-plus children.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I think John has a question, and then we'll take a break at this point. There is lunch, and it'll give the representative a chance to regain her voice.

J. Rustad: There's no question, with regards to the information that you're looking at and you're recommending, that that would be very valuable information and very useful. I'm just curious whether you have had any concern about this information perhaps being misused. What I mean by that is it creating perhaps too much of a focus and creating some tensions that could be based on groups of children and their particular identities.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think that it has a great potential for people to work together. Certainly, in preparing the report and on the advocacy side — meeting with municipal leaders, first nations leaders, etc. — I think it's just the invisibility of the children and not knowing if municipal planning should involve better planning to support these children, particularly where there's a migration into the urban centres.

The real information in terms of how many children and how old they are and how they're doing and so forth…. I think there's always a potential to misuse it, but I really think that if the spirit was to come together to think about how to build more supports, that would be there. You know, that holistic approach — aboriginal children are welcome and supported in a community and have a system of support to make sure that they're doing well, that they're in school, that they get the health care they need and that there's the housing support. To me, it’s just a plus, plus, plus.

To really get the housing people, the municipal people, the first nations to talk together with information — not just come together and say: "Gee, what do you think we should do for children?" No. "What do you think we should do with these vulnerable children, given these circumstances in our communities?" Then I think that might spur some really important partnerships, at least in the north. There are collaborations now, but even stronger collaborations.

I certainly have seen an enormous willingness across all lines to do that, but if it's only the Ministry of Children and Families and one, it doesn't come out. It doesn't allow the people in the north, also, to support more strongly these children and their families.

R. Cantelon (Chair): We'll recess for 15 minutes, get some sustenance and regroup.

R. Cantelon (Chair): I would like to reconvene the committee. I recognize that we'll carry on amidst the minor clatter of dishes as we finish our lunches.

We're on recommendation 8. So please carry on with the lunches as the representative carries on with the meeting.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I'll move along then to recommendation 8. That recommendation is that the north region review its protocols with partner agencies in health, education, police to ensure that they're up to date and meet the needs of information-sharing for child safety and well-being. No questions on that?

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, it is pretty self-explanatory. It's a very broad recommendation.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Recommendation 9. The recommendations clustered in No. 9 go to the issue identified in the investigation that the four children in particular, and in two cases their parents, had identified and unidentified medical needs that would've required fuller assessment and support. Similar findings were found on that point in ministry reviews, coroners' inquests, etc.

So the recommendation 9(a) is that the ministry review standards of practice for children served and children in care, to include explicit clinical guidance to the ministry staff regarding the health needs of children who are being assessed or who have been admitted to care for child maltreatment by 2008 — so to conduct the review by 2008 and to fully implement those changes to standards by April 2009. As was noted in the report, the interest of the representative's office is that there be more comprehensive assessments, medical examinations, etc.

So 9(b), that the ministry, when planning for children in care, include planning to meet the child's medical needs; 9(c), that the ministry and the SCAN clinic update their protocol to improve collaboration, communication and planning for the children and families that they both serve; 9(d), that the ministry and the delegated agencies, the Northern Health Authority, the northern SCAN clinic evaluate the need for access to medical expertise on maltreated children and develop and implement a plan to rectify any issue in this regard.

Finally 9(e), that the Ministries of Health and Children and Family Development jointly examine the recommendations of the Canadian Pediatric Society cited in this report and evaluate the report by 2008 on any barriers or roadblocks to their full implementation, with a process update by July 2008. That should be forthcoming. So on that one, again, touching on other ministries and the Ministry of Health, the representative's office has had contact with the provincial health officer, Dr. Kendall, with respect to this, to assist us to see if there are any barriers.

As you will note in the report, the Canadian Pediatric Society recommended certain investigation and health support be provided for vulnerable children, particularly those that come into care. So that recommendation is speaking to how British Columbia will address it. I think that the Ministry of Health may also involve the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the B.C. Medical Association in that process. So that's recommendation 9.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Just a question on that. Considering the time frame, do you think that July 2008 is when we will have an update, by that time? Do you think that's still a realistic date?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think it's a realistic update to see if the process has been engaged. There is one more subset, which is recommendation 9(f), that the two ministries — the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Health — develop a plan to implement that.

Once they have their review and consider how to do it, they're going to plan for how they're going to ensure that happens for the children in care. Obviously, that would have to include the 9,200 children now in care as well as any new children coming into care.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I'm just wondering if you chose children in care specifically as a way of limiting it to those who are officially…. We know that the number of non-aboriginal children in care is going down. Alternative placements often involve intensive ministry involvement. I'm just wondering if these capture those children who are placed in alternative methods.

M. Turpel-Lafond: The recommendation was really for the children in care, because the Canadian Pediatric Society identified the standards of care for foster children in particular. However, as I have observed in the past, it may very well be that children, say, in the home of a relative, in kinship placement, may have very similar vulnerabilities to children in foster care or in temporary or continuing care. There may be some merit. About 30 percent of those children are coming into care, so there is some migration there.

The importance is to especially capture those in short-term temporary care. I think that's where there's an enormous opportunity. So if someone is in a temporary situation, three to six months in care, you have the opportunity to do the health assessments before they return back and then to maintain those contacts with health professionals.

I'll be very interested with respect to this recommendation in evaluating and updating the committee further, should you adopt it, on measures that can be taken — throughout British Columbia but especially in the north — to implement that.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Certainly, some of these things are more minor — not minor to an individual — but vision, hearing and dental screening is being done provincewide. Obviously, greater care needs to be taken with those in care because their problems can be exacerbated by, perhaps, a deteriorating physical condition, and they need to be more carefully screened. I think that's the intention of this.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Yeah. I think the importance is to recognize that for the vulnerable population of children that come into care or around the care system, those issues like vision, hearing, etc., often are only screened once they're in kindergarten. So it's that earlier period to make sure that those screenings are early and ongoing.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, it might present the opportunity to learn more broadly about public health from more emphasis on children in care.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Uh-huh. And again, I can certainly say that the provincial health officer, Dr. Kendall, is very supportive. Many of the initiatives that Dr. Kendall has been involved in with the Ministry of Health have been focused, as you've indicated, in strengthening early health support screening and so on.

It was clear in the reviews of the deaths and injury here that the children did not…. Apart from the evaluation where they experienced maltreatment of abuse, they didn't receive the other medical and therapeutic supports that they would have required for healthy development and to be supported. That did compromise them very significantly and also placed them at additional risk.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Recommendation 10 pertains to the Coroners Service, that the Coroners Service report more regularly on the status of its current investigations of child deaths and that the Coroners Service make public the criteria that are used to make decisions about whether or not to conduct an inquest into a child's death.

There were issues around the Coroners Service and the timeliness of inquests that came out of these four cases. Many of those issues have resolved. Particularly in the wake of the Hughes review, legislation was changed. There are additional resources in the Coroners Service. I'm not an oversight body for the Coroners Service, of course, but there are aspects where there can still be additional clarity.

The representative's office works very closely with the Coroners Service in these matters, but certainly promotes, around things like the decision about when to do an inquest, that we understand what the criteria are that will influence and impact upon that.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Well, we know, as you've mentioned, that there have been more resources. There have been changes in the scope of the authority. It may be useful to this committee at some point to consider how that relates to your work and bring them forward for a discussion on that.

M. Turpel-Lafond: I can say, on the Coroners Service, that since the representative's office came into being and we've begun to review critical injuries and deaths and receive the reportables, I think just even having that relationship with the Coroners Service

where we say, "Is the cause of death unknown here?" and the Coroners Service being able to have a judgment of inquiry before a full inquest to determine the cause of death…. Those devices are very helpful.

Also, where the cause of death is known, should the Coroners Service still do something or should it come over to the representative's office, where we can look at the child welfare system or the child-serving system? We've been coordinating that very practically on the ground, and from what I saw in the past, I think there has been some significant progress on that front. Still there's always the opportunity just to have the reporting out to the public so that they understand what the reasons are when an inquest is conducted, and having those policies in place.

L. Krog: Mary Ellen, I think you've sort of answered the question I was about to ask. I was going to ask to whom and how, in terms of those reports. You're saying that they should report more regularly. I'm just…. What do you envision?

M. Turpel-Lafond: What I would like them to do is…. They have the child death unit, which deals with closed cases. It's the cases that are open where an inquest may or may not be held. We'd like to see…. Let's say that's in the in-box in the Coroners Service. Each year they would say: "Well, where is that?" That is still pending for an inquest, or it's going to go to a judgment of inquiry. It's really just to regularly report on where they are, so that they don't come in and just sit for a period of time.

There may be very good reasons why they're there. There might be a criminal proceeding or what have you, but they don't sit without the public knowing what the status of it is. You don't have to just report that it's completed. You could report that it's pending or what have you. We would like to see more regularized reporting.

L. Krog: I'm asking very specifically: a press release, a report to the Leg.? I mean, what…?

M. Turpel-Lafond: I think the way the Coroners Service reports is…. They're not an independent agency. They report through the Solicitor General and have their own website, so I would say that of course reporting up to the Solicitor General and then reporting in a public way by posting that on their website would be ideal. There has to be a public component of it.

M. Turpel-Lafond: The last recommendation pertains to policing and resources in support of policing. It's a recommendation that "Public Safety and Solicitor General examine the feasibility of developing a specialized investigation resource to provide training, consultation and assistance to police investigating suspicious deaths of children."

On this point, I would just report to the committee that I have had very valuable discussions with the policing community and leadership in the policing community in support of this, as well as discussions with others who are related to policing, like prosecutions and so forth. The challenge that we face, of course, always in these matters is: what do the first responders do? What information do they have? Upon whom can they call to provide additional assistance when you have a complex crime scene investigation, statement-taking and so on?

I think that, with respect to the issue of the investigation of child abuse and maltreatment, a specialized resource that would be available to first responders would be of great value. I haven't limited it to the north, because I think it could be of great value to many communities, particularly the rural and northern communities. This would see the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General supporting the development of that resource.

I can say…. It's not in this report, but it might very well be a public recommendation in the future that there be additional investments in other areas to support the criminal justice system in terms of abuse and maltreatment of children and additional prosecutorial resources, etc., to ensure that these cases receive full, timely evaluation and, where there's a criminal process, that that can function appropriately.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): I know this has been a recommendation in a number of various reports. In fact, it was one of the recommendations in the case of the Nuu-chah-nulth child that there be a comprehensive review. We look at another case — the Savannah Hall case — where, in both those circumstances, the police attended and did not consider the scene a crime scene and, consequently, didn't do any investigation into that particular area at the time.

That, plus the issue of social workers assessing the safety of a child sometimes having to address their concerns, can sometimes compromise police investigations, because they're interested in knowing what's going on and they're not primarily concerned with substantiating a court process.

The social worker needs to have some concerns about the safety of the child. The police need to have reasonable and probable grounds, and they're not always exactly in alignment. I'm just wondering if this recommendation could actually be not just specific to the RCMP but every police force in the province, and then somehow having teams assigned in complex situations right from the beginning. I guess I'm seeing this as something that needs to happen closer to the issue, at the beginning of the investigation and not subsequent to the initial report.

M. Turpel-Lafond: Well, first of all, I think the recommendation has been fairly narrowly framed. I

think when I look at the…. What could I recommend based on this investigation? This is what I could recommend based on this investigation.

When we look at this area, what's obvious to me is that like spousal abuse or motor vehicle crimes and so on, (a) there should be a policy so that in police prosecutions, the ministry has a policy; (b) there should be a resource available at short notice to first responders that come to the scene; and (c) there should be ongoing training for things like scene protection, statement-taking and these types of things that are really important, and that's a matter of policing.

But I can say that in my discussions with the heads in the policing area they've been extremely open and receptive and keen to see these types of changes, and we do have a senior major crimes person on the multidisciplinary team. Of course, this comes through that as well. There's always an opportunity to improve that.

There were some issues in this investigation that came out and those issues are, I suspect, likely to be there in other cases as well, in the future. But around strengthening those who have to deal with that side of it, I think that this is a very good recommendation to take us forward.

So that resource would be available on short notice anywhere in the province to the first responders dealing with the sudden and unexpected death of a child — to especially get the information out to first responders that the sudden unexpected death of a child, especially a child in care, should be treated as suspicious and what steps would follow that, and to allow the police to do their investigation through having appropriate information-sharing and so on.

So there's an opportunity to strengthen. I'm not a police oversight body, of course. I'm not in any position to judge police conduct, but this is a recommendation to strengthen and ensure that the coverage is there, particularly in remote areas.

R. Cantelon (Chair): It isn't specifically the RCMP. It's to any public safety officer, police investigating officer.

Well, seeing no more questions, I'd like to first thank the representative for a very comprehensive and, I would think, a very useful report, a very forward-looking report that I think is going to do much to improve the safety and health and well-being of not only children in care, but I think it sends a clear signal throughout various ministries to pay more attention to the health and care of young children, and that's of great importance to all of us throughout the province — I think to everybody in the province.

N. Simons (Deputy Chair): Thank you, hon. Chair. I concur with the member's thanks and appreciate that. I hope it's a learning opportunity for everybody and that all the relevant agencies have the resources to fulfill these recommendations.

With that, I move acceptance and receipt of these recommendations and that we formally adopt them and do whatever we have to do to make sure government knows that we approve of these recommendations. I'm sure there's a formal way of doing it.

R. Cantelon (Chair): Okay. I think we receive them, if I may, and recommend them to government, which includes all appropriate ministries.

R. Cantelon (Chair): You've heard the motion, I believe. Any further discussion?

We have no further business. We'll be discussing meetings coming in this fall to follow up with ministries. We'll be meeting with the Deputy Chair, but I anticipate meetings in September, October, November to follow up specifically and mark progress.

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.

Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Committee Staff:	Josie Schofield (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