THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 21, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:01 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, to consider the Government Response to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights entitled “Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons”, tabled in the Senate on June 16, 2021, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, senators. I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of the committee. Today, we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphones at all times, and when you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation.
I will now invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, chair. I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, deputy chair of the committee. I’m from Nova Scotia, the land of the Mi’kmaq.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, a senator from Manitoba, Treaty 1 territory and home of the Red River Métis.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, our committee will begin its study on aging out of foster care under its general order of reference. The study will examine the rights and vulnerabilities of children and youth in foster care, the challenges associated with aging out of care, positive practices in various provinces and territories and the appropriate role of the federal government.
This afternoon, we shall have two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses, and our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. The senators around this table will then have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first panel. With us today at the table, please welcome Melanie Doucet, Project Lead, National Council of Youth in Care Advocates and Adjunct Professor, School of Social Work, McGill University. By video conference, we are joined by Jacqueline Gahagan, Associate Vice-President, Research, Mount Saint Vincent University. I will now invite Ms. Doucet to make her presentation, followed by Mx. Gahagan. Thank you.
Melanie Doucet, Project Lead, National Council of Youth in Care Advocates and Adjunct Professor, School of Social Work, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you so much. Good afternoon, everyone. Today I address you not only as an academic expert on this subject, but also as a person with lived experience. I was placed in care in my home province of New Brunswick during my teenage years in the 1990s. I’m dating myself a little bit here. I also bring with me the voices and recommendations of people with lived experience from across the country, whom I am privileged of working alongside on a daily basis as we pursue equity and justice for the youth-in-care community.
According to unofficial national estimates from 2003, approximately 10% of the youth-in-care population, or 6,700, exits or ages out of the Canadian child welfare system every year due to legislated age cut-offs, often as early as the age of 18 or 19. However, this number underestimates the number of youth who age out of care every year today. Given that this estimate is unofficial and over 20 years old, many provinces and territories still do not publicly report this data, and there is no national database tracking this information in Canada.
According to Statistics Canada, nearly 63% of youth aged 20 to 24 in the general population are still living with their parents, with many continuing to live at home up until the age of 30, at about 43%. Youth in care do not have that luxury. Research confirms that young people who are forced to leave the child welfare system before they are ready to be on their own face major intersecting challenges, such as: Homeless youth are nearly 200 times more likely to have been placed in care. Youth aging out of care tend to begin their adulthood living below the poverty line, with a higher reliance on social assistance, at 40%, compared to their peers in the general population, at 2.5%. Youth in care are also up to five times more likely to be affected by post-traumatic stress disorder than their peers in the general population, with rates comparable to those of Vietnam War veterans. Youth in care are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system, at 36%, than to graduate high school, at 26%. They also have a 1 in 6 chance to be detained or sentenced to custody compared to a 1 in 50 chance for their peers.
These are all areas that intersect with federal-level responsibilities, such as the National Housing Strategy, homelessness and poverty reduction, public health, employment and continuing education and justice. Unlike most Western countries, Canada has no federal legal framework, no accountability mechanism, no national database tracking youth‑in-care outcomes, nor any national standards or guidelines that establish equitable entitlements for youth in care as they transition to adulthood. Out of 36 countries in the Global North, Canada is one of the six countries that does not have federal legislation to protect the rights of youth exiting care. Consequently, access to services and supports is deeply inequitable across jurisdictions, with Indigenous, Black, racialized and 2SLGBTQ+ youth and those with disabilities experiencing the greatest harm. Meaningful systemic change at a national level is needed for safer and equitable youth-in-care transitions to adulthood that are based on readiness and developmental capacity rather than an arbitrary age.
Cost-benefit analyses in Ontario and B.C. show that extending care into the 20s can reap significant positive outcomes for youth and society, with significant savings for social services systems. The cost of inaction is high — the lives of youth in care, who lose their lives at up to five times the rate of their peers in the general population.
All levels of government — federal, provincial and territorial — should respond to the opportunity presented by the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care to ensure coherence and equity across jurisdictions. These standards, released in 2021 by me and the National Council of Youth in Care Advocates, provide step-by-step, rights-based solutions that are centred on lived expertise, research and best practices.
The national council’s vision is this: We dream of a world where “aging out” no longer exists in our vocabulary nor in child protection legislation and mandates. We dream of a society where youth in care are interdependently supported throughout their entire lives, just as their peers who are not in care who can rely upon their families, friends and communities well beyond the age of majority.
It’s time that we turn this vision into a reality. Youth in care deserve to be part of a society where they are valued, loved, nurtured and invested in so that they may thrive and not just struggle to survive. We ask Canada to enact federal legislation to protect the rights of youth exiting care, put in place a national database that will track youth in care and their outcomes and establish national standards for equitable entitlements for youth exiting care by endorsing and adopting the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you. We have been joined by two colleagues, and I will ask them to introduce themselves.
Senator Senior: Senator Paulette Senior, Ontario.
Senator Youance: Senator Suze Youance, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you. I will now give the floor to Mx. Gahagan for her opening remarks.
Jacqueline Gahagan, Associate Vice-President Research, Mount Saint Vincent University, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation to speak with you today about the issue of aging out of foster care. The issues facing those aging out of foster care are complex and intersectoral, cutting across education, housing, health and economic sectors. Specifically, these cross-cutting issues can include inadequate housing, employment barriers, access to needed health care, discrimination and marginalization, limited financial and social support, involvement in the criminal justice system and low educational attainment.
Given the complexity of aging out of care, we are in urgent need of a more robust, evidence-informed, national approach that includes monitoring and evaluating the ways in which existing supports for this population are or are not meeting their needs. In my opening statement, I would like to emphasis three key points for your consideration.
The first is the need for comprehensive longitudinal data. The limited available national data suggests there is a continuing and long-standing over-representation of Black, Indigenous and queer youth in the child welfare system in our country. These data also indicate that our efforts to address the needs of these youth may, in fact, not be meeting their needs, particularly in relation to educational attainment, noting that less than 50% of youth from care complete high school. Given the lack of completed high school education, youth coming from the care system face significant barriers in accessing employment, housing and in completing post-secondary education. However, comprehensive longitudinal data are lacking, which, in turn, makes it challenging to fully understand what is actually contributing to better outcomes for those with care experience. Comprehensive longitudinal data would also help ensure our policy and programming efforts are evidence-informed and, further, that these data would allow us to evaluate impacts by province and territory as well as nationally and to adjust our responses and efforts accordingly.
The second is the need to address the existing patchwork approach. The current FPT patchwork approach to the types of care interventions offered across the country and the lack of systematic reporting of data related to how current and former youth in care are being served by such programs is truly problematic. If we truly want to know if and how existing child welfare interventions are working by location, we need to address the FPT patchwork. To achieve this, we need an accessible, centralized, national data repository to ensure that, for example, Statistics Canada collects and reports on these data. Without these data, we will not have a full understanding of the educational, health, social or economic outcomes of this population.
Further, a national equitable standards support for those aging out of care is needed regardless of the time spent in care and where they spent time in care. Existing provincial and federal government departments that should take on a greater leadership role in this regard include provincial and territorial departments of social services as well as Statistics Canada and ESDC. We need to be able to better track, evaluate and understand the ways in which existing policies and programs aimed at supporting those in the child welfare system are working and meeting the needs of this population based upon locations in care.
My third and final point is the need for accessible post‑secondary education. The SSHRC-funded research our team is conducting examines the barriers facing former youth in care and how tuition-waiver programs can help address some of these challenges. In addition to in-depth interviews with tuition waiver recipients and those who support them in these programs, we also undertook a scoping review to understand how Canada, as a signatory of the Sustainable Development Goals, is achieving its commitment to addressing SDG4, quality education, noting that tuition-waiver programs for former youth in care are a growing trend aimed at advancing SDG4.
Our research indicates a greater emphasis on pathways to post‑secondary education among those with lived experience in care is needed, particularly while they are still in school and still in the foster care system. To do this effectively, we need to address the ways in which education is often not prioritized for this population and the ways in which social expectations for low educational attainment impact foster youth. There is an urgent need to understand these issues, given that education is regarded both as a human right as well as a key determinant of health in Canada and internationally.
In conclusion, these issues highlight the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the Canadian foster care system to ensure that youth aging out of care are supported in ways that uphold their fundamental human rights.
Thank you for your time and attention.
The Chair: I want to thank both witnesses for their presentations.
We will now turn to senators for their questions. Senators, I want to remind you that you have five minutes for questions and answers. We start with deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: I am hoping we’ll have a second round of questions.
I want to start by saying a huge thank you to Melanie for being here with us and to Dr. Gahagan for joining us virtually today. I know you both and I know your work, and I truly value the work that you do and your commitment to be here today.
I think I will start with you, Dr. Gahagan. Your third point highlighted the work you have been leading, which is introducing tuition-waiver programs. Can you tell us a bit more about what the early analysis of your research is telling you about the significance of such programs to address some of those barriers that both you and Dr. Doucet have identified?
Mx. Gahagan: Thank you for that question. It is my pleasure to answer it. I will be brief.
Essentially, we found with tuition-waiver programs that they do help, obviously, with the financial component of access to post-secondary education. However, in our international scoping review, what we found — and what we’re seeing in the Canadian context — is additional wraparound supports such as those that address, from a trauma-informed approach, the psychosocial needs of individuals who have spent time in the child welfare system.
A really interesting innovation here in Nova Scotia is GEO Nova Scotia. We have recently successfully partnered with that organization — Get Everyone Online Nova Scotia — which is a program run by DCS to address the digital divide. We are finding that waiving tuition is a step into the front door; however, it doesn’t look at issues such as who needs access to equipment to do their homework and access their classes, such as a laptop, a cellphone — ways they can actually provide technology to further support individuals in tuition-waiver programs.
Not unlike what Dr. Doucet said in terms of the need for national standards for aging out of care, I would argue that for individuals who are from the child welfare system who want to explore post-secondary education, we need to have a national standard. As it turns out, we also have a patchwork approach to the ways in which tuition waivers and similar interventions are being offered to former youth in care.
I can say that a small success in what we found was reducing the cumbersome nature of the verification process. In other words, rather than an individual who has spent time in care having to tell their story repeatedly to various component parts of a tuition-waiver program, one point of entry helps, one trusted adult in the system helps and one person to guide them through the system helps.
In the Atlantic region where this study is taking place, we’re looking at developing what the threshold or standards should be for other programs that are meant to support access to post‑secondary education so that we don’t see instances that I have heard have happened elsewhere in Canada whereby people give up their employment to take on a tuition-waiver program only to find out that it doesn’t include food, housing, transportation or those kinds of wraparound services.
Not unlike the comments I made about the need for national standards in terms of aging out of care, I think we need to have national standards in terms of access to post-secondary education.
I hope that answers your question, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Yes. Thank you.
Dr. Doucet, you talked about the intersecting challenges. How might the kinds of wraparound services, tuition waivers and the types of things that Dr. Gahagan mentioned address some of those intersecting challenges? What impact do you think they might have on youth aging out of care?
Ms. Doucet: I think youth in care need to be addressed holistically and not in a siloed approach, which is kind of what has been happening. When only one area is focused on, for example, housing, they get a roof over their heads, but they don’t get anything else with it. They might be having mental health issues or suffering from trauma. They might need connections to the community. They might need to further their education or get their GED. If all of these things don’t factor into support or a program, you are not going to be able to achieve the outcomes that you are seeking. I think that’s kind of what we have been seeing across the country with the very minimal data that we have so far. It really needs to be a holistic approach, and I think this is what Dr. Gahagan is also talking about, the wraparound aspect. It has to be addressed in that way.
The equitable standards that I was speaking about in my opening remarks look exactly at youth-in-care needs in a holistic way across eight developmental pillars, education being one of them, but there is also financial, housing, relationship, culture and spirituality, health and wellness, knowing your rights and also developmentally appropriate services. All of these things need to be factored in together, and I think collaboration between ministries as well as the community sector and the private sector needs to happen in order for things to significantly improve in a systemic way.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses for being here today.
My question is for both of you. You both mentioned the role of the federal government, data and the absence of a national database that tracks youth-in-care outcomes. Perhaps I’ll start with Dr. Doucet and then go to Dr. Gahagan. What data points would you recommend be tracked in a pan-Canadian database of youth in care?
Ms. Doucet: Upon entry into the system, immediately, and all the way up into their transition to adulthood until they are no longer involved with the system, whatever age that is. What we’re advocating for at the national council with equitable standards is that aging out really isn’t a thing that happens anymore. It is based on readiness, so that can look different from one young person to another. We would want outcomes to be tracked right from entry until the transition to adulthood.
There are countries that are doing this. For example, in the U.S., they have a national database, but they are also operating from a piece of legislation that supports and mandates the states to report back nationally. That is something missing here in Canada. We need to have the legislation as well as the database. They kind of go hand in hand.
Mx. Gahagan: Thank you, senator, for that question.
It’s interesting because if you look at the OECD data, it doesn’t make Canada look particularly good in terms of a comprehensive national repository of data to compare with other OECD countries.
To answer your question more specifically, I would argue housing, education, employment, health care, mental health, discrimination, social support, financial support, issues around identity and belonging, involvement with the criminal justice system, and I would say really importantly for this population, participation in decision-making at the federal government level. It is meant to be a comprehensive life course approach.
We can think of the milestones. I have lived experience in the child welfare system, but for those folks who haven’t, just think about the milestones that the average Canadian has. How do you then track that over time? Those are largely around employment — again, which is why I suggested ESDC and Statistics Canada might work together on a file to bring together a more robust national data repository so we can track these indicators over time and actually use that information to adjust our policy and programming responses accordingly.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today. My question is about the lack of data. My question is mainly for Jacqueline Gahagan. Given that this is an area of overlapping jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government, how do you see the role and responsibilities of each?
My question for Ms. Doucet in particular is, how do you view the current collaboration between the two levels of government, and how could it be improved?
Mx. Gahagan: Thank you for your question.
[English]
Apologies, I did not catch all of it, but what I understood is tracking progress at the federal government level? Is that part of what I understood in the question?
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: No. In fact, you talked about a centralized database that would allow us to better understand the reality of young people leaving the child welfare system. Given that this is an area of overlapping jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces, what responsibilities should each have in the specific area of data?
Second, what is the current cooperation between the two governments? Does that clarify my question for you?
Mx. Gahagan: Yes. Thank you for the question.
[English]
The issue is, for example, that provinces and territories are not required to present the data to the federal government. The question remains, and what is happening at the provincial and territorial levels is not being reported as a comprehensive overview of what is working from region to region, province to province, et cetera. From my perspective, in order to have a better understanding of what is working, that data needs to be accessible. By that, I mean that the provincial and territorial level data should be reported to a central repository. In my opening statement, I used the example of Statistics Canada. When I reached out to StatsCan to ask why the data is not being made available, the response to me was because there is not a current requirement for that data to be reported. In other words, if we’re not asking the provinces and territories to provide that data to Statistics Canada to provide, say, annual reports, we’re left with this patchwork where perhaps some provinces might make information available and others don’t. The collecting of indicators might differ from province to province or territory to territory.
One interesting statistic — and Dr. Doucet mentioned this — is the higher rate of suicide among youth in care. We have data from British Columbia; we don’t have data available to us in the Atlantic region. Those data points can serve as important advocacy tools to challenge policies or to invest in policy development to better meet the mental health needs, for example, of former youth in care if the B.C. data are true coast to coast. We don’t know because we don’t have all the data because they’re not being systematically reported.
The patchwork piece means that FPT — federal, provincial, territorial — governments need to say that this is a priority population. We have the infrastructure, so provincial governments are collecting the data. What is happening with the data? It’s not getting to the federal level, so we don’t have this overarching sense of what is and is not working for this particular population.
I hope that answers your question. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Yes. Thank you.
[English]
Ms. Doucet: I echo what Dr. Gahagan was saying. The provinces and territories have administrative data systems where they collect data, and they’re legally obligated to do so through their own provincial or territorial legislation, but they don’t have a legal obligation to publicly report on that data.
I would say the data that exists is also currently underutilized for research and evaluation purposes as it stands, so there’s a lot of work that can be done in that area. I know there are conversations in academic circles to talk about how we need to have a national database for child protection, but nothing has really come to fruition to date. This is a conversation we should be having between jurisdictions, including the federal government, and it should be an obligation to report on the data that is being collected and to also utilize it to evaluate whether changes in policies or revised or new legislation are actually having the impact they’re intended to have. Otherwise, we don’t really know, and we’re just throwing darts to the board with no aim. We really need to utilize the research capacity that we have in this country through the universities and centres for research. The data is just sitting there, and a lot more could be done to utilize it in a way that informs policies and practices.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Yes. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to both of our witnesses. Congratulations on beating the odds of having care experience and ending up with PhDs. You benefit all of us by your scholarship and your teachings, so thank you for that.
I want to ask a question that will drill down a bit on this, but I would first like to broaden it out a bit. I know the focus of our work is the study of leaving care, but I’d like to talk a bit about — last week, I was on the West Coast meeting with folks in prison, and then I was on the East Coast in Mi’kma’ki — in Epektwik, which is P.E.I. — meeting with the Mi’kmaq Confederacy around some of these issues. It always strikes me that it’s the rare person in prison who has not been in the child welfare system. If we look at it the other way, we seem to have no end of resources to both put young people into care and to imprison those who end up in the same beds that are used to place criminalized young people.
I want to come at it a little bit differently. Particularly in Mi’kma’ki, we were talking with the confederacy about the need to ensure resources are invested in communities to, as much as possible, prevent those outcomes from happening by providing housing and supports in the community. So what do you see in terms of the application of Jordan’s Principle in your research, both for young people while they’re in care and then for young people when they’re leaving care? There’s nothing in Jordan’s Principle that says it shouldn’t apply in both contexts. Do you have any recommendations about what kind of legislative or policy change you think we should also be including in the report that would prevent more young people from ending up in care as well as assisting those leaving care? It’s a question for both of you, perhaps starting with you, Dr. Doucet.
Ms. Doucet: As part of the recommended readings that I attached to my email, we wrote a policy brief back in 2021 when we released the equitable standards report. Some of the recommendations were directed to the federal government. One of those was to extend Jordan’s Principle past the age of majority, and that’s still something that we advocate for. Again, issues don’t just magically resolve themselves just because you’ve reached a certain age determined by the law, and it really needs to be based on developmental capacity and readiness of an individual young person, not on an arbitrary age. That’s what we’re advocating for regarding both Indigenous and non‑Indigenous youth.
Prevention and early intervention are really important as well. The young people who end up being in the criminal justice system are often criminalized because of their trauma. I’m sure you see that for the Indigenous youth who end up overrepresented by over 500% in the youth criminal justice system.
I’ve seen it firsthand. I worked as a youth worker for a while between my undergrad degree and my Master’s degree in a crisis unit in a group home. I would see it enacted in front of me where a young person would have a psychotic episode. They were on a cocktail of medication that wasn’t working for them. They were victims of terrible abuse, and they were physically acting out. Instead of de-escalating and providing trauma-informed responses, the staff would call the police and charge them for destruction of property or assault. That would begin the cycle that they would often never come out of into the criminal justice system.
I think trauma-informed approaches are crucial when it comes to preventing the criminalization of young people. That’s something, like I’ve said, I’ve seen too many times. It happens again when they’re on the streets if they become homeless because they fell through the cracks. They become criminalized because they become homeless, because they had to steal or had a fine they couldn’t pay. There is truancy and those kinds of things. They end up in the system there as well. It can definitely be prevented; it’s just a matter of giving the right approaches and doing it from a trauma-informed approach.
Mx. Gahagan: Thank you very much, Senator Pate.
I echo exactly what Dr. Doucet said. I would add to that the sort of notion of reducing harms before people become involved in the criminal justice system. As you well know, once that happens, there’s a whole other complexion to people’s experiences in the world around them and how people perceive them.
I will 100% repeat the need for trauma-informed approaches. Those include harm-reduction approaches and low-threshold access to mental health supports. That means that a truly wraparound approach is needed. The extending of Jordan’s Principle is basically a no-brainer. I can’t even imagine, to Dr. Doucet’s point, just saying you’ve reached this arbitrary age so you’re on your own.
Issues around mental health supports, using a trauma-informed approach and using things like housing-first approaches — people need a place to live. When we look at the cascade effects of individuals such as queer kids getting kicked out of their families of origin because they come out to their family and end up on the street, in many instances, they end up without a safe place to stay. There is drug involvement and compounded mental health and trauma issues. Give people a place to live and a place to start from.
One small intervention that we were able to navigate through the tuition waiver program was for folks who were remanded to custody. We still processed their request to get into a tuition waiver program. Regardless of where they’re at in that process, we don’t discount their application and say they are not important in terms of access to education. Rather, we work with them and ask how we can ensure that they have access to the educational supports they need to finish their degree or whatever it is.
It’s a wraparound approach. Rather than having these arbitrary age-related cut-offs, we need to really focus on a holistic, trauma-informed approach and reduce the harms that we, as a society, are actually causing. You can pay now or you can pay later. If you make that investment now, using the core principles of harm reduction, which is taking the person for who they are and where they are at that point in their life and working with them, that’s a very different approach than using, as you well know, a punitive approach to say they’ve technically done something wrong so they have to go into a juvenile detention centre, or they have become an adult and end up in the adult system. It’s complicated. I’m sure, Senator Pate, there’s nothing I can tell you that you don’t already well know, but the pieces have to fit together in such a way that we’re offering a holistic approach rather than just an arbitrary, siloed, age-dependent approach to this population.
This is a doable thing. This is a relatively small percentage of the Canadian population, and we’re failing them. We can do better. We have systems in place and we have services in place. If we had data to make evidence-informed decisions to serve this population better, we could get ahead of this issue rather than constantly being in a reacting-to-a-crisis sort of situation.
Senator Senior: Thank you both for being here. I came from a sector that was more or less a peripheral sector to the issues of youth aging out, but still central to who we would work with, whether it was shelters or issues around poverty or gender-based violence.
I have two questions. I’m curious about the role of child welfare agencies in the aging out process and what supports they are providing to youth who are aging out. That’s my first question.
My second question has to do with digging down a little bit more into the data and trying to understand whether there is an intersectional gender-based analysis that happens in terms of the youth who age out. I’m particularly curious about what happens to Black youth in the system. I know that Black and Indigenous youth face the brunt of this, but I do remember some years ago in the GTA when there were issues around Black youth and education that the stats showed that 40% of Black youth were failing, which was alarming. I’m curious about this because I think it’s about really trying to make the links around what is happening in all the systems that touch their lives. There was a young Black woman in Toronto who was doing some work around looking up Black youth aging out and what was happening to them. I’m going to follow up with that, but I’d like to understand what your understanding is around that. Both of you, if you don’t mind.
Ms. Doucet: Again, that data isn’t being consistently tracked. I was involved with trying to look at administrative data — not necessarily for aging out but just in general — while children and youth were in the system in Quebec. Even the way that race and ethnicity are gathered, coded and categorized isn’t reflective of how it should be, according to academics, for example. Often, studies that look at over-representation are done by academics or researchers and not necessarily by the systems because of the way that it’s being collected administratively.
In Quebec, there is a Black scholar from McGill University, Dr. Alicia Boatswain-Kyte, who looks at the over-representation of Black families in the Quebec child welfare system and who has found similar data. They’re overrepresented — immigrant and refugee families as well — but that’s not something that provincial and territorial governments systematically collect and report on.
Those are conversations we’ve had in academic circles as well. Even how they categorize race and ethnicity is really inequitable across the country. That’s something that we clearly have to examine; otherwise, we won’t be able to have national data on these subjects either.
I think I answered the second part of your question. Could you refresh my memory on the first question?
Senator Senior: The role of child welfare agencies.
Ms. Doucet: Across the country, the post-majority supports and programs that exist are very inequitable between provinces and territories and also by age. I think British Columbia is the province that has the highest age threshold, at the 27th birthday. In Quebec, it’s 18 years of age with some stipulations added to the legislation in the last year for the minister to support, on a case-by-case basis, up to the age of 25, but I know from what I’m hearing on the ground that it’s not really being implemented as of yet.
Some provinces and territories are looking at their legislation and thinking about extending the age. For example, in New Brunswick, they just passed a new act called the Child and Youth Well-Being Act in January, extending the age to the 26th birthday. It used to be 19. P.E.I. has also recently enacted legislation up to the age of 25. I think Nova Scotia is also looking at extending the age. They’ve established a program that supports young people financially to a certain aspect, I believe, until age 24 or 25. Again, it’s very inequitable, and it’s not a federal requirement that they support all until the same age.
There are often restrictive eligibility criteria attached to these programs and services, so you either have to be full-time in post‑secondary, looking for employment or things like that. A lot of youth are not able to meet these requirements. Some of them are battling addiction, and some of them are going through severe mental health crisis and can’t focus on schooling or employment right away, and what tends to happen is that these are the kids we see in the statistics and the kids who are better achieving are the ones that get to access those supports and services.
There was a study done in British Columbia a few years ago that looked at post-majority supports and services. B.C. is considered one of the most progressive provinces. They found that only one third of the cohort that ages out every year actually accesses any form of post-majority supports and services. That means that two thirds of the cohort do not access because of the eligibility criteria. It has to be unconditional support for young people to be able to access the services that they need, which meets them where they’re at in the situation they’re in and recognizes that their journey to adulthood is not going to be a linear one. These people need trauma-informed supports and services. They can’t be expected to jump through hoops, fit into boxes and over-perform what a youth in the general population would be expected to achieve. That’s why we call for standards that are national and also equitable.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
The Chair: We have three senators on the second round and ten minutes left. We’re down to three minutes for questions and answers. Witnesses, if you can be brief with your answers, it would be much appreciated.
Senator Bernard: I’ll ask my questions to both witnesses. You’ve both mentioned the need for trauma-informed approaches. Is a trauma-informed lens being applied in provinces and territories that are doing the child welfare work? Is that happening on the front end?
Ms. Doucet: I think conversations and training are starting to happen, but it’s a change of culture and it’s a change of the fundamental issues with the child welfare system since its inception. It’s a colonial system made by White people who had a saviour complex, so it’s fundamentally changing the culture and the philosophy behind the system, and also, looking at young people as equals and not from a paternalistic view, which tends to be kind of the case in traditional clinical social work approaches.
What we’re advocating for is not a return, because I’m not sure if it ever actually existed, but a relational approach to social work where it’s a person helping another person, meeting them where they’re at and not coming with preconceived judgments or biases, or at least acknowledging them, checking them and doing things in not just a trauma-informed way but a decolonial and anti-racist way. A lot of work has to be done for the system to transform into something that truly meets the needs of young people where they’re at.
Mx. Gahagan: Senator Bernard, if I can just add to that, I think this is a change management project that the federal government needs to weigh in on. To answer your question very briefly, is the trauma-informed approach happening consistently? I would argue no, it is not. Just like depending on where you live and where you have your experience in care, that also determines what kind of services, supports and programs you have access to. Again, I think the national standard piece that both Dr. Doucet and I are advocating for is really a change management project that has to happen at the national level. Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is first for both of you, because it concerns a question that is still being asked today in this committee. In 2007, this same committee published a report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens, which identified a number of failings that we are still studying today.
What do you think is the fundamental reason why Canada is having trouble solving this problem?
Ms. Doucet, you explained that Canada is one of the few developed countries that doesn’t have a national framework to protect young children leaving the child welfare system. How do you explain this situation? Is it a problem of funding, of cooperation between the various levels of government or of political will? How can this be explained?
[English]
Ms. Doucet: I think it’s also territorial power-sharing that might be challenging, but those conversations need to be had. There needs to be more collaboration instead of having it be an adversarial approach. I think all the provinces and territories are struggling with this issue and have been struggling with this issue, and they know that there’s a better way to go about it. If provinces, territories and the federal government were all talking about it together, there could be some lessons learned. Maybe there are certain things that are working well in some provinces and territories and they’re not aware of what is going on. There are not enough opportunities for that kind of sharing and knowledge sharing, especially.
I think financial investment is also something that has been missing. In the U.S., they have the Foster Care Independence Act as well as the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act that have been established. They provide funding to the states to encourage them to establish programs and supports for youth post-majority. Part of that funding agreement is the obligation to report back with data about youth in care and the outcomes of that particular program. I think that’s something that we could be looking at here in Canada.
In the U.S., the individual states also have the jurisdiction to implement child welfare services, so it’s a similar structure to Canada in terms of jurisdictional power. I think those conversations could be had in the Canadian context as well because it is a common issue. It’s not something that is just particular to one province or one territory. Like I mentioned in my opening statement, it ends up intersecting with federal-level agencies and institutions, so the federal government also needs to be part of that conversation.
Mx. Gahagan: I agree. I think with the obligation to report back, if you’re putting money into the provinces and territories to support youth transitioning out of foster care, then I think you should be required to report back to the federal government: Have you actually made any progress in that regard? I think at the very least, as Dr. Doucet is suggesting, Canada should take a stance. If legislation is required to advocate for that, then I think that’s actually a good, actionable outcome. Thank you.
Senator Pate: My question is again for both of you. With some 75 reports and over 435 recommendations made since 1987 in this area, I’m curious about what you think has prevented more substantial change in these kinds of policies and outcomes for youth who are exiting care.
I want to put to you something. I had a discussion with some judges not long ago, and some of them have started asking child welfare authorities: What’s the evidence that your interventions are effective? Do you know of any research that shows the impact of investing resources in community? Again, I’m thinking of one obvious place there’s going to have to be some changes because of the change at the federal level in terms of Indigenous governance over child welfare. There will have to be some funding going there. Do you know of any studies that have shown where alternative approaches have been used and what the success is versus the success rate, or lack thereof, of usual child welfare practices and taking kids out of home?
Ms. Doucet: The only research that I’m aware of is the cost-benefit analysis that I was mentioning during my opening statement. There was one that was done in Ontario by the child and youth advocate’s office that was in place at the time. The report is called 25 Is the New 21, and they looked at extending care and what the cost benefit of that would be. There were significant savings over the lifetime of a young person exiting care. In terms of the return on the dollar, I think for every dollar invested in, you would get $1.36 back, so there was a return on investment as well. There was a similar cost-benefit analysis done in B.C. that found similar cost-benefit results.
In terms of an approach that is like a widely published study, I’m not aware of anything like that, to be quite honest with you. I do think with the movement towards self-governance with Indigenous communities, there will probably be a lot of studies coming out of that as it rolls out, but to date, I’m not aware of any studies.
Senator Pate: Dr. Gahagan, are you familiar with any?
Mx. Gahagan: We have looked at this internationally, particularly in OECD data, and we’re not finding something that is the one intervention, if you will, that jumps forward.
To Dr. Doucet’s point, we had an economist working with us looking at the cost benefit of — essentially, you can pay now to support these young people with perhaps a longer transitioning into the adulthood phase and see the cost savings because of the reduction in homelessness, mental health, time in the prison system, whatever it is. There are a lot of negative outcomes.
From my perspective — this is sort of turning your question around — wouldn’t it be amazing to find out, in Canada, what are the successful interventions and to be able to scale those up nationally? I think for most of us, we would say, yes, we agree, we’d rather see young adults doing well rather than seeing them in the prison system. We’d rather not see them in suicide data. We’d rather see them holding down a job, going to university or whatever it is. I think the long-standing deficit focus on youth in care is a really negative way of us understanding these individuals. Rather than focusing on the broken people in a broken system, let’s figure out how to fix the system and, through that process, actually lift up these individuals who, by no choice of their own, find themselves with the state as their parent.
We can do better and be bolder to look at the positive outcomes and how to actually tease out from which kinds of interventions that are happening in Canada which are the indicators of success that tell us something is the right type of intervention and which is the thing we should be scaling up, whether that is for Black, Indigenous or queer youth who are, again, as I mentioned in my opening statements, wholly overrepresented in the available data.
Thank you.
Senator Pate: Do I have time for — no?
The Chair: No, we are actually out of time. As the chair, though, I have the liberty of sometimes adding extra time, so I will turn to Senator Youance for her question.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: There are two very interesting initiatives on the Island of Montreal. There is the Direction de la protection de la jeunesse, or DPJ, on the francophone side, and the Batshaw Youth and Family Centres on the anglophone side. They are two different data systems. Over the past 20 years or so, the Batshaw centres have experimented with a few interventions that have worked well. There’s an organization working in partnership with DPJ to address the overrepresentation of black children in the DPJ. This is a project that’s in its early days, but it’s yielding good results, to the point where Minister Carmant wants to extend it across Quebec. There’s no data because these are new projects for the DPJ, but we could get information on the project and on the anglophone interventions for the Island of Montreal from the Batshaw centres. That’s it.
[English]
The Chair: Before we end this panel, I have been doing this for so long that I remember MDGs, and I remember MDG5 was lacking, the one specifically dealing with women and children. Now we heard that SDG4, which is dealing with women and children, is also lagging. When it comes to women, young people or children, this seems to be worldwide. Any thoughts on that?
Ms. Doucet: They are the most vulnerable population.
The important thing to think about when it comes to youth aging out of care is that they don’t really have a piece of legislation that protects their rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child ends at 19, and then they are transitioning to adulthood for most of their 20s. For some people, it is even beyond that, depending upon their needs. There are no rights‑based protections during that period, so they just transition from being a child, according to the law, to being an adult.
What we’re advocating for with the national council and the equitable standards — we’re saying that is not developmentally appropriate for that population. It is not meeting them where they are at. There is also academic literature and studies that have come out in the last 20 years saying that, actually, the period between adolescence and adulthood, which is between the ages of 19 and 29, is called emerging adulthood. It is a crucial developmental phase that young people need to experience in order to become thriving adults. Because of how things are legislated across the country for youth aging out of care, with the cut-off ages, they are actually deprived of experiencing this crucial developmental period that has to do with identity formation, problem solving, learning from mistakes, figuring out their place in society, their sense of belonging and all of that. Really, the state of the legislation across the country prevents young people from experiencing that. We’re seeing the outcomes we’re seeing because they are missing a key piece in their journey that they need to be experiencing in order to be able to thrive as adults. That’s what we’re advocating for through the standards.
The Chair: Thank you.
I want to take this opportunity to thank both witnesses. Your testimony will help us greatly with our study when we get ready to write this report. Thank you so much.
I shall now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We will hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
With us by video conference, from the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services, please welcome Stacey Greenough, Director, Child and Family Wellbeing. From the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada, we have with us Wendy Chan, Associate Director, Program Impact; and Christina Loc, Youth and Lived Expert Engagement Manager.
I now invite Ms. Greenough to make her presentation, followed by Ms. Chan and Ms. Loc, who I understand will be sharing their remark time.
Stacey Greenough, Director, Child and Family Wellbeing, Nova Scotia Department of Community Services: Thanks very much. I’m extremely honoured to be invited to speak with you all tonight about youth transitioning from care and certainly honoured to follow Dr. Gahagan and Dr. Doucet, for whom I have great esteem. As noted, my name is Stacey Greenough. I’m the Director of Child and Family Wellbeing in Nova Scotia within the Department of Community Services.
I am joining you tonight from Halifax in Mi’kma’ki, the ancestral and unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq people. The people of the Mi’kmaq nation have lived on this territory for millennia, and I acknowledge them as the past, present and future caretakers of this land.
Thirty years ago, I had the great privilege to begin my work in Nova Scotia as a youth worker, where my passion for supporting young people in care was ignited. I moved into the field of social work with the hopes of improving their circumstances, experiences and outcomes. Today, I am pleased to share with you information about our work to effect positive change in our province.
In Nova Scotia, we know that the best place for a child is with their family and in their community, and every effort is made to prevent a child from entering care. As you have heard from the previous panel members, the needs of youth who are unable to safely remain or return to the care of their parents or guardians are extensive and complex.
Despite Child and Family Wellbeing’s ongoing, thorough and exhaustive efforts to find permanent, loving families for children and youth in care when unable to be reunified with family, young people may leave permanent care and custody at the age of majority without family supports, despite their circumstances and their challenges, with brand-new adult responsibilities. We know that youth leaving care are acutely vulnerable to experiencing poverty and homelessness. You’ve heard, and research clearly tells us, that youth in care reaching adulthood experience significantly worse health outcomes than their peers.
Tonight, I’m here to share a bit of background about Nova Scotia supports. For well over 15 years, Nova Scotia’s Child and Family Wellbeing services have been offering post-care and custody agreements to those transitioning from permanent care while these young adults pursue their education.
In our province, there are approximately 120 youth currently supported in this way, with living expenses and tuition fees, as well as other supports that are critical. That also includes the support of a social worker, to have that extended involvement. I should say that those supports can be included and accessed at any point under the age of 25 years. However, as we have heard this evening, given the complexities that care-experienced youth face, many are not in a place of readiness or ability to successfully participate at that stressful time while they’re dealing with drastic and disruptive life changes.
With this recognition, I will mention that Child and Family Wellbeing is also a participant of the great work that Dr. Gahagan is leading, the tuition waiver SSHRC research at Mount Saint Vincent University. We continue to be in full support of the holistic approach and expansion of these waivers, as mentioned, to really be responding to the needs of care‑experienced students when they are ready and able to pursue post-secondary education and with the resources that they need. Just to tack that in.
In 2020, in Nova Scotia, we developed our Youth in Transition Framework with the vision that youth are safe, healthy, connected to healthy families and communities and are supported to reach their full potential as they transition to adulthood. Connection became one of our primary focuses and really considered risk, protective and promotive factors. Nova Scotia moved forward with an infusion of supports to consider, including community-based, culturally attentive youth outreach that would span beyond a youth’s time in care.
In 2021, as the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care Public Report & Policy Brief became public via the Child Welfare League of Canada, as Dr. Doucet reviewed, all of the provinces and territories were called to action. We, too, at that time were considering how to best promote youth in care to thrive, not to struggle to survive. We acknowledged that young people overall are taking progressively longer, as Dr. Doucet mentioned.
I also felt it was noteworthy to cite that Census Canada data told us that in 2021, 30% of young adults aged 20 to 24 were living in private households in Canada with at least one of their parents. This is an opportunity that youth transitioning from care do not have.
I am proud to say that Nova Scotia has responded to the call to action. Between 2022 and 2023, we initiated project work to consider how to best support young people at their time of transition. We looked at post-care support programs that had already been implemented in other provinces, such as British Columbia, and you’ve heard about Alberta and Ontario. We looked at similar elements for what we were considering, and we found there were various ways in which the supports were offered, also of which you have heard tonight. That looked differently depending on housing supports, income supplements and enrollment criteria.
We considered first-voice input with young people as the experts in their lives and with the available data for us. In January 2024, we rolled out our new program called the Path Program. I’ll just share some key pieces.
The objective of Path is to build a support system for youth to ensure that they are safe, healthy, have positive connections to their communities and have equitable opportunities to access the supports needed to thrive and reach their fullest potential as they journey into adulthood. Path includes community-based outreach to provide dedicated supports with increased intensity as a young person wishes. It includes 24-hour, on-call access to a community-based social worker —
The Chair: Thank you. I gave you almost six minutes. I know you have a written presentation before us. So that we have enough time for the senators’ questions and your answers, I can share what you sent to us with all the senators. If there is any important point that you missed that you would like to give us in 30 seconds, please do; otherwise, I will turn to our other panellists.
Ms. Greenough: I would suggest that perhaps, in the end closing comments, the feedback by the young person speaking about their experience would be helpful for folks. That would be great if you could circulate that. It’s much appreciated.
Christina Loc, Youth and Lived Expert Engagement Manager, Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada: Thank you, chair, deputy chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Christina Loc. I am a former youth in care and the Youth and Lived Expert Engagement Manager at the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada. I support the foundation’s Young People’s Advisory Council and network of lived experts from across Canada who guide our work, and I am honoured to represent their voices here today.
As a lived expert myself, I spent 14 years in the child welfare system from ages 4 to 18, leaving my care home at 17. I have been working and volunteering in the child welfare sector since the age of 10, and in addition to my role at the foundation, I co‑lead Project Outsiders, a non-profit organization that uses multimedia to highlight the vulnerabilities and barriers young people from care experience as a result of the child welfare system in Canada.
Grounded in this experience and in my work day in and day out speaking with young people from across the country, I am distinctly aware of the challenges associated with aging out of care. The reality for many young people is that as soon as they reach the age of 18, and sometimes as young as 16 in some cases, the minimum systems they had in place to support them, like foster and group homes, come to an end. Without having any support system, family or parents to have their back, many young people transition out of care into homelessness, with a perpetual looming fear that they will continue to return to poverty.
In fact, youth aging out of care are 200 times more likely to experience homelessness than their peers outside of the system and, unsurprisingly, about four out of five requests for emergency funds made to the foundation are for help with rent. Tragically, we know of young advocates and leaders with lived experience in our network right now who are living in shelters because they have maxed out their resources with no one to count on.
This puts a lot of stress, both physically and mentally, on a young individual. Due to the circumstances they are placed in, young people who leave care often face extra obstacles such as mental health concerns and poor educational outcomes. These rights-based challenges are often left unaddressed as young people are rushed out of care and can continue into adulthood, leading to serious health, social and economic costs for not just them but society as a whole.
Thank you for your time. I will now pass the floor to my colleague, Wendy.
Wendy Chan, Associate Director, Program Impact, Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada: Thank you, Christina, and thank you, chair, deputy chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Wendy Chan, and I am the Associate Director of Program Impact at Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada. In my work, I lead a team that implements programs and funds that support youth transitioning out of care across Canada.
The persistent and adverse outcomes for this group of young people are made even more troubling when you consider the vastly different levels of support available to young people aging out of care based simply on where they live. For example, in some regions, financial or other support for young people extends to age 26, while in others it ends at 18.
Perhaps one of the most surprising gaps is that we have no clear view at the national level on not only how many children are in care and how many age out each year, but just as importantly, how these children and youth are actually doing. As a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this is not acceptable.
As Canada’s only national foundation focused on improving the lives of young people involved in the child welfare system, Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada works to address these inequities, but inequities at this scale require government intervention. Any federal investments for youth must include strategies that recognize youth aging out of care as the most vulnerable group of young people in Canada and prioritize access across jurisdictions to the supports they require.
There are opportunities to rectify this right now. With the design of Canada’s new Youth Mental Health Fund under way, the federal government should be seriously considering how this fund can enhance access to mental health care for youth aging out of care; or how the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program could be reducing loans and increasing grants for this group of young people; or how young people transitioning out of care from anywhere in Canada should have access to supportive adults and a well marketed and easy to navigate digital landing place to learn about and access educational, housing and other untapped benefits available to support them.
We need the federal government to invest in good data and initiatives like the Public Health Agency of Canada’s work to develop the Canadian Child Welfare Information System. At the national level, we lack data and the resources to build necessary bridges and networks to consistently support youth aging out of care across the country.
With a line of sight on all 13 provinces and territories, Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada is eager to do this, and we see a critical opportunity for collaboration to optimize and leverage philanthropic dollars for national impact to ensure youth aging out of care receive the attention and support they deserve. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations.
Before turning to senators for their questions, Ms. Chan, I would like to ask you something. At the end of every study, we make recommendations to the government. What is the one recommendation that you would really like to see after we are done this report and are doing the recommendations?
Ms. Chan: Just one? Dr. Gahagan and Dr. Doucet did point to the necessary role of data. National oversight of some sort of data repository where we can understand what is happening across jurisdictions, what is actually working and how to fill gaps in other jurisdictions would be an excellent starting point.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now go to the deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you to the three of you for being here and for your evidence this evening.
I will ask a question that dovetails with the previous panel. During the previous panel, we heard each of the witnesses talk about the intersections of Indigeneity, race, racism, queer reality, homophobia, transphobia and ableism. The youth aging out of care may be even more at risk for some of the challenges that they have identified.
From your work with the Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada and with the youth directly, do you have data that would speak to the numbers of youth from those various social locations accessing your services?
Ms. Greenough, could you answer the same question from the perspective of your work with the 15-year post-care custody agreements that you have had, but also in the most recent Path program? Who is taking up? Who is likely to be taking advantage of those programs?
Ms. Chan: Thank you for the question.
With Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada’s programming and the youth- and child-facing serving organizations that we support across the country — there is a network of about 100 organizations that we work with — we do ask them to collect data related to intersectional identities that may make them more vulnerable or more likely to have interactions with the child welfare system. As you said, senator, certainly there is an over‑representation of Black young people in the care of child welfare, Indigenous young people, people from the 2SLGBTQIA+ community and young people who identify as having a disability.
In terms of rigorous data, I would say that we have promising practices that work on specific interventions; however, I would not say that we have rigorous and fulsome data across jurisdictions. For example, with our national post-secondary education program, we do ask youth to disclose on a voluntary basis identity-related data. We see that there is an over‑representation of Indigenous students and Black students. We do not collect data related to sexual orientation. We try to be mindful of the ways in which young people involved in child welfare have not been necessarily in control of aspects of their data in their personal lives and things they may not have had the choice about whether to disclose or not. We’re also aware that some young people have not developed a relationship of trust with organizations that are ostensibly there to provide support to them.
We certainly see in some of our other national programs, like Youth Works, our national youth employment program, that there are more Indigenous young people and Black people accessing these services, and we have some ideas on promising and positive practices to better support youth who have intersectional identities.
There is certainly a role for the federal government in collecting data at scale and in a rigorous way so that we could really demonstrate what initiatives work with certain youth in certain circumstances and to complement strengths that might exist in different jurisdictions.
Ms. Loc: I don’t have too much more to add to what my colleague Wendy Chan mentioned, although we definitely do see a rise in terms of the front lines and the young people that I work with on a day-to-day basis with a lot of crises that we manage. Four out of five young people are reaching out in crisis due to, usually, situations that are rent-based and crises of having a roof over their heads. Especially post-pandemic, we’re seeing more and more of that. I would also like to report that a lot of the situations that the young people tend to experience due to this housing instability are often due to things like identity factors and their intersectionalities that might have been disclosed and, therefore, puts them at risk for further instability, harm and abuse due to their living situations.
Ms. Greenough: Perhaps I’ll just start by acknowledging that we have been working on our data collection system in Nova Scotia. Senator Bernard, it is something that we have been able to roll out our race-based data in the last year to improve how we’re capturing the information and the intersectionalities.
You mentioned wondering about the post-care and custody agreements. We do have the numbers of those we have supported over 15 plus years on one of our systems, and then there’s another system that captures additional numbers that wouldn’t necessarily have been translated over. I can say that there are 453, at least, who have been supported in that way. In terms of the outcomes, I think this is where we struggle as well. Once a young person leaves our involvement, of course, we don’t have the ability to know where things go from there other than to say that this is at this point in time.
We’re in a different place now with the rolling out of our Path Program, because as part of the agreement — and we do not have some of those restrictions that we heard about that you must meet, other than reaching the age of majority from permanent care and custody or youth services at 19 and living outside of your parents’ home. We’re able to engage in an agreement, and part of that is to provide feedback on those outcomes that are meaningful to them. That next phase of our work is really the evaluative piece of that in order to allow us to pivot and shift and be responsive to the needs of those youths and also those outcomes and those measures that we’re really looking to know more about.
I don’t know if that fully answered the question. I could say more, but I know I’ve been long-winded already.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Osler: My question is for Ms. Greenough, and it is to follow up on what you have just talked about in terms of data. Perhaps you could share with the committee what data points the department is collecting. Are you aware of any other provinces or territories that are collecting a robust data set, and do you have any recommendations as to what data points should or must be collected if a future database were to be established?
Ms. Greenough: Yes. In terms of capturing data and the various points, we really do need that to be a robust capturing.
What we’re using currently is insufficient. We have struggled to pull the data, but we absolutely do have data that we have been able to measure just in terms of numbers of families that we are involved with, at which stage, at which point a young person is in care, what services and what types of involvement in order for us to really look at what supports and interventions may be most effective.
That’s one piece of it in terms of planning everything you can imagine for a young person. When we’re working with a family to support whether there needs to be some shift in response to child safety and family preservation, part of that plan is a permanency goal for a child.
What we’re currently building are better ways in which to capture what are those most effective services and supports, but certainly for those who are in care, those who are in permanent care, the various types of supports that youth services and our province may be able to offer and where those connections are being made for a young person. So every aspect of the planning is where we’re really looking to capture information.
You’re right. It looks differently across the country, depending upon the case management system. We are shifting from one to the other. For some things, we’ve invested in that more immediate need, like the race-based data that I’ve spoken about, but that will look much more robust in our next system, even in terms of preferred names versus legal names and not using it as an alias if that’s a preferred name. Perhaps I’ll stop there. I’m not sure if I’m going down a bit of a rabbit hole.
Senator Osler: I don’t think you’re going down a bit of a rabbit hole, but can you speak to your experience? You talked a little bit about having some outcome data but not a lot of robust outcome data. Based on your experience, what are the things that you have noted in the data that you have collected that have led to better outcomes once some of the youth are aging out of care or have aged out of care?
Ms. Greenough: Connections. Actually, we have recently engaged with Dr. Michael Ungar through Dalhousie University and the Resilience Research Centre — there was a question on the last panel about that — and are really looking at what factors are promotive for young people as they transition. Absolutely, if they need to be in care, that attachment to a family, so foster caregivers, and not seeing multiple moves. You’ve heard tonight about trauma and that need to be relational with children and families. That’s a critical key element, and multiple moves for a child has such impact on them.
It certainly all ties into trauma, but the shift and what we believe in our practice framework and how we’re building into our policy at this point is really centring the needs of the child and the family and really recognizing that the child and the family are the experts in their circumstances and then responding in a way that supports that.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. My question is for both witnesses, but particularly for Ms. Chan. In the previous panel, Ms. Doucet told us that Canada is one of the few developed countries that doesn’t have a national framework for youth in transition.
Ms. Chan, you explained that the federal government should invest more in young people who leave the child welfare system. Do you have any examples of international measures and good practices that could inspire us and the Canadian government? The purpose of this study is to make recommendations to the government.
[English]
Ms. Chan: Thank you for the question.
In terms of international examples, there are a number of different elements, for example, in supportive housing or other ways that young people are supported by being connected to supportive networks. I would be very happy to follow up with further details after this meeting, if that’s acceptable. I think there are examples out of the United Kingdom that have much more supportive housing. Dr. Gahagan mentioned the model of housing first for youth, which prioritizes a young person having a space and supportive place to live as a foundational piece to add on and progress in their journey towards education, developing relationships and in their careers. I believe there is also work out of Scandinavia that is similarly very promising in the area of housing. In New Zealand, I believe there are also quite a lot of very promising practices.
In the interests of time, I would suggest that I could follow up with you afterwards because there’s an international body where different countries can come together and discuss promising practices specifically related to youth transitioning out of care. I believe that representatives from Canada do attend, but they’re typically academics. I think it would be very promising for governments and jurisdictions to be able to attend and really build upon that, and then invest in some of those very promising practices.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My next question is for Ms. Greenough. In a 2024 Supreme Court decision, the court reaffirmed that there was an overlap of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments in matters of Indigenous child welfare, and that concerted action is required in this regard.
How does this jurisdictional overlap with the federal government manifest itself in Nova Scotia? What do you think could be improved?
[English]
Ms. Greenough: Thanks for that.
Just one point on your last question: I just wanted to mention a leading practice. I would highlight family group conferencing. The idea of preventing a child or youth from entering care is ultimately number one, so I just wanted to mention that as well, which I think would certainly be part of that group and that discussion, as Ms. Chan had mentioned.
In terms of the Supreme Court decision, I’ll speak to Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, we have a designated organization that is Indigenous, Mi’kmaw Family & Children’s Services. We have been working collaboratively for those. That organization provides Child and Family Wellbeing services on reserve. Of course, Indigenous children, youth and families off reserve would be with the Department of Community Services, Child and Family Wellbeing.
In terms of the recent decisions that have been made, even just taking into consideration “An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis,” that work is embraced by all — and adhering to that legislation. In terms of the collaborative that is required moving forward with self-governance, from a Nova Scotia perspective, that is working at all levels to support that transition. Beyond the shared jurisdiction that — as it is right now, in terms of Child and Family Wellbeing, being with the Department of Community Services, we work closely with our partners and communities who keep children, youth and families safe, so we look to that leadership with our Indigenous communities.
In fact, we have very much modelled our new shift in practice and our practice framework around Indigenous practices. In Nova Scotia, there are very few children who are supported through the Mi’kmaq organization who are in temporary care because those circles are working. That practice is working.
I’ll stop there. I’m not sure if it answers it entirely.
Senator Pate: Thank you to our witnesses.
My first question is for Ms. Greenough, although I’m happy to have comments from the other colleagues as well. My work with young people actually started in Nova Scotia, as well as my work with women. One of the things that struck me then and about which I haven’t heard a lot of evidence in terms of things having changed significantly, although your last comment about what happens with Indigenous people may be headed in that direction — it always struck me that there were resources to take children out of the home and place them in foster homes, and there were resources to take children out of foster and group homes and put them in jails; yet, the costing of that was rarely done.
The previous witnesses were discussing the equitable standards for transitions to adulthood for youth in care and the eight pillars. I’m curious whether your program, particularly the Path Program, supports each of those pillars. If so, how? Are you looking at the cost savings if you actually keep young people in community or in their families? Certainly, it may not be in their family of origin, but in their community, What are the barriers you are facing in terms of financing? It strikes me that there are monies available to take young people into the care of the state, but those resources are rarely available to fund individual families or communities to provide those supports themselves, even though the Mi’kmaq example, as you mentioned, is showing great promise.
Ms. Greenough: Thank you. That’s a very good and deep question.
To start, our Child and Family Wellbeing services have recognized that prevention and early intervention supports must be the focus to prevent a child from going into care. What does that mean? It could mean that perhaps that family requires some childcare. There can be a number of ways we can provide support. As you said, the funding had previously been to those caregivers while that child is in care, so we really have looked at making that shift.
We in Nova Scotia are in the midst of changing our way of being entirely in this respect. It is really having that circle, having that family at the centre, or with the extended family. As you said, it might not be the parents, but it could be an extension of that, whatever that family means to them as a family member, those close relations.
In terms of the Path Program and how that fits with this, as we have been in a guardianship role for these young people, if they are reaching the age of adulthood and we have not been successful in finding that forever family for them for all the reasons that we heard, financially but also in terms of that individual’s needs, to be responsive to them in the same way as if you had that extension of family, then it’s designed for that. That why it’s for those who are reaching the age of majority. At this point, it doesn’t include those who are in temporary care and have returned to family.
It’s also those very vulnerable 16- to 18-year-olds who reach the age of 19 and are struggling with housing. We have provided equity for those youth in the build of this program to ensure that they receive the same supports that a young person in permanent care and custody would receive given that the nature of their needs are the same. Sometimes they’re more acute because they haven’t had perhaps some of the support through a placement as they move through that care system.
I’ll stop there. I don’t know if I’ve answered entirely what you were looking for.
Senator Pate: You’re probably familiar — because you mentioned you knew the two previous witnesses — with the Equitable Standards for Transitions to Adulthood for Youth in Care. If there’s a plan you have in place that shows how you’ve taken into account those eight pillars, I think we would be very interested at the committee to receive that. That would be very helpful.
I would provide an opportunity for Ms. Chan and Ms. Loc to also discuss whether, especially within the foundation, you’ve looked at the costing of what happens when you don’t intervene. I think you probably heard my question to the previous witnesses wherein there are virtually no folks I meet in prison who have not been in care, and yet we spend sometimes upwards of half a million dollars to keep them in custody when supports in the community would be undoubtedly far more effective.
Ms. Greenough: I would add that in terms of the pillars from the equitable standards, we continue to reference that as we work.
I will say that our Path Program is very new. When we were able to move forward with it, we did so swiftly, given the financial climate and the pressures that young people were facing. We wanted, first, to get the payments out and have that initiated in January. We know that we’re not hitting on quite all of the elements that are in there, but in our evaluation of this and continuing to move forward and grow with it, I’m happy to share.
I would say that, interestingly, part of what I was sharing previously was that in 2020, when we did our youth in transition framework, which I’m happy to share — that’s all the youth that we support — it very much aligns with what Dr. Doucet and the National Council of Youth in Care Advocates released in their report. We strive for that. I call it the report card when we speak about it here. We need to check our report card to see how we are doing with those pillars. I’d be happy to have further discussions and share as we go.
The Chair: We’re over the five minutes. Ms. Chan and Ms. Loc, if you want, you can make a written submission. Any of the witnesses can make a written submission to us.
Senator Senior: I have a question specifically for Ms. Chan. This is a follow-up from a question I asked around the role of child welfare agencies. Considering that you’re a foundation, I’m just wondering about the role of Children’s Aid specifically and how that aligns with your role as a foundation. The work sounds amazing, but in my experience, a foundation focuses on fundraising as a primary goal. How is that work happening in conjunction with Children’s Aid specifically? Are the results that you’re talking about and the work that Christina specifically mentioned being funded through the foundation? I would like just a bit of clarity around that.
Ms. Chan: Thank you for the question.
Children’s Aid Foundation of Canada is a national charity that raises funds and then grants those funds to support front-line agencies that work with children, youth and families in contact with the child welfare system.
Over the past 30 years, we’ve also been running a national Post-Secondary Education Program that provides scholarships and other financial supports to youth who have been in care and are attending post-secondary education. Through our Post‑Secondary Education Program, it has put us in touch with thousands of students over the years who are aging out of care and have no other supports.
As the different provincial and jurisdictional supports have ebbed and flowed, students have come to us and said, “We need supports with housing, employment, mental health and various other aspects of life,” so we’ve begun fundraising and granting to support and design programs that are aimed at youth who are transitioning out of care in recognition of the fact that these youth don’t have other supports available to them, or the supports that are available are sometimes so challenging to navigate, as Dr. Doucet referenced, are very confusing or have eligibility criteria that are really not reflective of their lived experience and the full breadth of intersectional experience that young people have when entering from care.
For the most part, we work through a network of child- and youth-serving partners. Also, in the youth-in-transition space, we do have contact directly with young people. We’ve had the privilege of learning from them about their priorities and their struggles, and we know that there are opportunities for further partnering with government. We would love to supplement our existing philanthropic dollars with federal funding to enhance supports to share the positive practices that we’ve learned from implementing these programs with children and youth transitioning out of care across the country and to really build out the robust data that would be necessary to understand what works and really improve outcomes for youth in care.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Chan, I was very interested in the international best practices you identified. I don’t think we solidified that we would like you to share those with us through the clerk. If you could do that, we would be really interested in knowing more about those international best practices. That would be very helpful for our study.
Ms. Greenough, I see your title is Director of Child and Family Wellbeing. From my extensive knowledge of social work in Nova Scotia, that seems to me to be quite a paradigm shift. That’s a new title. Does that mean there’s also a new way of working with families and children, with a greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention? Can you tell us a bit about that shift and how you feel it’s working? Is it making a difference?
Ms. Greenough: Thank you for the question.
We are shifting our way of being in Nova Scotia. We have changed our language, as you’ve said — Child and Family Wellbeing. We’re also changing language in terms of child protection, which has a very intrusive connotation, with our focus on child safety and family preservation. Preservation is entirely the focus from day one. From the very beginning, our work is really to look at our legislation and on how we have the opportunity from the very first knock at the door.
We can still make connections in the community. The vision that we are seeking to support is that the community supports the safety and well-being of children, youth and families. That is a shift. You’ll hear folks talk about child protection and needing to give up that authority and that power so that the family and the child have the voice at the heart of this and the community has the support that they need. It also becomes about strengthening the community, considering their culture and how we are bringing that at the very beginning.
I spoke about the need to have that race-based data upfront so we can ensure that we are responding in a way that is culturally attentive for that family to consider what those supports are. Our values are treating families with honesty and dignity. I have spoken about the need for relational work, and that is also a very big shift in that we need to support staff in that reflective practice, thinking about the biases that they bring to this work and decolonizing “child welfare.” We are not using that term any longer. We are but one in the community to support this family.
I don’t know if that quite sums it up, but I’d be happy to add anything else you may have questions about.
Senator Bernard: Is that reflected in legislation? What I am hearing is more of an emphasis on what I would consider to be more Indigenous and Afro-centric perspectives in terms of visualizing the work. Is that reflected in a change in legislation as well? If so, how is that being perceived across your system, which is quite large?
Ms. Greenough: Yes. We don’t do anything slowly here at DCS these days. We’re kind of doing it all at once. I jest.
Our practice framework, which has been over a year now, is in place. We just finished our policy; now it will be forward facing where it has not been before. We are looking to roll that out at the start of next year, I believe. Don’t quote me on that. Somebody will get very upset if the date doesn’t match up.
Legislatively, yes, we are simultaneously considering legislation in terms of that infusion of culture, the infusion of our approach in the least intrusive manner, the prevention that currently exists in one piece of it and how we see that embodied throughout our legislation. We just happen to be tackling that at this time. That’s over the next coming year, but we have it in there, and we can continue until we get the new shift in legislation.
The Chair: Thank you. The final question goes to Senator Gerba.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: We heard from previous witnesses about the need to facilitate access to post-secondary education for young people leaving the child welfare system. One of the examples given was tuition waiver programs. What are your thoughts on this?
[English]
Ms. Chan: Access to post-secondary education is so foundational for young people from care. It provides them an opportunity to advance in their careers. Senator Pate, there is data out of the Conference Board of Canada — it’s about ten years old at this point — that speaks about the increased amount of lifetime earnings that someone will have if they attend post‑secondary education. Tuition waivers is one very strong way to make that happen. I would say that that would need to happen in conjunction with, as Dr. Gahagan highlighted, wraparound supports. Only removing the cost of paying for the actual program is just one part of it. It really needs to happen in conjunction with supports for housing, mental health and technology.
I think Dr. Doucet and Dr. Gahagan both spoke about the importance of trauma-informed approaches, which is meeting the young person where they are at. If somebody takes a while, a bit longer, to come to post-secondary education, or if someone becomes a young parent or does not complete high school until a little bit later in their life, then they should be able at any age to come back and attend post-secondary education and not have that as a barrier. If a young person needs to take a bridging program or they haven’t completed high school, then they should also have supports that will help bridge them into post‑secondary. Post-secondary supports are incredibly important, but we know that, at least in Ontario, young people from care only graduate from high school at a rate of about half of their peers. Less than 50% of young people in Ontario graduate from high school. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe those statistics exist in the rest of the country as much as we would like to know that. Just having young people graduate from high school is the starting point. I think Dr. Gahagan has some very strong data that supports what sort of a protective factor that can have and the improved outcomes that can result in, just making sure that involves wraparound supports and, as Dr. Doucet highlighted, it doesn’t involve a lot of complex eligibility criteria and that it is guaranteed over a span of a program.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank all our witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony will be very helpful in our deliberations and the study.
Senators, I will suspend very briefly. We have some other business to attend to, so we will resume in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)