THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 18, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:06 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today, we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I would invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Bernard: I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Nova Scotia, Mi’kmaq territory. I am the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Arnot: Good evening. I’m David Arnot, a senator from Saskatchewan. I live in Saskatoon, which is in the heart of Treaty 6 territory, the homeland of the Métis.
Senator Osler: I’m Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler, a senator from Treaty 1 territory, the original lands of the Anishinaabeg, Oji‑Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples and the homeland of the Red River Métis.
Senator Muggli: I’m Tracy Muggli, a senator from Saskatchewan. Like Senator Arnot, I am from the heart of Treaty 6 territory, homeland of the Métis.
The Chair: Welcome, senators, and all those who are following our deliberations. Today, we will be continuing our study of aging out of foster care under its general order of reference.
Before we welcome our witnesses, I want to provide a content warning for this meeting. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for some people in the room with us as well as those watching and listening to the broadcast. Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 988. Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and offers short-term counselling for both personal and work-related concerns, as well as crisis counselling.
This afternoon, we shall have three panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses, and then senators around the table will have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. With us, via video conference, from the Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth’s Office, please welcome Sherry Gott, Advocate for Children and Youth; and, via video conference, from the Office of the New Brunswick Child and Youth Advocate, please welcome Kelly Lamrock, Child and Youth Advocate.
I will now invite Ms. Gott to make her presentation, to be followed by Mr. Lamrock.
Sherry Gott, Advocate for Children and Youth, Manitoba Advocate for Children and Youth’s Office: Good afternoon. I am in Treaty 1 territory in Winnipeg. Honourable members, thank you for inviting me to contribute to your study on aging out of foster care.
As the Advocate for Children and Youth in Manitoba, the province with the highest rates of child removal and out-of-home placements in Canada, I am very grateful for the opportunity to share some insights based upon the Manitoban context and to amplify the voices of Manitoban youth with lived experiences.
I want to begin by providing some context for my remarks today. In Manitoba, as with the rest of Canada, many of the issues that children in care face stem directly from the persistent colonial structures and policies in which the child welfare system is firmly rooted and which ensure the continuation of structural inequities and systemic racism. This includes Canada’s ongoing failure to provide basic resources to Indigenous peoples in the areas of adequate housing, water, income, education, health and healing services.
It is not a coincidence that Indigenous children and youth are vastly over-represented in the child welfare system across the country. In Manitoba, 91% of children in government care are First Nations, Metis or Inuit. Close to one third of all First Nations children in Manitoba spend time in care during their childhood. The widespread removal of Indigenous children from their families is a grave injustice that in many ways mirrors both the practices and the outcomes of the residential school system and the Sixties Scoop.
My office has had the privilege of speaking to many young people who have spent time in government care, most recently in a project led by youth themselves. Their collective testimony reveals deeply concerning patterns. Many of the young people we have heard from have described the anguish of being separated from their siblings, their cultures and their identities. Many have been subjected to neglect, abuse, exploitation and trafficking at the hands of their foster parents. For many who raised concerns about their placements to their social workers, follow-up was either slow, inadequate or non-existent. As one youth explained, “Child welfare is just another form of generational trauma.”
Most youth we have spoken to expressed not having the supports and resources they needed while in care, and many felt that their social workers were unreliable and did not care about them. The large majority also expressed that their time in the child welfare system did not adequately prepare them for adulthood.
In Manitoba, except in special circumstances, youth age out of care when they turn 18. This legal designation of adulthood often fails to align with a young person’s readiness and ability to navigate adult responsibilities, particularly for youth with cognitive disabilities. One youth, who sadly died this past July, explained their experience like this: “They didn’t teach us anything — no life skills. They basically threw all the kids out and said, ‘There you go; there’s your life.’ You know nothing. You have no education, and you have no money, nothing for you to live your life. It’s horrible.”
Hundreds of youth age out of care in Manitoba every year. Some have their files immediately closed, whether they are prepared for it or not. About 75% of youth who age out of care in Manitoba are eligible to receive support from the child welfare system until their twenty-first birthday in the form of AYAs, or Agreements with Young Adults. However, many are not even made aware of this option, while others decide to actively terminate their involvement with the child welfare system because of their negative experiences with it. For those youth who are on AYAs, some are unable to adequately follow through with what is expected of them for their funding to continue, while others have characterized the financial support they receive as insufficient to meet their basic needs.
We also know that Manitoba’s independent living program for youth aging out of care is rife with problems. Not only are there more kids aging out of care than there are independent living places, but many of the programs are also for profit and do not include accountability or outcome measures. One youth had this to say about it: “Independent living was probably the worst experience of my life because the set budget didn’t cover rent, didn’t cover food, and it didn’t cover bills. There was zero responsibility from my agency on any of those fronts. I had to find and fend for that stuff myself.”
As I’m sure honourable senators are aware, youth who have aged out of care have notably compromised life outcomes compared to their peers who had never been in care. In Winnipeg, at least 50% of houseless people have been involved with the child welfare system, with two thirds becoming houseless within the first year of aging out of care. The majority of young people who age out of care in Manitoba also live below the poverty line, with approximately 66% ending up on social assistance one year after aging out of care.
But there is hope. I would invite honourable senators to take a look at the Memengwaa Program from Shawenim Abinoojii Inc. in Manitoba, which has been highly successful in supporting Indigenous youth in and aging out of care because it provides services and supports that are culturally appropriate and holistic.
I dream of a world in which we all work toward developing systems and services that help keep families together wherever possible. I dream of a Canada that is guided by equitable national standards for the provision of supports and services for children and youth who do end up in care. And I dream of a society in which youth in care do not age out, but are instead provided with the same level of comprehensive care and unconditional support that their peers who are not in care receive.
[Indigenous language spoken]. Thank you for letting me share with you today.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Lamrock?
Kelly A. Lamrock, Child and Youth Advocate, Office of the New Brunswick Child and Youth Advocate: Thank you, senator, and good evening, honourable senators.
I want to first congratulate this committee for taking this issue on. These are often neglected and forgotten voices. At any given time in New Brunswick, we have approximately 800 to 1,000 children in care. In terms of the Minister of Social Development, as a former minister myself, I know what an awesome responsibility that is.
One of the things that our office has recently made clear — and this is not atypical in Canada — in New Brunswick, until recent amendments, the government had no obligation to know what was going on with kids in its care. If you asked the Department of Social Development here how many children in their care are homeless, how many are in difficulty with the court system, how many go on to post-secondary education and how many are on partial-day plans in high school, they did not know. Amazingly, a reasonably competent parent would know that about their child or someone would call the Department of Social Development. I think that speaks to how often the government does not take this charge as seriously as they need to.
Our office recently completed a report called Through Their Eyes: The Lives of Children and Youth Living in the Care of the Province in which we interviewed about 200 children who had experienced the care system. I think one thing I would try and transmit to you is how much a child’s world tends to shrink, especially when they’re going through traumatic situations. What we heard was not lofty demands on government but simple things to be heard and remembered the way children should be when they have loving and caring parents. The things that we heard most often are things like being told in the middle of the night you had been bureaucratically shuffled to a new home and you had to gather everything in a garbage bag and move for the third time, children who had to change schools and didn’t have their education plan carry over and didn’t even have time to say goodbye to their favourite teacher, or children who were bureaucratically moved to a different group home and suddenly couldn’t keep their spot on the school basketball team or lost their role in the school play. It was that frustration of not being heard that was the greatest thing. Government bureaucracy is not always built to respond to the needs of children in real time. That is an ongoing challenge that we’ve detailed in a number of reports.
One thing we heard loud and clear when we interviewed those hundreds of kids from the care system, though, was that one of the scariest times, as my colleague from Manitoba just told you, is that period leaving care and launching into adulthood. I would invite senators to think of when we were all that age, when you’re somewhere between a kid and a grown-up. I went off to university. I wasn’t done being parented. I relied on my parents for advice, for counsel, for budgeting, for emergency assistance and for temporary housing, all those things that we often rely on and take for granted what it is to have a family who helps us with that transition.
Kids coming out of care are vastly over-represented in terms of the number of kids who don’t complete high school and wind up in the criminal justice system and tragically with homelessness. I think that very vulnerable period of leaving presents one of the great opportunities for the federal government to make a real difference. I know this is a provincial responsibility, but one thing the federal government does have is the power to make transfers to individuals. There could be no better investment than making sure that children in care have a predictable set of benefits, ones that aren’t bureaucratically means-tested to the point of discouraging them from going on but actually responds in a timely way to their real needs.
The suggestions I would make are to focus on that power to make transfers to individuals.
One suggestion is just attacking that time somewhere around age 15 or 16 when children age out of care and making sure there are transitional funding supports that can be counted on. Registered savings plans that are specifically designed for the needs of kids in care in which the government makes contributions early and matches throughout their young adulthood to age 25 is a model that has worked in some U.S. states. Pennsylvania had great success with a program, even one raised through private funding.
Legislation that makes sure the children can keep their benefits and savings from some of their benefits like the Child Tax Credit and others would be an excellent amendment. Right now, those are often used by provincial governments to subsidize their expenditures and obligations to their kids rather than preserving them for the children. Making sure the children can keep their own benefits is a model that many federal governments have looked at. I would encourage you to look at the same.
Transitional supports to prevent poverty and homelessness are also good. We know that housing first is essential. You cannot plan for a future if you’re struggling to meet your day-to-day needs. Housing supports that allow children exiting care to establish a first residence through rental supports would be a tremendous way to assist children during that vital transition time.
Programs specifically designed, whether through the Canada Student Loan Program or others, for education and training — something we have cited the government for. I think they are getting better in New Brunswick, but it is a common problem. The kind of bureaucratic means-testing the kids in care go through when they are asked when trying to plan for post‑secondary education is sometimes excessive. We are very focused on the cost of helping a child in care pay for post‑secondary education without looking at the costs of making that difficult or erecting one more bureaucratic barrier. In fact, if you look at the costs of homelessness and other things that many kids in care enter into, we should be rolling out the red carpet, frankly, for children exiting the care system and going to that kind of system. Having an easy, predictable way, whether through a non-repayable bursary or other means, that kids in care can count upon to know that post-secondary education is covered and there is a light at the end of the tunnel if they work and apply themselves would be excellent programs.
I would encourage this committee to look at the groups who are over-represented in care. As my colleague said, those are First Nations and Aboriginal Canadians. Also, children with disabilities are vastly over-represented. Because of the lack of supports, we actually sometimes see parents signing their rights over to the provincial government simply so those kids can get the help they need. Support for community-based programs and mental health, as well as supports for First Nations — ones that actually provide funds without strings to First Nations’ government, not ones that generate endless reports that nobody reads for a few dollars — would be some of the best ways to help the groups that are over-represented in care.
I think that power to make transfers to individuals is the best lever the federal government has. The time I would recommend to you is that vulnerable time when children are leaving care and making sure the entire weight of adulthood doesn’t fall on their shoulders before they are ready and that there are supports that are predictable, they can count on and that are not subject to excessive bureaucratic means-testing.
With that, I thank the committee for its time.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have five minutes for your questions, which includes the answers. We will try to keep to the time.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. I have a question for both witnesses, and I would like them to address a few issues.
This has been a longstanding problem that has been identified by you and others. We’re hearing that we need to see transitional housing programs and wraparound supports for students in provinces. I think this is an area that our committee might look into in more detail or perhaps make recommendations about. Do you know any best models? I know, Mr. Lamrock, you mentioned one of the states in the United States, but where are the best models to do this? It’s fundamentally wrong to push young people out onto the street. We know that; the case has been made. What are the barriers to implementing those kinds of programs? You’ve seen them all, I’m sure, both in Manitoba and New Brunswick. What suggestions would you have for us? I know Mr. Lamrock has been quite strong on the power to make transfers to individuals. Maybe you can amplify how that works and why you think it is one of the best recommendations we can make.
Mr. Lamrock: Senator, I’ve seen this experience not only as a minister before I was an advocate but also as a parent. My oldest daughter, Sarah, joined our family when she was 14 from the care system. Watching her go through some of those transition programs, even with the support she had, was interesting to me.
Anything that is easily accessible is extremely important. For instance, if there can be established savings accounts that are set up beforehand that a child is able to access that matches funds — that was the Pennsylvania program. They actually did it through private donations, as sometimes these things are in the states with their approach to social safety nets. They found a tremendous decrease in homelessness and dropout rates simply by making sure children could develop savings in their own time.
I do think some kind of a direct transfer for education is important. There is a myriad of programs now, some of which are complex. The part that stays with me was when Sarah came upstairs and said, “Kelly, I don’t know how to answer this question. They’re asking me if I am in the care of the Minister of Social Development.” It was funny, because I was the Minister of Social Development at the time, but the question didn’t mean that. There were so many forms and so many different programs.
When I taught at St. Thomas, we were one of the universities with the highest number of first-generation students in the country. We created a program that had a guaranteed minimum scholarship if your marks were at a certain threshold. For kids coming from backgrounds where post-secondary education isn’t usually traditional, guaranteed funding and a clear goal to work toward made a tremendous difference.
I think those two are absolutely essential. I know there are about 20 U.S. states that also have legislation allowing children to bank their benefits in a savings account; it’s supported that way. I can provide the committee with some of the written examples afterward.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Ms. Gott, do you have any comments on that? It’s the same question.
Ms. Gott: I talked about the Memengwaa Program here in Winnipeg, which is currently run by an agency. It provides holistic supports to all the children in care. It allows flexibility. There is proper resourcing, staffing and financial programming. It has some of the best outcomes for the children who are attached to that program. There needs to be more of that throughout the systems because that is lacking in the system right now. Children are aging out into homelessness, which is not a good thing.
The Chair: I see we have been joined by another colleague. I would like her to introduce herself.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba, Rigaud division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you to both witnesses.
My first question will be for Ms. Gott. In your very compelling testimony, you reminded us of the residential schools and the Sixties Scoop. We’ve certainly heard from others that what’s been happening with Indigenous children in the child welfare system is a continuation of those; I think that is clearly what you were saying. You were highlighting the multigenerational trauma.
I’d like you to tell us a bit more. You ended on a message of hope because of the program you were identifying in Manitoba — I’m sorry, but I couldn’t catch the name of it. Could you tell us a bit more about that program? How does it work? What is so significant about it, and what kinds of differences is it making?
Ms. Gott: It’s called Memengwaa. I can send you the outline for it. It is a highly successful program. It actually received a Making the Shift Youth Homelessness Prevention Award here in Manitoba. It’s based in Winnipeg. It provides a range of services that are designed to support young people in their path to adulthood and independence. It’s been developed to support young people who have been in the child welfare system and are at risk of being homeless. It responds to those needs with relationship-based approaches to service delivery. The team’s approach is from a place of humility. They are nonjudgmental. They work with the kids with an open heart, and they work with other organizations in the system. It’s a First-Nations-led approach that meets the needs of the youth who are aging out of care during their transition.
Senator Bernard: How long has it been in existence?
Ms. Gott: I think it has been about four years now. I know kids come in there and are provided a home base. They are also provided their own privacy, with supports attached.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Lamrock, and it follows my colleague Senator Arnot’s question around promising practices. In Nova Scotia — I’m sure you’re aware of this — a number of universities and community colleges have a tuition-waiver program. Are you familiar with such programs, and do you feel they could have an impact on youth aging out of care?
Mr. Lamrock: Thank you, senator. I am aware of Nova Scotia’s program. I think it is an extremely promising practice.
If there is one thing we’ve learned about students who are coming from non-traditional backgrounds, for participating in post-secondary education, certainty is a tremendous tool in increasing participation. The more you can make the path clear and predictable that if you work hard and you’ve earned the kind of marks where you belong, that you’ll be there. The more uncertainty you introduce — these are children who have good reason not to be terribly trusting of structures, so everything from very micro programs — if we look at things like in the United States, there are examples of schools started with a charter of actually being open to students from non-traditional backgrounds who themselves promise tuition waivers. Nova Scotia is a good example, as is St. Thomas. We saw a huge increase in students from non-traditional backgrounds by having a guaranteed scholarship program.
I recently did cite the provincial government for — in fact, when we recently did our child protection legislation and amendment, I asked the legislature for it and was successful in getting it — establishing the right to pursue post-secondary education consistent with your abilities as a right. One of the reasons that is so important is before, there was a sense of, “Well, tell me what you want to take. Let’s see. We’ll have to see what the jobs are in that area.” It’s the kind of discouragement that parents probably wouldn’t do with their own children, and it came from this idea of means-testing being somehow important because, oh heaven forbid, we might fund somebody for doing the wrong kind of program, instead of asking what is the cost of driving out kids who are already vulnerable.
So I think you are exactly right to turn your mind to those kinds of predictable programs with clearly defined benefits and supports and ones that make that path evident to children who are wondering whether or not it is worth the effort.
Senator Osler: Thank you to both witnesses for being here today. I have is a question for you, but I will start with Ms. Gott.
Ms. Gott, you spoke about the agreements with young adults. That’s the program, as you said, whereby the Director of Child and Family Services may continue to provide care to support youth up to the age of 21 as they transition to independence. Could you please talk to us about that program? Can you highlight any aspects of the program which you think we really should be aware of? And the flip side to that: Are there any aspects of the program that you think could be strengthened or changed?
For Mr. Lamrock, you recommended transfers to individuals so that youth aging out of care would have predictable financial support, but this committee has heard concerns that youth aren’t provided with financial literacy skills. I was wondering if you could talk to that as well.
Ms. Gott, perhaps we will start with you.
Ms. Gott: Well, for youth who are aging out of care, planning starts at 16, according to regulation and standards here in Manitoba. If children are to remain in care, the social worker is expected to start planning at the age of 16, and then they apply to government for permission to keep that child in care or to provide funding. We’ve had some successes where children remain in care because of the lack of support and services that are needed for them to be successful.
We also have a program in Manitoba called the Keith Cooper Scholarship where children who are in care can access funding so they can go to university or college. We’ve had some successes. I recently attended an awards ceremony called Voices where children were honoured for going to university or college. We actually had a former youth in care graduate with a doctorate. That was really impressive. There were also other youth who graduated with other diplomas and degrees. When they remain in care, there is support. There is access to services, wraparound supports, housing and funding, that is very minimal but it still supports them.
I think increasing the age to 26 — possibly 29 — would also support children who want to remain in care.
Mr. Lamrock: We also have a program called the Youth Engagement Services. Thanks to changes in our legislation, that now goes to age 25. Some of the same things my colleague spoke about are there — access to financial counselling, access to housing supports. We have a big challenge getting government departments to work together with integrated services, but we are getting there.
You specifically asked me about the balance between wanting to provide financial supports but also understanding that, for some of the same factors I spoke about, children at 16 who haven’t necessarily had a lot of support in their lives don’t always have the kind of budgeting supports.
I have mentioned a couple of ideas about earmarking funds for housing and post-secondary, and I think that’s important. I also think, though, it is important that we don’t overregulate it to the point where nothing good can happen. Sometimes governments are guilty of that. We are so afraid somebody will make a bad decision that we keep people from making any good decisions. I know with First Nations governments, I’m always struck by how much, despite centuries of failing First Nations people, we come and say, “Look, you have to fill out all these forms and do all of this to get a little bit of help because you might misspend it,” even though absolutely nothing suggests that we are better at it. For a lot of kids in care, there is going to be a natural distrust: “Wait a minute, you have not been there for me a whole lot throughout my life, and now you are going to tell me . . .” I have often said any post-secondary education beats none, and making it easy is often a better way of doing it.
I think you can earmark certain supports for housing and post-secondary education that come early, maybe before access to savings accounts that could kick in later. That’s one way to make sure that the basics are taken care of. But in some ways, too, the risk of bad decisions by the individual is not an excuse for government not to front-end those supports at that vulnerable time because right now, frankly, government decisions are not serving these kids well.
Senator Osler: Thank you very much to both of you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you both for being here today. I really appreciate it.
I think Senator Bernard and I are on the same wavelength. It might be because we’re both social workers. I was going to ask pretty much the same question. I was curious about the Memengwaa Program. I will be curious to learn a little more about the program. I didn’t hear you say until what age the program carries youth through. My question was around what you think are the top two or three features or interventions of that program that make it so successful.
Ms. Gott: I think right now they offer it up to 26. I think what makes it successful is that youth are engaged. Wraparound supports are provided. It is First Nation-led. That’s the other thing. There is a team approach to it. The results are that the young people feel involved, and they have a sense of belonging, ownership and responsibility. I visited the facility when I first came into my role, and it was amazing. There is culture there. There are elders. The workers are there 24 hours. They provide support as much as the kids need it. It is called Memengwaa.
Senator Muggli: I’m sure the 24-hour presence is a big part of it. I provided leadership for youth mental health for a long time. One of the key pieces I recognize is points of transition in kids’ lives. Our staff used to always be the busiest with the Grade 8 kids who were transitioning to Grade 9, that transition out of high school into what is next, never mind being in this situation.
Mr. Lamrock, you were talking about a Housing First approach. I am familiar with Housing First, and there has been great success in some of the programs, albeit it seems many of them have had to rely on fundraising and to fight for funding. I am curious what you think might be the specific supports in that type of model that would help youth be successful in that transition.
Mr. Lamrock: I think probably from a federal government perspective — and I say that because, operationally, you have a far more limited set of levers than the provincial Minister of Social Services is going to have. That kind of direct, predictable support to individuals that then might be — particularly if you protect it from being clawed back by provincial governments, that is often one of the best ways. If there are dollars in the individual’s hand, then they confront the rental market and the housing market where they are.
If we were asking this in a New Brunswick legislative committee, you might hear far more thoughts from the former social services minister. But from the federal government, senator, I think probably in many ways, when the federal government does well, it’s because it writes cheques in the right targeted way. I think that support to an individual rather than trusting it to trickle through provinces — our experience here has not been exceptional in terms of departments not just throwing that into general revenue.
Senator Muggli: I do recall a time when the Mental Health Commission of Canada piloted at least three Housing First programs in three different provinces and provided seed money for that pilot, but for the carry-out, even if they were successful, the provinces would need to step in and support that going forward. I understand what you’re saying. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Again, I apologize for being late today. Thank you to our witnesses. I hope I can ask my question in French.
In its concluding observations, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child made specific recommendations for Canada. One of the committee’s recommendations was to establish an independent office at the federal level for monitoring children’s rights, with a mandate to produce public reports. What are your thoughts on that recommendation?
Mr. Lamrock: I can start. This is something we support, and I’m sure most of my colleagues in Canada would agree. Essentially, the purpose of federal government accountability with respect to children under the UN Charter is to give a voice to under-represented groups of children in society in general, and that’s a good thing. If the federal government wanted to go ahead and establish such an office, we would definitely support that.
Senator Gerba: Is that a recommendation, or, actually, would that recommendation lead to specific benefits? What benefits do you think such an office would provide? Is this a standard we see internationally?
Mr. Lamrock: Many countries have such an office at the federal level. There’s probably a reason why, in Canada, each province has a children’s rights organization. First, generally, we have the right to conduct mandatory investigations at the ministry, to supply information and answer questions in order to be accountable for decisions made. Public reporting is another important thing. Those are probably things you would see in many international offices.
For example, there’s a children’s advocacy organization that focuses on the Francophonie, including France, Tunisia, Burkina Faso and Morocco. Many of my colleagues in the international space have that authority. If Canada decided to pursue something like this, it would certainly join international groups. The fact that there’s someone who can force people to answer questions, even uncomfortable ones, can also change bureaucratic behaviour. Based on our experience in New Brunswick, that’s a good thing.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Gott, you spoke about the anguish of children being separated from their siblings, their cultures and their identities. How difficult is it for these children, then, once they age out of care, to get back in touch with their identities and their cultures? What is the transition like?
Ms. Gott: One of the things we find is that children have a hard time connecting with their own communities, their own families and their own nations because they’ve been kept away from their families. I think one of the things that they need is support to transition back to their communities or to their families. It’s very important to have that in place. As a survivor of the residential school system, I can speak on that because I really had a hard time transitioning to my own community when I was taken away for 10 years. If a child has been in care for 18 years, how do they connect back to their own community without the supports?
The Chair: Mr. Lamrock, is there anything you would like to add to that?
Mr. Lamrock: My colleague is far more articulate than I, but that’s something we hear a lot from children in care, particularly those with First Nations backgrounds. When you lose touch with your family, you often feel caught between two worlds afterwards; you’re not of the world you’ve been in or the one you were born into. Again, that targeted support for First Nations government for mental health organizations is certainly something I would strongly recommend to you. I think we would see the same thing here in New Brunswick. When it comes to First Nations families, that’s absolutely important.
The Chair: Mr. Lamrock, I wanted to ask you about this, since you’ve been a minister. Canada is a country that welcomes refugees, and quite often we find that youth will arrive by themselves without any parents. What happens to them when they age out of care? Is it easy for them to get their citizenship? Is it easy for them to get supports? I would like to know what their experience is like.
Mr. Lamrock: In the little bit that we had through our interviews, it’s incredibly difficult. I doubt I have to tell you, senator, that the immigration system is difficult to navigate on a good day for an adult. For someone without those parental supports or somebody by their side, it is well near impossible. In fact, all of the things we’ve spoken about — navigating housing markets, developing some sense of what you want to do — are doubly hard for children in that situation.
Indeed, I think that’s a profoundly important question and one that provincial governments have not begun to grapple with in a lot of ways. We’ve been so busy trying to open the door — correctly so — for new Canadians that we haven’t always thought 10 years ahead. I think that’s a profoundly important question.
Senator Bernard: Mr. Lamrock, we’ve heard this evening about the over-representation of Indigenous children and youth in care. We’ve heard previously there is also an over‑representation of Black youth and children in care. This evening, you mentioned the over-representation of children with disabilities in care. That’s not an area we’ve heard much about, and I’m wondering if you could give us a bit more information in terms of your knowledge of the over-representation of children with disabilities. Do you have a specific recommendation with regard to this that you would make to our committee?
Mr. Lamrock: There are a number of recommendations I would make, senator.
There are two reasons you see that over-representation. One reason we are actually seeing it in New Brunswick is partly because — I recently did a report on children put on partial-day programs. This is a growing problem in the country because of the underfunding of the education system. Sometimes children are told, “Maybe you can only handle an hour or two a day.” Sometimes we found those cases going on for years, and we have cited the government here that the law is not that you can send children home endlessly; you have to provide supports. In a lot of cases, we are seeing parents actually sign over parental rights in the hope that the province can provide better access to services, and that should not happen.
We also know that there are a number of core conditions. One thing that is over-represented a great deal that our offices discovered is fetal alcohol syndrome among kids in care and a number of disabilities that are there. The response time is often very late. We wait until there is a crisis rather than respond to the predictor of problems. I think that’s another area for more support for provincial governments in identifying the root causes of future problems. Beginning that right from the time of early childhood, rather than waiting until 12-year-olds are in crisis, is a tremendously effective way of dealing with it.
Specifically for children with disabilities, there are a couple of things. One is that expanding current disability tax credits would probably help with a number of complex cases. We are seeing families simply overwhelmed. In our report, we discovered that children in care were 20 times more likely to be put on a partial day program, which means that in some cases, the social worker or government official who is supposed to be acting a parent may be seeing themselves more as part of the government team rather than advocating for the child. The more we can keep families intact, the more we can provide support to families with children with disabilities. Respite care and other community-based programs is also extremely important. The sheer exhaustion in some cases that we are hearing from parents is becoming a factor.
I recently advocated for one family here, and it is typical. They were good parents, but they had two children with complex needs. Both had autism spectrum disorder, as well as a number of behavioural issues. The children got put on a partial day program. The parents don’t have the kind of jobs where they can simply leave work if somebody calls. They were hourly employees, and they lost their jobs because the school kept telling them to come pick up their kids. Then the family became housing insecure, so they moved 20 minutes out of town, and then the children had to change schools. Then the social services office couldn’t keep track of them because they couldn’t afford a cellphone anymore, and things just spiralled again and again.
Community-based programs that support families of children with disabilities early on — there is a great model in Toronto that people are experimenting with. I can send something to your office to get you in touch with the organization. It is almost a group home without walls in that we take the supports that you would think of in a group home but we provide them to the family. Social workers and others who can help actually show up to the house the child is in. The administration is central, but the housing is decentralized for children so they don’t wind up in care and so we support the family.
Community organizations can provide respite care and support for children, and the more we can work in that key area that is the predictor of the child winding up in care, I think that would help reduce that over-representation. We aren’t talking about it enough, but the numbers we are seeing, it is both an over‑representation, and, in some cases, it is because the family could have managed if there had been more support earlier, before the moment of crisis.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I have a quick question for either of you around your experiences and what you have heard. We know the data regarding suicidality among 2SLGBTQ+ is high. What do you know or what have you heard from those youths around what would be helpful in their transition from foster care or aging out? I assume there might be some unique challenges that would be needed.
Ms. Gott: Definitely, yes. LGBTQ youth experience a lot of discrimination. There are barriers which are exacerbated due to stigma. They also need additional support due to mental health challenges. I think that services should be tailored to their needs. There is lack of data and information in general in our system here in Manitoba, but I think one of the things is that we need to connect those youths to appropriate services, because it might be difficult for them to connect on their own. We need to gain a better understanding of their unique needs and have better data collection to understand their perspectives. Also, the planning needs to be tailored to their needs. That’s what we’re hearing.
Senator Muggli: Yes. I am curious about specialized health care support.
Go ahead, Mr. Lamrock.
Mr. Lamrock: I was nodding in agreement. There are a couple of things.
That’s exactly one thing I wanted to add, that specialized health care is not often added into the package of services 2SLGBTQ+ young people need. That’s absolutely essential.
The other thing is mental health care. If a child who is part of that community has found themselves in care, more often than not, there may be some recent family trauma. Sometimes the waitlists are extremely long. For instance, in New Brunswick, by the way, of 27 school psychologist positions in the anglophone school system, only 7 are currently filled. We really need a national summit on training of scarce professions. Every province has a recruitment strategy. I don’t know if recruitment is the issue anymore. If it was, somewhere there would be a province where someone was saying, “How do I get rid of all of these psychologists?” and I have not found that. We probably have a training and supply problem.
I think I heard you say you are from Saskatchewan, senator. As you know, I am from New Brunswick. Our provinces have both had this issue, but I think it is important. School policies should never cut children off from the trusted adults that they feel comfortable talking to. As you know, in New Brunswick, we have a commitment from the new government to use the version of the policy for support for trans and gender-identity students that was authored by our office. We hear a lot about parental rights. I am a father and a grandfather. That’s absolutely important. I also know that that path is sometimes not direct and that the ability of children to seek the counsel and support of any adult they trust is often how they prepare for the ability to speak to their parents. Things that say, “We believe government can somehow regulate the process of coming out,” don’t work. What they tend to do is simply have the children say, “Well, then I won’t talk to any adult at all.” That’s when those risks of suicidality and other things become incredibly risky. An important element of this is that children need access to as many trusted adults as they feel they need. Anything that puts a wall between them and trusting a grown-up is a risk factor.
The Chair: I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank both our witnesses for agreeing to participate in this study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
I will now introduce the second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make a statement of five minutes, after which we will turn to questions from senators. With us at the table, please welcome Irwin Elman, Former Provincial Advocate, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario); and with us via video conference, from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia, we have Jennifer Charlesworth, Representative for Children and Youth. We also have Jennifer Dreyer, Executive Director, Systemic Advocacy, First Nations, Metis and Inuit Research.
I will now invite Mr. Elman to make his presentation, which will be followed by Ms. Charlesworth.
Irwin Elman, Former Provincial Advocate, Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (Ontario), as an individual: Thank you. I’m grateful for the opportunity and the invitation. I am more than grateful to sit on a panel with my friend and mentor, Jennifer Charlesworth, and our colleague, Jennifer Dreyer.
I don’t want to spend time on the outcomes for youth in care. You know the outcomes.
I began my journey alongside youth in care in 1985. In 1986, the National Youth in Care Network, or Youth in Care Canada, published On My Own With No Direction From Home. It is not online, but here is the book. I will leave the book here for you to read. In 2014, young people held their own hearings at the Ontario Legislature and wrote a book called My Real Life Book. Here it is, and you can find that online. It has been downloaded over 1 million times now. I know you’ve heard from people in and from care who more recently released a report about ethical guidelines for youth transitioning from care. I know you’ve heard them.
There have been so many reports and studies in between, and here is the truth: Over the 45 years I’ve journeyed with young people in and from care, nothing has changed. There has been a lot of tinkering and lots of programs. Pilot programs, they say, are where change goes to die. Nothing has changed for these children.
I remember being asked by a deputy minister, and in exasperation — I am a carrier of exasperation, I’ve been told; it’s like a virus I carry and transfer, and I get it. He asked me, “Irwin, is there somewhere with a better system?” I said, “No.” “Aha,” he said. “Aha,” I said back. There is no better system for young people leaving care because all the systems are generally the same in any liberal democracy, any province, any territory and any state. To this day, the outcomes are the same. They’re all the same system. There has been tinkering around the edges, but if they’re all the same system, why would you expect anything to be different?
I say to this committee that you’re maybe asking the question as if you’re starting a book on page 253 instead of page 1. That is a wholly unsatisfying process and experience.
Our child protection system across Canada — I say “child protection system” because there is no child welfare system — is a legally mandated service at the core of all services touching the lives of children and families in every province. It is 130 years old. It comes out of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It was originally a system of surveillance built to track immigrant children and families in New York, then to Toronto and then across Canada. It is a system built in risk and liability. I don’t say that in a pejorative way. I am just saying the facts. It’s the truth.
Despite the fact, or perhaps due to the fact, that the social work framework was used to implement the child protection system, nothing has fundamentally changed in 150 years. We have the same system in its bones. Work with me here. A system built in risk and liability, with its primary tool being surveillance, cannot possibly raise a child. It cannot.
So what will you hear from the system itself these days? They’ll say that living in care is no place for a child. That’s new in the last 10 years. They wouldn’t come here and say that, but they’ll say it now.
First of all, who asked the children and youth who come into care if that is the truth? It is not that the system is unforgiving, but if leaving their home was not the solution, who asked children and young people that? Because young people would say it’s not a Hobson’s choice, and it shouldn’t be. “Stop giving us a Hobson’s choice that we either leave the home and leave our family or we stay there and suffer.” Those are the two choices we are offering them. What choices are you giving children in youth? Really?
That’s the truth. I hope I’m not the first person to come here and tell you the truth. How dare the system say that living in care is no place for a child. At any one time in my province of Ontario, 10,000 children live in care. They cannot abandon them by saying, “We know 10,000 of you are living right now in our care, and it’s no place for you to be.” They’re the ones who are responsible? It’s not acceptable.
In Ontario, 20% of those are over-represented children are Indigenous. Certainly there is over-representation of Black and racialized children, 80% of children of those 10,000 on any given night.
I ask you to read this crucial report from my colleagues in B.C. called Don’t Look Away. It’s the first report that I have seen from a legitimate body, a legitimate institution, that posits something different — a new system. They term it a north star. They ask us to imagine a system not built in risk and liability but a system built in what they call another mental model, another framework or another world view.
Imagine, senators, what a system would look like if it was built in child development, a system built in the social determinants of health. What would a system built in empowerment look like? What would a system built in anti‑oppression or DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion — look like? What would a system built on human rights look like? I’m at the Human Rights Committee. What would a system built in family development look like? What would a system built in Indigenous ways of knowing or other cultural ways of knowing look like? What would a system look like if it was trauma-informed care? What would a system look like if it was built in love? It would not look like the system we have today.
Imagine a system where every child and every family, everyone, however constituted in that family, had what they need when they need it in order to thrive. Within this system, if we created it, children who found themselves in out-of-home care would stand a chance. What would this north star look like? How would it work? What would need to change to make it happen?
Here is my ask to you. I ask this committee — no, I beg this committee to be bold. Establish as part of your report a subcommittee of the Human Rights Committee. Hold hearings across Canada with the central question: What would a north star for Canada look like? What would that system look like? And centre those hearings that you hold across Canada. Go to young people, families and parents, centre their voices and ask them what that would look like. Then boldly hold up that north star.
I believe it’s possible. You will have the broad support. I’m not saying things that people don’t know. You will have the broad support of young people, parents, associations, lawyers, advocates and professionals. You’ll have the voices of the mental health sector that you mentioned. They’re not going to dispute anything I’m saying here. They are going to say, “Yes, we need something different.” You will have their support. It is a moment, senators. I would ask you to seize the moment and lead.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your passion.
Jennifer Charlesworth, Representative for Children and Youth, Office of the Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia: Thank you for addressing this important topic as a Senate committee and for providing me the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you today.
I am gratefully joining you today from the traditional lands of the Musqueam people in the area colonially known as Richmond, B.C. I am also grateful to be joining my wise and passionate friend Irwin Elman on this panel, as well as my dear colleague Jennifer Dreyer. We look forward to the discussions.
To begin, I want to echo Irwin’s comment that you already know about the risks, vulnerabilities and poorer life outcomes that many young people who have grown up in or spent time in the “protective care systems” experience both during and following their time in care. These poorer life outcomes may arise from the circumstances that led to protective intervention and/or their experiences within care. I will not speak further to this evidence in my opening remarks other than to say that we must not accept or be complacent with systems of care that result in too many young people struggling to survive their childhoods and too many adults struggling to recover from their childhoods in care.
There are three things that I want to bring home for the Senate committee members, building on Irwin’s comments.
The first is, if the state is going to assume the responsibility for raising children away from their families, then it has a duty to sustain support for these young people into adulthood, as much as those with family privilege enjoy. The responsibility to care, nurture and support young people doesn’t end at 18 or 19 years of age in any other context.
In early 2020, the late Katherine McParland, in collaboration with my office, authored a report with the input of hundreds of young people from throughout British Columbia who had been involved in the child protection system. From Marginalized to Magnified described state care for young people as putting them on the “super highway to homelessness” — mental health challenges and consequent substance use challenges as young people struggled to numb the emotional pain of their loss and grief, disconnection and day-to-day risks.
Building on Katherine’s work, late in 2020, my office released a report entitled A Parent’s Duty: Government’s Obligation to Youth Transitioning into Adulthood. This report notes that many of the post-majority supports that were available at the time were inaccessible, inequitable and inadequate. Just because there are supports on the books, senators, doesn’t mean that the problems have been solved, as they may not be what young people need and they may not be accessible.
A Parent’s Duty says very clearly that if the state assumes a caregiving role, then they have a responsibility to carry out this role well, as much as you or I provide to our own children as they grow into adulthood. We laid out a framework for action that has informed B.C.’s recent work in what’s called the SAJE program, Strengthening Abilities and Journeys of Empowerment. There is a great deal to learn, good and bad, from that experience to date, but the needs of many young people transitioning into adulthood remain unaddressed.
In fact, if we take a look at the 2024 youth transitioning out of care survey done by the McCreary Centre Society’s Youth Research Academy, youth and young adults named four key factors needed for a more successful transition: a transition plan, the ability to have basic needs met, consistent support from a supportive adult and the ability to engage in community activities such as volunteering or cultural activities. Over half of these young people said that they didn’t receive the services that they needed.
This leads me to the second point. While it is important to ensure that practical supports and resources are available to young people when they reach the age of majority, it is also important to ensure that young people experience and age into something — into relational, cultural and physical belonging and connection. As the McCreary findings remind us, young people want “consistent support from a supportive adult” and they want to participate in community and cultural life. In other words, they want to feel connected and belonged. Practical services and supports are important, but they are transactional, and they are not sufficient for healthy growth and development.
In 2021, we released a report entitled Skye’s Legacy: A Focus on Belonging. Skye taught us a tremendous amount. She taught us about what happens with so many of our programs is that we systematically unbelong children from their families, from community, culture, school and a positive sense of self and their future. Any systemic response must address this reality of unbelonging and intentionally and vigorously redesign systems to create what we all need to be healthy: meaningful connection and a sense of belonging.
Finally, for my third point, I will build on what Irwin has already spoken to. I think it’s the most critical piece. Be mindful of how we scope the challenges before us. If we define the challenge solely as a transition to adulthood challenge, we will look for solutions in the areas of transition planning and post‑majority supports. We will talk about whether there should be rent supplements or tuition waivers, and we will ask ourselves what programs and funds should be instituted at this point in a young person’s life. If our aim is to ensure that those raised in the child protection system have a better experience transitioning out of that system, then we will design solutions that are mere Band-Aids on gaping wounds.
Of course, we need to ensure that those who are youth in the child protection system now get what they need when they need it, but we can’t stop there. We need to scope the problem more holistically and work upstream and midstream. In the words of one of the members of our Circle of Advisors for our recent report Don’t Look Away that Irwin referenced, “We ask child protection to step into spaces where society has essentially failed to provide prevention and support services . . . .”
We have a both/and challenge and opportunity. Our current systems consistently and pervasively lead to poor outcomes. We cannot tinker at the edges and add some money here or a program there. It is time this country challenges our old mental models and reimagines how we support the well-being of children and youth in the context of their families, culture and communities.
Thanks for your time.
The Chair: Thank you. We will turn to questions from the senators.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for your testimony tonight and for the passion you bring to your work.
Mr. Elman, we may be the same age, because you’ve been doing this journey with children in care for 45 years, and I’ve been doing it for 45 years as well. I think I actually talked at our last committee meeting about the life of one young person that I’ve never been able to — she’s never left me. I share the passion. I share the vision for reimagining what’s possible.
Of course, as a federal government, we’re not responsible for those services. They’re provincial and territorial services. They’re not services that we are responsible for. When you think about our committee being bold and making recommendations for what we may call a paradigm shift, what could that look like? What might that paradigm shift look like if we’re truly talking about doing better for children and families in this country?
Mr. Elman: I have an answer. I don’t know if it will be satisfying. We used to bring young people together to deal with the inquests, and there was an inquest into a child who died in care. She was just two years old. There was a 14-year-old who moved from home to home, and it was her first night in that foster home, and the 14-year-old got up in the middle of the night and smothered the two-year-old. The inquest was about the two-year-old, but you can imagine that it was about the 14‑year‑old. It was one of those “how can this happen” deaths.
The young people talked about moving from home to home, and they talked about garbage bags, which was referenced tonight. I’m so tired of hearing about garbage bags. The young people talked about how in one agency they got together with the workers and they got funds and they bought luggage so no kid in their agency had to move with garbage bags again. I thought that was the end of the story, and the young person said, “No, that’s not the story, Irwin.” They used to call me other things than “Irwin” at times. They said that’s not the story because, she said, “I realized that if we were moving from one place where people genuinely cared and were curious about us and we felt that and we had control about moving to the next place and then we moved again, Irwin, we wouldn’t give a damn about moving in garbage bags.” She said, “You guys are always trying to solve human problems with institutional solutions, and you cannot. Human problems need human solutions, and that’s what you should be doing.” So I go to that deputy and say the story I just told you, and he rolls his eyes and says, “What do you want me to do with that?” Jennifer has heard this, because I always say it, because it stuck with me when a young person said it — the deputy said to me and the young person with me, “We can’t legislate love.” The young person said to him, “That’s true, deputy, you can’t legislate love, but you can legislate the conditions in which love can flourish.” Mic drop. I hope you feel it.
In the child protection system, from the moment it meets a child until the moment it tells the child to leave, everything rips at that sense of love, belonging and respect. There is so much in how a system could operate, in your recommendations, infused with love and respect, that would change things. The good news is — because I know you can’t spend money, you’re senators — it doesn’t necessarily cost money. It means doing things differently. That’s how I imagine it. I know Jennifer is much more rigorous in terms of her answers and will have a better answer than that for you, but that’s my answer.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Ms. Charlesworth: Thank you very much. It was such an important question. I’ve been journeying for 46 years, so we’ve got a lot of experience sitting around this virtual table, for sure, and lots of experiences with things that haven’t gone in the direction that we wish, despite our best intentions.
I am entirely with Irwin in the respect that we can’t legislate love, but we have to create the conditions in which love can flourish, and I want to offer a few levers that are at the federal level, and speak about the provincial level as well.
The notion is that we’ve created a child protection system, but the child protection system is asked to come in and try and address problems that have been created because of the failure of other systems prior to that, so the big levers to pull are childcare and early-year supports, housing, mental health care, access to basic income and food security, and access to timely health care and accessible health care across all jurisdictions.
We are also at a very significant time in history with the resumption of jurisdiction for First Nations to restore and self‑determine the way in which they raise their children, and there is a tremendous amount to be learned, but there are also significant risks attached from that. I’ve just come from meeting with the chiefs. We have 204 nations here in British Columbia, and 67% of the kids in care are Indigenous. It’s a significant issue. As we move forward, this is going to take time. It’s going to take a generation or more. There needs to be a focus on healing at the community level and also addressing the violence that has been perpetrated. It is a society-wide problem, but colonial violence perpetrated on communities has resulted in intergenerational violence and violence perpetrated against children. Healing matters, and I know there is just tremendous intention, desire and drive amongst First Nations, but they’re going to need resources. The to-ing and fro-ing around resources and the inequitable access to resources is, again, something within the federal purview.
With a particular note there, we did a report several years ago called At a Crossroads, which looked at funding inequities and, depending on where a child lived and how their nation was structured with respect to child welfare, there were very different experiences that a child could experience or receive in terms of services. I think that’s critically important, because if we are not able to provide those early year supports or the “early help,” as we call it, then we miss the opportunities. Then we are talking about 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds transitioning into adulthood with all sorts of enhanced risk factors.
I hope that’s helpful. Of course, there is a provincial role, but there is also a federal role and the big levers that could be pulled on a number of different areas that could change the conditions for families. Then, at a closer-to-home level, we begin to talk about those relational ways in which we create the conditions for love, belonging and connection.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Dr. Charlesworth. In your report in 2024, you highlighted staffing shortages as a critical issue in B.C.’s child welfare system. I’m wondering if you’re finding that there is a lot of burnout with the social workers that are using this model. I am wondering with what is wrong with “recruit and retain.” Why aren’t you retaining workers in the child welfare system? Is that a symptom of the fact that the model the workers are working in is failing? Not only is it failing those it is trying to serve, but it is failing those who are working in the system.
Ms. Charlesworth: Thank you. You’ve done your homework.
The companion report that we released to Don’t Look Away was called No Time to Wait. That was the first of a two-parter. The second will be coming out in December. You have hit the nail on the head. You are seeing the tremendous challenge that our workers have in meeting the needs of the children. Eighty per cent of the workers we surveyed said they were unable to fulfill their responsibilities to children because of the kinds of pressures in the environment we are in. I know that B.C. is not unique. This is a phenomenon across the country. Some of our offices have less than 50% staff, or no staff, who are delegated to fulfill the primary responsibilities under statute.
As you say, that’s one metric, but what’s the ripple effect of that? You have offices where you have very few people who are not able to do the work. That is moral distress, as a worker described to me just this very morning. They experience moral distress because they can’t ethically fulfill their responsibility. It does lead to burnout. It does lead to people feeling less pride in their work. It does lead to people leaving the field entirely. You are absolutely right. It is a failed model. We have not created conditions for children to be successful — children, families or the people who care and serve them. We have to reimagine the model.
I can tell you a couple of things that were telling for me. Once we released the report and started to talk about this, we had many people say, “I would love to stay in this field. I am committed to the well-being of children, but it has to change. Otherwise, I just don’t know how I can do that.” So it is not about the shortage or lack of commitment and drive; it is about the conditions that we are creating for people to do their best work. That’s one thing.
The other thing is that we have looked at the North Yorkshire model, among many models. We looked across the globe to try to find them. In North Yorkshire, the county organization that provided child welfare pivoted and started to do more work on something they call “Early Help.” They created Early Help specialists, who, when a family starts to struggle, before they are involved in the protective services system, or when they are trying to restore their family, they receive the supports they need in housing, child care, respite care, health care, mental health and substance use supports, wrapping around the family. They are having extremely positive outcomes. In fact, the national body that does very rigorous review of practice has listed them as number one of all the counties in the U.K. in terms of positive life outcomes.
What you are saying is critically important. The model is not working for anyone. We start to change the model, and we restore that sense of hope and possibility, not only in the families but in the people who provide the care. My goodness, we need them. We can’t even fill the faculty of social work and child and youth care spots here because people don’t want to enter into the field. That’s a problem.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Elman, you are aware of the North Yorkshire model?
Mr. Elman: Yes, from Jennifer.
Senator Arnot: That’s a model that focuses on the upstream, making sure that people don’t end up on the road to homelessness or addictions. Am I right about that?
Mr. Elman: Yes.
Senator Arnot: Okay. What are the components of the best model that you know about that need to be implemented in Canada? What are those components? How do you prove concept in the Canadian context? I hope you have an answer for that because we might be able to make some recommendations about that.
Mr. Elman: I do. I’m glad you asked.
Before I was a child advocate, I ran a centre for young people leaving care in the GTA. It is called the Pape Adolescence Resource Centre, or PARC for short. I learned from this service that we created, which was successful and was replicated in other countries such as Jamaica and Hungary and Japan, that there are three elements that we work in. This does not come from me; it comes from young people. I didn’t call it this, but people began to call it this because I said it so often: RCV, which stands for Resource, Connection, Voice.
Any endeavour, including what we do for families — I’m talking about young people in care — needed to provide a combination of three things: practical resources such as housing, income support, counselling, therapy, health care — access to resources. But that’s not enough. It is not enough for anybody, any family, and certainly not young people in care. They said that what else was provided was a sense of connection. Now we talk about belonging and Jennifer’s study on belonging. It is a buzzword you will run into when you are reading these days. Belonging, connection, in all its forms. Young people even talked about belonging and being connected to themselves. Belonging to the community, belonging to their schools, belonging to a family, whatever family means, right. Belonging. But they said, if all we have are resources and a sense of belonging, we might end up sitting in our basements doing nothing, so we need this sense of voice. They didn’t mean just talking but a sense of being in control of their lives. I don’t want to go on again, so I won’t. A sense of being. Everything that a young person experiences in care has that sense of being in control of their lives, from how they come into care to decisions that are made while they are in care to how they leave care. If you can create a service, and it actually doesn’t matter what it is, but where it starts at its core, if you can provide those three things for young people leaving care, you have a fighting chance of them being wildly successful.
I will say they are like the canary in the mine shaft — the young people in care. This is something they’ve told me, too. What do they need? They are human beings. What they need is what you need, senator, what you did need, and so do your kids. When we talk about resources, they often thought, I will be in state care — Ontario, Alberta, B.C. — so what better life will I have? Who has more resources to provide to me than the darn government? So I have the resources down pat, or I should. But they need those combinations of things. That’s where it is easy to figure out a life skills program. It is difficult, but easy to say, yes, get them a house to live in, cheap rent, but that’s not it. That is not it. We need those three components to raise children. These children are on our watch — all of our watch.
Look at PARC as a model, but there are other models in Canada and Ontario that start in different places that can provide that, but notice that it is not the child protection system that can provide that. If we have a child protection system, let them do child protection. They cannot provide those three things. Institutionally, they cannot provide those three things, no matter how well-meaning those social workers are. They might be in the wrong jobs. They should maybe be raising those children, because they are trained to provide those three things, but not within the child protection system, if we are going to keep it., and I’m not an abolitionist.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all three of our witnesses for being here today.
I have the same question for both of you. I will start by saying my background is from health care, so, Mr. Elman, when you were talking about changing the system, I agree with you fully. But part of the problem with changing a system that’s in place is how you change it. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on first steps. What would be the first step that a provincial government or a federal government should take to start to transform a system?
Dr. Charlesworth, you spoke about upstream levers — early childhood education in care, housing, mental health care, basic income, food security and health care. I would ask you the same question. I often get overwhelmed thinking about how to transform a system like health care. When I get overwhelmed, I think, okay, what is the first step on that long journey? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on achievable first steps, attainable first steps, that a provincial government could take and that a federal government could take. Perhaps I would start with Dr. Charlesworth.
Mr. Elman: I think that’s safe to do.
Senator Osler: But I definitely want to hear from you as well.
Ms. Charlesworth: Thank you for the question.
That is one of our greatest challenges. Where do we start when we’re talking about complex systems that have been entrenched in a certain value base and in certain mental models?
One of the things we talked about — I will refer to belonging and then come back. When we released Skye’s Legacy and we started to talk about the importance of belonging, we also talked about how important language was. Language helps us construct our realities, right? We know that. We have noticed that the more people talk about it and the more that we establish belonging into our day-to-day language and into our policies and into our practices and into the questions that we ask — like, how are you doing this case plan or this service plan to ensure belonging to people, place, culture and a sense of self — it actually starts to shift practice bit by bit. Over time, that can be cumulative. So language matters.
One of the language lessons that we’re bringing into our current journey is to start talking not about child protection, not even about child welfare, but about child well-being. When you start to talk about child well-being, you end up making the circle bigger. Instead of talking about the statutory services of protection, you’re now talking about well-being which brings in the health care system and the mental health care system. It brings in the recreation system. You have now got more people in the circle who can wrap around our children. So language matters.
Even in making the shift from child welfare to child well‑being, we are asking ourselves, what are we doing in our practice to enhance the likelihood of children thriving and not just surviving? And what are we doing in our day-to-day work that, as Irwin said, creates the opportunity for young people to feel connected, to feel they belong and to feel they have a voice and meaningful participation in the decisions about their lives? That’s a first start. Language matters.
I have to say, too, that we have created a system that often blames our young people for their circumstances. We see, over and over again, language such as they are resistant, they are unwilling, they are not participating with us, et cetera. We have to, again, challenge that and say it doesn’t make sense to situate the responsibility on the child. It is on us, as the big people, to ask what we are doing or not doing that is not enabling them to feel they have agency to participate in decisions about their lives and so they can feel connected. So language matters. That is one thing.
The other thing is, again, making that circle bigger. We found that it is very helpful to get more people around the table. You have to deal with very practical things, like the ability to share information and breaking down some of the silos and enabling, at the community level particularly, people to come together to talk about what they will do for this child. What will they do for children like them, for a broader group of kids, kids they have concerns about? What will we do for families in certain circumstances? Those are also really important questions. We need to make the tent bigger because not one of us can do this alone. It is way too complex. We need housing. We need income security. Everybody’s stretched. What can we cobble together if we do it in a different way, together?
Language and that participation in making the circle bigger are really important ways to start. I will stop there so I can give Irwin a chance to chime in, and Jennifer probably has some things to add to this as well.
Mr. Elman: I’m glad you asked that question, and I’m glad you’re here from health. That’s really important.
When I was a counsellor, when I was doing that work, and then when I was an advocate, I did the same thing. I taught our staff to do the same thing: Ask three questions. What’s the problem? What’s really concerning you? Because people need to feel heard, and you need to understand from the perspective of whose problem it is to solve. What things are going wrong? What would “good” look like? I hope you understand what I mean by that. Sometimes people don’t, but what would “good” look like? The third question is, how do we get there?
And you just asked the third question, which is so important. Right? It’s not about the problem with youth leaving care. We have enough reports about what “good” would look like. You asked the crucial question, which is the hardest one. But notice what I said, and I used to say it to young people: How are we going to get there? It is “we.” We need you. This is not a child protection problem. It’s not a senator’s problem. It’s not a parent’s problem. It’s not a young person’s problem. The only way to get there is “we.”
I am still hopeful in this sense, I don’t know of anything that we cannot accomplish. I noticed in my career that if we put young people and children at the centre, we can come together. We need a health perspective. We need a social work perspective. We need young persons’ perspectives. We need parents. We need lawyers. We need housing. We need those perspectives to say, “How are we going to do this?” We need government and public service, because they have to change, too. I believe we can come together to create that. The most important thing right now is to name the problem — and you did name it — to get to the, “How are we going to get there?” And I believe we can.
I was listening and thinking — and this is not a slight — that I’ve heard it myself and I’ve felt the same: I don’t have the answer. I don’t know the answer, but I’m happy to shut up and listen and try to be part of the solution. I don’t know how to get there completely. It’s big.
But we have no time to be overwhelmed because we’re talking about kids. We’re talking about kids who will end up in what they call “storage” in residential care. Sorry, but that’s what they call it. At 18, they’re dumped out. They’re not going to university. They don’t care about bursaries, at least the majority of them. And for the ones who are, we need to make sure they can get to college and university.
They are overwhelmed. Parents are giving up their kids because there are no complex care services. Then there are Children’s Aid workers in Ontario — I’m sure you’ve read about this — who, for 11 months, had an autistic 11-year-old boy living in an office. I met him. That parent is overwhelmed, and so is that kid. We don’t have to be overwhelmed if we are together.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Based on what you’re saying, Mr. Elman, I get the sense that there’s a big problem in Canada that needs fixing, but that the problem isn’t just in Canada; it’s all over the world. People are trying to figure out where to start. I’m glad Ms. Charlesworth suggested a possible solution or at least a reason to hope that it is possible if we do things properly and start in the right place at the right time. That’s my understanding based on what she said. In her remarks, she explained that we can’t just meet children’s needs; we also have to take a holistic approach both upstream and downstream of the child protection system.
To shape that thought process, this committee has heard witnesses recommend enshrining these principles in law. What are your thoughts on a law? We are legislators and senators, and we formulate recommendations, but do you think we need a federal law to solve the problem? What do you think should be in that law?
[English]
Mr. Elman: I’m not a constitutional expert, so I’m not going to go out on a limb and say there should be a federal act.
I have so much respect for senators. I know Senator Moodie’s bill looking for a children’s services framework for Canada. I know Senator Pate with her guaranteed annual income and Senator Kutcher with his bill to end corporal punishment. Senator Jaffer had a bill about paths to citizenship, too. I respect all those as starting places.
The reason I mentioned the report — I wrote my notes before I knew Jennifer Charlesworth was going to be here — is I think this report is a place to start. I don’t want to speak out of school, but I know that Jennifer struggles and thinks and reflects a lot on how to make the change that this report asks for. But it is a starting place. It is the first report that I’ve seen that has taken us and you as a Senate committee to a place to say, “Okay, how can we make this happen?”
I don’t know Jennifer’s salary. She doesn’t get paid enough to answer that question on her own. She cannot. Just like when you ask young people, they told me that it is like asking them how to build a bridge. They can tell you what kind of bridge they want, and a bridge to Centre Island in Toronto — I forgot I am in Ottawa — you can ask them how they want that bridge to be, but when you ask them how to build the bridge, they will say, “I am not an engineer. I don’t know how to build a bridge.”
We need them, and we need Jennifer, and we need her report. This is a place to start. How will we implement a child well‑being system in our country? What would it look like? I know the federal government can’t interfere, but there are routes into that question, and there is an importance of asking the families and children of Canada what it should look like, particularly the most vulnerable, the most marginalized from their rights. You are a human rights committee. What would this system look like? What would it need?
You would be doing the country and the provinces a service, because, as I’ve said and as you’ve said, it is not unique to my province in Ontario. It is not unique to Jennifer’s in B.C. It is across. That is how you start. Start here and ask how we get there, and start by asking people who need to answer that question and have some information for you.
Senator Muggli: Ms. Charlesworth, such a compelling framing of the issue, unbelonging to belonging, and how do we get there. My mind went to traumatic unbelonging, because so many children and youth in care have experienced severe adverse childhood events. As children and youth move into adulthood, how can we build a system of support for those who have been traumatically unbelonging throughout their experience?
Ms. Charlesworth: That is a beautiful question, and thank you for also acknowledging the trauma that often leads young people into care and the trauma that they experience within care as well.
There are a couple of things I want to flag. When we are starting to think about what is it that we need to do differently at a national level — Irwin is very kind in talking about the report. One of the things was talking about well-being and beginning to develop what we call a well-being action plan, a strategy for well-being of children in care, and recognizing that children and youth come with many different histories and backgrounds. There will be some who have had greater adverse childhood experiences, and they will need more resources. We should not be trying to develop a system that is equal for everybody and everybody gets the same. We have to recognize where that child is and what response we need to take.
There are a couple of things I find fascinating. So many children have experienced grief and loss, and we are not very good in our society at addressing loss and grief. I can tell you that just in our sphere of influence and understanding, for example, there were 157 children who became orphaned last year as a result of the toxic drug supply. We don’t deal with that loss or grief. We have to get better at acknowledging young people’s experience, not to say that they are broken but, “We will walk alongside you to address the kind of trauma you have experienced, because we believe in your capacity to heal, and we will be with you for a period of time.”
One of the things that is positive in B.C.’s recent approach is that instead of just restricting post-majority supports to post‑secondary education, young people could use some of the supports and financial resources in order to get mental health and grief counselling and life skills, et cetera.
It is important to recognize what journey that young person is on. What are they dealing with, and how is it that we need to put in place those conditions and resources that will foster their resiliency? And begin to talk about the tough stuff. They’ve been through tough stuff. They have to get acknowledged and honoured for the fact that they are still here with us and then have support.
I don’t know if that answers that, but I think you’ve hit on something that is very important: systematic unbelonging.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. I appreciate that. And it flows into the other issue we talked about earlier around moral distress and the inability to recruit professionals to work in this very field. I started child welfare practice 36 years ago, and believe it or not, we were talking about not being able to meet our ethical requirements under the code of social work ethics in practice and how distressing that was. But we didn’t have the term “moral distress” at the time. We’ve been dealing this for a very long time, and it doesn’t surprise me that people no longer want to go into the profession. We have nurses leaving practice now because the health care system is morally distressing. People can’t uphold their practice standards. Maybe one of our roles is to build awareness around that so it can be better appreciated and actioned.
Senator Bernard: Ms. Dreyer, from your position in systemic advocacy, based on what you’ve heard on this panel tonight, is there anything that you would want the committee to hear from your lens?
Jennifer Dreyer, Executive Director, Systemic Advocacy, First Nations, Metis and Inuit Research, Office of the Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.
If I may be so bold, I would love the opportunity to come back and share some of the things that we learned in the Don’t Look Away report. Irwin and Jennifer have just scratched the surface of the work that was done out here in B.C. that is relevant across Canada and around the world. It upholds the role that you all have as senators, as leaders nationally, to look at some of the national issues such as affordability, workforce and thinking about how we build capacity within families and communities from the very start. There are many roles there, from health and education, as well as child welfare, where we can all lean in for a better future for our children and youth.
Senator Bernard: I will make one comment, chair, just to flag this for our witnesses.
I understand from a witness we had from Nova Scotia that the Nova Scotia government has moved away from the language of “child protection” and are using the term “child and family well‑being.” They’ve told us that it has been inspired by Indigenous and Afrocentric ways of knowing and being in terms of child and family well-being. Are any of you aware of that? I think that is a very recent change, and we may want to learn more about it.
Ms. Charlesworth: Yes, we are aware of it, and it’s exciting to see another jurisdiction begin to talk about the notion of well‑being. As Jennifer said, we just scratched the surface, but if the committee is interested, we’re happy to talk about the process.
How we came to well-being was really through the work of cultural advisers and the extensive involvement of Indigenous communities. First Nations leadership were the ones who told me to do a systemic review, not just an investigation, and with various tremendous promise. It’s exciting to see the possibilities because of a more holistic perspective.
Maybe I’ll just end this because I see that we’re at time, but the hereditary chief that worked with us said that we often talk about a village raising a child, but he said in their language they say it takes a child to raise a village. If we centre the well-being of the child, then it makes us all better and it enables us to be the kind of organization, the kind of community, the kind of family or the kind of network that we’re meant to be if we recognize our duty and our responsibility to the well-being of children. So it takes a child to raise a village.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for your commitment and your passion, which came through in both of your presentations. I think you might have given us an idea for the title once the study is done: unbelonging. That is a very powerful word.
You can always make a written submission to us if you feel there is something and we don’t have time to have you come back. You can make a written submission at any time to the clerk of the committee.
Mr. Elman: I just want to say one last thing. I came in person because you guys are so important. I respect you, not just this committee but as senators. Your voice, your work, I honour it, and in this time in Canada, in North America and in the world, with our democratic institutions struggling in a way, outside of here at least, you’re so important, and I respect you. I thank you for what you’re doing. Just keep going.
The Chair: I want to thank you for acknowledging the Senate, because I think most senators feel that frustration that not enough people know about the work that we do. To have a witness before us of your standing that acknowledges the work that we do, I want to thank you for that. I also want to thank all three of you for your help in this study as we go forward. Your testimony and your presentation will help us a great deal.
We have been joined by another colleague. I would like her to introduce herself.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senator, for joining us.
Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to the questions from senators.
With us at the table, from the Montreal Haitian Community Office, please welcome Marie Suzie Casséus, Manager of Option Protection Program. She is joined by Marie Pierre Ulysse, who is the Board Chair. I will now invite Ms. Casséus to make a presentation, followed by Ms. Ulysse.
[Translation]
Marie Suzie Casséus, Manager of Option Protection Program, Montreal Haitian Community Office: Good evening. My name is Marie Suzie Casséus. I’m a social worker by training and the manager of the Option Protection program at the Montreal Haitian Community Office, the BCHM.
Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for inviting us to speak to you this evening about this issue, aging out of foster care, which deserves our special attention. Very often, these young people have no family support and face many challenges related to housing, financial stability, pursuing their studies and access to health care.
For more than 50 years now, the BCHM has been fighting the inequality and social injustice experienced by ethnocultural communities in particular. We work throughout the province of Quebec, but we focus on Montreal.
One of the BCHM’s services is the Option Protection program, whose goal is to address the over-representation of children from the Black community in services provided by the Director of Youth Protection. According to data cited by Lavergne and Dufour from the Étude d’incidence québécoise sur les signalements à la protection de la jeunesse de 2014, these children account for 9.6% of the cases in which safety and development were compromised even though they represented just 6.5% of the children assessed, a disproportion rate of 1.48%.
They were also twice as likely as children in other groups to be assessed, reporting in their cases was twice as likely to be found justified, and they were twice as likely to be placed during assessment or orientation. The BCHM’s initiative resulted in a service agreement with the Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal health and social services centre. Over the past six months, we’ve supported 142 families, including 255 children and 236 parents.
From October 2020 to September 30, 2024, Option Protection supported 800 families, and 74% of our referrals came from the DYP. We have served 1,564 children and over 1,500 parents per year.
We work to prevent the neglect and abuse that can bring families into contact with the DYP system and can result in children being placed in a foster environment. We also do awareness-raising work with various groups to inform people and promote best parenting practices.
Our staff also work directly with vulnerable families that might fear, mistrust or resist services. We work hard to demystify other systems, such as the school, health and justice systems, as well as community organizations. We inform families about their rights and help them collaborate so they can get back a sense of stability and equilibrium as a family. Collaborating with and complementing all the other aforementioned parties involved is crucial to providing optimal support to these families and supporting children’s well-being.
The program was launched in 2020, and its progressive approach was applauded in the April 2021 report of the Special Commission on the Rights of the Child and Youth Protection, which was entitled Instaurer une société bienveillante pour nos enfants et nos jeunes, or “Creating a caring society for our children and youth”. It included numerous recommendations, such as recognizing the importance of community organizations, enhancing collaboration, adapting services to ethnocultural communities, investing to deliver the right service at the right time, investing in preventive services and ensuring continuity of funding from one budget cycle to the next to maintain effective intervention.
According to the special commission’s report on outcomes for children in care in Canada, youth protection agencies deal with over 200,000 children a year, and more than 65,000 of them — 32.5% — are placed in care. In Quebec, over 2,000 youths leave care and begin to live independently every year.
The study looked at youths from 17 to 21 years of age. They are more likely to drop out and be academically delayed than youths in general, but also compared to youths from disadvantaged circumstances. They are also more likely to pursue lower-level diplomas. The study also looked at the youths’ foster experience. Not knowing where they were going after their placement made them feel very insecure. Once out of the system, some of them experience some form of homelessness. According to directors of youth protection and provincial directors, a transition plan must be developed while youths are 16 to 18 years of age in order to support a successful transition to adult life.
With respect to postvention, the BCHM is keenly aware of this reality, which is why it integrated transitional housing into its LAKOU PATAJ infrastructure project.
The federal government’s role must be to support community organizations that are innovating and serving as vectors for change. The Option Protection program is available only to Montreal’s French and Creole-speaking Black communities. Clearly, other communities would benefit from a similar model that offers support that takes their reality into account. Prevention is the best defence against society’s avoidable costs. It definitely reduces the social costs associated with involvement in the judicial system and youth placements in protection services. Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Ulysse, your presentation.
[Translation]
Marie Pierre Ulysse, Board Chair, Montreal Haitian Community Office: Good evening. My name is Marie Pierre Ulysse. I, too, am a social worker by training, and chair of the board of the Montreal Haitian Community Office. In addition to serving Montreal’s Haitian community and French-speaking Black communities on the Island of Montreal, we’re also a local organization. We serve families in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and we work to integrate ethnocultural communities on the island of Montreal.
What I have to say about today’s topic complements what Ms. Casséus said. We really wanted to present a comprehensive overview of social services and foster services. I want you to know that I’ve been a social worker for 33 years, and I’ve been working in youth centres for 33 years. I’ve seen all the reforms and all the ways this work has evolved. For the past 12 years, when I haven’t been working at my day job, I’ve been a DYP manager. Nevertheless, I strongly believe in laying the groundwork, in community work and in working to strengthen and support families so children aren’t as vulnerable as they move through the system.
I believe there’s something to be done, and the Option Protection program was a wonderful initiative, a social innovation created by a community organization. The project spread beyond the organization and was upgraded to offer continuity of service in connection with what the DYP offers and to support families.
Looking at the stats, we were as surprised as anyone by the number of families and children served. One positive outcome is that, once we finish working with families, they aren’t reported to the DYP again.
Last year, the BCHM decided it would be interesting to revisit those families that were experiencing poverty and exclusion and all kinds of challenges. We wanted to go see them to see how the children were doing and what their situation was a few months or years down the road. We had an opportunity to launch a small program called Option Protection in connection with a university internship, and that gave us a chance to dig into our archives, revisit those families and ask them how they were doing. The families told us everything was going well.
We realized that they didn’t end up back at the DYP. We had the stats from the ministry, but when we talked to the families, they told us they were doing well. We took some time to analyze all that. Their employment situation hadn’t changed, their housing situation hadn’t necessarily changed, but the family got something that provided stability, so the kids were being cared for at home and were doing well. That was the first message. We’re community-based.
I put a lot of statistics in what I sent you in writing, but I wanted to start a dialogue about how important it is to look at kids leaving foster care and to try to prevent kids from going into foster care. We need a different vision guiding our work.
When a child goes into foster care, the government pays for that child. The government pays about $2,000 per month. Some families would benefit from a bit of financial support; it would make them less vulnerable. Is there a way to rethink our services in partnership with the community? I think we have something to contribute, and that’s what we wanted to share with you. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations. Now we will turn to the senators for their questions.
Colleagues, we have a bit of a time crunch, so please keep questions concise. I will give you the five minutes, but I won’t let you go over that. We’ll start with the deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for being here and for your work.
I’d like to hear a bit more about the work that you do upstream. You were saying you do work upstream to support and strengthen families. What are you doing that’s making the difference in that child and family well-being space?
[Translation]
Ms. Casséus: We have a team of professionals who work with families on the ground. Throughout the Director of Youth Protection process, when a child is reported, the professional works with the parent, demystifies the child protection system and encourages collaboration. On the ground, professionals go to people’s homes and work on parenting skills, creating structure for the children, strengthening family bonds and parent-child communication. For these parents, various professionals also work with their kids. They don’t always understand who is the psychoeducator, the educator and the psychologist. There are lots of professionals working with that child. Workers help parents understand who these people are and what their children’s needs are.
We also help them with health care. Sometimes we even go to appointments with them. There may be language barriers, lack of understanding, resistance and different beliefs. It can be hard for a parent to accept a diagnosis a professional has given their child. We’re there to demystify all that. We’re really in the trenches with them. We really help at every step of the child protection process. Our professionals also accompany parents to court to help them prepare and provide reassurance. We’re right in their homes, and we help them deal with all the systems that they find so hard to navigate.
Ms. Ulysse: I’d like to add some additional information.
[English]
We work from a strength-based model with the parents. We valorize the parents. We know they have challenges, but we’re really working on their strengths.
The other thing is that, in that program — I’m an expert in youth protection, as is Marie Suzie; she has worked for 20 years in youth protection. That helped us bring that competency into the community sector so that we could build the program in the sense that it could be coherent with youth protection.
When we’re working with the parent, we keep the notes. We have a very thorough way of working, but, at the same time, we have a very clinical way of working within the families. We go into the environment and see that hydro is about to cut the bill. I can’t let them be on the street. So there is a community part that we bring in. We find a food bank here. It’s smaller-scale youth protection, so to speak, so we can afford to do that. I know we’ve done 1,000 over a few years, but we were able to give them really individualized services. At the end, it pays. The kids end up being successful, and it really helped.
Senator Bernard: Are you working specifically with youth who are transitioning out of provincial care?
Ms. Ulysse: We’re essentially working at the front end more than the rear end, but our goal is to eventually work at different levels. Right now, we’re working with families who are newly signalled. We say, “No, no, no. We don’t need to do that. We don’t need to start fighting with youth protection and end up having your kids in placement. We’re going to prevent it. We can work with you and strengthen you so we can make you more solid and be okay at the end.”
When we look at the over-representation of, for example, the two groups in the sector where we work that are really over‑represented — but it’s pretty much the same across Quebec; we’re from Quebec — you have the Black community and the Indigenous community. Those two communities are really highly over-represented. So unless we try new strategies and look at the system in a different way, I don’t know.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much. We’re really pleased to have you here today and to hear you talk about prevention and what you’re doing upstream, because that’s where the problem lies. We’ve heard a lot of witnesses say that they’re out of the system, and you’ve come to talk to us about what you’re doing upstream, so it’s very interesting.
Ms. Casséus, you explained that some young people who lose their support regularly end up homeless. Ms. Ulysse, you emphasized the need to be more proactive in the support we give to our young people who are very vulnerable. You’re talking about young people from Black and Indigenous communities. What should we do to prevent young people leaving the system from becoming homeless? When they leave the system, is there a way to prevent them from becoming homeless? Do families find their children? To help them, you talked about adding money for these families and about the $2,000 we can save by avoiding foster care. Do we need a system that allows us to donate money? Is it a financial issue?
Ms. Ulysse: I gave you some statistics towards the end of my presentation. These statistics showed that the reintegration of children into living environments, not necessarily at the end of the placement, but in general, has a 13% failure rate when children are reintegrated within the first year. Over a period of three, four or five years, we’re talking about a 50% failure rate. Many children will leave the system. A minority will be able to stay in the foster family, because they will have really integrated and become like their children. There is a certain percentage for whom there is some protection in the real ties that will have been forged with the family.
Others will return to the parent from whom they have been protected for so many years. The statistics are no different from what the literature tells us. We’ve worked with the child, but we haven’t made as much progress with the parent. So the child returns to a parent who is a bit of a stranger, and that creates tensions. We have two adults. It’s not a good family safety net for this child.
There should be resources, financial or otherwise, to help these young people. If they find themselves in a very vulnerable situation, what will happen to them? I know that youth centres have foundations that can sometimes help young people if they find themselves in a vulnerable situation. Beyond any program, you may have a young person who really needs a helping hand and can’t call Mom or Dad because they’ve been returned to Mom or Dad and the relationship has broken down. You have to plan for that. The work we do with parents isn’t lost; it also remains very long-term work, and that’s important.
Senator Gerba: If you had one specific recommendation to make to the federal government, what would it be?
Ms. Ulysse: If I had to choose, I’d really go for prevention. At the federal level, you have a huge responsibility towards Indigenous communities and all communities, but especially those that are overrepresented in the youth protection system and have particular issues. We have to act on prevention and preserve families. What happens is that it happens again. A child who has been made vulnerable becomes a vulnerable parent. There’s a cycle we want to break.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today, witnesses.
It sounds like the Option Protection model is a very exciting and new way of looking at things. It is a different lens you are using, and it is an upstream approach, which I think is remarkable. I am happy to hear about that. I would like to know how BCHM evaluates the success of a program like Option Protection. How long has it been in place? What kind of budget do you have? And how do you sustain the funding required to keep this model moving in a good direction? Because it sounds to me like this model could have applicability throughout Canada.
Ms. Ulysse: It is a good question.
What I would say is that we’ve been funded — the director of the centre is right there. I don’t really take care of the finances. We’ve been helped a lot by Centraide and the Chagnon Foundation, which really believed in the program from the get‑go. Once the program was able to establish results, then we were able to establish a formal partnership where the youth centre is providing some funding — minimal but still some funding — for the program.
Right now, I have to tell you that the Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services has approached us. They said they looked at the data, and they were very impressed because the families are not resignalled. So the success is really in terms of whether they are signalled back to protection. They are not, so it demonstrates that the program works. Basically, they have told us that their goal was to establish the program throughout Quebec, in every region of Quebec.
Right now, they’ve asked us to train another region, which is Montérégie. We have provided them with the training and the development, so they are ready to start the program. We were waiting for the funding, and that funding has arrived. I anticipate that shortly, within the upcoming weeks or months, the program will be starting in the new region. In Montérégie, the program will not — because ours was really specific to the Black community. In Montérégie, it will be for all minorities. Apparently, that will be the focus. They are looking at that, so it’s going to be expanding to a second site.
Senator Arnot: That’s great. Congratulations.
Are there still areas of improvement that you see now in your model?
Ms. Ulysse: Absolutely. It continues.
The biggest concern we had was to — because I always said to the board, I always told them, you know what, those families are really fragile. It is like when you have a patient in the ICU, and they are out of the ICU, and you say, okay, good. But not necessarily. They are really fragile. For us, it was important to have the opportunity to return and visit the families where they are and see how they are doing. That exercise was extremely important. We were able to do that over the past year. I have to tell you, we have covered the families that we closed in 2020, 2021 and 2023. Right now, we are doing the second phase of that exercise with the families of 2022 and 2024, but the data is the same. The families are strengthened. That’s one thing.
The new exercise that we will be doing with the program is that we are going to try — I will see if we can, but we’re trying to see — we want to demonstrate — that’s our challenge — that investing in the families now is much cheaper than having the kids come into care and then degrade. We’ve approached an expert to see if, from the data that we have, they are able to pull a cost analysis of the program. That’s the plan we have for this current year.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much. Congratulations on your program, and thank you for sharing it with another region. I think of it as a model for the rest of Canada, probably, if you really look at it.
Ms. Ulysse: Could be.
[Translation]
Ms. Casséus: I would like to add a comment about success. What the parents have to say speaks volumes. They are very grateful. They let a caseworker into the privacy of their homes and see how it changes their lives.
The number of youth protection referrals increases every year. That means the caseworkers are satisfied. There is a bond of trust between us and youth protection. The caseworkers welcome the cooperation we’ve established. It makes their job easier. Families are often resistant because they don’t understand the system; it’s quite intimidating for them. As a result, having someone come in and simply break through all that is very important.
As Ms. Ulysse said, when we’re able to work with a parent and keep a child out of foster care, as our program does, or a child in care is returned home, those are signs of success. The process offers benefits in terms of not just quality, but also quantity given the savings to society.
[English]
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
My background is in health care, and within health care we have conversations about anti-Black racism and Indigenous racism in the system. You did speak about the over‑representation of Black and Indigenous youth in care. Based on your experiences, can you please share with the committee and talk about any anti-Black discrimination or racism within the system that you’ve encountered? On the flip side to that, you can talk about any strategies or solutions to counter the racism and discrimination.
Ms. Ulysse: In working with that program, we’ve been working a lot with the youth centre, for example, the francophone youth centre on the Island of Montreal. I’m always puzzled by how little diversity there is in the staff composition of the centre when you have such diversity and over-representation of minorities within the clientele. Already, there, that is something that needs to be done. I don’t think people want to act a certain way or not, but we need each other. A different lens brings a different perspective. Right now, we’re doing it from an external angle because we’re really collaborating well, but we’re external to the system, in a way.
That has generated reflections for us, and we have another program that’s not Option Protection but it is something else. With the influx of immigration — everybody is talking about it right now — we have a lot of people with all kinds of qualifications who have come here. They may be qualified to work, but the pathway for them is not easy. If we can help them to have their qualifications recognized, or if they need to complete a short piece of schooling to make sure that they are able to get that social work — here we are talking about social work — accreditation, then perhaps the workforce could be more diverse. It is not to say that that is all, but that’s just a tiny piece, and it’s a very visible piece when you are working with the system.
[Translation]
Ms. Casséus: I would add that when we work alongside youth protection, having caseworkers from different cultures can improve the analysis of the family situation. I can tell you that even though both can be at the same meeting, they will each have a different way of interpreting a parent’s reaction. Afterwards, they can discuss it, and the Option Protection caseworker can refer to comments that were made and say, “That wasn’t exactly what the parent meant.”
I can tell you that the youth protection caseworkers welcome that perspective and discussion. Ultimately, they want what’s best for the child and thus a proper grasp of the situation. We like to say that everyone has biases. Dealing with another person and stepping into their world shows us other ways of seeing things, including the pace at which people progress, their migration path and their beliefs. We bring that awareness to the people we work with, not only in youth protection, but also in the other systems involved.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Thank you both again.
I want to walk about intersectionality. I am wondering if, through your organization, if you are dealing with issues related to children with disabilities and also children who identify as part of the LGBTQ communities and whether those realities show up differently in your work and, if so, how?
Ms. Casséus: For LGBTQ, it hasn’t. We have not had that issue yet in terms of the families or the children we have received. I’m forgetting the first part of the question.
Senator Bernard: Children with disabilities.
Ms. Casséus: Yes, definitely. A lot of children with autism or learning disabilities and also hyperactivity are, I would say, the main difficulties that children present who are in my workers’ caseloads. What is often difficult for the parents is to go from their own beliefs and to receive this alternative. That’s how we present it. We welcome them in how they understand and how they believe why their children are in such a way and have those challenges, but we then also offer them alternatives. We are not here to tell parents what they are supposed to believe, but to offer our support.
As I said earlier, our workers go with them to those medical appointments and take the time to explain to them, and also when they get back home and see them there, to empower them, as Marie Pierre was saying, to see them pinpoint their strengths. They have been through a lot, and they are doing the best they can. That’s the way we work with those families and those children.
Senator Bernard: Often those families with children with disabilities have a lot of additional needs. Does your program fill some of those gaps?
Ms. Casséus: I would say, unfortunately, we are not at the point where we can offer specific services for those children, but we do accompany them to those specific appointments and refer them. We do a lot of going in with the parents, because often just telling them to call somewhere, it is difficult for them to understand what is expected of them, so we actually go with them.
Ms. Ulysse: And we make sure they have access to the services. One thing that surprised me is the distance that existed between certain communities and the first-line services. I remember there was a community that called on us because, during COVID-19, they felt they had a lot of mental health issues in their community. When we sat and were talking to people and said that they can go to the CLSC, they said, “We didn’t think of that.” I really felt that, my god, sometimes the people who need the services the most feel very distant from the services that are, indeed, accessible to everybody. How can we fill that gap and bring them closer to the services? For those specific families, we do that. We bring them closer to the services.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank the witnesses for appearing before us today. Your testimony will help us in our deliberations as we move forward.
(The committee adjourned.)