Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 95

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Robin Austin, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Jennifer Rice, MLA; Jackie Tegart, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions regarding financial and operational updates.

4. Resolved, that the Committee meet in-camera to consider the supplementary funding request by the Office for the Representative for Children and Youth in support of an Adoption Advocacy Proposal. (Dan Ashton, MLA)

6. It was moved by George Heyman, MLA that the Committee approve $958,000 in 2016/17 supplementary funding to support the Adoption Advocacy Initiative proposed April 13, 2016 by the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, with ongoing review and reporting over the course of the year to be provided to the Committee.

9. Resolved, that the Hansard and Minutes of the in-camera deliberations held earlier today be released as part of the public record for this meeting. (Dan Ashton, MLA)

10. Resolved, that the Committee invite the Representative for Children and Youth and the Minister of Children and Family Development, or designated officials from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to continue dialogue and receive further information regarding ongoing consideration of the Adoption Advocacy Initiative. (George Heyman, MLA)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Office of the Auditor General	2175
C. Bellringer
R. Jones
P. Limer
Office of the Representative for Children and Youth: Supplementary Funding Request	2180

S. Hamilton (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our Auditor General’s office — Ms. Carol Bellringer and her staff.

I think we’ve got about 45 minutes for as much presentation as you’d like to give us, and then we’ll go to the committee for questions. If I could ask you to introduce your colleagues, we’ll start with that.

C. Bellringer: I will. Thank you very much. I’m joined by Russ Jones, who’s the Deputy Auditor General. Cornell Dover is the assistant Auditor General responsible for our corporate services area. Penny Limer is a senior manager in our HR area and has been with us for some time, but it’s her first time to this committee.

It was great to see everybody at our offices recently. It feels like we were only just together, but that was for a different reason.

I went through the four areas in the email that set up the meeting, and I’ve got some comments on the progress of the office in our priority areas. I’ll go through a general financial and operational update. In terms of changes expected to the service plan or budget, there are none. In terms of the implementation of the budget increases and so on, there is nothing in there as well. But if you have questions in any of these areas, of course we’ll get into more detail.

I can’t actually remember what month it was. I guess it was last month. We issued a service plan. It’s on our website. We circulated it, I think, through Kate to the committee, or did we? I think so. But it’s a public document. It complements the submission that we gave to the committee when we did budget time, so I guess it was November.

We did it in the format you would expect of a ministry, so we’ll keep to this format in the future, because I think it does lay things out. It’s a little tidier. When we give it to you in the fall, it’ll be draft form until such time as we get the approval of the budget, and then we’ll issue it as a final document publically. But we’ll provide it to you that way.

What we’ve done in here is taken the objectives that we had set out and we had provided to you already. The objectives haven’t changed. They flow out of our strategic planning. We show more information about how we’ll measure each of our key performance indicators. We’ve got five KPIs, and we have more detail in there about how we’re going to measure it. So not any different from what we gave you, but just a different format.

It does include updated information for ’15-16, though, which brings it forward a bit in terms of time. One of our KPIs is looking at our workforce engagement survey — the WES. We always call it WES, so I never know what it stands for.

Our score for ’15-16, a survey of all of our staff members telling how engaged they are…. It was lower than expected. Now, I shouldn’t say…. We already had anticipated that in the fall, but it was lower than we want it to be. We actually ended up asking the Public Service Agency to come in and do an organizational review, which they did.

We are doing an audit of ethics across government, so we decided to run the survey on our own staff. It was partly a test to see if they had any recommendations for improving the survey itself. But we asked them to do it as though they were answering it for the office as well. We’ve got the results from that.

With those three surveys, we’re seeing overlaps. We’re seeing the sorts of things we want to make sure that we’re addressing. We put a workgroup together internal in the office to study it for us. It’s people at all levels. We’ve asked them to look at: what you see to be the common themes, and from your perspective, what the priorities are that you think we should be addressing. We’ve got that going on right now.

The financial statement coverage plan. We’re on target for that. It’s busy season. You can tell from the expression on Russ’s face. He runs the financial statement area in the office, and they are flat-out busy.

I’ll get into the staffing changes in the office, but we did have a few people leave in the financial statement area. We’ve been able to use the existing staff plus add in a few contractors that are filling in the gaps. I’ll get into this again in the staffing area, but it’s enabled us to take a look at whether we needed that many financial statement staff on an on-going basis, and we’ve done a bit of shuffling around.

The performance audit coverage plan. Our work is either financial statement or performance audit, with a few things in between, but those are the big areas. We did issue the Performance Audit Coverage Plan last July for a three-year period. We’re going to update it annually, so we’re going to issue an updated one this July. It’ll be a rolling…. You’ll always see three years’ worth. It’s the audits that we will start over that three-year period, not the ones that we’ll have finished. I think there’s a little bit of misunderstanding, possibly publicly, around it being: “These are the audits we’ll expect to see.” That’s not the case. These are the ones we’ll have started.

But we will, in the July one, provide a full update on where everything is at from last year’s list. Many of them have already been issued. Most of them are already…. They’ve been touched one way or another. A couple we’ve looked at enough to know we’re not going to proceed with them, so we’ll indicate that. We are looking for some input to see if there’s anything we need to add.
[ Page 2176 ]

The one thing that we did see in ’15-16 was a number of audits that we thought we would be able to get out in March — again, we were anticipating this — didn’t come out until this month. It’s been a busy release month for us.

We had a very large audit last week on mining, which was, in effect, four audits in one. It was 120 pages. The Public Accounts Committee is going to have to probably break that one up into pieces to deal with it.

Tomorrow we have two audits going out in the education sector: one on improving budgeting and expenditure management in the public education system, and the second is in post-secondary — an audit of mid-sized capital procurement. They’re not large audits, but they are now complete, so they’ll be released.

Next week a large performance audit on access to adult tertiary mental health and substance-use services. And at the end of the month, the follow-up on community corrections.

There’s not an even flow through the year, in terms of when our reports are released. When they’re ready, they go. We’re seeing some years are a little bit lower. This year’s going to be quite a large number, because there are a few things coming to an end.

One thing that’s listed in the performance audit coverage plan…. It’s a very public one, and I’m often asked about the status of it, so I would like to say that to you. It’s the allegations about the pharmaceutical services division. After our plan was issued, that was the timing of when the Ombudsperson was given the terms of reference in that area. We are waiting until his report is issued before deciding what we’re going to do, if anything. That is something we had not yet said publicly, and I’m doing so now.

Back to the KPIs. These were all flowing in through our main KPIs. We continue to track feedback from those we audit and are pleased with those results. We consider all the requests we receive. That’s an area where we have a process by which anybody who is contacting our office…. We will do something with the request that comes in. We’ll either pass it on to where it belongs, or we’ll respond back to them, or we’ll channel it into an audit we’re doing.

The last KPI…. We do track the percentage of our recommendations adopted by those we audit. That is something that also links into work of the Public Accounts Committee.

The financial and operational update for the office and an overview of key activities. This is one that, unfortunately for us, is a recurring theme that we want to break the cycle of. We had a substantial underspend again last year. I know it may sound, “Oh, great. You didn’t spend,” but our goal is not to save money. Our goal is to spend it so that we can get the audits done that you’re expecting us to do.

It’s primarily in salaries. The biggest issue around it…. We’ve actually had a very large management meeting to try to make sure that we can really summarize all of the root causes and get some solutions in place. We are filling positions once they become vacant, which sounds logical. But at the end of the day, that means there’s always a gap between when the person leaves and when the next person starts. We’ve got the salary in our budget for the full year. So during that interim period, we’re saving money. We’re underspending.

We’re looking at…. It will require us to take some risks at times in the year, where we may overhire a bit, but we aren’t in a position to do that yet. So we’ll keep you up to date. If we feel that we’re needing to, if you will, overhire and take that chance, we will do so.

At the moment, we have 20 vacancies that we’re actively filling. As you can imagine, for the HR area, that’s a lot of work for them. It’s a lot of work for the auditors who are already flat-out busy. That’s part of this cycle. We’re having to figure out how to, of course, avoid that turnover. But it is inevitable. It’s something that our office has faced forever and is the case right across the country.

We did analyze the vacancies. Rather than just filling them because they’re there — somebody leaves and you fill the same job — we took a look at whether we could shift some of them around. We have moved some from the financial statement area to the performance audit area and IT because we feel we can use contractors to fill in at financial statement time and be better positioned to develop the capacity in the office for more performance auditors.

In IT, we have some retirements coming up. They haven’t announced retirement, but two individuals are close to retirement, so we’re hiring a more senior person for succession planning and one to look at data analytics, because it’s a very, very specific area in IT.

We have been made aware of the 2 percent salary increase available to certain excluded employees, so we’re working through, right now, the calculation of who that applies to in the office. We’re able to find that money within the ’16-17 budget, so we don’t need additional funds or anything, but we haven’t yet informed anybody as to who it applies to.

You saw, when you came to visit, that we hired a commissionaire at the front, partly for security reasons. It also allowed us to move one of our administrative people to better help the performance audit area — well, I guess both. She’s no longer sitting at reception, which was the more traditional model.

We do need to do a few renovations on that fourth-floor area where the reception area used to be. We got the first estimate. It was extraordinarily high. Having the money or not didn’t matter. We just took one look at it and said: “We’ve got to go back to the drawing board.” We’re looking at a different way to do it. Right now I
[ Page 2177 ]
don’t know what we’re going to do other than we just live with it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Thank you very much for that. I’ll go to the committee for questions and start with Eric, please.

E. Foster: Just a comment. As you’re going around doing audits and so on, you might want to talk to all government agencies to do exactly what you just did with the estimate to your renovation in your building. Maybe that message will get out to the construction industry, that we’re not a bottomless pit and that if you don’t come to the table with a reasonable estimate, you’re not going to go to work for us. Thank you for that. That’s all I wanted to say on it.

J. Tegart: I’m curious about the turnover of staff. To have 20 positions open is quite significant, in my view. I would be curious as to: how do you run at full capacity? Obviously, not when 20 positions are open.

C. Bellringer: I’ll tell you the breakdown on that as well. Four of those are in corporate services. That’s the support to the auditors. I know this sounds…. One is in HR, so that is a priority to fill. At the moment, when they’re flat-out busy, it’s actually a time when they probably don’t have time to ask for help. It’s working. That part’s working.

One is in professional practices, but that was actually a decision we had and a net new that we were already working on hiring. It’s not somebody who left that we’re filling.

Five are in financial audit, and those are the ones that it becomes very difficult to manage. That is probably most affected by salary levels. The jobs come up outside. It’s a promotion for them. It helps the system, because I think all of them are still in the provincial public service, all the way through to school divisions. It’s good for the system but not for us, so that’s the problem area.

Eight in performance audit — I think only two are actual vacancies, and the rest we’ve now chosen to hire more people. And the two in IT — same thing.

Some of it is the net new we requested, so we now have to fill it. The primary turnover is coming out of financial audit. Long answer to…. Yes, it isn’t easy to deal with. We did recognize it’s more than just salaries.

We had two problems to analyze. One was: what’s causing it? We’ve got lots of people with lots of good information about why. But the more important thing right at the moment is: how do we get it filled fast? You do have to do it off the side of your desk, but we've still got to do it off the side of our desks.

S. Gibson: Just super little, quick questions. What is the role of surprise in your work, the element of surprise? I think you know the reason I’m asking. In terms of when you do a performance audit, it obviously sometimes comes as a surprise. But how does that equip the people being analyzed to be able to respond intelligently? I guess that’s the reason I’m asking the question.

C. Bellringer: Surprise in financial audit and surprise in performance audit are probably quite different.

R. Jones: From a financial audit standpoint, when we’re doing the audit year after year, there isn’t a lot of surprise. The clients sort of know what we’re going to be looking for when we come in to do the audit. What we do tend to do in our audit procedures is put in an element of unpredictability in terms of looking for unusual transactions and whatnot.

One of the new tools that we’re looking at trying to get in place this coming year is what’s called data analytics and data visualization, where you can actually go in and mine all of the data that’s in the financial system and look for irregularities — different types of accounts, accounts that you wouldn’t expect to be linked to each other — and do a better job that way. That would be the surprise part.

But at the same time, it’s adding a lot of value to the clients as well, because we can actually point out to them some areas where they maybe should be looking in their financials for these differences that occur. We always provide our clients in the financial area with a list of the documents that we need ahead of time. So it is a surprise, but it isn’t.

We’re there to help them make sure that they’ve recorded everything properly and the statements look good, but every year we mix it up a little bit.

S. Gibson: Another question. Are we able to somehow use a template? I’m just wondering.

When we look at the reports, where you’re doing your detailed analysis, the agency has to respond meticulously because they’ve got to respond to each point, and it’s often page after page of good information. Do you ever issue templates, or is it possible to have a template issued so the agency or whoever it is, the Crown corporation or whatever it is you’re studying…? Can it make it more efficient for them to respond in a way that is helpful, still provides the detail you’re looking for, but is not reinventing it each time?

I was looking through some of the reports, and they’re very well done. There’s capacious information that’s responding to all of your concerns, which is good, but it’s often repetitive. Is there a way that you could make it more efficient by using templates? I’m just wondering about that.
[ Page 2178 ]

C. Bellringer: In the performance audit area, the audits are unique. Each one is designed, if you will, around what the risk areas are, what’s of significance within that area and so on. There’s a standard process we use but not so much a template because it’s so much dependent on what the nature of the subject matter is and then what area within it that we choose to look at.

We’ve got audit programs and access to other jurisdictions. The first thing we do is set out what the objective of the audit is and what criteria we’re going to use. What are we going to measure you against? We actually get sign-off from the deputy minister before — or the CEO of a Crown organization or whatever agency board commission. We’ll get them to agree that that’s what they should be measured against.

So we have the essence of, if you will, a template in that it’s a very standardized process, and our staff are well-trained in it. They’ve been doing it for some time and have a wisdom in applying it — that kind of thing.

R. Jones: I think also, Simon, that now there’s a requirement to have an action plan sent in for each performance audit. The comptroller general has developed a template that each of the agencies uses to send that information in to both the Public Accounts Committee and to us.

E. Foster: If I could go back to Jackie’s question regarding your staffing levels and so on, notwithstanding the new positions or the new people you’re bringing in. You mentioned that some of the people who were leaving — it was a promotion or an opportunity. Would you suggest or would you say that your turnover was average in the public service? If not, have you addressed or identified why you have turnover?

P. Limer: I don’t know what the average is, but we’re a small office from the perspective of the whole public service.

C. Bellringer: We’re feeling like it’s increasing. We do monitor it very carefully. We saw, for example — I know I’m going to use the wrong terminology, but I don’t know what you’re supposed to call it — when the hiring freeze was lifted, then suddenly we had an increase in the turnover of people who have got jobs in the system. So we’re trying to anticipate that. But, at the same time, it is higher than we think it should be.

We’ve had the discussion here that we are not oblivious to the fact that people don’t only leave for money, which is why we brought in the Public Service Agency to take a look at things and why we did that ethics survey. We’re getting a sense of what people are happy about and what they are not happy about.

At the moment, it’s a little bit too general to really figure out what exactly is going on. We’re not entirely sure. That’s why we’ve put that work group together.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I just wanted to touch on the issue of the underspent budget. You mentioned that the hope was that if that budget was spent, you’d be able to complete the audits and move along. I just wondered if there was a number. Do you quantify what you hope to be able to accomplish? Is it more audits? Is it faster with the ones that are there? Is it adding additional audits? I just wondered if there was a focus on what that could be used for and what that would look like in audits coming out.

C. Bellringer: I’m going to ask my colleagues to throw in their views on this as well. The Performance Audit Coverage Plan has been described as ambitious. Internally, I think it’s caused a certain amount of stress, but I’m hoping just a healthy level of stress. It’s not an easy plan.

The size of the audits can vary. We can touch each one of those and get them done quite quickly, or you can go into a lot of depth. So I’d say it wouldn’t change the numbers so much as it would change the ability to really get in to analyze some root causes quite seriously, because the longer we spend on it, the more we’re able to get at that.

I don’t see a dramatic…. When we do the update to the Performance Audit Coverage Plan, we’re collecting all of the various issues that people are bringing forward. We’ve got a couple of them that we’ve decided to delay a bit. It might bring those forward a little bit sooner.

D. Ashton: Good morning. Thanks very much for coming again. Just a quick question. In your pay scale pro forma across, you said that you do lose people to other systems inside the government. Have you checked yourselves where you sit in relativity to what they pay and what they offer? You said it’s not only money, so what are those differences?

C. Bellringer: It would be a promotion for them — leaving. What we’re careful not to do is to just keep promoting everybody. I think we’ve had this conversation here as well. We do have particular bands, and they’ve already moved to the top of whatever band they’re in. Unless we were to promote them…. And then we would suddenly have a lot of senior people in the office.

We’ve got an organizational structure that balances out management level with working level and so on. They’re leaving because they’re tired of being at the working level and want to be at the management level, and we don’t have a spot for them.

P. Limer: That’s clear. What I’ve seen is, certainly at the auditor level, we have three steps there, but we’ve been
[ Page 2179 ]
unable to pay extra, of course, during the wage freeze. So people will say: “Well, I could be a manager of audit if I went over to internal audit or Ministry of Finance or Advanced Ed.” They go all kinds of places. That’s certainly what has happened most recently.

D. Ashton: Okay. So it is a movement to a higher position for those individuals in availability of the government services.

R. Jones: I was just going to add, for instance…. A good example is that we’ve lost — the office — one executive director and one senior manager that were very, very good. They’d been in the office for, I think, five to seven years. But now the executive director has moved to be a superintendent in one of the school districts. Believe it or not — I can’t understand this, because I’ve been in auditing for a long time — some people don’t like to audit all their lives. I do not understand this. But it was a perfect opportunity.

He’s been looking to sort of run an organization. He has all the background for the budgeting and all the knowledge he needs. The senior manager that he took with him from the office also has the same abilities and was looking to move into to some sort of position up-Island. She’s originally from Powell River, so maybe into running even Powell River some day. Who knows?

They’re very, very bright, very, very ambitious, and it’s good to see them getting into the system to help where they’re needed. There are some gaps out there in some of these financial positions and management positions. So while I don’t like to see them go, I can understand why.

C. Bellringer: One of the things that we haven’t, recently anyway, analyzed…. Some of the jurisdictions in Canada — and I’m going to throw Saskatchewan out, because I think they’re still doing this…. The audit office was used as the training ground — and it was in the days of chartered accountants — for chartered accountants that would move, then, into various ministries. They would come in as students, they would be trained — and it’s a good office to do the training — and it would be managed in such a way that it was anticipated they would leave.

We’re not training people in order to have them leave. We’re training them to have them stay. But we might have some opportunity to start some conversations about…. Maybe we do hire more students so that we can see those people move out. But it would take a whole different structure. We don’t have that setup right now.

I’m glad, Mr. Jones, that you live for auditing, because we obviously need more people.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I just have a couple of things. I’m not sure if I’m troubled by it, but you say that certain audits are done very quickly, almost…. I don’t like to use the term “glazed over,” but obviously you apply a different level of intent to one as opposed to another.

I suppose, then, it hits triggers? You see an audit. You start doing an audit. You get to a certain point, and you say: “This is okay. We’re just going to move this along the line.” Then you see another that triggers some opportunity to dig even deeper. Do you triage these as they come and go?

C. Bellringer: It happens all the way through the whole process. We actually set them up. Some we say: “This is not a large audit. We’re going to look.” And we deliberately define the objectives very narrowly.

Part of it’s due to who’s available and how much time they have. We’ll assign them to an area that’s less risk. But if it’s a really high-risk area, we’ll start the design around…. The objectives are large to begin with. And then as you go through it, we have off-ramps. You might be going on one of those really large audits and go: “Actually, it’s not as bad as we thought.”

One of the criticisms of audit — and not just us, of all audit — is that they’re negative. You know: “The auditor holds us to standards that no normal person could possibly ever follow.” We have the advantage of having that time to go in and look in a lot of detail, and we’re hoping that that’s of use to the management as well as the public disclosure.

Sorry, I was going somewhere with this. But there is an inherent negativity that’s built into the system, because we figure it takes just as much time, if not more, to be able to say, at the end of day, the system is clean, it’s perfect, there are no improvements that we could recognize. And we do think that our time is better spent looking at things where we can bring forward recommendations for improvement. So we live with that.

We are looking for where we can help. And we off-ramp when we’re not finding anything. And we will, in this Performance Audit Coverage Plan update, on a couple of them, say: “We thought there was a high risk. Those risks aren’t what we thought they were. We’re not planning to do anything right now.” It doesn’t mean…. We can’t say it’s good, because we haven’t done enough work to be able to provide that assurance.

So that’s a bit of the story behind what’s big, what’s little, where do we off-ramp…. Those decisions are made all the way through. Then there are some where we get to the end and we go: “The public discussion is so loud right now around it” — whatever area — “and
[ Page 2180 ]
we hadn’t designed it into the audit. We can’t possibly release this unless we do some more work.” So sometimes we’ll do that.

My last question I might regret asking. But what is an audit of ethics? You said you were going to do an ethics audit across government. You referred to that. Could you tell me what that looks like?

C. Bellringer: It’s actually nearing completion. I think it’ll be out in the fall. We looked at…. Part of it was that I had done one in Manitoba. When we were putting the plan together, it was something that had been identified to do in B.C., and it’s looking at the framework around ethical behaviour within the public service.

What we had done in Manitoba is something we repeated here, which was that we did a survey of all of the public service within ministries, and we asked them to tell us what they felt was going well in the system and what needed improvement. That’s been the design of the work here as well — and looking at some of the basic things. You’ll get those findings in a few months.

Seeing none, thank you very much for coming. I appreciate your taking the time. Good luck with your hiring and all of your other challenges. I know there are many, but I’m sure you’ll be able to tackle them well.

S. Hamilton (Chair): The committee will take a brief recess while we get ready for our next….

Office of the Representative
for Children and Youth:
Supplementary Funding Request

S. Hamilton (Chair): We are now in camera to discuss and to deliberate the additional funding request for the Representative for Children and Youth, with respect to adoption permanency. I’ll turn the floor over to the committee.

R. Austin: I was chatting with Eric before we got here, because of his very good speech yesterday in the House with regards to adoption and trying to encourage more people to adopt. I was a foster parent for ten years and ended up adopting one of the children who was in my care, who’s now going to be 28 soon. I think it’s really important.

One of the real tragedies is that we have a system of child welfare where kids are brought in, and that’s obviously a very traumatic experience for them. Most of them, as they’re growing up, recognize that they’re not in a forever home. They recognize that they are different from the rest of the kids in school because their parents are foster parents. Anything that encourages the system to create more permanency for these kids, by having them adopted instead of staying on the rolls as a foster child, to me, is a huge benefit not just to the child and to the family but to the whole system.

The result of a lot of kids who go through the foster care system, as we all know — you don’t have to read the newspapers — is very tragic. It shows up in school performance. It shows up in their life opportunities — or the lack of life opportunities. Those who are able to be made permanent have very different outcomes.

We’re looking here at a budget proposal which I think could save money ten times over if we could encourage more families and the system to be able to adopt children who are in care.

I had, at one time, a foster child who was going to be permanent, who we adopted, at the same time as I had other kids in our house who were not for various reasons. We weren’t going to expand our family beyond that. I have a natural child, a foster child who is adopted and foster children. Just to understand the human dynamics of what that does and the difference that it makes, the foster child who was adopted…. Immediately our son thought of her as his sister and vice versa.

I’m putting something very personal here, but I just think that what we can do by acknowledging this area and giving some extra resources could, in fact, save the system a whole whack of money. I’ll leave it at that.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to just add to that. Thank you, Robin, for sharing that.

There have been a couple of things that have happened over the last few months. One of them has been the ministry reporting out on the success of adoptions. That’s happened just in this last month and since we had our last deliberations.

Let’s remember. That was a project that was being worked on by the ministry and the representative together. So I think there is proof positive, around the increase in the number of adoptions, that there’s some success
[ Page 2181 ]
there and that there’s some success in having the two partners work together.

I raised this the last time we debated this. I don’t think we can underestimate the strength of having the rep’s office and the ministry’s office working together on a project. It’s a plus. They are often in conflict, as they should be, with an independent office. They’re often in conflict around issues that come forward. On this one, you’ve actually got the two offices working together on a project, and I don’t think we can underestimate the strength of that and the value of that in future work that goes on. That’s the second piece that I think is important.

I would certainly encourage us to support this. I think it’s a project that is important, that’s working, that, as Robin says, not only provides good quality for the kids but also provides support for the ministry, if you look at reducing the number of children in care and providing more permanent homes. I think it’s a reasonable thing for us to take a look at.

E. Foster: As I mentioned in my comments yesterday, the success that the ministry announced was a result of a lot of agencies coming together and working together to make that happen.

I have one issue with this. My concern is with…. If we fund this and then the advocate becomes an administrator rather than an advocate, if it doesn’t work out, who’s overseeing it? In fairness to the advocate and everybody else in the world, I guess, it’s pretty hard for people to stand up and say: “Gee, we screwed that up.” That’s, to me, from an administrative point of view….

Now, I’d certainly encourage everybody to keep working together on it because it’s worked. There’s no question about it. All the agencies pulled together on it, and it worked. I just…. You’re taking somebody from the advocate’s position and putting them into the operational position. That, to me, causes a concern. They can certainly continue to work together, and the advocate can work as an advocate in that conversation. But when they’re in administrative, they’re now doing the business of the government. It just, to me, doesn’t meld very well.

What we’ve been doing…. Certainly, what we did over the last couple of years — we being everybody — has worked. There’s no question about it. Everybody is pulling in the same direction, which, at the end of the day, is what this is all about. This is about kids. We’ll differ sometimes on how we want to get there, but I don’t think there’s any question that everybody, certainly in this building, wants the best that we can possibly do for the children.

J. Tegart: I also have the same dilemma as Eric. When the Office of the Representative becomes a deliverer of programs, I find the lines blur.

I think this program has done very well for children, and that’s the bottom line. I’m not sure of the appropriateness of a recommendation from this group to the Minister of Finance that says, “Can these dollars be put into the ministry for the lead on this?” because that then takes away that blurring of that line. I have a concern when the representative becomes a deliverer of programs.

D. Ashton: First of all, I think having the advocate bring this forward is very innovative. She’s thinking outside the box and trying to do something that she is very strongly oriented towards, which is the adoption of these kids.

I’m not so sure, personally — and I’m torn — that it belongs where she’s proposing. I really think, personally, that if she is prepared to put something like this forward, it should be within the ministry. Please don’t get this terminology wrong, but to me, it’s like a flying squad. It’s a separate entity. Here it is. It’s another entity within the ministry that concentrates specifically. Here it is, and they look at the innovation. As Carole said, they look at the opportunities of working a little closer.

Nobody — nobody, in my opinion — likes this, which we’ve seen on a continual basis, between the ministry and the advocate. I really think that they’re all trying hard, but there seems to be this friction.

So instead of just pulling something out of the ministry and sticking it in the advocacy function, I think there should be this little, tiny — and again, please, I’m just using the terminology, like a flying squad — independent group that works under the ministry with the auspices of the overseer of the ministry, ensuring that things are….

We all know it’s a big machine, and it’s a big wheel, and government change turns slowly. This new group could be a little bit quicker and a little bit faster on their feet, with the support…. Support’s not right. With the direction, or more direction, coming from the advocate.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of things, because I understand the issue around conflict or difficulty with the rep’s office. I think there are a couple of really important pieces that address that.

One is the issue of the money coming from us, not from the ministry — as a recommendation from us, not from the ministry. A recommendation from the ministry or sharing of funds from the ministry to the rep’s office is a direct conflict. It’s a direct conflict around the role. I think that’s the first piece. That’s why the request came here rather than a partnership with the ministry.

I think the second most important piece…. If you think back to when the rep was making a presentation on this, she talked very specifically about the piece of work that they do from the rep’s office, which is very different from the work the ministry does.

The rep’s office is out working with aboriginal delegated agencies, out working with community agencies, out working with communities who tend not to trust the ministry, who tend to be concerned about their engage-
[ Page 2182 ]
ment with the ministry in previous times, whether it’s kids being taken away or historical issues. The work that the rep’s office does to build that trust and to encourage those groups to get into the ministry process or an agency process, as Eric has said, is a very different role than what the ministry plays.

I think that does address the conflict issue and does address the fact that this is the ministry’s work. But right now we’re not at a place where people trust the ministry. We’re not at a place where families — many of them who are able to look at adoption, moving from fostering to adoption — would even have that conversation with the ministry but would be willing to have it with the rep’s office or a representative from the rep’s office because they see it as independent. They see it as removed from the government structure and the worry that there’s going to be some checking of what’s going on — to give them trust to move into that system.

I recognize the issues that are being raised and the concerns that are being raised, but I think they’ve been addressed through the way this project is working.

G. Heyman: We’ve discussed this a number of times now. Through the course of the discussion and the presentations from both the representative and the ministry, I’ve learned a lot. I’m going to try to reflect back some of the points that we’ve made on both sides.

I think one of things we’re all in agreement on is that we want to see more adoptions happen more quickly. That’s better for kids. It’s better for the system. Not that we should look at this strictly from a financial perspective, but it’s better that way as well. We have some reports of success in the working relationship on this issue that’s been developed between the representative and the ministry.

We had the ministry come in and, largely, be supportive of the proposal, but we’ve also had concerns raised in a number of ways. I think one of the concerns was why the ministry isn’t funding this or why the ministry isn’t doing this. I think Carole addressed the issue, and the representative has addressed the issue, of why there’s a perceived conflict if the ministry funds the office directly. In a sense, it doesn’t really matter which pocket the money comes out of. We all know it’s coming out of the overall tax revenue of the province.

The other thing — Eric identified it strongly, and I think Jackie did as well — is some concern over whether we’re changing the role of the representative from advocate to administrative. That’s a legitimate concern. I also think it’s possible to think of the role that she is proposing for herself and her staff to be facilitative, along the lines that Carole expressed. The representative has a different relationship with aboriginal communities and aboriginal delegated agencies, and they can have conversations that in some way it’s difficult for the ministry to have.

Having said all that, it is a legitimate concern. So my suggestion would be…. We’ve seen some of this work be effective. We know we have a problem we’d like to see addressed. We also have some concerns. Rather than be overly cautious and simply not say yes to something innovative that could be quite effective and, on the other hand, not be sort of, “Well, we have some concerns, but we’re going to overlook them. Let’s just jump in with both feet,” we could approve the budget for one year, with a review and report to be done before the end of the year.

We always review budgets every year anyway, but this would be different. This wouldn’t be saying: “We accept the three-year plan.” It would be to say: “We’ll accept a one-year plan. We have concerns, and we want to see how it works out.” We’ll set parameters for a review and report and receive feedback from both the ministry and the representative on how they perceive it to be working and could make future decisions after that point. At that point, there will also be a new representative, so that perspective would be valuable as well.

I’m not moving a motion at the moment. But I want to put the idea out there for consideration.

J. Yap: I heard the representative say that one of her office’s strengths is the relationships that they have with many people in different communities, and certainly in aboriginal communities where the need is high for promotion and advocacy for more adoptions, for children to have forever families.

I share the same desire. I think it’s a great idea that there needs to be a focus to keep having success in reducing the wait-list of children waiting for adoptions. The recent success is great, and we hope that continues.

I have a real concern with the line that is going to be crossed. You know, this is a great idea, but we’re asking, or we’re being asked to have, the representative get into an operational position to try and achieve an objective. As worthy as it is…. Her role, ultimately — the role of the office — is to be the watchdog, to be the one that will hold the ministry’s feet to the fire. She’s done a very good job at that.

Theoretically, what happens if this is approved, and we go down this path and adoptions ramp up? We all want the adoptions all to be very good adoptions. We hope it never happens, but what if there are one or two that go offside? How is the representative going to, for that adoption or two adoptions, hold the ministry accountable when the office was involved?

I remember trying to raise this with the representative. She seemed to think there was a line there, a firewall, that they could work with. I have to question that. In my view, once you get into the role of promoting and working with people to encourage achieving an objective — in this case, adoptions — you get into an operational position. I see that as the conflict that, to me, is very difficult to overcome.
[ Page 2183 ]

The other thing is…. George mentioned we’re going to have a new rep in less than a year. Actually, it’s in less than six months we’ll have a new rep. Part of me is thinking: well, the new representative may have views. He or she may have a different philosophy. Maybe we should defer to the next representative, rather than assume that this is…. You know, in the final months of the mandate of this representative, we’re going to take this drastic step.

D. Ashton: I just want to reiterate and comment on what Carole said. Carole, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I think, personally, there needs to be a change. I really think, personally, again, that it’s very difficult for the overseer to become involved in the operation. But I see the opportunity of the overseer being able to put more input and to have a little bit more control on something to build that bridge.

That bridge does not exist. It does not exist whatsoever. I’m surprised at both of the entities sometimes and how this has been tossed about in the public. I think that they should be working together a lot closer and trying to fix this.

I’m not so sure that just taking an operation and putting it into the representative’s as the overseer is the way to do it. Maybe my terminology on a flying squad was not the right terminology. But if there’s this one little thing that you can bring forward to try and make a difference, where they both have direct input, and the overseer has more input into the operations but not into the operation in its entity….

Again, I guess I look at it as a marriage sometimes. You know, if you can’t decide, you go to this third party of independency and try and work through these things.

As we’ve all said, we want to see more and more of these kids put into more permanency. We know there are some issues involved with some of these children, which is incredibly unfortunate, why some of them can’t be involved in permanency at this point in time. But just give this additional opportunity of an idea that she’s brought forward without making her completely into the operation of it.

Then, I’m going in the back of my mind: do you have these two entities working together, or are they working opposed? She has an operation of placement inside of her overseeing operation, and there’s also the operations of placement within the ministry. Are they like — bam! — on a lot of this?

Again, this is a tough one. I mean, this is one of the tougher decisions that I’ve been faced with on this committee.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think the answer is: they’re working side by side. I think that’s the answer.

If you look at the proposal that came forward, she’s not involved in the operational issue. The operational issue — the issue of having kids adopted, the issue of foster parents being cleared, of families being cleared, of kids being cleared — is the ministry’s responsibility.

It says really clearly that the new team would have a time-limited mandate with the expectation that the systemic analysis of barriers and obstacles to permanency identified by the team would permit the ministry and delegated agencies to build new and lasting mechanisms for the future.

So it’s looking at the systemic issues; working with families who will come to them to say, “Here are the problems we’re dealing with”; analyzing those; and talking to the ministry about the areas that they can work on. That’s exactly the kind of role that is the advocate’s role — which is looking at the systemic issues, which is bringing forward those challenges.

Develop a strategy to encourage families and caregivers to step forward as permanency options for children. Again, the ministry has a role. The representative has a role around advocacy, and it’s a very different role and a very different relationship with families and children — particularly those who are nervous and uncomfortable, for very good historical reasons, to come to the ministry. So providing that opportunity and, again, looking at specific families in communities, assigning them for individual advocacy and then turning it over to the ministry to do that planning.

I think it’s quite reasonable to enter into this discussion, because I think those are completely valid issues to be talked about. But I think those are addressed in exactly the kind of work…. I think, again, there’s some good rationale — and I think John raised it — around there being a new advocate coming in, that could look at a change.

I think a one-year approval of a budget would provide opportunities. We can’t expect the representative’s office, with the overload of cases and the efficiency of cases…. If we remember, back to the discussion that we’ve had, there isn’t another independent office that provides the kind of efficiency around the caseload and staff that this office provides. We can’t expect them to take it on for no additional resources. To me, a compromise of a one-year approval gives a chance for the work that’s being done now.

The representative is continuing that work. They’re working with the ministry. The ministry supports that. They support the division of roles that the two of them will have. I think it’s quite a reasonable request.

R. Austin: I want to speak to your concerns, which have been addressed or spoken to by a number of you who are worried that this is an incursion into the administrative part. It’s a pity we don’t have a lawyer here amongst us.

You know, when a child is taken into care permanently on a continuing-care order, that child becomes a ward of the state, becomes a ward of the government of British Columbia. This proposal doesn’t change the fact that ultimately every single decision has to be made by the
[ Page 2184 ]
government of British Columbia, by people who work for the government, not by the office of the children and youth advocate.

When an adoption takes place, if that child is on a continuing-care order…. This means that the government doesn’t have to go back every three months, every six months, to continue to keep that child in care. Some kids are brought in only for a short period of time, and then, hopefully, the family can sort out their problems, and the child goes back. But for these children who are on continuing-care orders, if there is to be an adoption, again, it’s a legal process, right?

The ministry has to come forward with a plan and go before a family court judge and say: “Okay, we want this child now to be taken out of the care of the state and given to Mr. and Mrs.” — or whoever — “so-and-so to look after.” Again, it’s not like the youth and families representative is going to be coming forward and doing that. That’ll entirely be a government function. So I think that there is a very clear division as to what’s going to happen here.

Also, I just want to speak for a second to how busy social workers are. It’s a bit like the health care system in the sense that the health care system, no matter how much money is thrown at it, is driven by acute care. This, unfortunately, is a system driven by crisis, okay? It’s not one where you can plan budgets and have social workers given so much work to do.

I mean, for the social workers who aren’t directly in child protection or in resources, the ones who are supposed to look after kids who are in permanent care, they have a mandate to see that child so many times in a year. Half the time, that’s never accomplished because the levels of the number of kids who are put onto those caseloads simply become too big — especially in northern B.C., which has a much disproportionate number of kids in care than in the southern part of the province.

To have any kind of help for those social workers — who are attempting, within the system, to try and do that work, to get this done — to have even a small amount of help coming from the RCY, I think, would be an advantage. I don’t think we’ve got anything to lose by trying it for a year, so I would really hope that you would consider that as you go forward.

J. Rice: Well, I think Robin really summed up my thoughts very succinctly, particularly around the workload and caseload in the north. I was just going to share a story of an MCFD office that I visited in northern British Columbia. I asked about adoptions, and the manager clearly indicated to me: “Adoptions are done off the side of my desk.” The crises always take precedent, and therefore, since they’re always in a state of crisis, adoptions are always sitting at the edge of their desk.

I know a family in Prince Rupert. One of the parents was aboriginal. They waited — I can’t remember; it was an astronomical amount of time, more than two years — to adopt two aboriginal siblings, working to try and get them to stay together and keep them together. Really, the social workers just couldn’t put the energies into having to facilitate that process. In my mind, if the advocate was involved, she would, you know, get the a into g. Obviously, MCFD, as Robin said, would be the facilitator of making all the process happen, but the advocate would be advocating for them. They were essentially left alone.

I know of another family in my community that just gave up and adopted internationally because the process took so long. There was no one there to pay attention to their process because resources were stretched thin, or whatever their reasons may be. But they had no one. They felt alone, and I think if they had an advocate, they wouldn’t feel alone. I know that’s not a unique story. That happens time and time again.

I think this would be great, that the advocate could do that job of advocating. I just read it twice now. I didn’t even interpret it as her wading into the weeds of administrative role or overlapping with MCFD’s job. I understand by just listening to this discussion that that’s the interpretation by some members here, but I certainly didn’t…. The proposal doesn’t appear to be of that administrative, meddling nature that I think people are concerned about. I clearly see it as an advocacy role in an area of advocacy that’s in dire need of attention.

S. Gibson: Well, if I thought this proposal would have a significantly positive effect on what we’ve been talking about, I’d be more comfortable with it. I don’t see that. My concern — and this has been articulated by colleagues — is that you’ve got levels of accountability going in different directions. You’ve got the ministry going in one but the advocate going in another. If you blur them at all, notwithstanding the good points that Carole has made, I think accountability is going to suffer. If things don’t quite work out, who’s accountable? The advocate is right there, embedded in the system, to some extent.

This is a big — a 10 percent — increase over three years. The compromise recommended one year. I don’t think that’s going to work, because there are quite a few hirings here for three years. Are you going to get people with the kind of commitment we’re looking for to take this on for 12 months? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s going to work. There’s a staffing component to this, so I just worry.

If you look at these cases here, case 1 and case 2, there’s a lot of detail in there. This is operational information. This is not anecdotal observation from on high, omniscient. This is right embedded in the system.

If I had unlimited money piled up on my desk here, dollar bills, I’d rather give it to the ministry than to the advocate, to be honest. Those are my thoughts.
[ Page 2185 ]

Robin and Carole, you guys have done an excellent job presenting it. I just don’t feel comfortable with it. I’m not sure if this is the right way to do it. I think all these folks, the advocates and all the folks that report to us and statutory officers, need to be clearly delineated away from the ministries. If we blur them, accountability is going to suffer. And I don’t think we’re going to get a whole lot more adoptions, which is what we all want on this committee.

D. Ashton: Do we know if the minister and advocate/ministry and advocacy have actually sat down and discussed this process? Does anybody know?

D. Ashton: They have sat down? Have the minister and the advocate sat down and discussed this process?

To me, Carole…. The reason I’m asking this is if this is coming out of…. Left field is not the right thing. If this is coming out over here, and nobody has actually sat down across the table and hammered through this to see how this is going to work…. If I knew that there was some discussion taking place and that this wasn’t just a barbed, sharp arrow fired into the heart of something that somebody disagrees with on a continual basis, my comfort level would go up a lot.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think we just want to remember that the deputy minister came here. The deputy minister is the voice for the minister. The deputy minister came here and said he supported working on this project with the representative. That was the presentation — that they supported working on the project together. I think we have to take that at face value. I don’t think we can do otherwise. I think we have to take that at face value.

I think the other point, just to add on to Simon’s point: the advocate works on individual cases every day. That is part of her role. She has a role as an advocate as part of her representative role. They have cases that are referred to them every single day where families phone and say: “I want you to advocate.” The representative’s staff go out and work with the ministry staff to advocate for that child. That happens every single day. That’s already part of her mandate, part of her legislative requirement and part of her day-to-day work.

This is no different, to say: “I’m going to advocate for a family for adoption.” All this does is give a very specific area to advocate for and to say: “We’re going to put a priority to this advocacy work. It will be adoption, and we’re going to work to be able to advocate for those families.” She’s already involved in individual cases.

The delineation is that she doesn’t go in and say: “I’m going to do the process. I’m going to figure out how it happens. I’m going to get it going.” She advocates for a family, and then says to the ministry: “Here’s the advocacy work our office has been doing on behalf of this family and this child.” It’s up to the ministry whether they do it or not or whether they take it. It’s still up to the ministry, even in this project. The work that she’s doing is advocating, which she already has as her mandate.

D. Ashton: Carole, that’s important to me — your last comment, whether they do it or not. If they’re on parallel tracks, it’s not worth a damn. But if it’s starting to do this and bringing them together, then I can see some validation in it. But until I know that both are accepting of the plan, again, I just have some great apprehension on it.

E. Foster: To the comment about the deputy favouring the collaboration, there’s no question — nor, I don’t think, any argument on that from anybody. It’s just a matter of who’s going to pay for it. That’s what it comes down to.

In our report, we did support the $656,000 increase to the budget of the advocate. Now, mind you, that was specific to the death and critical injury reviews. It’s a pretty nice bump. I mean, I made the motion. I certainly support it.

As far as the advocate being an advocate for adoption, that was the conversation with the deputy minister. I went and asked about it right away. I said: “If you want us to support this, we’re all over it.” But the comment was: “Well, we want to continue to do things the way we’re doing, and the advocate should advocate.” If they work on specific cases, that’s part of the mandate. There’s no question.

To the money, that $656,000 is a pretty nice lift to get more people in the office. I would suggest that she might want to look at one of those people. That was why the money was asked for, but there’s nothing that says…. I mean, we give them this chunk of money, and she manages it, as she should, how she sees fit.

We have a new advocate coming in sometime after the fall. I think maybe it’s important that we let that person also come in and direct their operation. I think the consideration here is whether we should make a recommendation for additional funding, and I don’t think that’s appropriate at this point, after a $656,000 increase.

J. Tegart: I guess for me, it’s roles and responsibilities and the blurring of that. It’s the accountability. Who’s accountable for what? When I hear Jennifer’s comments about social workers who are working on adoption off the side of the desk…. Did we give a lift to those social workers so that we can actually give the ministry the ability to take any kind of recommendation and do something with it?
[ Page 2186 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Any further comment? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, where do we go from here?

G. Heyman: I would move that we approve the request of the representative for the additional budget for the adoption advocacy initiative.

E. Foster: Yes, on the motion. Are you talking about the whole for three years or just the one year?

G. Heyman: I’d move one year if I thought there was any interest in voting on it.

G. Heyman: I would move one year if I thought there was any interest on the other side in supporting it, but I didn’t hear any. If there’s consideration of that, I would move that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, the motion on the floor right now is to adopt the recommendation and the budget request as it stands. Are you modifying that?

G. Heyman: I’ll move that we adopt the first year budget for the adoption advocacy initiative with review and report prior to the end of the year.

D. Ashton: George, I’d love to support your motion, but I’m going to come back to that I don’t see that these two entities have actually talked this through. I’m not so sure, again, where the money is going is the right place. Am I in favour of a lift for additional adoptions? You bet I am, as long as we can show that everybody’s working together to encourage that. At this point in time, I do not see that so I can’t support the motion.

G. Heyman: My memory is that we had the deputy minister in here answering that very question. If we need to ask the deputy to come back to affirm that, we could adjourn and have the vote at a future meeting, if that’s the concern.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I was just going to say that I don’t know what other proof we need. We had the deputy saying they wanted to work on the project together, that it worked well this last year. We had a report that said there were more adoptions this last year than there were the year before, so again, they were working together. I’m not sure what else we need to show it’s been successful.

E. Foster: I think it comes down to…. We definitely heard the deputy say that, but we didn’t hear the deputy say he wants us to finance it or to take it — where to get the money from.

C. James (Deputy Chair): He won’t. That’s our job; that’s not his job. That’s our job. He won’t ever say that.

E. Foster: Then I would suggest that…. I have no problem with what they’ve suggested. I just don’t think we should fund it. I mean, that’s…. It’s worked well. What they did last year worked extremely well — for the last two years.

D. Ashton: Again, that’s what I see. We’ve heard from the deputy, an individual, but I have not heard from the minister and I have not heard from the advocate that they’ve actually sat down and chewed through this thing to see if it’s going to work.

Carole, respect, like I said, I’m in this for the kids. I’m not into this for this continual ongoing tension that I see and everybody else sees. So unless these two individuals are sitting down and they’ve got a marriage counsellor between the two of them….

You know what, Jen? I do laugh at it. I’m laughing with you. This is wrong — what’s been happening. Let’s get back our focus on the kids, and let’s get this tension…. I agree with you 100 percent, Jenny. I do.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Just for clarity. George, I just want to make sure that we captured the motion. We’ve just been editing the proposal put forward by George.

G. Heyman: Yes, and “review and report prior to the end of the year” was part of the motion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Madam Clerk, for the record, I’ll have you read the motion the way it’s been agreed to.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you for your patience. I’m just trying to capture elements that George has indicated he wants to have included. Thank you, George, for your assistance.

My understanding of the motion that has been put forward by George is: that the committee approve $958,000
[ Page 2187 ]
in 2016-17 supplementary funding to support the adoption advocacy initiative proposed by the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth as dated April 13, 2016, with ongoing review and reporting over the course of the year to be provided to the committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): That’s the motion on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just a question on how we make sure that that…. We don’t take the in-camera discussion, but I’m guessing the motion, then, becomes part of the public record.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Right. Well, at this juncture, the committee has continued their deliberations in camera. Should you wish to resume in public session, the motion could be put forward again for the basis of the record.

In essence, it’s a negative decision, as the motion was not agreed to, obviously. So going forward, the committee may wish to simply just convey the results of the decisions taken today to the representative and to the Minister of Finance, because of course, the Minister of Finance had been advised to anticipate further deliberations on this proposal some time ago. But in essence, if the motion fails on the public record, then another motion to advise of the outcome of the deliberations today can be sent by way of letter reflecting your discussions today.

E. Foster: I’m very uncomfortable with this whole thing. I’m uncomfortable with it because I would hate for anyone to think — and I can’t speak for my colleague, but for me….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Would you like to go on the record on this, out of camera? Would you like to have this comment made out of camera?

E. Foster: I’m very uncomfortable with this, because I wouldn’t want anyone to think — for me personally, and I can’t speak for anybody else — that I was in any way opposed to anything that I thought would help with the adoption process.

My opposition to this is in what will develop out of this. I think it’s something that just doesn’t work for me, because it’s sort of the division of church and state, if you will. I know Carole spoke to this, and very eloquently as always, but it still didn’t give me a comfort level. I would like to continue to have this conversation, whether we do it here or however we do it, to support all agencies that are trying to help with adoption.

Certainly, the ministry…. I would be more than happy to have the conversation about additional resources to the ministry if it will help lower that 1,000 number down to where we need to be.

G. Heyman: With respect to Eric — and I have no doubt whatsoever in Eric’s interest or any member of this committee’s interest in facilitating adoption — I think we’ve had this discussion over a number of months. We’ve had presentations from both the representative and the deputy minister with respect to this very proposal that I took to be supportive to address the issues of separation and respective roles quite well.

If there is doubt in some committee members’ minds that that was the message we received from the ministry or if we wish to have some further discussion with both the ministry and the representative to determine whether this proposal is the best way to meet the goals that the proposal purports to make — which is to increase the number of adoptions, to increase the permanency for children waiting for adoptions and families waiting to adopt through a system of advocacy that can identify systemic barriers, that can identify problems with specific cases on which the ministry can then act — then I repeat my suggestion that we invite the parties back as soon as possible to have that discussion.

I think to reject a proposal that’s well-thought-out, which has had the support of both the ministry and the representative, and then think that somehow we can find some other way to achieve the end without moving on it quickly, in a very purposeful way, is wishful thinking, with respect. I think we need to act.

D. Ashton: I’m very comfortable with the conversation that took place in camera, and I know that this is going to become an issue. I just know it’s going to be.

I don’t know if this is appropriate or not, Mr. Chair, but I would move that the in-camera discussion be made public. I have no qualms whatsoever on the earnest endeavours that both sides have made to ensure that more kids get adopted.
[ Page 2188 ]

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you. I’ll defer to our good Clerk here, with regard to process.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I would encourage the members…. Because of the clarity that was provided by the motion to go in camera, it would require unanimous support of all committee members, should that change be made to the public record.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): The first motion…. This is the only motion, thus far, in the public session. We have had a motion and a fulsome discussion, as members realize, in the in-camera part previously. But currently, the motion by Dan Ashton is before your committee.

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. Any discussion on that motion? Oh, I need a seconder. I’m sorry. Eric? Thank you.

Again, unanimous consent of the committee will be necessary in order to release an in-camera transcript.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just a couple of follow-ups, partly from our previous discussion but partly from the discussion now.

I have no doubt that every member around this committee wants to look at the support for increasing adoptions. I think we have the facts, which are that adoptions increased over this last year. This was the first year for the representative’s office and the ministry to be working.

The deputy has appeared, saying that this was their support for the project. The representative has appeared saying their support for the project. I understand the concerns around the resources for three years and whether there’ll be a shift if there’s a change in the representative. I think it’s quite reasonable to look at a one-year support for this and that that really is where the difference comes down to — who does the work.

While I understand members who say that perhaps this money should go to the ministry for extra support, I think it’s very clear there are systemic issues around adoption. There are reasons the families don’t come forward. There are reasons that there are long delays there. The opportunity for the representative to look at those systemic issues, bring recommendations to the ministry and then the ministry to do the work, from my perspective, is the best support that we could provide.

The direction that our Clerk has given me is that we convey the results of our deliberations as well as our support for continued dialogue and discussion with respect to adoption to permanency and ways to achieve that and to increase the number of adoptions, etc. — all of the discussion, essentially, that has been taken around this table and then summarized.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): In case it’s helpful to members, a possible draft motion for your consideration would be: “That, further to the letter of January 26, 2016, the Chair advise the Representative for Children and Youth and the Minister of Finance, as chair of Treasury Board, of the decision today and that the committee’s decision be recorded in its report on the annual review of statutory office budgets later this year.”

Further, should you wish to include a direction that the letter encourage further cooperation in this area, I’d be happy to have that as part of either the motion or the correspondence.

G. Heyman: Rather than move that motion, I would prefer to move a different motion, which is with regard to both Dan’s comments — that he wanted to hear some assurance that there was support for this and that the parties were working together — and Eric’s comments — that he wants to find a way to enhance and increase adoption rates and that we invite the deputy minister and the representative to appear before this committee, at the earliest opportunity, so we can explore both those avenues with them.

That’s my motion. The reason I’m moving it is…. Obviously, we’re going to let the representative know. But if, as a result of that discussion, we might make a different decision than we made today, then I think it’s premature to notify the Minister of Finance.

E. Foster: I’ll second the motion. I think that if we’re going to go anywhere, we’ve got to have another conversation. I don’t think…. We’re obviously not satisfied. We’re not satisfied with what we had to do because of the logistics behind it.

If we have to inform both the ministry and the advocate, we can inform them of the first motion you put up and then, also, that we want to have a continued dialogue on this. I don’t know how you do the logistics on that, but I think that if we’re going to…. If we’re not going to continue the dialogue, that’s fine. Then we send the letters off.
[ Page 2189 ]

I think it’s important that we do, probably, send that letter because that was the motion and then, also, the second motion that George has put forward, which said we want to continue the conversation. Based on the information and the feelings that were around the table, the majority of the people at the table couldn’t support the request for the funding, but we’re still looking for an avenue to get to where we all want to be.

S. Hamilton (Chair): On the issue of potentially not informing the Minister of Finance, I’ll just bring to your attention that we do have a placeholder letter that we did send to the minister telling him that we had agreed to certain things and put on hold another. I think we have to confer to him the decision of the committee so that we can put this one to rest.

G. Heyman: Technically, I moved a different motion than what we were considering, which was a three-year proposition by the representative. In that sense, we could — and we’re proposing further discussion — consider the placeholder outstanding in some way.

Eric, in his comments, said…. For him, perhaps, it was a question of where the funding goes. So one way or another, we may be talking about money.

I think sending one letter to the minister now and another one later is confusing.

E. Foster: We’re not finished with this discussion. So essentially, it could be premature to send the first letter.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think the only additional piece I’d add is that there’s urgency here. In fairness, as you’ve said, Chair, we need to get the decision finalized around the Finance Ministry. So I think there’s some urgency to us booking a meeting and having the minister and the representative appear. I think we should get on with it.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): The second motion now, which has been put forward by Mr. Heyman, reads: “That the committee invite the Representative for Children and Youth and officials from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to receive further information regarding ongoing consideration of the adoption advocacy initiative.”

G. Heyman: I think rather than “officials,” it should be “the minister or her deputy, at her discretion.”

J. Tegart: I would hope that the Chair and Deputy Chair have an opportunity to speak to both parties around the concerns that were expressed around the table. I find it difficult that we’re in an either-or. I hope that we’re in a discussion about how best to increase adoptions and that the door is open to discussion around: maybe this model isn’t the model. Maybe there are other ways of working together to reach the goal of increasing adoptions.

I hope that we’re not going to have a presentation of either-or but taking into consideration the concerns expressed at the table: are there other options?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Just for clarity. George had mentioned one other phrase, which I have now incorporated. So just for clarity, the motion, as we have it now, reads: “That the committee invite the Representative for Children and Youth and the minister or designated officials from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to receive further information and to continue the dialogue regarding ongoing consideration of the adoption advocacy initiative.”

S. Hamilton (Chair): Motion’s on the floor. Do I have a seconder, actually? Yes, thank you.

Access to on-line versions of the report of proceedings (Hansard)
and webcasts of committee proceedings is available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Robin Austin (Skeena NDP)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Jennifer Rice (North Coast NDP)
	Jackie Tegart (Fraser-Nicola BC Liberal)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES