The committee met at 9:04 a.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): Good morning, and thank you, everyone, for being here. We certainly have a full agenda and a full house today to get started.

[9:05 a.m.]

Lots of significant information has been shared with us, and the committee, I should let the witnesses know, is very good at doing its homework. I’m very appreciative of the hours that they spend.

Before we start, I think it’s important for us to recognize two things. First of all, we want to recognize the work of our wonderful committee member who has decided, apparently fairly recently, that he is not going to run again. I know that I, personally, and many of us around this table will miss him a great deal.

Ralph, we know you’ve got a lot of work to put in before that day comes, but we just want to thank you for your service here at Public Accounts and also to British Columbians. It’s a real honour and a pleasure to work with you. We know that there are lots of great things ahead for you.

Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t recognize the Auditor General. We’ll have lots of time to talk with her and continue to work with her. Believe me, she is not taking her foot off the gas pedal at all. We’ll hear about that later as we talk about the subcommittee meeting that we held.

I think every member of this Public Accounts Committee that I’ve been lucky to chair, and Mitzi as Deputy Chair, has worked constructively with the Auditor. It’s no surprise that we are disappointed that she is leaving this role — I have no idea what her future plans hold — of Auditor General.

On behalf of the committee — and Mitzi may also want to make a couple of comments — we just want to thank you for working with us, holding us to account as we work beside you. I thank you, Carol, for the work that you have done, will continue to do in the months ahead. You’ve done a wonderful job for British Columbians, and that’s given us a lot of work to do. You keep us very busy. I know that we wanted to express to you our gratitude this morning for your service.

Recognizing those two important parts of the work we do, we’re going to start this morning with consideration of a report that the Auditor General presented in February of 2019. We have intentionally aligned the two reports related to corrections back to back, so hopefully, that helps facilitate staff members that are here.

We’re going to start with the progress audit on correctional facilities and programs, which was released in February of 2019. We’ll use our typical process. The Auditor General will make her opening remarks, her staff will present their PowerPoint, and then we’ll ask for a response from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

We will have to ensure that as you present, you do introduce the members of your delegation. We need to have them, for the record, on Hansard. Kate will help facilitate a shift at the table if that’s necessary.

With that, we’ll start with the Auditor General this morning.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

Progress Audit: Correctional
Facilities and Programs

C. Bellringer: Thanks so much, and thank you for the comments.

I’m tempted to frame it around many hands make light work, and a lot of hard work goes into each of the audits that we do, but we have very capable staff who do that. I’m going to involve the Deputy Auditor General responsible for each report through the day, as I’ve been doing, and we’ll immediately turn this one over to Malcolm Gaston, who will introduce the report.

M. Gaston: Thank you, Carol.

Thank you for inviting us to speak to our work. With me is Peter Nagati, executive director and Laura Pierce, senior manager, who conducted the audit.

In 2015, we looked at whether the adult custody division was planning for and providing the facilities and programs it needed to provide safe, secure custody and reduce criminal behaviour. This progress audit looks at the work the division has done to implement our eight recommendations from that audit.

Overall, progress was mixed, with three recommendations fully implemented, two in progress and three where no action had been taken. But we are encouraged by the division’s ongoing commitment to address the recommendations that are still outstanding.

I’m now going to hand over to Laura, who will provide a brief summary of the audit.

L. Pierce: Thank you, Malcolm.

Good morning, committee members. The adult custody division supervises adults who are sentenced to a jail term of two years less a day as well as those awaiting trial, sentencing and an immigration review.

[9:10 a.m.]

In 2017-18, there were roughly 2,600 individuals housed in one of the province’s ten correctional facilities on any given day.

In 2015, we conducted an audit that looked at the province’s correctional facilities and programs. At the time, B.C.’s correctional facilities were over capacity, and we found that the division couldn’t demonstrate whether operating at that level provided safe, secure custody for inmates. We also found that inmates weren’t getting timely access to the programs and services that they needed to reduce their risk to reoffend.

In our 2015 report, we made eight recommendations to help the division better meet its mandate. Those recommendations can be found on page 5 of the progress audit report.

Our progress audit found that the division has made some progress in implementing our recommendations, but more work is needed. As Malcolm indicated, the division has implemented three of the eight recommendations, has partially implemented another two and has taken no action on three. However, they have planned work to address some of these.

The three recommendations from our 2015 audit that the division had fully, substantially, implemented are recommendations 3, 4 and 5 and are displayed above, on the screen.

Using evidence to drive decisions was a key piece of all three of these recommendations. The division has made considerable progress now towards ensuring that its decisions reflect the inmate population as well as an understanding of what does and does not work. For example, the division has introduced a new program for female offenders, after its evaluation of the previous program found that it was not working. It has also used its understanding of the inmate population to make changes to some of its living units.

The two recommendations that the division has partially implemented are recommendations 1 and 2. For these, the division has made some progress, but more work is needed to fully implement them.

For example, with respect to recommendation 1, the division has implemented many elements of a performance management framework, but it has not defined appropriate occupancy levels for its correctional centres. It continues to use the same benchmark that it had in place during our original audit, which was no more than 32 percent double-bunking. However, it has not examined whether or not this is consistent with its mission to safely support offenders and promote behavioural change.

With recommendation 2, we found that the division has examined some trends related to safety and security, but not all. For example, the division has assessed trends related to staff assaults and contraband and introduced reforms to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. But it has not examined trends related to behavioural incidents and other types of violence, including inmate-on-inmate assaults across all of its correctional centres.

Developing clear performance measures and targets to gauge its effectiveness and then monitoring indicators such as safety incidents will help the division better understand where adjustments are needed to be successful.

That leaves three recommendations that we found the division had not taken any action on. Two of these recommendations, recommendations 6 and 8 above, are on the screen, and these focus on ensuring that an inmate’s risks and needs are properly classified and that they receive the programs they need to reduce their risk to reoffend. We found that the division has not acted on these, though it does recognize their importance and has planned work to address them.

Unlike recommendations 6 and 8, we did not find any planned work to address recommendation 7 at the time of our audit, and this recommendation encouraged the division to examine the impact of housing sentenced and non-sentenced inmates together. However, we recently met with the division to explore some of the work that they’ve done in this area since our progress audit, and we’re expecting the division to provide an update to you, the committee, on that during their presentation.

In conclusion, the adult custody division plays an important role in providing inmates with a safe environment where they can access the programs they need to reduce their risk to reoffend upon release. This minimizes the chances of reoffending and increases the effectiveness, which benefits everyone.

[9:15 a.m.]

That wraps up our report summary for today. We’ll now turn it over to the division. However, we’d be happy to answer any questions from the committee afterwards.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much.

Kate, we’ll just make sure that we have the proper PowerPoint, and then we’ll ask the presenters on behalf of the ministry side to introduce themselves and begin their presentation.

Committee members, we’ll start a speaking list whenever you’re ready to let me know you have questions.

P. Boyle: Good morning, Madam Chair, Deputy Chair, committee members and officials representing the Office of the Auditor General and comptroller general.

Before I introduce myself, I’d like to acknowledge that we are meeting in the traditional and unceded territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, and I’m grateful to have the opportunity to live and work in this beautiful land.

My name is Patti Boyle, and I’m the acting Deputy Solicitor General this week. My regular position is assistant deputy minister responsible for road safety and superintendent of motor vehicles. I’d like to also pass along sincere apologies on behalf of our deputy minister, Mark Sieben, who couldn’t be with us today.

We appreciate the significant effort that went into the Office of the Auditor General audits and the progress audits of B.C. Corrections operations. This work supports our efforts to make meaningful changes in the lives of the people in our custody and under our supervision.

I would like to introduce the assistant deputy minister of the corrections branch, Elenore Arend. She will introduce her team and guide us through PowerPoint presentations related to the audits of the community corrections division and the adult custody division.

E. Arend: Thank you, Patti.

As Patti said, I’m Elenore Arend. I’m the assistant deputy minister for B.C. Corrections, and I’m pleased to be here today to describe the work that we’ve undertaken to implement the recommendations stemming from the work of the Auditor General’s office with respect to the adult custody division.

With me here today is Stephanie Macpherson, who’s the provincial director for adult custody, and her deputy provincial director, Dana Tadla. As well, we have provincial director Kimberley McLean, who’s the provincial director for strategic operations in our branch, and her director of research, Dr. Leigh Greiner.

Before I begin, I thought it might be helpful to provide some context about the operations of the custody division. As you heard from Laura Pierce, the adult custody division is responsible for the 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week operation of ten correctional centres across this province, providing safe supervision to approximately 2,400 inmates at any given time. There are 1,800 staff within the division, and in the course of the year, the centres will have approximately 17,000 admissions and discharges.

Individuals in our centres are awaiting trial on remand, are on immigration hold or are sentenced to two years less a day. Remanded individuals make up more than 60 percent of our population and are with us for only approximately 40 days, on average, while sentenced individuals are with us for approximately 60 days.

We have a varied and complex clientele, and some of them are the most vulnerable population in our society. We know that 60 percent have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder or a mental health disorder, or both. Many inmates have histories of gang involvement, and others come to us in very fragile and poor mental and physical conditions.

Often we spend the first weeks of their limited time with us simply stabilizing these individuals. This includes managing drug withdrawals and psychoses, poor physical health and other acute conditions and connecting them to mental health supports. When we consider the average length of stay is about two months, you can see we have a limited opportunity to support changing behaviour.

[9:20 a.m.]

In addition, Indigenous individuals are highly overrepresented in the justice system, with the custody population comprising 30 percent of inmates.

What adds to our challenges is a significant and ongoing staffing crisis. We’re short about 230 correctional officers across the province, and our main focus has been on recruiting and retaining correctional officers to keep our day-to-day operations going. Over the past two years, we’ve recruited over 430 staff but have lost about 400 staff to retirement, burnout, higher-paying jobs and other reasons.

The implications are serious. Currently we have 18 units closed across the province, and that’s the equivalent of two correctional centres. This means we have overcrowding, which leads to violence, and overtime, which leads to staff burnout and people leaving, which makes the staffing crisis worse. We simply don’t have enough people to do the proper case management and deliver the number of programs that inmates need and that we’d like to deliver.

Throughout my presentation, you’ll hear me mention two major projects that are underway: the segregation reform project and a project called ICaP, which stands for integrated case planning. First, segregation reform is a priority project because it’s driven by not only court decisions but also human rights challenges, and it’s certainly the right thing to do. Resource-dependent, it’s also a vehicle for implementing the foundation for our response to a number of the OAG’s recommendations.

Planning is underway to reform segregation, with a goal of only using it as a last resort. Many of the people who end up in segregation are the vulnerable population that I described earlier. The project will enhance our case management, with a focus on high-risk, high-needs individuals in custody. It’ll provide alternatives outside of segregation units, and it’ll develop new behaviour management strategies.

Our goal is to phase in changes to our use of segregation to improve the conditions for inmates as quickly as possible while ensuring the safety of our staff and inmates. These are enormous changes, with policy, regulation, culture, facilities and other impacts to coordinate.

Second is the integrated case management project, known as ICaP, which will improve case management across the branch. The objectives of this project are to move to a client-centric approach to case management, recognizing that it’s one client moving through the justice system and in and out of custody; enhancing information exchange across custody and community divisions; standardizing the use of risk assessment and case management tools; and developing an application that integrates risk assessment with case management and program delivery. Successful completion of these projects will enable us to fully respond to the OAG’s recommendations.

On the slide, as you see, is our dashboard that illustrates the ratings of our assessments from the Auditor General at the time of the progress audit when it was released in February of this year. As the Auditor mentioned, we fully implemented three of the recommendations. While we’ve strived to fully complete all of the recommendations, candidly, our progress has not been what we’d like it to be. However, I want to assure you that we’ve been working very hard to implement these recommendations, and we have every intention of continuing to pursue our plans as resources come available.

The first recommendation was to develop a comprehensive performance management framework and set targets for safety, reducing criminal behaviour and understanding our capacity. The progress audit found that we’ve partially implemented this recommendation. The partial implementation was based on the fact that B.C. Corrections had established a new strategic plan that outlines how we meet our mission to protect communities by safely supporting adults under our supervision and using evidence-based approaches to change their behaviours.

We also assigned responsibility for implementing stra­tegies and developing performance measures to a variety of provincial committees that oversee various functions of correctional supervision. These include sentence management, correctional practices, inmate programs, staffing, standards, operations, employer workplace safety, strategic training, and business and finance.

[9:25 a.m.]

Since the progress audit, we’ve developed a performance management framework, and implementation is underway. Divisional committees have been given terms of reference for their areas of responsibility, and we’ve identified key indicators to track their progress and ensure that their work is aligned with our strategic plan.

In the coming months and going forward, we’ll continue to enhance our framework and refine our key indicators to allow us to develop targets for each of these areas of responsibility. For example, in the area of inmate programs, we’ve set key indicators, such as the proportion of inmates completing programs versus the availability of programs. Another example is in the area of workplace safety. We have key indicators related to the incidents of violence and to staff safety training.

With respect to recommendation No. 2, the Auditor asked us to assess our data to see if operation centre, design and occupancy levels were factors affecting safety and security. At the time of the progress audit, the OAG found that we’d partially implemented this recommendation. We partially satisfied this recommendation by conducting an analysis of inmate-on-staff assaults in 2016, as well as an analysis of contraband incidents. We used this information to make changes, such as adding body scanners to detect contraband and retrofitting food hatches to address violence against staff.

We went further at one of our correctional centres, Surrey Pretrial, where we conducted an in-depth violence analysis and implemented a violence-free unit as a result. This unit is a living unit for inmates who are ready, able and willing to avoid conflict while in custody and focus on working on themselves.

We’ve also implemented other specialized units, such as Right Living units and complex needs units for the most high-risk, high-needs individuals. This is in addition to trauma-informed practice training and the first steps in segregation reforms as strategies to reduce incidents of violence in correctional centres.

I note that our assessment of incidents is also informing our facilities design. For example, at our new Nanaimo Correctional Centre, which will open in 2023, we will have flexible spaces and program areas incorporated into the design that meet the complex needs of our inmate population.

The progress audit found that more work was needed to assess the trends in safety and security at all correctional centres because the original assessment only accounted for 25 percent of all incidents. As well, the OAG indicated that the assessment should have included other data, such as violence between inmates. As a result, going forward, we intend to conduct an annual analysis of safety and security incidents at all centres to identify trends and use those results to examine ways to reduce the risk or reoccurrence.

We’ll also evaluate the Surrey Pretrial’s violence-free unit and other new specialized units and, as appropriate and as resources come available, will expand to other correctional centres.

With respect to recommendation No. 3, the OAG asked us to develop an approach to forecasting space and program needs that reflect our changing population. The OAG found that we have fully implemented this recommendation.

We implemented this approach by examining key drivers that influence operations within correctional centres to inform our forecasting methodology. This includes analyzing the impacts that these drivers have on the type of housing, facilities and programs that we provide.

[9:30 a.m.]

We focused on the complexity of the population, such as the increase of individuals with mental health and substance abuse needs, which led us to implement the complex needs units that I mentioned to provide intensive supports to inmates. This, in turn, has shown promising results in reducing violence between inmates and against staff and avoiding having to use segregation to manage their behaviours. Going forward, we’ll continue to use that data about our population to inform forecasting for our facilities and programs needs.

In recommendation 4, the OAG asked us to ensure that decisions regarding our space and programs take the characteristics of our population into account, and we fully met the requirements of this recommendation. The OAG found that we are using our understanding of our custody population to inform modifications to our facilities, such as in segregation and in living units, as well as broader changes to case management and programs.

In addition, our capital plan includes projects that reflect our current drivers in the custody population such as the growing proportion of individuals on remand and the complex needs of our inmates. As I said earlier, at our upcoming Nanaimo Correctional Centre, we’ll include more flexible space for programs and housing inmates. These will better suit the current needs of individuals. Considering the needs of women, at the Okanagan Correctional Centre, we have a female unit, and NCC will also have a female unit so that women can be closer to their home communities.

In recommendation 5, the Auditor asked us to assess the effectiveness of our core programs and look for ways to improve programming. The progress audit found that we’d fully implemented this recommendation. We recently implemented a policy that supports our plan to evaluate programs every three to five years. This slide shows the evaluations that have been completed in the past few years and those that are planned. We use the results of our evaluations to make improvements and to keep our programs current.

The corrections branch prides itself on being an evidence-based organization and is proud of the impact that these cognitive behavioural programs are having on people in our care. A number of these programs have been proven to reduce recidivism by 30 to 50 percent.

In recommendation 6, the Auditor asked us to create a quality assurance system to improve our classification and case management processes. The progress audit found that there was no action taken to implement this recommendation. I can tell you that more activity has taken place since the progress audit, and B.C. Corrections believes that we’re on our way to partially implementing this recommendation.

The division has been challenged to implement case management as a whole for all inmates for a few reasons. First is the staffing crisis I mentioned earlier. Frankly, we lack the staff to conduct meaningful case management or deliver programs for all inmates at this time. The second is the need for funding to implement technology solutions that I mentioned in the ICaP project. However, we have taken some action, recognizing that our highest-risk and highest-needs inmates end up in segregation, with the greatest need for case management. We’re focusing on them first.

Since the progress audit, the segregation reform team has created a standardized and improved case management tool for use for inmates in segregation. This tool addresses the needs of inmates in a consistent manner and identifies a plan to respond to those needs so that we can help those inmates come out of segregation as quickly as possible. This tool is currently being piloted in two centres and will be rolled out across the province later this year.

The use of this new case management tool will begin in segregation. It’s our intent that it’ll form the foundation for the development of a new tool that will be rolled out for other inmates as staffing levels permit. But a tool is not enough. We know we need staff to run the programs to address the needs identified in the use of the tool.

[9:35 a.m.]

Case management implementation for individuals in segregation, and its quality, will be reviewed as a part of our inspection process beginning in 2020. We believe that this may satisfy, or partially satisfy, the recommendation to implement a quality assurance system. Similarly, our inmate classification assessment tool has recently been updated, adding more fields to capture additional information related to inmates’ mental health needs, Indigenous status and histories of violence. The tool will also be reviewed as part of the inspection process.

As I mentioned earlier, this is where ICaP is important. Integrated case planning will increase information-sharing and collaboration amongst adult custody and community corrections staff, particularly for those inmates who frequently cycle in and out of custody. It will support case management for those inmates, and it will ensure that risk assessment informs case management. However, as I noted, both segregation reform and ICaP are dependent on obtaining additional resources to implement.

In recommendation 7, the OAG recommended that we look at potential impacts of housing sentenced and remanded inmates together. They noted that our regulations stated that we should house them separately where circumstances allowed and asked whether there were negative impacts to remanded persons being housed with sentenced persons.

The progress audit found that there was no action taken to address this recommendation, as a review was just being initiated. We have now completed a review of our current classification practices and recently shared a draft review report with the Auditor General’s staff. The review showed that approximately half of our remand population is housed at two dedicated remand facilities. Most importantly, the review showed us that the remand population, while innocent until proven guilty, has become increasingly more complex in recent years. They are often remanded as a result of either being accused of a serious crime or of having an extensive criminal history.

Our research confirmed that there are fewer first-time offenders and more prolific offenders entering the correctional system. Therefore, the placement decisions in the centre need to consider much more than someone’s legal-hold status. That’s because legal-hold status alone is not indicative of risk. Our classification process, which determines where to house an inmate, actually considers a number of factors. These include security risk, criminal history, mental health needs, gang affiliations and criminal peers, as well as a host of other factors. These factors are evidence based and support the classification process to keep inmates safe.

Moving into the future, our next step will be to finalize that report and consider any necessary regulatory and/or policy changes resulting from this review. We believe that that will support us in fully implementing this recommendation.

The final recommendation of the Auditor General recommended that we review our case management and our risk-needs assessment tool to ensure that inmates were getting the access to programs that met their needs. The OAG found that the branch had not taken any action to implement this recommendation and recognized that our staff shortages were a factor.

We believe we have taken some action with respect to this recommendation since the time of the progress audit. As I mentioned earlier, changes that have been made to our inmate assessment classification tool and our case management tool for segregation support this work. These will form the foundation for the development of case management and inmate assessment tools for the broader population.

We’ve also implemented specialized units, which I mentioned earlier, to address identified inmate needs. Our research department has also begun research for the development of a risk-needs assessment tool that will identify the programming that an inmate needs and will support the consistent delivery of programs.

[9:40 a.m.]

That said, due to the significant staffing shortages, our ability to deliver timely and appropriate case management and programming continues to be impacted and is not what we would like to see. Work is underway to address the staffing issues, and, once resolved, we are hopeful that we will be able to rededicate resources to providing programs to inmates.

We’ve also completed a case management process review with the assistance of business process experts. This review will inform the business requirements of a new application that will be created through the ICaP project. The review also identified opportunities to improve and integrate case management across custody and community for those people who cycle in and out of custody. As I mentioned earlier, the enhanced inmate assessment classification tool will be released in January 2020.

Going forward, we’ll continue with our segregation reform and ICaP projects. The segregation reform project will provide the foundation for other work with case management for all inmates, and ICaP will provide the technical tools to support that process.

In summary, we remain steadfast in improving our approaches to create better outcomes for men and women under our supervision. The branch has undertaken a number of ambitious projects over the past three years and continues to make progressive and innovative changes to how we do our work.

At the same time, we’re faced with enormous challenges. The staff shortage is key among them. We are evolving our correctional practice in spite of these challenges and, at the same time, ensuring that we are meeting the very basis of our mandate to provide safe and secure custody of all individuals. We’ve benefited in many ways from the thoughtful advice and the fresh perspective that the OAG has provided us, and we very much value the OAG’s work to support our continual improvement.

We are, as I said, committed to the full implementation of the recommendations and will continue to work closely with the Auditor General’s office throughout this process.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much for the thorough overview of the response from the ministry. It’s appreciated.

I also neglected to recognize the comptroller general, Carl Fischer, who is here with us today. We always appreciate his participation in these meetings as well.

We started a speakers list. I’m sure that members will have questions. We’re going to begin with Jane this morning.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the Auditor General as well as to the staff in the ministry for their comprehensive response to the many, many challenges that you face in dealing with, as you had indicated, a very vulnerable population.

I have done quite a bit of research on issues with regards to corrections when it comes to the mental health and substance use and whether or not the folks that are incarcerated, no matter how long — two months doesn’t seem very long — and what happens to them in there…. I think what I got out of your presentation was that you’re trying to do the best that you can with the resources that you have, the funding that you have with very little staff, who are also suffering, probably, from PTSD. Like other first responders, they’re in a constant violently risky business. If the wages are not as high as in other fields, then they’re probably suffering themselves. That’s probably why it’s a revolving door with staff, as well as the poor vulnerable individuals that you’re trying to help.

I guess, if I’ve summarized the fact that you are low on the funding and low on not just numbers of staff but, obviously, the quality of staff…. Everybody seems to have some sort of requirement to having a mental health degree, no matter whether or not you’re police, a paramedic or a firefighter — and now a corrections worker. Certainly, we’re not there yet.

[9:45 a.m.]

I recognize that that’s a huge issue and has influenced your work with regards to what needs to be done. Having said that, you seem to have encapsulated…. With the recommendations from the Auditor General, as well as your report, you have a pretty good idea about what needs to be done. I think that that’s good. I mean, obviously, we’ll have to work on the resources and the funding and the quality of the staff. That’s important.

One thing that is missing that caught my eye…. I don’t know whether or not you are familiar with the B.C. Centre on Substance Use report that was released last year on recovery. They do have some recommendations for corrections facilities. I’m just going to read them out here on the record, just so that everybody knows: “Support strategies for increasing availability of recovery programs within B.C. correctional centres, as well as recovery services for probationers” and “Support strategies to increase prevalence of recovery-based living units and recovery programs within B.C. correctional centres.”

I guess my question is: with all the work that you’ve done with what needs to be done, what is your opinion on bumping up rehab and recovery services within your facilities?

E. Arend: Thank you for that question. We have and are very aware of the significant needs that individuals present with respect to substance use and mental health. As I mentioned, approximately 60 percent of the population is diagnosed, but we know that many more are undiagnosed.

In 2017, we shifted responsibility for health care in custody to the Provincial Health Services Authority, recognizing that the previous model was not doing as good a job as we’d liked it to be in the areas of mental health, addictions and physical health care. Since that time, the PHSA has begun providing health care, mental health and substance use services in all of our correctional centres across the province. What we’re finding is that that is supporting the inmates with those needs.

Specifically what the PHSA is doing is providing programming in custody with respect to substance abuse. They also have community transition teams in place to support the reintegration back into the community, whereby they make connections for individuals between the Provincial Health Services Authority and the regional health authorities to ensure that as individuals transition out of custody, they are able to better connect into services in the community. Additionally, they’re ensuring that individuals are released from custody with medication that they need, a two-week supply of medication, to ensure that they’re able to remain stable.

I’ll ask my colleague Stephanie Macpherson to speak a little bit about the work that they’ve done to implement a Suboxone program in the custody centres, because that’s another piece of the puzzle.

S. Bond (Chair): Excuse me. Maybe as you answer that…. The key question, I think, that MLA Thornthwaite asked was about resources. We’re now learning that PHSA has been given the responsibility to deal with health care issues related to mental health and wellness. Can you walk us through how that’s funded? Was additional funding provided to PHSA? Was the money transferred from the Ministry of Public Safety? What we’re concerned about here is now we have another agency that’s providing services. Maybe you could just help us follow the money there.

E. Arend: Certainly. When we transferred health care to the PHSA, there was a transfer of funds that went from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to the Ministry of Health, and of course, the Ministry of Health is responsible for funding to the health authorities. So that is how that was attended to. There was also an increase in funding that was provided to the Ministry of Health to support that work.

J. Thornthwaite: Chair, could I make a follow-up? After I ask this question, I’ll let my colleagues, because I’m sure they’ve got other questions as well.

I very much appreciate the Chair’s comments, because obviously this is very important, if we’re just transferring money from one to the next. You clarified that there was some new funding that was added to provide this service. What data do you have that indicates that your work on the community transition teams works?

[9:50 a.m.]

E. Arend: The community transition teams are actually quite new. They were implemented within, I would say, the last year. The PHSA is gathering data to evaluate those transition teams.

I can share that the PHSA did do a one-year follow-up evaluation following their assuming responsibility for health care in general, but they have not yet evaluated the community transition teams because they are still relatively new.

J. Yap: Thank you to the Auditor General and ministry staff.

I’m wondering if perhaps the ministry staff can comment on how our experience in corrections in B.C. compares to other jurisdictions. I’m hearing that there are challenges. You recognize what the challenges are. There’s a significant investment that the province has made and is making in the corrections system. I think we all recognize that there are a number of areas where we can focus on and you’ve committed to focusing on to improve outcomes.

How are we doing compared to other jurisdictions? I mean, I crunched the numbers. It was said that we have 2,600 on average, on any given day, and the annual investment in the system is $166 million. That math equates to $63,000 per inmate — just simple math. How do we compare to other jurisdictions? Is there data that shows we’re sort of in the middle of the pack or we’re further down or we’re leading the way? I wonder if you can comment on that.

E. Arend: While I don’t have the funding for other jurisdictions, I can tell you that we are seen across Canada as a leader in the area of corrections.

Many jurisdictions across the country look to B.C. to utilize our cognitive behavioural programs, and we share those with other jurisdictions so that they can be implemented across the country. Additionally, our staff provide training to other jurisdictions — some of the smaller jurisdictions, such as Nunavut or Northwest Territories — that may not have that robust training in place. So I think we are seen to be a real leader across the country.

We also have other countries that look to British Columbia, to the work that we do in corrections as a whole, and look to our policies so that those can be used for the foundation of the development of policies. A couple of examples that come to mind are Latvia and Kenya most recently.

J. Yap: You mentioned staffing — that was going to be my next question — and the challenges. It sounds like you have a revolving-door situation. You’re recruiting, and then you’re also seeing people leaving sooner than expected for other opportunities — and the very real possibility that there’s an issue with traumatic stress syndrome that may be going on with a percentage of the corrections staff.

Are you getting the resources that you need to provide the training and support and development and adequate compensation to address this issue? I think I heard you say that, over a period of time, you’ve brought in 400 and you’ve lost 400. Now you’re short by…. I think 18 was the figure.

My question is: are you getting the resources that you need to address the shortage and the turnover?

[9:55 a.m.]

E. Arend: That is something that we’re currently actively working on. We’ve done a lot of work in the area of recruitment. By the figures I shared around having recruited 400 staff over the last years, I think we’re doing a good job in that respect. The challenge squarely remains around retention, and we are in the process of developing a robust retention strategy so that we can go forward to seek the resources that we need.

R. Sultan: First of all, let me say that I believe the officials presenting to us today are doing probably the very best they can, given the resources they have to work with in what sounds like, to me, one of the most troubled sectors of our society.

I applaud your tenacity and thoughtfulness and calmness in dealing with what, in many cases, must be a horrendous situation on the ground. Having acknowledged the difficulty of the assignment, though, I am struck by a remarkable discord or lack of concurrence between the Auditor General’s report card and your own self-assessment. It leads me, as a very initial impression, to conclude that you cannot even agree on the quality or progress achieved in key areas.

The Auditor General, if I read the yellow report here — page 3 — suggests, in terms of progress since 2015, in a 2019 report, what I would call three out of eight, or 37 percent compliance with the recommendations. Then I go to the blue report, which is the ministry’s report. They go through the same recommendations and, in their 2019 assessment of progress, report to us six out of eight, or 75 percent compliance.

So here we have the Auditor General saying, “Well, it’s about 37 percent compliance,” and the ministry says: “No, no, no. Actually, it’s 75 percent compliance.” How do you explain this discord?

E. Arend: I’m wondering if perhaps you might be referring to the community corrections APPA rather than the adult custody.

R. Sultan: Ah yes, I am indeed. That is my mistake. My apologies.

E. Arend: No problem.

S. Bond (Chair): You can hold that question, then.

R. Sultan: Okay. Well, with that rather big mistake out of the way…. Thank you for clarifying that matter.

Let me go on to say that my arithmetic, much like John’s…. I’m rather staggered by the realization that we have, according to your numbers, people entering and exiting the system at the rate of about two every hour, 24 hours a day, 356 days a year — a huge mass of humanity moving in and out of this system. Just trying to keep track of who’s in it at any one moment must be very, very challenging and, I would suspect, error-prone as well.

I think the tenor of my colleagues’ and my questions leads to wondering if, in fact, the issues you’re dealing with — the failure to retain staff, and so on; all signals of a troubled situation…. We could say, “Well, it’s leadership; the people running it aren’t really up to the job,” or we might say: “No, no, no, they’re actually doing a marvellous job with the resources and the tools given to them.”

Is it very much a resource problem that we’re dealing with here, more than anything else? You just don’t have the money to hire the people or build the facilities that are needed to deal with what seems to me is a massive change in societal conduct. You’re left stuck with it, and you’re not being given the assets to do the job. Or is that an oversimplification?

[10:00 a.m.]

E. Arend: As I mentioned, I think retention is one of our biggest challenges that we face in adult custody. We’re working hard to develop a strategy so that we can pursue those necessary resources. I think that when we have the staff to do the work that we need to do — to do a better job at case management, to do a better job at delivering programs — we do have the evidence-based approaches to be able to support that work.

R. Sultan: How much did your budget increase last year?

E. Arend: Apologies. I don’t have that in front of me. I believe it was a modest increase last year.

R. Sultan: Was the percentage increase — would it be your impression? — in line with the percentage increase in the client demand?

E. Arend: I would say perhaps not.

R. Sultan: I see. Okay. Well, the sense that I get is of a troubled ministry, probably through no fault of leadership, dealing with a massively troubled section of our society that I guess most of us around the table would prefer not to think about too much. But it’s there, and it has to be dealt with, and you folks are stuck with the assignment.

I’m not quite sure how to wrap it all up in my own mind. I think the Auditor General has pointed to some issues. I do not believe she would report that the actions being taken are dealing with the issues. That would be my assessment of what the message from the Auditor General is. It is an unfortunate situation, and it’s the sort of thing that I suppose the Public Accounts Committee is set up to expose, to put a spotlight on and say, “Well, look. This isn’t good enough. We’ve got to do a lot better,” for whatever reasons that may entail.

The final question, I guess, and I presume it falls within your domain, is this troubling account — perhaps you cannot comment on it, because it’s now before the courts — of a class action lawsuit being brought against the province for failure to protect people from sexual assault while in custody. I believe that is the gist of the action. Did I paraphrase what the newspaper report said correctly, and can you comment at all on it?

E. Arend: Unfortunately, because it is a matter before the courts, it’s not a matter that I’m able to comment on publicly.

R. Sultan: Okay. Thank you.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you for all of the reports and all the work. Thank you to all of your staff for all the work that they do every day, as well, on behalf of the province, in recognizing, as other members have said, that this is a vulnerable population — complex needs that need individual attention.

Following on from my colleague, I remain concerned that the original report was in 2015, and then we get to 2019, and a lot of the recommendations from four years earlier were not implemented. Even now, the plans are conditional. As a member of this committee, I don’t feel confident and reassured, I suppose, that there’s a very clearly mapped-out and accountable pathway ahead.

I don’t know whether my question is to…. Maybe it’s to both the comptroller general and the Auditor General. Given the staffing crisis, looking at what happened between 2015 and 2019, what would you say around your expectations of recommendations and the response that we expect to see of a ministry in terms of timelines and actions? What were your thoughts coming back in and actually seeing it not measure up to meeting those recommendations in four years?

[10:05 a.m.]

C. Fischer: From my perspective, I think they certainly always aspire to take every opportunity to improve on a timely basis. But if you look at the broad diversity of the types of programs being examined by the Auditor General, I think we have to recognize that there are challenges that are not easily remedied by administrative fixes.

The other issue is that government does cost money, and government does have to balance economic opportunity with resourcing decisions and allocation of funds to meet the highest priorities. That is the role of government.

C. Bellringer: One of my first reactions to it…. It’s more of a general comment. I’m far more comfortable — I say today, but at the time of doing the progress audit as well as today — that the areas that we ended up seeing not dealt with immediately are in the works. It is a genuine commitment to implement the remaining recommendations. I am comfortable with the fact that it’s acknowledged and being built into the work being done.

On the “advice to the Public Accounts Committee” side, this would not be one of the reports that I would say you should remove from the follow-up process. I think it is one…. You’ll want to know that that does take place, because there are a number of things that…. Yes, there is a commitment to doing it, but it isn’t done yet. It is a fairly lengthy time period from the initial audit. I’m looking to the staff to make sure they’re nodding a bit on this one.

It was, in my view, reading where we’re at…. At the time of the progress audit, in contrast to the time of the original audit, there is more commitment than there was at that time, and I’m comfortable with it.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): A small question, Chair.

Thank you both for that. To the ministry: you talked about doing an annual analysis of the incidence of violence. For most of the people, the average stay in the institution is between 30 and 90 days. It would seem to me that an analysis of violence in the institution would require more frequent attention. With trends over a year, you’ve got such a high turnover of people in there.

S. Macpherson: We have an employer safety committee that meets regularly and monitors the incidents of violence. We have recently developed a way of monitoring those incidents in far more detail, which also identifies the impact on staff. To the question earlier — in terms of PTSD as it relates to the staff doing their work: we now have a system in place that can proactively identify those that may be at risk, reassign them and provide them with additional supports before something more serious happens.

In the past, we have not reviewed inmate-on-inmate violence to the degree that we are now. I think that is one of the areas that the report indicates needs attention.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): The violence prevention program, the pilot and its evaluation and timing look different on the PowerPoint, compared to the detailed action plan. There was a deadline of March 2019, then a date of November 2019 and then something in 2020. Could you just walk me through exactly where we’re at with that?

E. Arend: I’d just like to clarify. Are you referring to the relationship violence prevention program, or are you referring to the violence-free unit at Surrey Pretrial?

[10:10 a.m.]

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Well, on page 4 of the detailed action plan, you talk about the relationship violence prevention program, and then the following bullet talks about the violence prevention program, which was relaunched as Living Without Violence. This one said that the relationship violence prevention program evaluation is currently underway, with a planned completion date of March 31, 2019, which we’re obviously past.

E. Arend: I’ll ask Dr. Greiner to speak to that.

L. Greiner: Sure. I think you’re referring to two different programs. The violence prevention program, which had an evaluation completed in 2012…. Since then, revisions were made to the program, and we have a planned evaluation to examine the impact following those changes in 2020. So that’s the one program.

The relationship violence prevention program was evaluated in 2009. We’ve had a subsequent evaluation on our workplan now for a couple of years and have been chipping away at it. We’re planning to release that near the end of this month, but obviously it’s a huge evaluation, and it’s been a very large undertaking by our research team. Therefore, it’s a little bit more delayed than we would have hoped, but we’re well on our way now to finishing it.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): In the meantime, is the program still being delivered?

E. Arend: Yes, and the program has had promising results in the community particularly. Our custody results were not as positive, in part due to some methodological limitations of the study itself when it was carried out back in 2009. That’s part of the reason we’re re-evaluating it. We have a more substantial sample size. We’ve addressed some of the methodological limitations from our previous analysis so that we can say with more confidence what impact this program is having for our custody population.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): You talked about wanting to serve men and women. I’m just wondering. Do we capture data for gender-diverse people who are served through these programs as well?

L. Greiner: Not formally, not in a business intelligence system, but it is tracked informally through the centres, I believe. I’m not sure to what extent. We don’t reflect that in our evaluations necessarily.

G. Begg: Thank you, particularly for the candour with which you’ve addressed some of these questions. It raises some fairly disturbing issues about how we treat housed prisoners and those that are remanded in custody. I’m not at all, hopefully, being adverse to anything that you have suggested, but if this were a report card on the system, it would not be a good report card. I suspect that in dealing with the recommendations, you picked what appear, to me, to be relatively low-hanging fruit that were quick wins rather than strategically looking at the overall objective that should be attained.

I wonder if anyone is aware of what the mission statement of B.C. Corrections is. Could you tell me?

E. Arend: Certainly. It’s to provide safe and secure supervision of adults under our custody and under our supervision and to support, through evidence-based approaches, behavioural change.

G. Begg: Which is fairly common for a group like this. Safe and secure housing of prisoners with attention to some of their specific and non-specific needs while they’re serving a sentence in custody.

I think, obviously, it falls upon the staff to evaluate the prisoner and the length of time that that prisoner will be in custody and model behaviour modification programs or drug and alcohol treatment programs to that specific period. Would that be fair?

E. Arend: Yes.

G. Begg: Is there a tendency, perhaps, to be overgenerous in your hopes for the rehabilitation of a prisoner or a dramatic change in a prisoner’s life who’s serving a sentence of 90 days?

E. Arend: We are aware that there are many factors that contribute to reoffending, or recidivism, and those factors oftentimes begin very early in an individual’s life. To make changes in an individual that will result in reduced reoffending is challenging for sure.

[10:15 a.m.]

It takes time to change behaviours that have taken, in many cases, a lifetime to come to the place where they are. It’s something that we are very aware of. That’s why we look to what evidence-based approaches do show success and employ those approaches in our work.

I’ll give the example of the relationship violence prevention program that was mentioned a few moments ago, which is a two-part program that focuses on individuals who are under our supervision for domestic violence offences. That program, as I mentioned, is a two-part program. The first part is a pre-treatment component where our staff deliver the first part, called Respectful Relationships. The second part of that program is delivered by contracted trained therapists.

When we evaluated that program, what we found is that it reduced reoffending by up to 50 percent for spousal assault and by up to 60 percent for domestic violence — which is a great result. That’s over a two-year period. So we look to programs such as that and approaches such as that to help support behavioural change.

The other programs that we have that support that type of work are the other ones that were mentioned earlier around substance abuse management: Living Without Violence, which is a general violence program, and there’s also a comprehensive program for women called Thinking Leads 2 Change.

This is where Dr. Greiner’s team’s work comes in, because as we deliver these programs, we seem to evaluate them. As we find we need to make changes to the programs, or stop delivering a program if it’s not delivering the results that we would like to see, we do that and then retool and adjust programs accordingly.

G. Begg: That would be what I would call a textbook answer, which I would expect to hear. And it’s an aspirational answer. I’m more concerned with the practical application of it.

In the setting that we’re in, with usually non-violent prisoners who have been ordered to be in custody for a period of two years less a day, there is a limited opportunity, I suggest, to perform that. I think my advice, which you didn’t ask for, would be to ensure that our expectations are aligned with our ability to meet those expectations. And we have to be realistic.

I don’t in any way want to diminish or devalue the work or the programs that you’re doing. I think it’s perhaps time that we took a look at our ability to deliver on those aspirational hopes that we have.

You mentioned that you’re looked to, or the system is looked to, from elsewhere in the country. Is that correct?

E. Arend: Yes, that’s correct.

G. Begg: As a model of what?

E. Arend: As a leader in correctional practice.

G. Begg: Do you do the same? Do you look to other jurisdictions or areas, particularly in Canada, for best practices, or are we reinventing the wheel when we have problems here?

E. Arend: No, we’re certainly not reinventing the wheel. We work closely with jurisdictions across Canada, through federal-provincial-territorial working groups, both at the broader correctional level and the custody level. We are in contact with research colleagues across the country, as well as the other areas of our business.

We strive to not only share what we feel we are doing well but learn from other jurisdictions and incorporate that into our work when there are practices that other jurisdictions have that are working well.

G. Begg: To be more specific, would you incorporate practices or procedures that you gleaned from other areas to B.C.?

E. Arend: Yes.

G. Begg: So you would identify a problem here, through whatever method, and then seek advice from your peers all across the country.

E. Arend: Certainly.

[10:20 a.m.]

G. Begg: There is, in many corporations and perhaps in B.C. Corrections, the paralysis of analysis where we spend more time analyzing. We become paralyzed by the analytical process while procedures aren’t changed to reflect analysis. Do you understand what I mean? And is that a fair observation about some things in B.C. Corrections? Do we spend too much time in an analytical phase rather than an active phase?

E. Arend: I would suggest that we are quite action-oriented. I mentioned the federal-provincial-territorial working groups that we are a part of, and we do work with other jurisdictions to hear from them on what’s working and what’s not and then actively incorporate that into our work, rather than spending a lot of time analyzing.

We, of course, do need to do some analysis to be prudent, but we do work hard to be action-oriented and regularly and routinely put pilots into place and look for alternative approaches to solve various problems.

G. Begg: You referred, I think, to a staffing crisis. Is that what you said?

E. Arend: Yes.

G. Begg: Can you flesh that out a bit for me? My impression is that the staffing crisis comes about as an inability to retain staff. Is that correct?

E. Arend: That’s correct.

G. Begg: Obviously, you’ve looked at the factors that cause people to relinquish their employment with Corrections. What would that be?

E. Arend: Primarily, what we find is that correctional officers in provincial corrections are paid less than other areas where they might obtain similar employment — approximately 30 percent less than Correctional Service of Canada. We find we lose staff to federal corrections, but we also lose staff to various police agencies across the province, whether it’s the RCMP or the municipal detachments.

G. Begg: And you have a program in place to deal with succession planning in sort of the corporate bureaucracy and retention?

E. Arend: As I mentioned earlier, we’re currently developing a retention strategy that employs a variety of approaches, including work with UVic around developing a retention framework as a whole, as we’re actively working to get ahead of the retention challenges that we’re faced with.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for those very thoughtful and probing questions. I appreciate that.

I’m just going to build on that. Do you do a formal exit strategy, an exit interview, with staff so that, to build on Garry’s point, you have a sense of why they’re leaving?

S. Macpherson: Yes, we do. We have directors of staffing at each of the correctional centres, and all staff that depart have a meeting with that director or with the warden, and we capture that information in terms of why they’re leaving. Elenore has indicated that the wage disparity is significant, and that is the most common reason why people are leaving their employment.

In addition to the research that we have engaged with at UVic, we also have environmental scans that are being conducted in each of the correctional centres, where staff have the ability to speak with somebody who is not a public servant but knows our business very well and can provide them with information in an unstructured way about their experience in the correctional centre that they’re working in.

We’re gathering all of that information to better focus on the specific areas, other than the wages, so we can address those with the staff.

S. Bond (Chair): Hard to fix the problem if you don’t have the data on which to make the decisions around how to create a retention strategy.

When you think of your recruitment numbers, the numbers you’ve provided for us, I think the number…. You’re 230 officers short, which is 18 units closed, which is two correctional centres. And we wonder why we have issues with overcrowding and stressed…. It just continues to exacerbate the problem for staff.

[10:25 a.m.]

Anyway, I do want to get to Bowinn. I have a few other questions. But I think this committee’s responsibility is to talk about your reaction to what the Auditor General has said, and you’ve been very honest with us today. I mean, you yourself called it a staffing crisis. That’s something we should all be concerned about.

Figuring out…. You’ve managed to attract people to the job, but in essence, you’ve lost more than you’ve attracted, or at least, the net number is very low. I think that is one of the messages we want to clearly be aware of. It’s hard to respond to the Auditor General’s recommendations when, basically, we have two correctional centres that are, in essence, not operating as a result of a staffing crisis. I think that is something for all of us to be concerned about.

I’m sure that we may come back to that question, but I’m going to go to Bowinn and then Jane.

B. Ma: I’d actually like to follow up on the line of questioning so far. The two correctional facilities that are closed as a result of the inability to retain staff, how long have those been closed for?

E. Arend: Just to clarify, we have 18 living units closed across the province, which is the equivalent of two correctional centres. We don’t actually have two correctional centres closed.

B. Ma: Okay, thank you. How long have those 18 units been closed for?

E. Arend: It fluctuates, and it has been happening over a number of years.

D. Tadla: Several years.

B. Ma: Several years can mean a lot of things. Can you give me a range?

D. Tadla: As Elenore mentioned, the exact number of units open or closed on any given day could fluctuate, so the number we’re using, 18, would be accurate in the moment. But let’s say, plus or minus two or three units, it would be at least over a three-year period.

B. Ma: Over a three-year period. So before the last three years, you didn’t have problems with staff retention?

D. Tadla: Not this severe.

B. Ma: And has the wage differential between the provincial-level and the federal-level corrections contracts…? Is that differential…?

D. Tadla: Has increased.

B. Ma: It’s increased. When’s the last time they were about on par, do you think?

D. Tadla: I don’t know. I’m not sure that they were ever on par. What we see is that if and when there’s a wage gap — this is not scientific; it’s just what we see — of approximately, let’s say, 10 to 15 percent, our staff are generally satisfied with the camaraderie, the style of work, their friendship and their environment in the province of British Columbia.

That kind of a gap isn’t enough to draw them away. Just like if somebody offered me a little bit more money today, it might not draw me away. Once that gap starts to increase — and it does slowly over time — where we’re at over 20 and up to 30 percent, whether that’s a municipal job, a federal job or a job at a mill, wherever that is, it’s a more difficult conversation at the dinner table with your spouse as to why you’re not earning more money.

We talked about wage as being one of the issues. This connects, also, to the limited programs that are being delivered. For example, if I’m recruited in, I come to be a peace officer, to be a role model and to help my citizens in society. If the staff shortage is to the point where I have a limited ability to do that, because I’m covering and busy doing safe in-care keeping of inmates and not being able to deliver programs, that goes to my job satisfaction. So one factor is wage. The other factor is that the brochure you showed me upon my applying for this job is different than what I’m experiencing because of the staff shortage.

The third and last factor, in terms of what we hear from staff, is that overtime is good to a point, because that does add money to your pocket, but the amount of overtime that we are pressing staff to do…. In some organizations, staff press to get the overtime. With us, it’s the opposite. We press them to do the overtime. It reaches to the point where it breaches their work-life balance tolerance, and they burn out. So they also leave for those reasons.

So wage would be No. 1; then not doing the jobs that are lined up to, in terms of being a role model, being a peace officer, being able to help and affect change in our citizens; and third, work-life balance. That’s why people are leaving.

[10:30 a.m.]

B. Ma: I’m trying to figure out, again, how new these problems are. How much of it is, I guess, systemic? How much of it is as a result of new decisions or so forth or new circumstances like, for instance, the housing crisis? I know that the housing market has gotten really hot recently, which means that the average dollar doesn’t stretch quite as much anymore and so forth. When the economy is more active, then people have more choice, those sorts of things.

I’m looking at the inmate population profile over the last two reports. The inmate population that we’re experiencing around now, or at least as shown in the 2019 report for 2016 to 2017, is about what we would have seen between 2008 to 2011. Is there less funding…? Recognizing, of course, there’s inflation and so forth, do you have generally less funding today than you did in 2008 to 2011, or are wages at the federal level increasing faster than wages at the provincial level? I’m wondering: what’s been the profile of the issue over a longer period of time?

E. Arend: I don’t have the figures in front of me, but I would suggest that our funding has not decreased. It’s not less than it was during that period of time between 2008 and 2011. But you did mention that, in B.C., the economy has shifted, and the cost of housing is a great example of one thing that stretches families when they’re looking at their earnings. Simply, we’ve not been able to keep pace with other correctional jurisdictions, such as federal corrections or police agencies.

B. Ma: What sort of wage increases have we seen over the last decade for provincial versus federal corrections officers?

S. Bond (Chair): Bowinn, we just need to remember that the scope of this report was 2015.

Is that correct?

E. Arend: That’s correct.

S. Bond (Chair): So we just need to try to take the discussion around the scope of the report.

B. Ma: Okay, no problem. Sorry, I’m just very curious about this issue. It is so serious, as my colleagues have mentioned.

D. Tadla: I don’t have the numbers on the wage increase, but there would be a point in time that we could refer to through the federal corrections collective bargaining process, where a new agreement was struck after a number of years of being not in agreement. That agreement marked a significant gap at that point in time, and then there was subsequent increases in their rate built into the contract that led to those increases, which furthered the gap.

So there are those examples. It would be harder to tie them directly as the one and only, but there are markers like that in addition to very active municipal and RCMP police. We don’t necessarily compare our wage. We don’t necessarily expect a correctional officer wage to be the same as a police officer’s wage, but their aggressive, legitimate recruiting does attract our officers who are well set to qualify for that work.

B. Ma: Recognizing that the report we’re discussing is from 2019, it did reference the 2015 report, which is why I went back so far. And the 2015 report did go all the way back to 2008.

Shifting gears a little bit here, can you remind me the maximum sentence for an inmate at your facilities?

E. Arend: A person serving a sentence in a provincial facility serves a sentence of two years less a day or less.

B. Ma: Okay. Now there are some inmates who are sentenced here for sexual assault. I know that you don’t decide on who goes where. You take care of them after they get to your facility, but for the purposes of me understanding your inmate profile, what kind of sexual assault sentences or charges might you see versus what might go to a federal corrections facility?

[10:35 a.m.]

E. Arend: I think that really depends on a couple of factors — the severity of the offence as well as the criminal history. Ultimately, that’s a decision of the court in terms of deciding what the sentence might be for an individual. I would suggest that we have individuals in our custody who are serving, perhaps, lesser of sexual offences than those that would be in federal corrections.

We do, of course, also have individuals on remand. Those are individuals who are still before the court awaiting sentence so might end up in federal corrections, ultimately, but do serve a period of time on remand in our custody.

B. Ma: My last question is: the report references “critical incidents.” Can you describe or explain what that is? What’s a critical incident?

S. Macpherson: A critical incident that would be fully investigated within the adult custody division would normally be related to an inmate death, or it could be a disturbance within the correctional centre or an inadvertent release — somebody walks away from a work crew of if somebody were to escape from custody. Those are the types of critical incidents that we would be referring to.

J. Thornthwaite: Chair, I know you probably want to move on. This is a fascinating discussion, and I agree with the Auditor General that we should not remove this issue from the follow-up stage, that we’ll have you back.

Getting back to my original question about recovery, I never really did get an answer. All I did get was a phrase, and you’ve used it a few times: “evidence-based process to support behavioural change.” Then there was a mention of Suboxone. I think that — and you can correct me if I’m wrong — you do give them, if they are getting treatment within the facilities, a two-week supply to go home on.

Obviously, I’ve got kind of a double question here. I would assume that a typical scenario would be they go home with what you give them and then they go back to the street afterwards, if there’s no intervention when they get out. They would be going back to getting their supply on the street, which obviously is a safety issue and recidivism issue and addiction issue.

The other one that I didn’t get an answer to is I wanted to know your knowledge about this recovery report, because they were specifically talking about recovery. Depending what the definition of recovery is, it doesn’t necessarily mean sending people home on Suboxone. It actually means helping people get well. If you do have the opportunity for…. Obviously, two weeks is not that great.

Getting along to three months and, certainly, the two years minus a day is a pretty good opportunity to be able to get into some sort of programs that actually might get these people well and help with their mental health or mental illness, help them with trauma-informed care.

We do recognize that trauma and pain are two of the key, main issues of addiction. If we can get to these folks while they’re there, wouldn’t it be a great opportunity? If they actually are incarcerated for a certain amount of time — in other words, they’re not going anywhere — isn’t that the ideal time to be able to get them on these recovery programs? Because they…. Well, unless you’ve got a critical instance of escape. But generally speaking, you’ve got a population that’s actually under your care, so wouldn’t you want to get them tapered off the Suboxone and get them into recovery, if you can? Certainly, I’m just implying opioid addiction. There are all sorts of other addictions that could extremely benefit from a recovery profile.

Since I didn’t see the word “recovery” in the report or in your remarks, that’s what my question is: is there any push to try to shift the dial while you’ve got these people under your care to get them into long-term recovery programs?

E. Arend: Certainly. There is a desire, where we have individuals in our custody for a longer period of time, to do as much work as we possibly can to support their recovery.

[10:40 a.m.]

I’ll give the example of the Guthrie therapeutic community, which is at our Nanaimo Correctional Centre. That program is solidly focused on supporting individuals who are ready to work on their recovery to do that work. We’ve had some great success with that, and therapists work with inmates in custody to do that work and then connect to supports as they return to the community.

I’ll look to my colleague Dr. Greiner to speak to the evaluation of the therapeutic community. I can’t recall off the top of my head the reductions and recidivism. I believe they’re in the 30 percentages, but certainly, that’s one example of the work that we are doing. It is a priority for us to support recovery where we can and make those connections to the community upon release.

L. Greiner: I have one reference that I can lend to this committee — a pilot evaluation of our drug treatment court.

Sorry. Which one were we talking about?

Interjections.

L. Greiner: Nanaimo Correctional Centre. No, I lied. I don’t have that stat on me. However, our preliminary evaluation has shown that it has had an impact on reducing rates of reoffending, and we are in the stages of re-evaluating that using a larger sample and seeing what components of that program are, in fact, effective.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay, given the answer to my question…. Thank you very much for clarifying.

If, in fact, it is determined that hey, this is something that is actually working, I would implore everybody within the ministry to investigate the benefits of recovery to help these people. Because you have the actual ability to have samples, because people are incarcerated, maybe that program should be expanded.

E. Arend: We will certainly continue to look at that. I will just note that the Guthrie therapeutic community is a provincial program. We do have inmates from other custody centres who transfer to Nanaimo in order to take advantage of that, because we do see the value of it.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. I have a couple of questions, and I want to thank my colleagues. I think, as Bowinn points out, this didn’t occur overnight. There’s a history of making sure that we’re looking at effective and appropriate resourcing. Obviously, you’re working hard at that.

I want to ask a couple of questions. One of them relates to the fact that the Auditor General asks specifically for a look at violent interactions, and that includes inmate-on-inmate. I was interested in the remark, at least from the Auditor General’s office, that work looking at inmate-on-inmate assaults…. The point of that was looking at how you create a more positive environment for people to work in, etc. — that that environment matters.

The response from the OAG was: “It acknowledged that inmate-on-inmate assaults are an area of concern, but that it must balance reviewing these incidents with other research priorities.” Can someone tell me what the other research priorities would be? Obviously, someone has made a decision that, looking at inmate-on-inmate, we’re going to set that aside or it’s not a high enough priority, even though it was an important piece of the work that the Auditor General suggested. What are the other research priorities?

E. Arend: As we mentioned, we do strive to evaluate all of our programs that support behavioural change. Some of the programs that we mentioned earlier — the cognitive behavioural programs like relationship violence programs, substance abuse programs…. Those are some of the areas that our research unit does evaluate.

[10:45 a.m.]

However, I do want to say, though, that we do see having a closer look at inmate-on-inmate violence as a priority for the division and are endeavouring to do that work. We did, as I mentioned earlier, do an in-depth analysis at Surrey Pretrial, which led to the violence-free unit pilot, which is now implemented and underway. Our intent is then to evaluate that as an alternative unit to reduce the amount of inmate-on-inmate violence. But certainly, doing that analysis is a priority for the division.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. I appreciate that. I guess maybe I’m the naïve one in the room, but your comment about “we’ve had a look at these incidents, and it’s led us to create a no-violence unit at one institution….”

Is it wrong to assume that the overarching principle…? I understand. I’m not naïve enough to believe that violence doesn’t occur in institutions across British Columbia. But isn’t there an overarching belief that a no-violence environment is a pretty important thing? So how do you explain a unit that is focused on no violence when you would assume that part of the overarching goal is to create a place where violence doesn’t occur inside?

I know that it does, but it just seems unusual. Could you just describe that unit and whether or not that is expected to be a principle that exists in all institutions?

S. Macpherson: Sure. We have, actually, two living units at Surrey Pretrial that have been operating since January as no-violence living units. Individuals that agree to be placed on those units are individuals that agree to not commit any acts of violence, and they want to remove themselves from situations where they could be the subject of violence by other inmates. Those two living units have approximately 35 individuals in each living unit, and since January, there have only been three incidents of violence, one of which involved two cellmates who wanted to mediate a resolution.

Everything we do within a correctional centre with the individuals is based on developing a relationship with them, our staff having a relationship of trust and respect with the inmates. While we may want that relationship with them, they don’t always come into custody with that perspective, so it takes time for our staff to develop the relationships that contribute to a violence-free living unit where the staff can promote prosocial behaviour.

Going back to the conversation that is, I guess, underlying many of the issues that…. Given that it’s the relationship that effects change, we need staff. We need more staff to be able to be on those units in order to open up more of them.

We are at the point where, given the success of those two pilots, we are looking at two other living units at Surrey to expand the no-violence approach to those two living units. That is primarily driven by inmates telling other inmates: “You need to try this out.” Early days, but like Elenore has said, we are evidence-based, but sometimes there’s no evidence to apply.

We are benefiting from some creativity from staff, who are really committed to making a difference. They bring forward these ideas, and they’re discussed among staff, given support by management, given additional resources, where possible, to pilot these.

E. Arend: If I may add, you asked whether this should be, rightly so, a premise that we would look to create environments that are violence-free. That is something that we have done in other forms in other centres as well. You heard me earlier refer to complex-needs units, and those are units for individuals that demonstrate the greatest complexity. So that would be another example of how we’re trying to get at the same thing.

[10:50 a.m.]

Also, based on the success of the Guthrie therapeutic community, we’ve taken parts of the Guthrie therapeutic community and implemented Right Living units in each of our correctional centres across the province. If you think of it on a continuum, in the violence-free units, that is the focus. It’s simply violence-free and working on yourself.

The Right Living units take it a step further, where there is some more intensive work that people are doing. Then the Guthrie therapeutic community is an example of where those individuals with addictions needs have that therapeutic component as well. So there are other components, or other units and other examples, that get at the same end.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, thank you for that explanation.

My last question is…. I guess what I’m concerned about is the fact that you’ve described the ICaP project, for example, as one of the ways that you will work to incorporate the recommendations of the Auditor General. In other words, it will be one of the mechanisms that allow you to deal with the recommendations that have been provided. Yet you’ve also referenced, on numerous occasions, the lack of resources.

The Auditor General’s report highlights the fact that the implementation of ICaP would likely be in 2020-2021, should the project receive the necessary funding, and it’s estimated at approximately $4 million. Can you tell us: are we on course for there to be that additional resource? Has that request been made?

My worry is that the recommendations of the Auditor General are dependent on a project that we’re not sure it has the funding to actually move forwards. So a year from now we’re back here again with the same discussion, looking at the same recommendations, with the same situation — staffing crisis and lack of resources. So where are we with that request? And how do you continue to implement ICaP at the same time, when you’re concerned…? We’re concerned about that because we want these recommendations to be fully implemented. Can you just…? Do you see my concern about the sort of cyclical approach here?

To Jane’s point, we won’t be taking this one off the list. I saw everyone nod when the Auditor General said that, so it’ll stay on the list. So we will have the pleasure of having you come back or update us again.

Tell us just a little bit, in closing, about how you’re going to continue with ICaP and how optimistic you are that that $4 million or whatever it is…. I don’t know; this was at the time of the report. Maybe just give us a bit of a sense of closure on that as we wrap this session.

K. McLean: I’ll speak to that one. We have been heavily engaged in the process for obtaining capital dollars for the project. We’ve been in the top three or four of the joint ministries’ — Justice and Public Safety — list of priorities for the last three or four years. Recently, we’ve been bumped by cannabis legalization or ride-sharing. We get bumped for other priorities that come up, but we have been able to continue to be part of the process.

We take opportunities, where we get them, to implement parts of the strategy. We have engaged business process experts to help us develop a service design framework. We have done what we can to work with staff to develop the vision of what the case management process will look like. So we’re not doing nothing in the absence of having the funding for the technology. We’re doing what we can to prepare for when we have those dollars available.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much for the time spent on this, not just in this room but obviously the work that’s being done. Probably most importantly, thank you to the men and women who are on the front lines every day. It’s a very complicated, very difficult job. We can tell that by the exit numbers. But it also can be, I’m sure, very rewarding and a very important career choice for people.

I’ve certainly seen some of the work that you’ve done in terms of recruitment, seen banners and ads and brochures and all of those things. I think it will be important for us to continue to measure why people are leaving and then tailor the retention strategy to those things.

We don’t want to end, ever, without thanking you for the work that’s been done — and also to the men and women who serve. We know that it’s not an easy job, and we certainly appreciate the fact that they choose to do it in our province.

[10:55 a.m.]

We’re going to move on to the second item so that we can…. I don’t know how much staff change is required, perhaps, on the Auditor’s side.

Interjection.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Well, let’s realign the seats, and then we’ll move into the second part of this morning.

[11:00 a.m.]

Okay. The Auditor General’s office does not have comments to begin this section of the committee work today.

Perhaps we’ll begin with going straight to you, Elenore. Are you making the presentation?

E. Arend: Yes, I am.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Well, why don’t we just begin with your overview and response, and then committee members can go straight to their questions. If you don’t mind beginning, that would be great.

Action Plan Progress Assessments
on Auditor General Reports

Effectiveness of
B.C. Community Corrections

E. Arend: Certainly. And just for the record, for this agenda item, our acting Deputy Solicitor General, Patti Boyle, is here, as well as Bill Small, provincial director for community corrections. Our provincial director for strategic operations, Kimberley McLean, and Dr. Leigh Greiner will be joining us momentarily.

With respect to the second agenda item that relates to the Auditor’s progress audit and update, request for a follow-up and update on the audit for community corrections, again, I’m pleased to be here. I thought it would be helpful to again provide some context about the division.

Community corrections is responsible for individuals who are on bail and before the court or are serving a community corrections sentence in the community. There are about 600 staff who supervise an average of approximately 22,300 individuals at 55 offices across the province. The average length of a community sentence is approximately 374 days. Again, just as in the adult custody division, the clientele that we work with is very complex: 60 percent diagnosed with mental health or substance use disorders; 25 percent are Indigenous; 25 percent are under supervision for domestic violence; and 11 percent, for sexual offences.

We appreciate the opportunity to update this committee on the implementation status of our recommendations, as outlined in the 2019 action plan and progress assessment that was provided to this committee. The division last appeared at PAC in November of 2016, following the release of the Auditor General’s progress audit earlier that year. At that time, it was acknowledged that the division had undertaken considerable work to address the recommendations. Despite some ongoing challenges with a couple of recommendations, many measures were in place at that time.

However, at that time, it was also acknowledged that more time was needed to ensure that these measures that had to be implemented were being followed. So since that time, the division has continued to maintain a focus on its policy and practice changes that were intended to address the recommendations from the Auditor General.

I’m pleased to inform the committee that over the past three years, we’ve been able to ensure that our initial changes have been maintained, and we’ve been able to continue to refine them, in alignment with feedback from the Auditor General’s office and this committee.

As you can see here, at the time of our last progress audit, the Auditor General found that we had made significant progress in addressing some of the recommendations. And while many of them couldn’t be assessed as fully or substantially implemented, the Auditor General indicated to us that this was due to insufficient time that had passed to be able to say with certainty that changes the division had put in place were being sustained.

At our last appearance at the Public Accounts Committee, in 2016, the Auditor General acknowledged that we had reached different conclusions about the degree of implementation. This was due, in part, to our different understandings about what differentiated partial or fully substantial completion. That issue was later rectified, and the division has continued to address the recommendations.

[11:05 a.m.]

Since the last progress audit, the division has confirmed, through targeted and focused quality assurance, that the new tools and processes that we put in place to address the majority of the recommendations are being consistently applied. As a result, in our 2019 action plan and progress assessment, we self-reported that we feel we’ve fully or substantially implemented six of the eight recommendations. We are, however, of the view that we are unable to implement the remaining two recommendations and have taken alternative actions.

This morning’s presentation is intended to provide the committee with an overview of our work with respect to each of the recommendations. We’ll start with providing an overview of those recommendations where we feel we have fully implemented the recommendations, and then we’ll speak about the other two.

The first recommendation of the Auditor General suggested that the community corrections division publicly report recidivism rates, as well as explain how these rates were determined and outline any limitations of the data provided. At the time of the last progress audit, the Auditor General determined that the division had fully or substantially met this recommendation.

The community corrections division began publishing recidivism data within months of the initial audit, and it continued to publish data until 2017, when an issue was discovered with our business intelligence reporting tool. Since that time, we’ve been actively working to address the technical issues that we’ve encountered, and we’re intending and committed to continuing to publish recidivism data as a part of our broader public service commitment to support open data for all British Columbians.

Recommendation 4 asked us to ensure that probation officers receive the proper training before supervising certain cases, such as bail orders, conditional sentence orders and domestic violence cases, for example. At the time of the last progress audit, the OAG reported that the division had partially implemented this recommendation. In our 2019 APPA report, we believe that we’ve now fully or substantially implemented this recommendation.

At the time of the progress audit in 2016, the Auditor General noted that the division had already updated its training tracking documents and that these documents were in place. These documents identified which training modules were to be completed before corresponding work responsibilities could be assigned by supervisors.

The documents also provided supervisors with ready access to course completion information to manage these work assignments. However, one of the documents, the inventory skills document, was still being implemented by some of our supervisors at the time of the 2016 progress audit.

Since then, through the routine application of quality assurance measures, we can confirm that these tools are now being used consistently across the division. Probation officers are now completing the required training before they are assigned corresponding work.

In recommendation No. 5, the Auditor General suggested that community corrections strengthen its quality assurance model to ensure consistency across the province with the accuracy and quality of probation officer work. At the time of the last progress audit, the Auditor General did not assess the division’s implementation of this recommendation, as it was considered lower risk and would be assessed through their work on other recommendations. In the division’s 2019 APPA, we reported that we feel that we’ve now fully or substantially implemented this recommendation.

Recognizing the importance of strong quality assurance measures, the division developed a full quality management framework document. This document guides supervisors and managers to evaluate performance and compliance with policy and practice requirements, amongst other things. This quality management framework was shared with the OAG at the time of its 2016 progress audit.

[11:10 a.m.]

The work to enhance the division’s quality assurance has been a central focus of the division to address several of the Auditor’s recommendations. The division has developed improved quality assurance measures for supervisors assessing staff work in numerous areas, including program facilitation, client interviewing, assessing probation officers’ case management from the point of initial risk-needs assessment, through the entire spectrum of case management. With an increased focus on monitoring and quality assurance, which I’ll discuss in a later slide, we’ve assessed that from our perspective, we’ve now met the recommendation.

In recommendation No. 6, the Auditor suggested that community corrections improve its documentation of client assessment and planning, to ensure that the risk and needs of clients were more effectively addressed. At the time of the last progress audit, the OAG reported that the division had partially implemented this recommendation. In 2019, in our APPA, we reported that we feel that we have now fully or substantially implemented this recommendation.

At the time of the 2016 progress audit, the Auditor acknowledged that the division had undertaken a significant amount of work to update its case management materials to respond to the recommendation. The division introduced new case management plan documentation that clearly outlines risks and needs assessment results. It also ensured that probation officers link their case management strategies to the needs outlined in those assessments.

Through the increased use of quality-assurance measures, the division has confirmed that the new case management form is being consistently used by probation officers. As a result, they’re effectively outlining their case management strategies to address client needs, their clients’ clearly identified risks and needs.

In recommendation No. 7, the Auditor General recommended that we ensure clients receive and complete the interventions assigned to them in their case management plans. At the time of the last progress audit, the OAG reported that the division had partially implemented this recommendation. In our 2019 APPA report, we believe that we’ve now fully or substantially implemented this recommendation.

At the time of the original audit in 2011, the Auditor noted that probation officers were not immediately identifying programs or interventions in their case management plans to address every client need arising from the risk-needs assessments. And when we looked to established correctional best practice that comes from the literature, there’s a recognition that clients present with many complex needs and that probation officers should prioritize their focus on addressing the most acute needs first.

Community corrections confirmed this as continued best practice and updated their case management policy accordingly. In addition, quality assurance reviews of probation officer case plans have confirmed that probation officers are routinely identifying a prioritized plan of programs and interventions for their clients.

The eighth recommendation of the Auditor General suggested that community corrections ensure consistency in the application of policy with respect to breaches. At the time of the last progress audit, the OAG did not assess the division’s implementation of this recommendation, as it was considered lower risk and would be assessed through their work on other recommendations. In the division’s 2019 APPA report, we believe that we’ve now fully met this recommendation.

While this recommendation was not assessed in 2016, enforcement of court orders by probation officers is an integral part of routine case management. Supervisors’ quality assurance reviews of case management include reviewing probation officers’ appropriate use of enforcement action for non-compliance.

The standards of enforcement are outlined in the division’s case management policies. These standards guide the quality assurance oversight of this work. Our quality assurance activities demonstrate that probation officers are consistently applying enforcement and that breaches are documented. I’ll discuss the results of the range of quality assurance work in the next slide, which includes applying enforcement policy and documenting these decisions.

[11:15 a.m.]

In updating this committee on the division’s response to the last four recommendations, I’ve referenced the use of quality assurance measures by supervisors to ensure that probation officers are managing their clients’ case management properly. For each of these recommendations, the Auditor General noted in the progress audit that work had been completed to establish new process and documentation standards to implement the recommendations.

In each instance, the Auditor General noted that despite this work, the division simply had not had enough time to observe and to demonstrate that these new standards were being adhered to by staff.

The assessment of policy and practice compliance has continued since the last audit through the division’s quality assurance processes. I’m pleased to advise that the division has continued to note significantly increased use of the quality assurance tool to assess the full range of probation officer case management, including case planning, managing interventions, and enforcement decisions.

The division has seen an 85 percent increase in quality assurance for these case management indicators since the 2016 progress audit. In addition to the increased use of quality assurance, of those files assessed, 92 percent of them met expectations regarding documentation and practice standards. As outlined earlier, with the appropriate policy tools and processes already having been put in place at the time to assess their use, the division is confident that the self-assessment of having fully substantially implemented recommendations 5 to 8….

With respect to the remaining two recommendations, while we support the intention behind the remaining two recommendations, we’ve been unable to find a way to fully implement them as directed by the Auditor General. We’ve endeavoured since 2011 to find ways to address these recommendations and feel we’ve exhausted all avenues. Because we cannot realistically meet the recommendations, we’re no longer able to accept them, and, as a result, have taken alternative action.

The Auditor General suggested in recommendation 2 that community corrections understand the effectiveness of contracted service providers and community programs in reducing reoffending. At the time of the last progress audit, the Auditor reported that the division had taken no action to implement this recommendation. In our 2019 APPA, we reported that we have now taken alternative action in response to this recommendation.

As a result of this recommendation, the division undertook a review of its contracted services and confirmed a standardized process for conducting annual contract evaluations to ensure that service providers continue to fulfil the terms of these contracts relative to their schedules of service. This process continues.

However, it’s important to understand that not all contractors have a mandate to reduce reoffending. One example is psychologists, who work with an individual to address their mental health needs. While there is an indirect link to recidivism, there is not a direct correlation to reducing reoffending. As a result, the alternative action to evaluate contracted service providers on an annual basis is to ensure that they’re fulfilling the terms of their contract.

We have also implemented a policy to evaluate our cognitive behavioural programs every three to five years to ensure that they continue to have a positive impact on clients. We spoke of these programs earlier during this meeting with respect to the custody results, and some of them have impressive results, such as the relationship violence prevention program, which reduces domestic violence reoffending by up to 50 percent. We also have non-cognitive behavioural programs that are aimed at reducing reoffending. An example is the integrated offender management program that supports individuals who are transitioning into the community and reduces reoffending by up to 48 percent.

[11:20 a.m.]

In addition to internal evaluations, B.C. Corrections collaborates with academic institutions, non-profit organizations and with other ministries to assess the effectiveness of a variety of shared programs and initiatives, as many of our clients access programs delivered by other service providers.

One example is the drug treatment court of Vancouver, which provides services to individuals in the community who are motivated to commit crimes by their addiction. When we were able to conduct a joint evaluation, we found that this program reduces drug-related reoffending by up to 56 percent over two years.

We’ve also supported other agencies’ analyses of their programs when the measures of success are related to corrections clients or correctional outcomes. For example, we’ve provided data to B.C. Housing in determining the impact of the provincial housing strategy for individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness so that they can conduct an evaluation of that initiative.

The division has shared with the Auditor General on several occasions its difficulties in trying to implement this recommendation in the manner that they’ve recommended and recognizes that while we can support the evaluation of many contracted services and community programs to which we refer our clients, it’s not always appropriate or feasible to evaluate their impact on reoffending for a couple of reasons.

First, as I mentioned, not every service provider has a goal of reducing reoffending. Secondly, there are significant challenges from an evaluation perspective in terms of study design when looking at individualized services such as those offered by our contractors.

Overall, our contracted services indirectly reduce re­offending by assisting our clients to gain stability in their lives so that probation officers can deliver the programs and the interventions that do reduce reoffending. However, it’s challenging to expect, and not necessarily reasonable to expect, that these services on their own would reduce reoffending, nor is it feasible to directly evaluate them against recidivism.

We greatly appreciate the discussions that we’ve had with the Auditor General in the course of the audit and the follow-up audit to sort through these challenges. To this point, we’ve not been successful in solving them. For that reason, the division acknowledged in its most recent APPA that while it continues to address the elements of the recommendation which are within our realm of control, we are unable to achieve the recommendation fully, as outlined by the Auditor General, and wanted to update the committee in this regard.

Recommendation 3 of the Auditor General’s audit suggested that community corrections analyze its staffing situation to determine if it had the appropriate resources in place at the time and in the future to continue to effectively deliver services and programs.

At the time of the last progress audit, the Auditor reported that the division had partially implemented this recommendation. While we worked hard to look for solutions, we’ve been unable to fully implement this recommendation. As a result, we’re no longer able to accept the recommendation and have taken alternative action instead to respond to this recommendation. We’ve taken alternative action by creating a robust workload measurement tool, which the Auditor General has acknowledged. However, we’re not able to translate that metric into a meaningful measurement of overall capacity.

The needs of corrections clients are dynamic, and they’re prone to fluctuate dramatically over time. This has a direct impact on the number of cases that a probation officer can supervise. For example, a client may be in crisis at one point and require a significant amount of attention for a period of time, but then once stabilized, they’ll require significantly less attention. In addition, probation officers themselves experience fluctuations in their capacity. Examples include training, experience and the volume of clients with complex needs.

While we’ve worked hard to see if there’s a manageable way to measure this impact, we’ve determined there’s no meaningful tool that exists to reflect this impact on probation officers’ overall workload capacity.

[11:25 a.m.]

As the division has previously discussed with the audit team, the dynamic and complex nature of correctional casework makes the establishment of a validated assessment tool to reliably measure individual staff capacity unfeasible.

In fact, following the Auditor General’s initial audit, and with the assistance of our research unit, the division undertook a national cross-jurisdictional review. That review confirmed that there’s no validated and replicable tool that exists across Canada to effectively measure the tipping point between capacity and overcapacity. As a result, the division continues to manage its staffing resources through close monitoring of probation officers’ work by supervisory staff and ongoing dialogue with probation officers. Additionally, the division has robust business intelligence tools to monitor, assess and adjust resourcing throughout the division at a provincial, regional, office and individual staff level.

Since the Auditor General’s initial report, the division has dramatically enhanced its workload evaluation metrics. These evaluation metrics account for the variability in range of additional workload factors, such as client risk level, report preparation and the increased resource demand of travel for staff serving remote communities.

As a result of the division’s regular assessment of its work, it is able to respond to the emerging workload trends in a timely manner as well as forecast likely areas of growth or contraction. As with recommendation 2, the division has shared with OAG staff on several occasions the difficulties it’s experienced in trying to implement a valid tool that accounts for the gaps between probation officer capacity and probation officer caseload.

Discussions with the Auditor General’s staff have been very helpful to clarify their intent in the recommendation but have not gotten us closer to achieving the recommendation as they framed it. For that reason, while the division acknowledged in its most recent APPA that it continues to address the elements of the recommendation that are within its control, that said, we are unable to achieve this recommended action as outlined by the Auditor General. For that reason, we wanted to update on the alternative action that we’ve taken to enhance our workload.

In summary, I would like to thank the Auditor General for the opportunity that this performance audit has provided us to look meaningfully and really critically at the range of operations in our practice. I feel that we’re stronger today as a result of these recommendations, and we’re pleased to advise the Auditor General and this committee that from our perspective, we have fully implemented six of the eight recommendations.

As for the outstanding two recommendations, while we’ve been unable to fully implement them, we’ve nonetheless allowed them to guide us to improve how we engage with an array of external programs, and they’ve also assisted us to further refine our workload measurement practices to guide our resourcing decisions.

Continuous improvement remains our priority. We recognize that this work is never truly done, and we’re committed to maintaining our focus on seizing every opportunity to continue to develop our policies and practices, just as we’ll continue to evolve as an evidence-based organization. As a leader in the field of community corrections, we’re mindful of it and will stay consistent with the Auditor’s recommendations.

I want to thank the committee for inviting us to share with you the progress that we have made since the last time we appeared three years ago.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much for the update. Bowinn is going to lead off, but I guess I want to ask a bit of a procedural question here.

The committee finds itself in, basically, what is a…. We applaud the candour of the ministry in coming back and saying, “Okay, well, we can’t actually do this,” and it has provided alternative actions. The Auditor General still has a series of recommendations which will stay on record at this point as having been “no action taken.”

[11:30 a.m.]

The committee’s job is to review the report and to continue to press ministries to do what they said they were going to do. Here, today, we’ve had a candid explanation that says: “Well, we can’t do that.”

Perhaps the Auditor might want to make a comment about the fact that the ministry has come back, understands the spirit and intent. Is there ever a place where the Auditor says: “You know what? We think the alternative actions have actually moved a long way to addressing these concerns”? Otherwise, this report will continue to come back or be assessed by all of us. In the end of the day, the ministry is saying: “We can’t do it, but we have heard you, and we’ve done these things.”

Perhaps, between the two of you, someone could provide to the committee a sense of: has the work matched the spirit of the recommendations? Either that or we’re going to have this endless return to committee. Frankly, we can’t force the ministry to do what they say they can’t do. Would the Auditor like to speak to that?

C. Bellringer: Sure, I’d be happy to.

This is one of the reports…. When we went through the full follow-up, the progress list, where we said…. We asked for guidance of the committee specifically, because it wasn’t clear-cut “keep it on” or “take it off.” We know where it’s at, except for these two recommendations.

Having firsthand feedback from the ministry as to what they’ve done I think is a good thing for the committee. But it does leave us with: you can have them keep coming back, and we’re going to have this continuous “we agree to disagree.” I don’t see the benefit of that myself, but it’s certainly up to the committee to decide.

I will speak quickly to the two recommendations specifically and just give you a little bit more information on that.

On recommendation 2, in evaluating the contracted service providers, I’d say the dialogue has changed. I mean, appreciating the amount of time that has passed since the original report…. It was issued in 2011, and that was before my time. A couple of the audit team are still around, but in terms of…. Things have, indeed, progressed.

The conversation originally was: “We can’t do it because they’re outside of our organization.” I’m not hearing that part of it anymore. It’s not because they’re outside. It’s now parsing apart the different functions that you contract them to accomplish for you. We had focused on the outside providers but also in the reducing reoffending element.

How do you evaluate whether or not an organization has, by what it is doing for you, reduced reoffending? So I get that there’s no direct line between the two, but there is an indirect line, and then there’s a whole package of…. We end up doing a whole bunch of things that includes inside and outside and all kinds of activities.

To have a full evaluation process that’s going to give you a sense of whether or not it’s effective is important. I’m certainly not sensing any reluctance to acknowledge that. I mean, we all get that point. I appreciate that it’s not easy. I think we’ve spent too much time between us arguing about the words in the recommendation as opposed to getting to the point of: is the evaluation process sufficient? It would take another full audit to just look at that one component.

If we were to design an audit around “let’s look at whether or not the evaluation process is effective,” that would be a full audit. We’re not going to get any further going back and forth on pieces of this. I think it has to be just accepted that what we recommended, some parts of it, are indeed built into the framework, and we really aren’t able to tell you whether or not it’s sufficient without doing another full audit.

Just a reflection on some of the previous and the earlier session, when you start talking about the retention and recruitment issues in an organization. We’re getting at them at a fairly high level in this conversation. For us to give you any input into that would take us doing a full audit. In fact, as a bit of a preview, on Monday you’re going to receive a public report from us on that very subject — in sheriff services. But that’s a full several thousand hours of investment that would go into it. I don’t think, through the follow-up process, we’re going to get anywhere further on that one.

[11:35 a.m.]

Same thing with recommendation 3. The management of staff capacity is a difficult one. Everybody fights with that. There is never a very precise answer as to…. It takes a lot of judgment. I would say that we saw more emphasis put on the average workload — there was a measurement of workload — and less around determining the capacity.

I would encourage the ministry to continue to look for solutions that would give you a better measure of capacity. We deal with it in our office as well. I mean, how many auditors does it take to audit the entire $80 billion of government? Some of it is just choice. You pick things. We’ll get into that later this afternoon.

I’m not seeing a benefit from an additional follow-up from our perspective. I think you’ve got a lot of information from the ministry so far. I leave it, of course, to your decision as to how you proceed.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you. We appreciate that context.

B. Ma: I’m worried, actually, now that I’ve lost my question. That was a lot of good information.

I think I have two, the first being…. Referring to the 2016 report now, recognizing that we’re, just for my own information…. You had presented on some of the alternative measures that might be captured under there, like the mental health programs and addiction services, and so forth.

I’m wondering if restorative justice is a kind of alternative measure or alternative program that might be captured by that table. Do you know?

E. Arend: Sorry. Could you please direct me to…?

B. Ma: Yeah. Sorry. I just kind of jumped right into the question there.

Page 7 of the May 2016 report. You mentioned it also in your presentation, I thought, but I might have misunderstood it. Let me take a look at my page here.

E. Arend: Are you referring to alternative action?

B. Ma: You know what? I may have actually misunderstood your presentation. On page 24, what’s listed in this report…. “Alternative measure. A program that diverts individuals who commit less serious crimes away from the courts.” Those are two different things?

E. Arend: Yes, they are.

B. Ma: Okay. What sort of alternative…? Can you define “alternative measures” for me, based on this report?

E. Arend: Certainly. Alternative measures is a course of action that the court can take to divert an individual out of the justice system, rather than going through the court system, where someone has committed a less serious offence.

The role that the probation officer has is twofold. They prepare a report for the Crown that speaks to the appropriateness of the alternative measures for an individual. As well, they then subsequently supervise that individual as they complete the terms of that alternative measure.

That’s what an alternative measure is. Alternative action is, of course, the actions that we’ve taken in response to the recommendations.

B. Ma: That clarifies things. Thank you so much.

My next question is, given that we’re talking about recommendations…. Some of these recommendations are, as we mentioned, from quite a long time ago, and there are follow-ups.

I apologize. I’m not going to ask specifically about the recommendations that have been listed but, rather, to get a sense from you as to how far we’ve come, in the 2011 report…. I’ll just read out a section that really jumped out at me. It was under exhibit 4 on page 19. The exhibit was: “Provincial comparison of officer caseload.”

We had talked about caseload a little bit earlier. It showed that British Columbia had an average caseload per officer of 63.7, which is higher than the overall Canadian average of 51.12. While we weren’t the highest, we were certainly much higher than some of the provinces like Quebec, where caseload was 33.9 per officer.

[11:40 a.m.]

There was a paragraph here that said…. I’m going to read it out. “Since 2005-06, the number of cases that the CCCP has had to supervise has increased by about 28 percent. Suggested reasons for this include increased ‘tough on crime’ legislation, increased police budgets — resulting in additional detection of crime and offender charges — increased criminalization of mentally ill persons and reductions in legal aid funding.”

Now, depending on who you speak to, some of these are, I guess…. For instance, if you’re catching more crime, then, yes, you’re going to get more people in the system. On the other hand, increased criminalization of mentally ill persons may not necessarily be good. Now, this was a long time ago. It was in 2011. I’m wondering if there’s a sense of a change in that in the years since. Has it got worse or better, in your opinion?

E. Arend: Yes, I think the number of clients that we’re supervising has actually decreased since that time. As I mentioned in my presentation, we supervise approximately 22,300 individuals across the province. That has resulted in a decrease in the number of cases that probation officers are supervising.

I’ll turn to my colleague Bill Small, who’s the provincial director of community corrections, to give a snapshot of the average caseload currently.

B. Small: Thanks, Elenore. I was just turning to my colleague Dr. Greiner to get a firm number. We are now sitting, as an average caseload count for probation officers, in the low- to mid-50s. That number varies, obviously, from community to community. As Elenore outlined, one of the things we’ve done is that we’ve taken very regular, routine and thorough steps to assess those numbers. We do routinely reallocate our resources to respond to shifting trends. At the time of our last appearance at PAC, for example, we would have seen caseloads continuing to rise in the western Fraser Valley area — Surrey, Delta, Langley.

We talked about the cost of housing. That’s had an impact on our clientele as well. We’re now seeing continued shifts further up into the valley, up towards Abbotsford and Chilliwack, as that demographic finds the cost of housing increasingly unaffordable. We’re monitoring that regularly and shifting those resources. Without moving people, necessarily — unless they want to relocate — we’re moving those resources to respond to the shifting trends in the workload.

As Elenore noted, our global caseload has actually been dropping over the last two to three years. Accounting for that…. It’s a pretty complex set of metrics to try to unpack all of that, but we’re certainly alive to it regularly.

B. Ma: Thank you.

J. Thornthwaite: Again, thank you very much for your presentation. I have a specific question about the drug courts in Vancouver. You had mentioned that it reduces drug-related offending, but I don’t think there was anything more that you had said. Could you elaborate on that?

E. Arend: Are you just looking for an overview of the program?

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah. What happens?

E. Arend: As I mentioned, where individuals are committing offences that are motivated by their addiction, they can elect to go through the drug treatment court of Vancouver. Where they plead guilty, they remain on bail for a period of time, have regular court appearances before the judiciary — depending on the individual, it might be on a weekly basis; it might be every couple of weeks — and, all the while, they attend a very intensive day treatment program focused on addictions, which is delivered in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health.

We have a treatment centre that contains probation officers working side by side with Vancouver Coastal Health therapists, who deliver therapy to individuals to address their addictions needs. As they go through the program — there are, I believe, four different phases to the program — they can eventually get to the point of graduation, which takes approximately 18 months.

If they’re successful in completing the program, generally, the sentence that is given by the judiciary is a one-day probation. If they’re not successful or choose to remove themselves from the program, then they would go through the regular court process, as any other individual.

[11:45 a.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: For the ones that agree to go through the entire 18-month process, are they essentially, then, not getting a criminal record?

E. Arend: They would have a criminal record because the sentence that the judiciary…. Again, I can’t speak for the choices that the judiciary makes in assigning sentences. Generally, what we see is that a person is given a suspended sentence with a one-day period of probation — which does constitute a criminal record, but it is a much lesser sanction than they might have otherwise received.

J. Thornthwaite: What is the one-day probation?

E. Arend: Essentially, it’s a period of probation which is one day in length. They’re to report to the probation officer. In effect, their sentence is complete at that point in time.

J. Thornthwaite: What would be the success rate of people that have gone through the 18 months and those that have dropped off?

E. Arend: That’s the statistic I mentioned earlier. For people completing drug treatment court, there are reductions in recidivism of up to 56 percent for drug-related offences.

J. Thornthwaite: If they fall off, are they given a second or third chance?

E. Arend: There are times where, if they fall off…. I should say that if they’re not doing well in the program, they’re not necessarily immediately taken out of the program. They may be given different sanctions to address the issues that may be prevalent. That varies on an individual basis.

It may be that the day treatment program is not enough for them, and they need some time in a residential facility. It may be that the judiciary determines that they appear more frequently in court. It’s really a decision that is made by the entire case management team that comprises everyone from the judge to the Crown, the defence, the probation officer — the entire treatment team who work collaboratively to support those individuals.

However, there are individuals that simply aren’t successful and do get removed from the program. If they do and then later on decide that they want to give it another try, there is an assessment process that is the same for everyone entering the program. They would go through that assessment to determine their appropriateness and, if appropriate, would be readmitted to the program.

J. Thornthwaite: My last question: is this only available in Vancouver?

E. Arend: Originally, it was only available in Vancouver. I think it was approximately four or five years ago that the program was expanded. Initially, it was expanded to allow anyone in the Lower Mainland who was able to access the treatment centre on a daily basis, through transit or personal transportation, to attend the program. Subsequently, it was further expanded. There have been individuals who have chosen to relocate from other parts of the province in order to take advantage of the program, and the program is open to that.

R. Sultan: On the issue of whether we should relieve the Auditor General of further obligations to have follow-ups on recommendations 2 and 3 — and taking into account her commonsense remarks about a now eight-year-old audit, which we’re still sort of chasing down the loose ends of — I think the committee should agree that the ministry has made a pretty strong effort to comply with the recommendations. The world itself has changed in eight years, and I’m sure the world of community corrections is not the same as it was eight years ago.

One senses from this hearing that they are fully aware of the issues and the importance of them. We don’t need this committee or the Auditor General to remind them of that obvious point. I think we should say, “Job done,” and move on.

[11:50 a.m.]

G. Begg: Just a follow-up to something that Bowinn mentioned. Perhaps you could just confirm the estimate that caseloads are expected to continue to increase at a rate of 1.9 percent each year until 2020. Is that still an accurate statistic?

E. Arend: I’m going to turn to my colleague Dr. Greiner to perhaps talk about our forecasting that supports the work of estimating whether caseloads will grow or contract and how that works over time.

G. Begg: Yeah, I don’t think I need that. I just need an awareness of whether or not that is a statistic that is still relevant.

L. Greiner: Our forecasts are generated on the basis of a number of factors, but the primary driver of our population, both in custody and in community, is the general population growth of the province. So I would expect that it would probably stay the same unless there’s some change to that statistic that’s provided by Pop Data.

G. Begg: Thank you. Another question that perhaps you can answer: probation officers, are they located where probationers are, or is there, with a shift of crime by region, a corresponding shift of probation officers?

E. Arend: Certainly, we work to make sure that probation officers are located in the communities that correspond with where their clients are. As my colleague Bill Small mentioned earlier, we’ve seen, over time, a shift in the demographics, both of the general population and of our community corrections population, to more outside of Vancouver.

Responding to that, as we do our ongoing work in assessing the resources and the needs, we’ve been moving positions to those communities where we see growth and reducing those positions and communities where we had seen a contraction in the number of clients.

G. Begg: So the short answer is yes?

E. Arend: Correct.

G. Begg: It’s fluid, the number of probation officers, their location.

E. Arend: That’s correct.

G. Begg: The other thing is the symmetry or synchronicity that should exist throughout all levels of the criminal justice system, particularly relevant to judges when it comes to sentencing of offenders. Is there, in your mind, enough awareness, particularly on the part of the judiciary, of the programs, options, viability and availability of probation services?

E. Arend: Well, I can’t speak to the actual awareness of the judiciary. That wouldn’t be a fair comment for me to make, on my part. But what I can tell you is that we work very hard to ensure that the judiciary at all levels is aware of the various programs and services that we provide. By way of example, earlier this year my team and I met with the office of the chief judge. And at the regional and the local level, we have our supervisors and managers undertake the same type of work to ensure that the judiciary know the programs and services we offer.

G. Begg: I’m not sure that I…. On the one hand, you say you can’t comment on it, and on the other hand, you say that there is a program that is provided to the chief judge. Is that sufficient?

E. Arend: I think that we are doing sufficient work, from my perspective.

S. Bond (Chair): Thanks, Garry.

Thanks to my colleagues for the questions. I really appreciate Ralph’s interjection here. I think we could continue to bring the ministry back, and they will continue to say the same thing. I think what we’ve seen today is the fact that the ministry was very well prepared in terms of their presentation to this committee to walk through the alternative steps that they have taken. I think that matters a lot to us. It certainly does to me. They didn’t simply walk in and say: “We can’t do this.” There was a clearly well-thought-out response to say: “We understand what the Auditor General said initially, and here’s what we’ve done.”

I think that Ralph’s point that we could continue to bring the group back…. This should, however, not be taken as a message to other ministries that, you know, you can just appear before Public Accounts and say: “Well, we’re not going to do two of the recommendations.” That’s not what our job is, and certainly the Auditor would be very unhappy about that over time. We probably also shouldn’t be surprised. If you go back to the original report, in the response from the ministry itself, this is what was said in 2011:

[11:55 a.m.]

“The division will carefully consider each recommendation and will implement those that are achievable, depending on available resources. The division worked closely with the audit team throughout this process, providing staff resources to ensure timely access to information as well as expertise on the division, its evidence-based focus and how it undertakes its day-to-day work.”

Not exactly a wholehearted: “We’re going to do all of them immediately.” There was a cautionary note presented right at the very beginning.

I think today, though, we’ve heard that the ministry took the recommendations seriously. It simply didn’t rely on: “Well, we can’t do this. We don’t have enough resources.” Yes, it’s hard. Governments make decisions about priorities and funding.

Unless I hear otherwise…. We can certainly talk about this at the subcommittee when we talk about ongoing further reporting as well. I think, suffice it to say that, for today, we appreciate the presentation, the thoroughness with which the questions were answered. There may well be situations like this, though we would hope they are rare, where a ministry can demonstrate…. We understand the spirit and intent, and the Auditor’s comments are taken very seriously. The issues that her team raised are still relevant and important.

We appreciate your time today. We want to thank all of the staff, both from the Auditor’s office and from the ministry, for being here and for providing us with the information today. With that, we will thank you for your time and for your attendance.

I’m hopeful we can finish one additional report before lunch. So we’re going to just quickly make changes and move into the third report of the day, which is related to services for children and youth in care.

[12:00 p.m.]

All right. Thank you everyone for that. We just needed a quick moment there to get the technology up and running.

Keeping with our practice, we are now going to hear from the Auditor General, with her opening remarks. The report that we’ll be considering will be the report intituled Oversight of Contracted Residential Services for Children and Youth in Care.

We obviously have a number of staff from the Auditor General’s team, and we have representatives this morning from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We’ll just ask, as the ministry presents, that there be introductions made so that the names can be recorded on Hansard.

We’ll begin, Carol, with your comments and then, obviously, over to your team for the PowerPoint presentation.

Consideration of
Auditor General Reports

Oversight of Contracted
Residential Services for
Children and Youth in Care

C. Bellringer: Thank you so much. Actually, Deputy Auditor General Sheila Dodds will do the overall comments, and then Amy Hart will go through the slides.

I just want to add that this was a…. We issued this in June. It took a long time to do this audit. It was intense. I watched the team growing through the process, in terms of when you get into an audit that is intense…. It involved a lot of decisions along the way, so I just want to put kudos out for both the audit team as well as the ministry, who worked very well with us on this. It was something that was needed, and I’m proud of the results.

Over to Sheila.

[12:05 p.m.]

S. Dodds: Thank you, Carol.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for inviting us to come and present our report on the oversight of contracted residential services for children and youth in care.

As Carol said, this audit had an emotional impact on the team, and I have really great appreciation for the work that Amy and Katie and Alex have done on this audit. With me today are two of the team members: Amy Hart, the audit director, and Katie Olthuis, the audit manager.

In this audit, we looked to see whether the Ministry of Children and Family Development was providing effective oversight of contracted residential services for children and youth in care. The topic came to us from the Representative for Children and Youth. In her 2014 report Who Cares?, the former representative advised that she would be discussing with the Auditor General the possibility of a performance audit on the system of contracted residential services, and we chose to include the topic in our July 2015 performance audit coverage plan.

In this audit, we assessed the ministry’s strategic direction for contracted residential services, how the ministry had partnered with delegated Aboriginal agencies to plan and contract for residential services for Indigenous children and youth in care. We also looked to see if the ministry’s quality assurance framework included effective standards for contractors and ministry staff and if the ministry was monitoring against them and if the ministry had an effective contract management framework in place.

Overall, we found that the ministry was not providing effective oversight of contracted residential services for children and youth in care. The limitations in the ministry’s oversight increase the risk to children and youth in care, as the ministry does not know the quality of placements it is using. We found that at times, the ministry is unable to match the children and youth to placements based on their needs.

We made four recommendations in this report for the ministry to improve its oversight of the quality of care provided to children and youth placed in contracted residential services. The ministry accepted all of the recommendations and has begun to take action to improve its oversight.

Again, as Carol acknowledged, I’d like to thank the ministry for their cooperation during this audit and particularly acknowledge the helpful assistance provided by the ministry staff. It was really appreciated. We would also like to thank staff from the delegated Aboriginal agencies who generously shared their time with us and their perspectives on this audit. Lastly, we’d like to give a special thank-you to the current and former youth in care who shared their experiences with us as part of the audit process. Our work was strengthened by participation from members from across the system.

Now I’ll turn it over to Amy Hart, who’s going to provide a more detailed overview of the audit findings and recommendations.

A. Hart: Thank you, Sheila, Madam Chair and committee members. It’s my pleasure to join you for this meeting today.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is responsible for the well-being of children and youth in care and provides a number of different residential options that can meet the different levels of needs for this population.

The ministry has contracts with approximately 100 service providers to deliver housing, food and other supports to some of the most vulnerable children and youth in care, including those with highly complex needs. These services are typically more intensive and expensive than other care options, including foster care.

Contracted residential services include larger facilities, such as group homes, as well as family-based homes similar to foster homes that are subcontracted by a larger organization and employ staff.

In 2018, approximately 1,148 children and youth spent time in a contracted residential resource. Of these children and youth, 82 percent were under the care of the ministry, and 18 percent were under the care of a delegated Aboriginal agency. The average age was 15 years old. Almost half the children and youth were Indigenous, and 42 percent had special needs. The average length of stay in a contracted residential resource was 327 days.

The first area we looked at was the ministry’s strategic direction for the use of contracted residential services. At the time of our audit, we found that the ministry did not have a provincewide strategy. Specifically, the ministry did not have a clear vision for what contracted residential services should look like, when they should be used and which children and youth should be placed in them.

[12:10 p.m.]

This is in part because many of these services evolved, on an ad hoc basis, to respond to individual and emergency situations. As well, the ministry hadn’t determined the existing supply of placements to understand what services were currently being provided or the skill levels of staff. The ministry had also not assessed the demand for placements in contracted residential services and didn’t understand the population of children and youth who were using these services.

As a result, the ministry didn’t have a plan for the number and types of placements that should exist. Because of this, it was struggling to match the specific needs of children and youth to appropriate service providers. For example, Indigenous children and youth were often in placements without an Indigenous cultural component.

We also found that the ministry needed to improve its partnerships with delegated Aboriginal agencies in planning and contracting for the delivery of contracted residential services. Delegated Aboriginal agencies share responsibility with the ministry for the provision of child welfare services for Indigenous children and youth in B.C. We found, however, that the ministry did little consultation or collaboration with these agencies when making changes to policy and practice around contracted residential services.

Improved partnering will help ensure that the delegated Aboriginal agencies receive information about new initiatives and standards in a timely fashion and that they are properly consulted on changes that may affect them and the children and youth in their care.

The second area we looked at was the ministry’s quality assurance framework for contracted residential services. While the ministry had some performance standards in place for contracted residential service providers to follow, they were dated and didn’t clearly define the quality of service or the required skills and training for staff. In addition, many ministry staff and service providers were confused about what standards or requirements needed to be followed.

We also looked at the ministry’s standards for ministry staff who provide oversight of contracted residential services and found that they were not comprehensive, with fewer standards in place than those for staff providing oversight of foster homes.

We also found that the ministry wasn’t adequately monitoring contracted residential service providers to ensure that standards were being met, and the ministry didn’t have a process in place to determine the quality of the services being offered.

The ministry’s reliance on external reviews of contracted residential services contributed to this problem of less-focused oversight. As well, although the inclusion of children and youth’s voices in the quality assurance framework is critical, the ministry had not consistently gathered feedback about children and youth’s experiences in the contracted residential resources.

The ministry was also not adequately monitoring how oversight was being provided by ministry staff. The ministry cannot demonstrate that key visits to monitor service providers took place on a consistent basis. Ministry staff told us that they spend a lot of time responding to issues and emergencies, and that everyday monitoring could be challenging to complete. In the end, the lack of an effective quality assurance framework led to a higher risk that children and youth weren’t receiving the quality or types of services they needed.

Finally, we looked at the effectiveness of the ministry’s contract management framework. We found that the social workers responsible for setting up and managing contracts did not receive any procurement or contract management training, and there were limited tools available to assist them.

The ministry’s IT system for contracts is old and has limited functionality. In addition, while the ministry has a branch dedicated to procurement, there was little ongoing coordination with the social workers who were writing and managing contracts in the field.

Contract deliverables were typically broad and generic, and the contract language was often unclear on what a high-quality service would look like — for example, that an individual’s emotional health has increased or that their daily living skills are increased — making it difficult to determine when outcomes are met and whether providers are delivering the most appropriate services.

[12:15 p.m.]

As the ministry doesn’t have a clear sense of its strategic direction for contracted residential service, this affected the quality of the contracts and the ministry’s ability to clearly state what outcomes it expects contractors to achieve.

Throughout our audit work, we heard concerns from service providers around the contracting process, with the key challenge being inconsistent processes between the service delivery areas.

Finally, we found that the ministry was not monitoring contractor performance and compliance with contract deliverables or completing post-contract evaluations. Without taking these steps, the ministry doesn’t know if children and youth are getting the services it has paid for or if these services are meeting their needs.

In conclusion, we made four detailed recommendations to improve the ministry’s oversight of contracted residential services so it can better meet its obligations to children and youth in care. These recommendations should be implemented in partnership with delegated Aboriginal agencies and Indigenous communities. Children and youth in care should be in placements where they are safe, their needs are met and their rights are respected. Ultimately, this work is about improving their lives.

This concludes our presentation.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you. You did a very good job of summarizing a lot of work. I appreciated, also, Sheila’s comment about the emotional impact. It was very thorough, and it was a difficult report even to read. I think most of us would probably tell you that. But we also know the ministry has done a great deal of work.

I believe that Allison is going to…. Are you going to lead the presentation, Allison?

First of all, our committee wants to thank you, as the deputy minister, for being here today. It speaks very clearly to the fact that this is important to you. I know how busy you must be, and we’re very grateful to have a deputy here with us today to walk us through and to have a conversation about the steps that have been taken.

On behalf of the committee, thank you for being here. We look forward to hearing your remarks.

A. Bond: Thank you very much for the invitation to join your committee today, and my special thanks to the audit team, who really did a terrific job on this audit. We did work not just during the audit but in the pre-audit phase and learned a lot from that work. I think it’ll help children and youth in the province.

I’m joined today by Rob Byers, our executive financial officer. I have a very short presentation, because I’d like to leave plenty of time for questions — if that’s okay.

As the Auditor General said, the ministry agreed with the report and accepted the four recommendations of the report. Again, thanks to the Auditor General and her staff for what was, as you pointed out as well, Madam Chair, an extraordinarily thorough report that was done in the best interests of the children, youth and families of this province — particularly, the most vulnerable children and youth who are part of our care system. That’s a commitment, I think we can say, that the ministry is obviously very committed to and appreciative of learning from the findings of the report.

We have already begun to make changes. Some of those changes are actually identified in the report itself, but there is a lot of work to do to overhaul the system. The guidance in the report is very helpful in determining what the first and most important next steps are in overhauling that system. And we welcome the ongoing scrutiny of the action plan, because as I said, this is about the most vulnerable children and youth of this province, and I think they deserve better from us.

In terms of recommendation 1, that is about ensuring that we, in partnership with the delegated Aboriginal agencies in Indigenous communities, have a strategy in place so that contracted residential services meet the needs of the children and youth in care. We are working right now on that strategy to build a responsive in-care network so that the child’s or youth’s individual needs drive their placement and those supports that they receive, and contracted residential services are clearly a very important part of that system.

[12:20 p.m.]

We have done a fair bit of work to date on this already, thanks again to previous reports as well as the Auditor General’s report, as well as our own internal work on this, implementing an approval process for any new contracted residential agencies, which helps us limit the number of new agencies but also the number of placements in those so that we can do a better job of reviewing the circumstances of the children and youth coming into care and their needs.

We also reviewed all of the children and youth in care who are placed in a contracted residential agency, and we continue to do that work regularly. We have local children and youth placement review committees that do a better job of oversight of the actual placement into those contracted residential agencies.

The important systemic work over the course of this year is to plan the system, as the Auditor General’s report points out, which is to identify what the service needs of the children and youth in care are, with a focus on what the contracted residential agency’s services are intended to focus on. We’re looking at data across the system to help us understand what the needs of those young people are. Next year we’re beginning the implementation of the in-care network, evaluating our success as we go and making adjustments — so modelling a new approach, evaluating the approach and implementing the approach.

Recommendation 2 is founded on the fact that Indigenous children and youth in care are overrepresented in contracted residential agencies, as they are in foster care and in the system as a whole. We continue to be committed to working with Indigenous communities, delegated agencies, our partners and other government agencies to improve outcomes for Indigenous children, youth and their families. Recommendation 2 is about ensuring that as we move forward, we do so in collaboration with delegated Aboriginal agencies and Indigenous communities. We need to be clearer about the roles that each of us plays — in particular, related to policy, information-sharing, communication and monitoring — in order to breathe life into this recommendation.

Our approach starts with looking at the guiding documents of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We also have, internally, an Aboriginal policy and practice framework that was co-developed with delegated Aboriginal agencies, which guides our work. We continue to engage with the First Nations Leadership Council; the Tripartite First Nations Children and Families Working Group; and the Métis Nation of B.C., with whom we have a practice table. There is a delegated Aboriginal agency policy secretariat, with whom we work closely, and of course, Indigenous communities, all of whom have unique needs.

Our work to date on this has been significant. We changed the Child, Family and Community Service Act to better serve the needs of Indigenous communities. Those changes came into force April 1 of this year. We implemented, as I referenced earlier, the delegated Aboriginal agency partnership table with MCFD. We are preparing now, in collaboration with the First Nations Leadership Council and Indigenous communities, for the coming into force of Bill C-92, which is slated to come into force in January.

Over the course of this year, we’re really focusing, with our delegated agency partners, on understanding some of the systemic issues and how we can do a better job of working collaboratively to ensure that kids in care, whether they’re being cared for by the DAA or by MCFD, are receiving the care that they need and the placements that they need, particularly in contracted residential agencies.

We’re also working with them on the creation of a quality assurance framework that will do a better job of monitoring the outcomes — positive outcomes, we hope — for the children and youth in care. We’re engaging with Indigenous communities to identify the needs of the Indigenous children and youth in care, including the culturally appropriate services and language needs. And then, next year, with those roles clarified, we begin the implementation of the in-care and quality assurance frameworks that will help us do a better job collectively for those kids.

Recommendation 3 is about safeguarding the most vulnerable children and youth in our province. Our approach is, in fact, to transform the quality assurance framework. The Auditor General’s report does a very good job of identifying some of the missing pieces in that framework. For the contracted residential services, we need to have a much more comprehensive audit program to review the work of those contracted resources, the staff that work there and are responsible for the resources, as well as a qualitative component to receive direct feedback from the children and youth in the resources as well as the staff in the resources. That’s certainly a missing piece that we have right now.

[12:25 p.m.]

The work to date. We’ve improved oversight process. We have an on-line reporting tool for contracted residential agencies so that we can hear directly about the caregivers that are working in those. In the last year alone, we’ve completed over 5,000 background and criminal record checks on existing agency caregivers and new applicants to ensure that the caregivers have met the basic or foundational safety needs of those children. We’ve implemented a comprehensive risk matrix for contracted residential agencies and annual agency reviews based on the results of that matrix.

This year we’ve working through our current audit and quality assurance approach and conducting some best-practices research and, next year, designing and beginning to roll out the transformed quality assurance framework, in alignment with the in-care network that we’re developing — and, of course, all of that in collaboration with delegated Aboriginal agencies.

Recommendation 4 is about effective contract management, necessary to ensure value for money and, more importantly in this context, to ensure that contractors are delivering quality residential services for the children and youth placed in their care.

Our approach here is to enhance the contract and procurement management framework so contracts are clear, deliverables focus on the needs and the rights of the children and youth in care and have to include clarity on roles and responsibilities, training and contract monitoring.

We did engage a contractor to undertake a comprehensive review of the current state of procurement and contract management life cycle and the systems and processes that support that. Over the course of this year, receiving that review means looking at the contract management practices and beginning the redesign of a procurement and contract management framework that’s modernized and focused on the positive outcomes for the children and youth in care. Next year it’s rolling that out, ensuring that contractors can deliver quality services for the children and youth placed in their care.

Overall, we’ve begun the work to improve the services that we provide to our most vulnerable children and youth. We have a lot more to do to overhaul the system. This is a piece of the system. The contracted residential agencies are a component of a system that’s very complex. We want to ensure that we’re improving the oversight and tailoring our services to better meet the needs of the children and youth in care and their families.

We are confident the landscape is changing, and we welcome the ongoing scrutiny of our action plan. From our perspective, there is no great imperative for our ministry than supporting the children and youth who British Columbians have entrusted to government care.

Once again, thanks to the Office of the Auditor General for the report. We welcome, again, the four recommendations and the guidance that we received in that report in order to continue our focus on improving our system of residential care.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much for the brevity of your presentation and for how packed it was with information. We appreciate that. As I said, we’re very grateful that you’re here today to answer some of our questions.

I think I also just reflect on your comments — your comment about welcoming the scrutiny. I think so many of the reports — all of them — that come through here are intended for that purpose, to get to a better outcome. So thank you for that.

J. Thornthwaite: I would like to concur with the Chair, your statement that we welcome ongoing scrutiny. I was Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for four years, and I think I was on it a couple years before that.

Thank you to the Auditor General for doing this, in addition to, obviously, the Representative for Children and Youth, who we see these types of reports from on a regular basis.

I have two different questions, but quite specific. The first one is: are children still being housed in hotels? Two, in the report you have said: “Regularly gathering information on the experience and opinions of children and youth who spend time in contracted residential resources.” My question is: what is the ministry doing to get information specifically from children and youth and their experiences in residential facilities?

A. Bond: In response to your first question, the provincial director of child welfare has directed that children not stay in hotels — so not be placed in hotels.

[12:30 p.m.]

The only circumstance where that happens is if there’s an emergency placement on a weekend, for example, or an inability to find an appropriate placement. But their permanent placement is never in a hotel. It would only be for a matter of a few hours, and it has to be with the concurrence of the provincial director or the deputy director, if that has to happen. So there is no placement in hotels in British Columbia.

On the…. Sorry. The second question?

J. Thornthwaite: About gathering information from the children and the youth themselves.

A. Bond: Right, a two-pronged answer. The first is that our standards require that all the social workers visit and have conversations with the children in care on a regular basis. We’ve confirmed and continue to confirm that that’s happening. The Auditor General points out that some of the workers had identified that as being one of the issues that they struggled with in terms of all the other things that they’re balancing on their workload, so we’ve directed that that be the sort of most important thing that they do.

Being able to make sure that individual social workers meet with the children and youth on their caseload within the standard is something that we require. That being said, information about their experiences in care isn’t then funnelling up to inform the system as a whole. So the part of the quality assurance framework that’s missing is the ability for somebody other than their social worker to have that conversation and gain that input from the individual children and youth. That’s what we’re working into our quality assurance framework right now.

We agreed with the Auditor General that in the absence of a quality assurance framework that included the voices of the children and youth, there was never a second set of eyes within the organization on those kids. That’s work we’re developing right now over the course of this year. It’s a quality assurance framework that includes that component. It’s very important.

J. Thornthwaite: Is there a standard form, or however this information is gathered, that deliberately gets out information from the children and youth? In other words, are we actively going out after them? Are we actively getting meaningful information? Or are we just ticking a box that we talked to them? I’m trying to get to…. I know there’s a lot of ticking boxes going on. What my concern is that if there is a serious, systemic issue that is not being addressed and kids are constantly saying it, perhaps they don’t bother anymore because they know nothing is going to change.

A. Bond: Yeah, you’re exactly right. That’s exactly why we’re developing, as part of our new quality assurance framework, the component that’s going to do what you’re talking about, which is to make sure that there’s a second set of eyes on those kids, that there’s a way of gathering that information. That being said, we have extraordinary social workers out there, and extraordinary social workers, when they visit with the kids, will update the care plans. So yes, they’ll tick the box that says, “I met the standard,” but they’ll include the conversation in the care plan and update the care plan to ensure the child’s care plan is updated.

The other thing I would say is that the content of those conversations goes into an annual update of the care plan, and that’s another standard which we required to be seen as a priority. So I think we’re talking about two levels, right? The one is: are the kids getting the care they need from the social worker? We’re trying to put a priority on those specific activities.

On top of that, we need that systemic quality assurance framework, and that’s really what the Auditor General’s report talked about. It wasn’t just meeting those standards for social workers. It was another level of that, which was gathering that, understanding the systemic issues, but also addressing urgent issues as the children are identifying them. And having the social worker providing the service that they might actually have concerns with be the only one gathering the information is not going to do the system or those kids justice.

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah. That was basically my point and also to — I don’t know; it could be another audit; I know you’ve got audits up the yin-yang — actually pinpoint that specific issue about how the ministry is doing well or could do better in gathering the information directly from the children, the youth, themselves.

A. Bond: Yeah. Precisely what we’re trying to do.

R. Glumac: I had a question. I’m just going to talk about some of the work that was done on the technology side to try to improve some of these issues within the ministry.

[12:35 p.m.]

Just for the record, back in 2017, there was a program called the start-up in residence program. It’s modelled after San Francisco’s successful start-up in residence program. It connects tech start-ups with provincial government business areas to collaboratively and iteratively develop technology-based solutions for public sector challenges within a 16-week time frame.

Within 16 weeks, there was a lot of work done to try to assist and address this issue, and one of the projects that was chosen in 2017 was with MCFD. Just to read what that was: “The Ministry of Children and Family Development was looking for a way to provide resource workers with real-time availability of contracted residential resources, such as beds and associated services, to ensure that when children and youth need to be in care of the ministry, they are matched quickly and efficiently with the most appropriate resource available to meet their needs.”

In the report, I read that this program, which I think is referred to as the in-care placement mapper…. It says: “If the system is fully implemented, it can provide data on the number and type of placements available and will likely help the ministry understand the current capacity of the contracted residential services it is purchasing.”

So within a 16-week time frame, this technology was developed. It’s been two years, and I’m wondering if the system has been fully implemented.

A. Bond: That’s a terrific question, and I appreciate it. The placement mapper was completed and gave us a really good understanding of the inventory of the contracted residential agencies. It’s extremely helpful for us to develop the ability to place the children and youth according to their needs, because we have a better understanding of what’s out there. We also understand where it is. It will help us understand, as we gather the integrated data on the children and youth — where they are — whether or not these things align and where we have gaps. That’s all helpful.

The thing that’s missing with the design of the placement mapper is its direct connection to our case management system. To continue investing in that particular system would mean that workers would have to be doing their work twice or inputting twice, particularly when it comes to the contracted agency they’re creating, so it was duplicating effort. Workload is obviously an issue for social workers. In the absence of being able to create an integrator, that wasn’t the best solution.

That being said, the solution did many things for us. The first is that it gave us an existing inventory. That’s critically important for our work in understanding how we need to develop the in-care network going forward. Secondly, it designed all the business process that would go underneath the creation of a system that could attach to our case management system. So we don’t have to redo that. We’ve got the business process design done, which, as you probably know, is actually a really important part of any system development.

It has also identified not just how the social workers would use it and what that business process would be but how much time that would take, what would be the best approach for doing that and then how we would get to a better placement for the children and families. So there’s lots of great work as a result, but in the absence of being able to connect it directly to our case management system, continuing with the implementation of that would actually create more work rather than less. That being said, lots of great work, lots of good investment, and we’ll be able to use that going forward.

R. Glumac: To follow up with that, why doesn’t the system integrate with the ministry’s existing data systems? Why can’t that happen?

A. Bond: It’s probably a technology question. What I would say is that we asked about that and found that that couldn’t be done without a great deal more investment. Then the question is: is that the right place to invest, or do you invest in a different solution that’ll be cheaper to do the integration? And that’s the work that was done. We did the sort of fit-gap analysis and determined that we can use lots of the work that was done, but that particular system or solution wasn’t going to be one that would meet the needs.

R. Glumac: I’m still trying to understand. You have a data system that has data. It’s not rocket science to export that data into another system, on an automated basis or whatever. You could daily export the data, integrate it into…. You could have a cron job or whatever that does this on a daily basis. You could export the data, update this other system, and it wouldn’t be extra work for the social workers to input this data twice.

[12:40 p.m.]

For me, to hear that you’re inputting the…. You’re kind of saying: “Well, this was nice, but we’re not going to really continue with it because it’s too much work inputting the data twice.” I don’t understand this.

A. Bond: I’ll answer a little bit more, and then I’ll turn it over to Rob, who actually, probably, has a little more information for you.

I don’t think it’s just inputting the data twice. It’s also the data integrity that becomes an issue. So the contractors themselves, if you’re putting in the information once…. And then, are you duplicating data? We’ve had issues with duplicate data before, when we transferred to the new system. There are a lot more technical issues that we did.

I’m happy to come back and do a longer presentation specifically on the placement mapper, but it does not, in the end, achieve what it is that we need, which is to have an ongoing, reliable set of information about the available placements, whether that’s our contracted residential services, our foster parents, other out-of-care placement opportunities for the kids. It was one piece that was done for a particular purpose but doesn’t achieve the systemic value or the systemic shift that we’re looking for.

Rob, do you want to provide any advice on the technology part?

R. Byers: Yeah. I think, on top of that, from an ICM perspective and then related to the placement mapper, when that originally went to the STIR program, there was not an intention that it was going to integrate with ICM at that point in time. As we went down that road and did the discovery around what the placement mapper could do, as Allison said, lots of good things came out of that. One of the challenges is data in — so who is updating the information was something we had to evaluate — and how we were going to get that in.

Then, for us to actually do that linkage that you’re talking about is a possibility, but there would had to have been enhancements on the backside, on the ICM side, for us actually to do those connection pieces. That’s where we’re sitting right now. We haven’t done that connection piece.

What we have right now is an identifier in ICM for an individual, and we have an identifier in the placement mapper, potentially, for an individual that is not the same identifier at this point. So the duplication of work started to do that. So there is work that could be done on technology behind the scenes. It’s just that that’s not where we put the investment in at this point.

R. Glumac: One more follow-up on this. Again, we need to start modernizing these processes, I feel. Some good work has been done here. I’m not buying…. I don’t understand how data can’t be automatically, in an automated way, exported and utilized by the system. There would be some more work that would need to be done to translate that data into something that could be utilized, but it could be done on a regular basis, and this could become a very valuable tool. It seems like you’re backing away from it. You’re saying: “Oh, it’s a nice exercise.”

We need to build on these things. We need to make things better. We need to use technology. We need to embrace it in order to improve, because it helps…. It reduces costs if we’re intelligently using technology within government like this. Here’s a great opportunity to do that, and I don’t feel like it’s being embraced. I would love it if you guys could come back with a more comprehensive plan on how this and other technology can be embraced in order to facilitate and improve services in the ministry.

A. Bond: I would be happy to do that, because I think, if we did that, you’d get a sense of all the other pieces that we’re trying to have fit together here, and it would make more sense to you at that point.

R. Byers: Maybe just one other piece that I can add, and it relates into recommendation No. 4. We do have the integrated case management system as our case management system. The system that we currently have that’s dealing with all of the contracts and all of those pieces is archaic. We are going down that road now to modernize that. I think that is one of the linkages, because that system currently, with how old it is, can’t link to other systems. So we need to modernize that, which then takes us into the world that you’re talking about where we have the ability to use data and do different things. I think we have some limitations in the current infrastructure that we have.

R. Glumac: I have one more question on it.

What is the timeline of that change, then, to update that archaic system that you’re talking about?

R. Byers: The contractor that we just hired to produce the current-state report of where everything is will then…. The next step of that is to develop the business requirements that we have and then go down that road, working with corporate government, to figure out where we fit into a government procurement system versus MCFD creating their own and what pieces do need to sit within MCFD.

[12:45 p.m.]

R. Glumac: I’ll come back with more questions later.

S. Dodds: Could I just add a comment here?

The report references the contract management system — that it dates from 1986. One of the issues that comes through in the audit is the challenge for the system to be able to understand the contract information that sits in one system and the children and youth information that sits in ICM. The ministry recognizes the limitations on that and the inability to share that information, which is…. There have been a number of efforts to get a contract management module modernized for this ministry. Carl could speak to that as well.

It is a priority, and we did see a lot of work there. But when you’re looking at that placement mapper, you’re needing information on what the placements are, which is coming from a contract, and information on the needs of the children and youth, which is coming from ICM. In the absence of those systems working together, you’re relying on individuals inputting data.

The point is very valid, but there are some complexities, and there’s a very old system in the ministry that they’re working hard to move forward on.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Thank you. The one piece of the conversation we will pursue is whether or not, Rick…. It’s certainly within your purview that we ask Allison to come back and have a conversation about that, the technology piece. Because it is true that we need to figure out how systems talk to one another in order to better our outcomes.

We’ll put that on the to-do list. I appreciate that. We may well have a section of our agenda, moving forward, where we could put that as an update, and Allison is certainly willing to come back. I think those were important questions, and we’ll do a follow up on that. Thank you for that.

We are moving on to Garry. Then Ralph, you’d be up after Garry, please.

G. Begg: Thank you, Allison and company, for, I think, a very responsive attitude toward the audit recommendations. As well, I think you present a very articulate and confident plan for the future, which I think is important.

I would ask, perhaps, as well if you have a self-audit system now in place or a system of reflection so that never again will things go as badly off the rails as they apparently were. My experience is that things don’t go off the rails overnight. It takes a considerable period of time, and much of the issues raised by the audit were things that self-reflection or internal audits might have prevented. So I’m anxious to hear whether or not you have that system in place or you’re contemplating putting it in place.

A. Bond: Thank you very much for the question.

The Auditor General team was starting their pre-audit as the ministry was starting to ask itself why we are in receipt of so many reports with so many recommendations. We were working and working and working and changing things but not, seemingly, getting ahead, and continuing to be in receipt of more reports.

We started with the internal reflection of: how do we need to create a system that supports vulnerable children, youth and families in this province, of which the contracted residential agencies are a part, but only a part? If we did only our work on that, we would be continuing to repeat the errors of our past, which is to look at one piece at a time.

The first part of our self-reflection was to do a better job of articulating the system as a whole, beginning with: how are we supporting the Indigenous children, youth and families in collaboration with Indigenous communities and partners? How are we trying to invest in children, youth and families so they can stay stronger together and bring fewer children into care? For the children who are brought into care and who ultimately age out, what are we doing in their transition? And finally, for the children who are in care, how do we create a robust system where we know that those children are thriving, not just surviving in the system?

[12:50 p.m.]

That’s work that we undertook. Again, what I was referring to today were pieces of the strategy that followed the work of looking internally. Part of that work is also the quality assurance framework, which is going to do exactly what you’re saying.

Once we’ve created the system that we think will do a better job — and it’s not just MCFD, by the way, that is part of that system; it’s the Ministries of Health and Education and all the other partners that deliver services to the vulnerable children, youth and families — then what is our quality assurance framework so that we’re one step ahead of the next report?

The most important piece of that, which the member referred to previously, was hearing from the children, youth and the families that were affected by our system. What could we have done differently? What worked for you? What didn’t work for you? What are we doing right now that is helping you, and what is getting in the way of you becoming a healthier, more stable, supportive family?

This is super-important work. The ministry has taken the time…. And thanks again to the Auditor General for her reflections, and others, for their reflections, Grand Chief Ed John, and other reports over the years that have helped us to understand systemically what it is that we’re dealing with. All of that is taken into consideration to design and develop and begin the implementation — not waiting but implementing — and changing as we learn more, but as part of a broader system shift.

It’s a really important question, and it’s really important work, because it gives us the opportunity to tell you that this is just a piece of what is really a much bigger systemic change happening in the ministry.

G. Begg: What is remarkably clear, I think, is your zeal and dedication. You speak eloquently and passionately about the children and youth in care, and you should be commended for that. Thank you very much.

R. Sultan: Let me second Garry’s compliment to you on the seriousness and obvious deep concern you have over making sure this job gets done well. It’s clearly very important, and it’s an impressive display of response.

I’m struggling with the numbers here a little bit. It’s not for lack of data. I’m not quite sure how they all fit together. Here’s my impression. Tell me where I went off the rails myself.

We have, on page 7 of the report of June 2019, this very helpful graphic. The Auditor General has the wit to condense it all to one page of graphics for those of us who are a bit more challenged. It shows 6,698 children and youth in care as of March 2018, of which roughly 1,100, just rounding, were in contracted residential services, which is the topic of the day. Let’s call it 1,100. I hope I’m on solid ground so far.

Then of that 1,100, I sort of assume from this expanding pie chart that the OAG also presented that, let’s say, roughly 50 percent are Indigenous and 50 percent are not. Again, using somewhat aggressive rounding, 50 percent of 1,000 is about 500 Indigenous youth in contracted residential care. Am I roughly in the ballpark so far?

A. Bond: I have updated data for you, but you’re roughly in the ball park, based on this one.

R. Sultan: Okay. I suppose we should be concerned that there are 500 Indigenous children and youth that are in care in this particular residential contracted category. So that’s the bad news: we have children in distress, which the government is doing its best to look after. But the good news is that it’s not 10,000. And 500 is a big number, but it’s not a stupendous number, in my books.

[12:55 p.m.]

Then we have the OAG report, which focuses, in particular, on the challenges of contracting — reading between the lines, it seems to me, at least — with Indigenous organizations. And having myself, in the last couple of weeks, spent several days in the Interior visiting various Indigenous bands and reading books they’ve published and given to me about their world, I realize we are, in fact, dealing with a very different cultural antecedent and people who have chosen and persisted in following a somewhat different path than those of us with, for example, in my case, an immigrant Swedish background.

So here we are. We’re going to force a contracting philosophy, in which I sense some similarity to how we buy stationery or paving services in MOTI, on these people, saying: “Well, you have to shape up. We want contracts. We want assessments. We want annual reports. We’re going to audit you, etc., etc., in this world on contracted residential services for Indigenous children.” Good on you for trying. It’s business-like. It appeals to my sense of economy. But I’m wondering: for 500 children, is it a little bit of overkill?

That’s really my only reaction. I don’t know whether you have any response to it.

A. Bond: Thank you for the question. I would like to give you some updated statistics, because it’ll give you a sense of the kind of progress the ministry has made as a result of its efforts even over the last year. If you want to refer to that sheet on page 7, currently the total number of children and youth in care is actually 6,071. We have over 600 fewer children and youth in care today than we did at the time of the report, which is because of the excellent work of social workers trying to keep children and youth with their families or with family members.

The total children and youth now in contracted residential agencies is 762. That number is also dropping, which is also, I think, very good news and thanks to the excellent work in the ministry of those placement committees, which are really looking hard at: “Is the contracted agency the best possible placement for this child? Can we keep this child out of care?” and “If this child is coming into care, where is there a viable foster option?” Of the children placed in a contracted agency, the ministry placed 588 of those.

I think you’re referring to delegated Aboriginal agencies when you’re talking about the oversight of the contract. Delegated Aboriginal agencies placed 174 of those 762. The way delegated Aboriginal agencies work…. The language is quite important. They’re delegated by the ministry under our legislation to do the work of the legislation. They do it differently in serving the Indigenous communities. We’re, in fact, trying to catch up to the good practice of the delegated Aboriginal agencies.

We also share — and this was in the report — some contracted agencies together. We might place some children in those agencies, and the delegated agency might place children through the same agency. In that sense, we’re sharing resources and sharing the intent for positive outcomes for all of the kids, whether they’re Indigenous or not, in the contracted agency.

What I would say…. The important part, I think, of the report and also of our response is it’s our intent to work with the delegated agencies on the best possible model to ensure that we’re collectively managing our contracted agencies together and those services together. The delegated agencies, too, work so hard at making sure that there’s a cultural component to care in the contracted agencies they deliver, and we all are committed to the positive outcomes for those kids.

How can the system as a whole…? Whether you’re placed by a delegated agency, in the case of those 174, or by the ministry, how can we, together, ensure they’re getting the best possible result?

I think there is, for sure, a positive business component. It is a contract, but the cultural component is very important and not something we’ve effectively measured before and definitely will be part of that quality assurance framework.

I hope that gets at what you were asking. Of course, I’m very pleased to see that some of our changes are taking root already in the system.

[1:00 p.m.]

R. Sultan: Well, the last part of your comment, in particular, resonates with me. This is not quite, strictly, a business contract. I’m pleased that you strongly made that point, because clearly, it is not, and I think we’ll be frustrated if we come back with a follow-up audit five years from now and say: “Well, this doesn’t quite meet Standard and Poor’s standards and all the rest.” I think we’re dealing with a slightly different world here, and we have to be flexible. Thank you.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Ralph.

I think Carol wanted to make a comment.

C. Bellringer: Just a couple of things. In terms of the policy decisions that have been made within the foster care system and within the full-care system, they are not matters we can comment on. We’re not permitted to comment on the merit of the policy.

In terms of the delivery, we did look at the importance of looking…. I mean, you say “only.” There are 1,148 children in the contracted residential service system, and the services that are being contracted for…. There’s a dollar component to it, but we most certainly looked at, overall, whether or not these very vulnerable children and youth were given the protections that were expected. So it was looking at…. I mean, it is a contract, but it was for the full spectrum of services.

The money is not insignificant. It is over $150 million for the total cost for the contracted residential services. There’s a chart on page 22 of the report also demonstrating that that cost, as contrasted to the cost of foster care, is significantly higher. So just highlighting the importance of doing it well. And as the ministry will provide action plan and progress to the committee, it would be something that we may not choose, in the future, to follow up in detail, but it will be worthy of monitoring that progress.

The number itself I was interested in when I very first started here. I came here from Manitoba. That’s a population of a quarter of British Columbia, in effect, and the number of kids in care is almost double, at least last time I checked. So one could argue we’re in good shape because there are less kids in care, but there are obviously many, many factors to consider. And then that gets into the whole policy discussion that we’ll avoid.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much for all of your work, and thanks to all of your staff for all the work that they do every single day. As you know, that’s my background, so I know the work, and I really appreciate it.

I appreciate how you answered my colleague’s question, but I want to be assured that, whatever the shift is, whatever is different now, it’s long-lasting, right? I was on the federation board when the residential review was going on. That was seven years ago, so a lot of the issues have been well known, and, as you said, you had a lot of reports, for a long period of time. We have an independent officer who provides recommendations, let alone the other reports and partners that you’ve had providing recommendations.

How can we be assured now, as legislators of British Columbia, that there is going to be this culture shift and that the plan that you’re putting in place is going to be continued — that we’re not going to slip back, and that we’re going to continue seeing improved outcomes and safeguarding for children and youth in British Columbia?

A. Bond: Perhaps it would provide some confidence if I let you know that’s a question we ask ourselves every day. The reason we ask ourselves that is that we know that’s been one of the criticisms of the ministry — that it would start an initiative to resolve something, and perhaps it would peter out when another criticism comes forward and we have to make another switch or change direction.

There are a couple of differences in how we’re doing it now. The first one is that we’re looking at the whole system and not just one piece at a time. What’s sometimes taken us off track is that you’d try to fix one piece, but it has an unintended consequence over here, and we’d get criticized for that, and then you’re always shifting and changing. So trying to look at the whole thing.

[1:05 p.m.]

The other is that we’re using more of a process of implement and evaluate and implement and evaluate. We know that the needs of the kids are changing, and we need to ensure that we’re still staying on top of those changing needs of the children, youth and families. If you use a project management analogy, we’re using an agile approach, not a waterfall approach. We’re not trying to do everything in one thing and say: “We’ve done it now, and we think we’re finished.”

The idea is to continue to implement the positive shifts, as we have done — and we are getting positive results as a result of those shifts — but stay on that and continue to make those shifts but not do it without the information that we need in order to make that happen.

That’s another way. One way is looking at the system as a whole. Another one is to test and monitor and evaluate consistently. Then the third way, which we think might be the most important way, that we’re going to maintain change is to have partners in the change. Those are partners from across the ministries but also are partners outside of the ministry.

Our service delivery partners are critically important, as you would know, to delivering the services, to delivering the contracts, in the case of these contracted residential agencies, to providing supports and services on the ground to the vulnerable children, youth and families. They haven’t often had a voice in the development of our strategies and supports and services. We have an external advisory body now made up of those folks to help keep us honest, so to speak, and to help give us the information that maybe we don’t have internally to make those shifts.

The other critical partners, obviously, are the Indigenous communities, the tripartite child and family working group, the Métis working practice table. All of these partners are going to continue to give us information and keep us moving forward on a path of improvement. That’s the intent.

The last piece is, I would say…. In developing the strategy framework, we’re not saying this is this year’s strategic framework. We’re very clear. This is a long-term project to shift a system and a mindset and a culture in the ministry that we’re seeing positive results on, but clearly, we need to continue our focus on those. Hopefully, we will get some longevity from that, and that’s the intent. If we can have all of those shifts make their way from where we are here in Victoria through to the front line and across to our partners, we think that the chances are far greater of success.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate the importance of collaboration. We know that serves children and families better, and it creates that accountability, then, as well.

The system is changing. On page 48 of the Auditor General’s report, there’s a comment around non-compliance with government policy. How does part of the system change make sure that even if there’s good policy, it’s actually being adhered to as well?

A. Bond: Excellent question. I think one of the common phrases that we used when we met with the Auditor General team regularly over the course of the audit was that we are “consistently inconsistent.”

I don’t think you used it here, but you might have used it in your presentation, Sheila.

That’s one of the downsides of the organizational structure and approach that we have today in MCFD, which is 13 service delivery areas, 13 executive directors of service. It’s an extremely complex suite of services that each of those delivers. I’m not saying that there’s an organizational shift afoot. I’m not sure that organizations are ever designed to do anything perfectly. What I am saying, though, is that we have to figure out how we create the consistency.

The contract framework that we were referring to earlier, the idea of having a procurement strategy that’s consistent across all the SDAs, which we don’t really have right now…. A contract management framework and a system that supports that. We don’t really have that right now, and what we do have is archaic. That’s probably the best word to use.

All of these tools that we can provide to the 13 service delivery areas to create the consistency is the piece that’s missing and what we’re…. We’re starting by looking at the status quo, building to what we actually need. That will deliver better supports and services.

The shorter answer to your question is a strong system of supports and tools and systems that are going to make sure we get that consistency across a very, very complex system.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Carol, just a quick question to you. Knowing that Indigenous children are overrepresented in the system, did you think about Indigenous representation on your team when you went into this audit?

[1:10 p.m.]

C. Bellringer: I’m going to ask Sheila to give you a little better of an answer to this. Most certainly in the groups and individuals that we involved in the work. We also used subject-matter experts.

If you could just give a bit more colour to that, please.

S. Dodds: Okay. Thanks, Carol.

Yes, we did think about it. We did have two subject-matter experts involved in the audit, who are listed in the report. One of them is Dr. Jacquie Green, who is with the school of social work up at UVic and is Indigenous and has been involved with delegated Aboriginal agencies as well. So she was a very good resource as we were planning, as we were assessing the results of our work and also looking for advice, with the ministry and with Dr. Green, on the engagement with delegated Aboriginal agencies.

We actually went to the partners table early on in the audit to say that this is what we’re doing. We wanted to get input from whoever wanted to speak to us about what the issues were for their communities. I think, in the end, we spoke with half of the delegated Aboriginal agencies, but we were open to speak with everybody. That was our way of building some perspective that we didn’t otherwise bring as a team.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Mitzi. That was a really great question.

Just a couple of questions before we wrap up the presentation. I think all of us here feel, and perhaps Carl may want to take note of this, that this might be an example of how we share what happens at committee with other ministries. It’s not intended to be an interrogation. It’s intended to be a follow-up and a conversation with what are some pretty thoughtful questions and answers. And having a deputy here is extremely helpful to the productivity. So if ever there’s a need for a YouTube example of how to appear, this might be a good way to give some advice to other ministries. I very much appreciate that.

I do have a few questions. In the chart on page 22…. I guess, for me, it was a real eye-opener, when we talk about the emotional impact of this report. Is it still correct today? Although the number, obviously, of total children and youth in residential services has dropped, 19 percent of them, at the time of this report being released, were under the age of 13. If you stop and think about that, it sort of changes the face of the profile of children — literally children — in residential services. So is that number the same?

I’m assuming that one of the things that is carefully considered…. You know, if 19 percent of them are under the age of 13, those placements must be considered very carefully, about how those children are best served.

A. Bond: We have the number, and I’ve just asked my friends behind me to get out a calculator and figure out the comparative percentage. Of the current children and youth in contracted residential agencies, the number is 762. Of those, 180 are under 13. It’s 23½ percent. So the percentage has gone up, but the total has gone down.

S. Bond (Chair): Right. I guess the point is that I think a lot of British Columbians wouldn’t necessarily assume that children in residential services would be that young. And I think that’s helpful to us, as we think about the challenges of placement and care and programs. If we’re talking about an eight-year-old, that’s one thing. If we’re talking about the average age is 14.9…. Yet we’ve got literally dozens of children who are below the age of 13. I’m assuming that that takes up a lot of time as you sort out that placement for a child that might be eight years old.

A. Bond: Yeah. Thank you for the question.

There are a couple of issues. We actually were looking at those numbers ourselves and also noticing the number of younger children who are in contracted residential agencies. There are a number of reasons for that. A number of those kids are in care because they have very complex behavioural issues or special needs where a foster placement is just not a good option right now, although it might be after stabilization.

[1:15 p.m.]

I think the other piece here — and this is why the systemic work that we’re doing is so important — is: can the contracted agencies play a role in stabilization and treatment so that kids can be more successful with a foster placement or even an out-of-care placement? I think that’s where we ultimately want to go.

The really important number, in some ways, is the average length of stay. If we can bring the average length of stay down, it means that we’re using the contracted agencies for their primary purpose, which is to provide very focused, therapeutic stabilization services to the kids who need it, who might be in crisis, whether they are in care or out of care, so that we can improve their outcomes over time within a family environment.

There will always be kids for whom a contracted placement is the best possible option. What we need to do is narrow that down so that that becomes the decision — that the best placement for that child or youth is actually in a contracted facility, regardless of their age. There are a number of young children who are in because of their complex needs. Fewer and fewer, we hope, over time, are there because that’s the only thing available. That’s what we want to get to.

S. Bond (Chair): Just to segue to the issue of foster care, because it warranted an entire page in the Auditor’s report. A concern that foster parents…. The number is a concern, the fact that they’re not fostering after a number of years. And again, looking at why that’s the case….

I think all of us around this table as MLAs probably have incredible stories of foster parents in our communities. I have one in particular. They fostered literally dozens of children — ended up adopting one of them — over time. Those kinds of stories.

Foster care. I wanted to raise the point that there are challenges recruiting foster parents in some regions of the province — that when you do recruit, they don’t last, necessarily, as long. It’s an aging group of people. Maybe just a quick word on what the efforts are to talk about fostering with a new generation of potential foster parents. What are some of the challenges? Because that’s obviously an appropriate option for some of these children.

A. Bond: It’s a great opportunity for me to also put on the record our thanks as a ministry for the extraordinary foster parents who are out there, some of whom have served for decades, serving hundreds of children. Having recently met a foster parent whose expertise is babies who are born addicted, who keep the babies for a fairly short period of time and then hand them back to loving parents or loving homes…. They are an extraordinary group of people and deserve our thanks. The other group of people who deserve our thanks are the family members who step up to take care of young people whose parents are unable, either permanently or temporarily, to care for them.

One of the things that we’ve done just this year, as of July, is increase the maintenance payments to make it on par with the foster parents for out-of-care placements. Part of the reason for that is that the issue that British Columbia is dealing with around foster parents — aging foster parents and fewer foster parents — is not unique to British Columbia. It is, in fact, not unique anywhere in the western world. This is a common problem in North America, in Europe, in New Zealand and in Australia.

This requires a number of different responses. One of them is to try to find more out-of-care placements so we’re not bringing the kids into care into foster but actually finding loving relatives, friends, family friends and so on. Something that we’re thinking about — how do we do a better job of telling people what an extraordinary gift that is to the children in your larger family or friends circle?

That’s particularly true of Indigenous communities, who have long said: “We don’t want our kids in the foster system. We want them to stay in community and with family.” Clearly, that is an area that they want a focus on, and it was part of Grand Chief Ed John’s report. Our commitment to actually keeping kids out of care is, in part, to try to beef up the system of keeping kids in the out-of-care system there.

Then, in terms of foster parents, specifically to your question: yes, we need to do recruitment. We did increase the maintenance payments because they have long since said that they needed an increase to the maintenance payments in order to do their job. We need to do a better job of figuring out what supports and services we need around the foster parents.

[1:20 p.m.]

One of the things that happens is if a child in a foster placement has really complex needs, and there’s a crisis…. Often, if they leave that placement and they go to a contracted facility, then another placement goes into that home. There must be other ways for us to find a way to reintegrate that child, once there is stabilization, into the foster placement and find better ways to support the foster placements. We need to think about that. I think that would provide more help to the foster so they don’t feel like they’re without services and supports when things are difficult. So we need to do a better job there.

We need to continue to work…. We do some excellent work with the Foster Parent Association. We’ll continue to do that. They have extraordinary leadership there. We’ll continue to do that work to get their ideas and what we can do more of to both recruit but also to retain the foster parents — the people in British Columbia who step up to be foster parents. It’s an extraordinary group of people.

S. Bond (Chair): Two final questions. One is related to delegated Aboriginal agencies. The report points out that 84 First Nations are not served by them. Is there an intent or an effort, or is it capacity related? Would there be a continued effort to incorporate or involve those 84 First Nations with a delegated Aboriginal agency?

A. Bond: There’s a lot of movement on Indigenous child welfare across Canada, especially with Bill C-92, which is expected to come into force in January, which allows for, actually, a path to jurisdiction around child welfare.

By January, we will have several options. You can be served by the ministry, you could be served by a delegated agency under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or you could, yourselves, take on jurisdiction. We will support anything along that range. We actually have conversations right now, ongoing, with a number of communities around the idea of moving towards jurisdiction in preparation for January of next year. In addition to that, there are communities that have asked to be part of delegated agencies, some who have decided to no longer be served by delegated agencies and everything in between.

I think our job is to provide the best possible service and support to the communities in whatever way those communities have articulated to us that they’d like. That range of possibilities is getting broader.

S. Bond (Chair): My last question…. The issue is reflected on page 27 of the report. Not surprisingly, the role of the federal government in terms of funding, because as we know…. I just want to make sure — the bottom of page 26. The fact is that the federal government does have “responsibility for funding services for Status Indian children and youth in care.” I read those words from the report. They’re not mine. “The B.C. government has recently proposed discussions with the federal government on updating the funding agreement and increasing funding for services to Indigenous children.” Long overdue, from my perspective, and my editorial comment.

Allison, can you just tell us…. Obviously, in this period of time, it’s a bit awkward. But once the election is over, what are the plans to lobby, advocate and to press the federal government for an increased share of support for Indigenous children and families?

A. Bond: That is an ongoing conversation with federal government officials, not just between us and the federal officials but also the First Nations Leadership Council and Indigenous communities and federal officials. They have committed to come back with us after October. We’ve given them lots of data and information on why there is a funding shortage, so our expectation is that, based on their commitment, they’ll come back in October to continue that conversation with us.

S. Bond (Chair): I want to thank my colleagues for their questions and their work. I thank the Auditor General’s office and her team for the obviously important work that was done over a long period of time and for the seriousness with which this issue has been addressed by the ministry. We do appreciate that.

As the deputy has also pointed out, we too want to thank social workers who do incredible work in our province — often underappreciated, I think, by many people. We want to recognize their work here today.

Thank you for your time. I very much appreciate the presentation today, and we’ll look forward to another positive discussion around the IT issues that were raised by MLA Glumac earlier in the meeting.

In terms of the committee work, we’re going to break for lunch, but what I’m going to encourage you to do is to get your lunch, run and do a few things. Then we’re going to start again — I hate to tell you this — at quarter to. So you’re going to have about 15 minutes to get organized here because we want to keep the rest of the afternoon on time.

With that, we will recess committee for lunch and resume at 1:45. You’re welcome to bring your lunch to the table if you need to.

The committee recessed from 1:25 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): Good afternoon. I really appreciate the committee taking a truncated lunch so we can keep moving — a very heavy agenda today. I appreciate your flexibility.

The next item of business for the Public Accounts Committee is consideration of the Auditor General’s report on B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch directly awarded contracts. The report was released in July of 2019. We’re going to ask the Auditor to make her opening remarks. Her staff will make the presentation. We also have representatives here from the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As the presentation unfolds, we obviously would like you to introduce yourselves, for the record. You can let us know who’s going to lead the presentation, and after the presentations have been made, the committee will be free to ask questions.

With that, we’ll turn it over to the Auditor General for her opening comments.

B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch
Directly Awarded Contracts

C. Bellringer: This is a report that was also under the guidance of Deputy Auditor General Sheila Dodds, so she’ll do the opening comments, and Ken will do the presentation.

S. Dodds: Thank you, Carol.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this report on directly awarded contracts to the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch. With me today is Ken Ryan-Lloyd from the audit team. Our office regularly audits procurement activities within government organizations because it’s a significant amount of public money. Government’s procurement policy is contained in its Core Policy and Procedures Manual, the CPPM. The policy is based on the principles of fair and open procurement.

Fair and open procurement practices involve a transparent and competitive process. Competition in procurement is particularly important to make sure government receives the best value for money in its spends. However, a competitive process may not always be possible, and the policy recognizes this. The CPPM defines the unique circumstances when it may be appropriate for a government entity to directly award a contract instead of going through a competitive process.

In this audit, we examined the contract files for 74 contracts that the LDB directly awarded to support its business operations, looking for evidence that the contracts had been issued in compliance with government’s procurement policy. Overall, we found that many of the 74 contract files that we audited did not comply with CPPM requirements. In 55 percent of the contracts that we looked at, the reasons for the direct award did not fit government’s definition of exceptional circumstances. We also found that many contract files did not contain sufficient documentation to demonstrate impartial and non-preferential treatment of contractors, which is another requirement of the CPPM.

We made five recommendations in the report. Our recommendations will support an increased staff understanding of the policy requirements for procurement, as well as support improvements in procurement practices to ensure compliance with policy.

The team would like to thank the staff at the LDB for their cooperation and assistance during the work on this audit. Now I’ll turn it over to Ken, who’ll walk you through the detailed findings and recommendations.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Thank you, Sheila.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and committee members.

In this audit, we looked at the supporting files for 74 contracts that the B.C. Liquor Distribution Branch, or LDB, directly awarded to suppliers to support its business operations. We were looking to see if the LDB complied with procurement policies set out in government’s Core Policy and Procedures Manual, or the CPPM, as it’s commonly referred to, when it issued the contracts.

[1:55 p.m.]

The LDB is a unique branch of government that operates B.C. liquor retail stores and, more recently, non-medicinal cannabis stores. The LDB also manages wholesale commerce in liquor and on-line sales of non-medicinal cannabis for the province.

In addition to buying, handling and reselling these pro­ducts, the LDB procures goods, services and construction to support its business operations. These could be things such as building and outfitting stores and warehouses or obtaining expert advice.

Since 2016, the LDB has spent approximately $100 million a year on contracts to support its business operations. This doesn’t include direct spending on liquor and non-medicinal cannabis products for wholesale and retail. Of the 74 contracts we looked at, 67 were valued at a total of approximately $24 million Canadian, and seven were valued at a total of approximately $646,000 U.S.

Overall we found that 41, or 55 percent, of the contract files did not have sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the LDB complied with the requirements of the government procurement policy.

We regularly audit procurement activities within government organizations to see whether they are following government principles of fair and open procurement. In the public sector, procurement involves a significant investment of public money. The principles of fair and open procurement mean that government procurement activity should involve a transparent and competitive process.

Only in exceptional circumstances, which are defined in the Core Policy and Procedures Manual, may a government entity directly award a contract to a supplier instead of pursuing a transparent and competitive approach. The five exceptional circumstances where negotiation and direct award of a contract without a competitive process are permitted are listed on page 11 of the report. I’ll share them with you now.

The first exceptional circumstance is that the contract is with another government organization. Second, the ministry can strictly prove that only one contractor is qualified or is available to provide the goods, services or construction. Third, an unforeseen emergency exists, and the goods, services or construction could not be obtained in time by means of a competitive process. Fourth, a competitive process would interfere with the ministry’s ability to maintain security or order or protect human, animal or plant life or health. The final exceptional circumstance is when the acquisition is of a confidential or privileged nature and disclosure through an open bidding process could reasonably be expected to compromise government confidentiality, cause economic disruption or be contrary to the public interest.

One or more of these conditions must be met if a direct award is to proceed. The contract file must document how one of the five exceptional conditions applies. In 41, or 55 percent, of the 74 contract files we looked at, the LDB’s reasons for directly awarding the contract didn’t clearly demonstrate the existence of exceptional conditions, as required by the CPPM.

For example, we looked at the contract for LDB’s procurement of promotional items for its annual staff appreciation day. Staff received items with the LDB logo printed on them. By the time the event organizers decided to do this, they didn’t have enough time to procure the items competitively. The LDB justified the direct award as an emergency to meet its own deadline. The value of the contract was $57,000.

When an event is annual, it’s predictable. Therefore, the LDB’s classification of this direct award as an emergency doesn’t meet the expectations of the CPPM. A reasonable amount of procurement planning, as required by the CPPM, could have prevented the need for this direct award.

[2:00 p.m.]

In 20 of the 74 contract files we looked at, we found adequate documentation to demonstrate that the LDB had taken care to show it was not bestowing favour or granting preferential treatment on a single contractor. The other 54, or 73 percent of the contract files, did not contain sufficient information to demonstrate impartial and non-preferential treatment.

For example, one contract file we examined was an eight-year contract valued at $8.5 million for retail system software and associated support services. It was later amended to increase the maximum value to $14.2 million. This change to the contract wasn’t competed, meaning that the LDB didn’t consult the market to see who else could meet their needs. As a result, the LDB couldn’t demonstrate that the enhancements needed under the contract and the higher cost represented good value for money. There was also no analysis in the contract file to show the supplier was the only source for the project.

In conclusion, we made five recommendations in this report, including training for LDB staff involved in procurement and contract management. We noted that responsibility for procurement has been moved several times within the LDB over the last few years. With organizational changes such as this, there is a risk that staff may not adequately the policy requirements for procurement, how those requirements support the principles of fair and open procurement, and the chief financial officer’s responsibility for oversight of procurement systems.

We also provided recommendations for improving documentation in contract files to support LDB’s procurement decisions.

That concludes this presentation.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much. We appreciate that.

Now I think Mr. Lawson is going to lead the presentation. Is that correct? Excellent. Perhaps you can also introduce the other guests that you have with you.

B. Lawson: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members. I’m Blain Lawson. I’m the general manager and CEO of the LDB. Joining me today are Douglas Scott, the associate deputy minister, Attorney General, and Jerome Lemieux, who is the director of procurement for the LDB.

The audit of the LDB processes that was conducted by the OAG on directly awarded contracts identified many gaps in our processes and provided the LDB with five recommendations — all of which we have accepted. Many of these processes have been implemented and/or are in the process of being implemented.

Some of the key findings, which Ken touched on as well…. Really, what I wanted to focus on is: what is our response to that?

The action plan that we have created…. On the first one, training for the full procurement team has taken place for two out of three modules as it relates to government procurement. The third training module will take place as soon as we’re able to schedule it in Vancouver. We have offered up space within our building to finish that.

We have revised our processes, which Ken was speaking about earlier, to ensure that all appropriate documentation is collected and filed prior to any direct awards. This has been fully implemented.

Our standard operating procedures have been updated to ensure legal advice is included in the file. This has been fully implemented as well.

Our direct-award templates have been amended to include a cost-benefit analysis and to also have a section for verification of any existing CSAs that might be outstanding.

We are accountable to the citizens of the British Columbia. We conduct our business without bias and must also be seen to do so. We believe that the actions that we have taken are moving us forward. We have also committed to have our internal audit team perform an intensive audit in Q4 of the upcoming year, in this year, to ensure that our processes are compliant and there are no gaps.

[2:05 p.m.]

We would like to thank the OAG for their work in completing the audit. These findings will support our continuing strengthening of our procurement function.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Thank you for those comments. We are now open to questions.

John, would you like to start?

J. Yap: Sure. Thank you.

Thanks to the Auditor General and to Blain and team for your responses.

From reading the audit report and the response, it sounds like it was a combination of a lack of appreciation for following the requirements and a lack of documentation to ensure that direct awards were appropriate. Would that be a fair statement?

B. Lawson: Yeah. Additionally, there was inexperience within the group. We’ve had a fair amount of turnover that has occurred within that area. We also went back and looked at it from a structural point of view. Was the structure that was in place robust enough to handle a business the size that we were? Do we have — and Ken touched on it briefly — enough resources allocated to the area? So we’ve moved full-time-equivalents into that area, hired some additional experienced staff and gone through the training so that we make sure that the documentation is there.

There was no malice intended. It’s just that lack of experience and oversight created some issues.

J. Yap: Ken had gone through some examples of files where documentation was lacking and also the reasons given for direct award. I didn’t find, through reading the report, that there were any files that…. While the reasons might be open to some discussion where there was enough concern on the rationale and, perhaps, whether the awards were appropriate given what’s expected…. I guess my question is…. Of the 74 files that were reviewed, a large number were found to be lacking in documentation.

My question is to Ken. Were any files found that were offside with policy as far as appropriate award?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: To answer your question most directly, it was a lack of documentation, as you suggest. When documentation is lacking, it’s very hard to see whether there were other problems, so it’s very difficult to answer your question beyond that.

It’s an organization that is highly respected. It’s also highly experienced in commercial activity, and one would expect that it knows what the requirement is. So the lack of documentation is all I can say.

J. Yap: Thank you. What was the time frame of the 74 files?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: We did the work exactly one year ago, in the last week of October. We looked at all of the files from April 1, 2016, through to July of last year. So approximately 18, 19 months. It was just taking a whole set of direct awards, taking them into a room, and analyzing them old-style — old-style auditing.

J. Yap: So it was a full sample, or you did it as a random sample?

K. Ryan-Lloyd: It was a full set, with 100 percent during that time.

J. Yap: So 100 percent between those two dates.

K. Ryan-Lloyd: Yeah.

S. Dodds: I’ll just add to that, Member, that we were looking at direct awards, as Ken mentioned, that were for business operations, so it had nothing to do with the commercial side of LDB, but we did look at all of the direct awards for that period.

The scope of the audit was to look at the contract files, so we were not getting into the contracts themselves and doing that broader performance audit of a systems review and looking at processes and interviewing staff. But the expectation of policy is around that fair and open procurement and that you have documentation for the rationale, particularly when it’s a direct award, because that’s an exception from the default for policy, which is fair and open. You compete.

J. Yap: Thank you.

G. Begg: Just a follow-up to John’s question. The files that were audited that showed incomplete information or undocumented information…. Were they followed up by the distribution branch in any way?

[2:10 p.m.]

B. Lawson: Yeah, we went through each one of them. Jerome and his team have gone through…. We’ve identified where the gaps were, whether it’s a lack of a legal opinion that has been placed into that file or it was stored somewhere else. Or the big one is having a review from a business-KPI point of view. Was it justified based on the business case, timelines and all the rest? We have gone through each one of them.

G. Begg: The inference is that there was nothing untoward about any of the files, with the exception of the lack of documentation?

B. Lawson: Documentation is the big one — lack of experience. We did not find anything untoward at this point in time.

G. Begg: How many individuals in the distribution branch have designated financial authority to seek the award of contracts?

B. Lawson: Now?

J. Lemieux: It’s 13, with different spending levels.

G. Begg: Was that different at the time of the audit?

J. Lemieux: Yes.

G. Begg: Has it been increased or decreased?

J. Lemieux: It has been increased, and we’ve changed the management structure within the team. We’ve now introduced a category of indirect spend within the department, so we have three categories of indirect spend….

G. Begg: And you’re satisfied that it’s sufficient oversight to prevent the recurrence of this?

J. Lemieux: Yes.

R. Sultan: Mr. Lawson, I’ve sat on this committee for many, many years. This is about the most damning report I think I’ve ever seen. It does not reflect well on LDB. It does not reflect well on the governments, plural, that have overseen your organization. It does not reflect well on your performance of your duties. I think it’s an embarrassment.

There are good reasons for requiring competitive bidding. As an old industrial salesman, I’m sure I could trade stories with you about all the connivance that can go on in the purchasing office and the enrichment for private gain that might occur from time to time. Certainly, the temptation and opportunity is there, and when you do not engage in competitive bidding, the possibilities grow.

LDB is not a complicated business. Government has given your organization a monopoly on the sale of spirits in British Columbia. We’ve also given you the right to control your selling prices. We’ve even given you the right to control the selling prices of your competitors. This is not exactly a cut-throat, competitive business. It’s a distribution function that carries out its responsibilities very well, I should say, as an occasional customer. We have no concerns about that, but I have to ask the question, Mr. Lawson: were you unaware of these policies?

B. Lawson: Personally, I probably didn’t spend enough time drilling into it on a day-to-day, operational point of view. I don’t want to sound contrite, but it is a very large organization. There’s a lot on my plate, and a lot of what was going on at this time was launching a new business and trying to get that up and running. I probably didn’t spend enough time on it, and we didn’t spend enough time training and developing the team.

There has to be trust within the organization that people are performing what we’ve hired them to do. In some instances, as is related here, it just didn’t occur. The accountability for that lies on me. So yeah, I’m embarrassed to be sitting here.

R. Sultan: Well, you should be. You have Jerome Lemieux with you.

B. Lawson: Yes.

R. Sultan: The director of sourcing and vendor performance. I guess in the good, old days, we’d call you the purchasing agent. Is that true?

J. Lemieux: Correct.

B. Lawson: Yes. He’s new into the role.

R. Sultan: I don’t know whose desk the buck stops on, but it strikes me that it’s either on your desk or his.

Which would it be, in your opinion, Mr. Lemieux?

J. Lemieux: Ultimately, I’m accountable for the department. Since I’ve taken over the department, we’ve created standard operating procedures. Through those operating procedures, we’ve threaded through all the requirements of the CPPM, the Core Policy and Procedures Manual, in each section of those standard operating procedures. That ensures that any staff, regardless of their level of expertise, will come in and they’ll know, just by reading our seven-step process, that they need to follow the core procedures.

[2:15 p.m.]

R. Sultan: Now you’re getting into the cannabis business as well. That’ll be a new set of challenges.

J. Lemieux: Definitely.

R. Sultan: I don’t know how you buy cannabis, but maybe someday you could give us a private seminar on that subject.

B. Lawson: It’s an open call.

R. Sultan: I’ve had my little rant here, but I would hope that the Auditor General will have a follow-up audit and just see whether you’ve discovered the virtues of competitive bidding, at some time in the future.

J. Thornthwaite: Besides extra training, were there any staffing repercussions to this?

B. Lawson: We’ve restructured the whole area. A fair amount of turnover has occurred within the group. Jerome is the new director of the area. We’ve created larger oversight with the executive director — she has less of a breadth of responsibility, so she’s able to focus on this area as well — and we’ve pulled it within the project area. So it’s all under the one umbrella. Most of these pop up as you do IT projects. We wanted to make sure that they were linked. All of the category managers are brand-new. Of the buyers, two out of the three are brand-new.

Did that answer your question?

J. Thornthwaite: Yes.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Can I just ask, Carol, what prompted your office to do this audit in the first place?

C. Bellringer: Sorry, I’m hesitating only because I’m just trying to remember. If I’m incorrect, you could jump in. I’m fairly certain that somebody brought the concern to our attention.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Can you just say what the concern was — a concern that there was no documentation, or a concern that there was something to be more worried about?

C. Bellringer: It was a concern around the fact that there were so many directly awarded contracts.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Oh, okay.

C. Bellringer: I’ll just say, in terms of…. We’ll often take a look at things like this where you’ll find an exception or two, but it’s unusual for the whole system to not have been put in place properly.

G. Begg: Just to follow up to Mitzi’s question — and I’m obviously not looking for the name of an individual — was it an external complaint or an internal complaint? In other words, was it something from someone at LDB, or from outside the organization?

C. Bellringer: It would have come about in the context of our financial statement work. Sheila is going to add something.

S. Dodds: There wasn’t a complaint. There are concerns around procurement that we do get regularly, and direct awards is an area that members of the public raise often. It’s a topic that we have looked at before and that we have plans to look at. I believe, in this particular situation, that there was also…. It had come up from the financial audit, in terms of the volume of direct awards.

B. Lawson: We had also brought in an external consultant prior to this because we had concerns with how contracts were being processed as well. MNP came in, did a background study for us and created a report as well. At the same time that that was being completed, we also had the audit from the OAG.

S. Bond (Chair): Unless my colleagues have other questions, I just have a few. I’m assuming, since the Auditor General’s report has come out, that there has been a lot of discussion at the office about the definition of “exceptional conditions.” Is that fair to say?

B. Lawson: Yes, very much so.

S. Bond (Chair): I think policy is pretty clear that this is not supposed to be a routine way of procuring goods in British Columbia. “Fair, open and transparent” certainly isn’t about ongoing direct awards.

From my perspective, when an organization gets an audit like this, individual staff members probably feel like it’s probably not that positive to the working conditions. One of the issues raised was the training of staff. That is one of the critical recommendations.

[2:20 p.m.]

When the response from LDB management is that planning is underway with PSA, perhaps someone can explain to me who does the training and why on earth we expect that current staff will complete the first and second PCMP modules by December 31, 2019. Okay, so we have a timeline.

The third module is not currently offered in Vancouver, so we will register once dates in Vancouver are available, etc. Who offers the training program, and how do we make sure that it is crystal-clear that the staff needs the training component complete? How do you help facilitate…? I see that you’ve offered up your office space. So who does it? Why is it taking so long? Is there now a plan in place to make sure that staff have the training that they need?

B. Lawson: The first two modules have been complete, so not December 31; they’ve been completed already. The PSA are the ones that do the training. Because they haven’t got one scheduled, we’re offering up space in our building. We offered it up for them to come in and do the training within our facility as soon as possible.

We’re open to the training whenever possible that they can come over. If I have to, we’ll send our team over to Victoria as well. The goal is to have it all completed a.s.a.p., not waiting till December.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, thank you for that. I’m assuming by PSA we mean the Public Service Agency?

B. Lawson: Yes.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, perhaps Carl or someone would like to respond. You know, the Auditor General and her team have made it clear that this is a pretty big swath of direct-award contracts, that staff training is an issue. I would assume that there’s conversation between, well, the PSA or through you, Carl. They review the recommendations. What does it take to facilitate whatever module is left here — to get it down so that we can have some sense of assurance that the training component is taken care of?

C. Fischer: Yes, we have engaged with the Public Service Agency, and the ministry as well, to make sure that this area is addressed. Our particular focus is, of course, on getting a better understanding of exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances are hard to put a number on, but I can’t believe it’s a majority.

The Public Service Agency is constrained only by the available training resources that they have. They have a limited number of qualified trainers available to provide the modules within the procurement framework. I have gotten a commitment that they will provide availability of a trainer and work with LDB to find the space and the time to get people together.

I also recognize that there’s an opportunity for continued follow-up. I know that OAG and I have had discussions about an enhanced monitoring of management representations during the year-end reporting process. This year OCG has also instituted an expansion of our compliance program, to focus on procurement.

Our key focus is on core ministries within government, but we are looking at ways to ensure that we can support LDB by providing some ongoing monitoring and review, particularly in the area of appropriate documentation, because that is a huge risk area, and also the unfortunate circumstance we have, broadly, over government, where there’s not a universal understanding that direct awards are not optional. They are truly only for exceptional circumstances.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay, I think. I guess my point is that if getting a report, an audit, from the Auditor General’s office that says, “Training is important,” doesn’t move you up the priority list for the PSA, perhaps it should. We just want to make sure that we end this discussion with some confidence that the message has been received by LDB but also with the partnering agencies that need to be part of resolving the documentation issue or the training issue or whatever it happens to be.

[2:25 p.m.]

C. Fischer: We certainly agree with that, and we’ve taken those steps to engage with the PSA and the ministry to ensure that the appropriate training is provided in this case and, of course, in other situations where we think it would be valuable or critical.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Well, that does give us some assurance. Would it be possible for you to report back to the committee to let us know when that final training piece has been taken care of or, at least, is scheduled?

I’m going to go back to Garry in one moment. I’m just going to bring up one other question that I’m wondering…. Certainly, the whole definition of “exceptional circumstances” is something that, obviously, Carl, you’re implying there needs to be more work done on across government. I’m hopeful that this report informs that work so that we’re not going to see a series of audits being done with exactly the same outcome coming back to us — that people weren’t quite clear about exceptional circumstances. Perhaps you can answer that in a minute.

On page 16 of the report, it talks about…. I’m wondering if someone could give me an example. This is the issue of: did contractors…? Was there impartial treatment? If you look at page 16, there is a series of bullets. Key areas of weakness are listed. The second bullet says: “Documentation did not clearly demonstrate that a contractor had not received impartial or non-preferential treatment.”

Can someone describe for me what documentation…? What would it look like? What do you have to do in your report, in your follow-up, whatever it is, to be able to demonstrate that the procurement practices are impartial, open and transparent? So, identified as a key weakness. Apparently, we couldn’t demonstrate that there had not been received impartial or non-preferential treatment. Can someone respond to that?

J. Lemieux: Yes. I’ll give one example. In the case of software, where we have software already purchased and invested in, with annual maintenance and support agreements, we require a sole-source letter from the software manufacturer indicating that they’re the only ones that can modify code or sell or resell their software or the annual service associated to it. So in that case, we’re missing a sole-source letter from the vendor in the file that would specify that.

It could be perceived, without that documentation, that we just gave preferential treatment to that vendor. But in reality, they’re the only ones that can sell that.

S. Bond (Chair): Speaking to the Auditor’s point, which was well made, perception…. People are concerned that procurement be open and transparent — that is, a competitive process is good for British Columbians. Perception of bias is a pretty significant issue.

Are there now practices in place which would ensure that should those files be checked again, or new files, there would be a clear demonstration that the transaction was dealt with in an impartial way?

J. Lemieux: Yes, definitely. In our seven-step process with our operating procedures, it’s clearly identified there — the requirement to have that documentation before moving forward with any direct award.

G. Begg: Just to follow up on something that you raised that perhaps will provide some context in regards to the training. If there are 13 delegated or designated persons with financial authority to approve this, and they require training, and they’ve already completed two modules, what is the length of the training — the final module? Is it a month? Is it a day?

J. Lemieux: It’s a one-day, in-person course.

G. Begg: Which I hope reinforces the need to get this done. It’s not an inordinately lengthy training program. There’s a limited number of people involved. To reinforce the point of the Chair, it’s important that it be done and that a case be made so that it can be advanced with the Public Service Agency so it gets done. The effective date probably should have been yesterday.

J. Lemieux: We’ve been following up regularly with PSA for the training dates that are available. We have a training calendar in place where we track all of the employees’ training progress — what they’ve completed, what they haven’t. This has all been incorporated into our training calendar.

As soon as we can get a course in Vancouver or we have the ability to host a course, we’ll get that scheduled with PSA. But we’re in touch with them regularly.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for that, Garry. Hopefully, we’ll receive back correspondence about when those courses have been scheduled.

[2:30 p.m.]

Just a final question. Have all of the management team undertaken the same training?

B. Lawson: No, we haven’t. We’ve covered off some basic training within the group but no. The 13 core people are the ones that we’re pushing through right now. The follow-up will include the CFO, myself and two other EMC members that have to complete it.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. Well, I think considering the magnitude of the challenges that were outlined here…. Far be it for us to direct your training plan, but I would think it starts at the top and works its way down through the rest of the organization. We’re certainly hopeful. It’s pretty hard if people are busy or they have other priorities.

This really matters. It’s the culture. It’s the expectations, I think, that start from the top, demonstrating that we understand the seriousness of this.

I’m assuming we can take that as a commitment that it won’t simply be the 13 core people, because it’s pretty hard to be the CFO and not really have had that experience of going through that training program that employees are expected to go through. Is there a plan to include the management or senior executive team?

B. Lawson: Yes.

S. Bond (Chair): Colleagues, any other questions today?

J. Yap: One of your 13 staff decides tomorrow to issue a direct award. Will you see it, or does it have to be over a certain level before you see it?

J. Lemieux: Any direct award that is prepared must be approved by myself, for the moment. As soon as my new management team is properly trained, then they’ll be vetting them. But no direct award can move forward without a director approval at this point.

J. Yap: So ongoing, you as the ultimate buck stops with you…. You won’t see every single direct award. It would be layered, I assume. Who in your team will see every direct award?

J. Lemieux: In the future, it will be my category managers. They’ll see them, but ultimately, I need to approve the direct awards. I’ll work that into our process as the managers get up to speed — if they need to bring them to me first before we execute them.

J. Yap: So after all the training is completed and everyone is certified moving forward, you have one person that will be on the pin for being aware of every direct award and aware that it has to have all the documentation and has to be appropriate.

J. Lemieux: Correct. And the quantity of direct awards has vastly dropped. In the past few months, we’ve reported zero direct awards. For the month of September, I think we reported one.

J. Yap: And on the flip side, there have been requests for proposals to contractors in place of the direct award.

J. Lemieux: Yes. Despite the quantities mentioned in the direct awards, we do many solicitations, many that are posted on B.C. Bid. Those outnumber the amount of direct awards.

J. Yap: Right.

Who do you report to, the CFO? Or do you report to Blain?

J. Lemieux: I report to the executive for corporate strategic services, who reports to Blain.

J. Yap: Not to micromanage this, but now that this is a big problem that needs to be solved, what steps will you be taking, Blain, to monitor this?

B. Lawson: On an ongoing basis, as Jerome pointed out, there are zero that have been processed over the summer and one in the month of September. We report on a weekly basis on how many go out. So right now….

There was an example we used on staff awards. Poor planning is not an excuse to file a direct award, so there just won’t be any, John. That’s where we’re headed.

J. Yap: So you will see…. You have a mechanism in place as the CEO to see any trend in any direction, increase or decrease…

B. Lawson: Yes, it’s provided. Every Tuesday morning at our operating meeting, it’s something that we discuss.

J. Yap: …in direct awards.

B. Lawson: Yes, amongst the whole senior group. We don’t want to be back here. No offence.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, we’ll try not to take that personally.

B. Lawson: No, don’t take it personally. No offence.

S. Bond (Chair): Oh good.

B. Lawson: We’re embarrassed by this.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, I mean, certainly our job is not to conduct an interrogation, but this is a…. Our job is to be here to talk about efficiency…

B. Lawson: Absolutely.

[2:35 p.m.]

S. Bond (Chair): …and excellent service on behalf of British Columbians. I think we have received some assurance today that the message was received loud and clear that there are appropriate points of supervision and that, frankly, it starts at the top and that people need to take this seriously.

I think it is important to also, though, say on the record that our goal is not to eliminate exceptional circumstances either. It isn’t the swing of the pendulum and now we’re going to have none. There are circumstances that permit that activity to occur.

As the government, broad writ — again, not one but it spans two — looks at the whole issue of procurement, there is an appropriate place for those direct awards. So we don’t want to see it…. Okay. We’re going to do everything…. Of course, we want them all to be fair and open and transparent, but we also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that there are circumstances that permit that. It’s a matter of documenting and being able to explain why.

We would certainly agree with you that considering staff awards as an emergency just doesn’t cut it. You yourself have noted that.

First of all, we thank you for being here today. There are a lot of hard-working men and women in the organization who are doing their best every day to be great employees and do their job. It’s important now that, moving forward, that training is put in place, that the senior management team recognizes…. We certainly have heard assurances today that the message has been delivered.

You’re right. We would certainly hope not to have you have to come back and visit again. We sense a sincere and significant attempt to get this fixed. We appreciate that. We appreciate that you came and addressed the questions that we have. So thank you for that. We appreciate it.

Again, thank you to the Office of the Auditor General for bringing this to our attention and responding to the concerns that were expressed.

This is a good outcome. Problem identified. Audit done. Plan to fix it in place. That’s what we expect to have happen.

Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. We appreciate it.

I’ll maybe just check with the Auditor. If we have to shift the timing…. We’re not sure if the EHS team is here, but we’ll check. If not…. They’re all here?

Interjections.

S. Bond (Chair): That’s fantastic. If they’re here, we can move ahead. We’re always happy to be ahead of schedule.

We’ll just take a couple of minutes to shift the chairs and get everyone in place here.

The committee recessed from 2:38 p.m. to 2:42 p.m.

[S. Bond in the chair.]

S. Bond (Chair): All right. We will continue with today’s agenda. Today we have, as we’ve focused on follow-up…. This is a committee that has taken that issue very seriously, and I really appreciate that. From the beginning of our first meetings together, we talked a lot about…. It’s fine to have an agency come and present to us, but we want to have ongoing assurance that the recommendations are taken seriously and that there are plausible and credible answers and plans in place.

Today is an opportunity to go back and revisit a work that was released, originally, in February of 2019. It came to our committee on May 2, 2019. We received some follow-up correspondence related to some questions that our members had.

We thought it was important that we have another chance to have a face-to-face dialogue about the important work that’s done under B.C. emergency health services. We, at that time, expressed our gratitude for the men and women who serve. Having said that, some questions remain with the committee.

The Auditor’s report was called Access to Emergency Health Services, released in February of 2019. We’re going to ask….

Carol, did you want to begin with some opening comments? That is our typical pattern. Staff would then make some comments, if that’s appropriate, and then we’ll look to whoever is leading the response.

David, is that you?

D. Byres: I’ll start us off, yes.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. Again, just a gentle reminder that as people are present, they need to be recognized for the Hansard record so that people…. Their names are mentioned in Hansard for the public record.

Carol, would you like to begin?

Updates from Audited Organizations

B.C. EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES

C. Bellringer: Sure. We don’t have any opening comments on the report itself, but I’ll introduce the members of the audit team. They’re here, if there are any questions for them. Sheila Dodds. Peter Nagati and Kevin Keates were the two main audit team members.

I most certainly have appreciated the update from this as well. We’ll do what we can. We have not done any form of formal follow-up since the report was issued. Obviously, we were here for the presentation at the first PAC meeting.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much, Carol. Certainly, as I think we could characterize it, the issue wasn’t with your report. The issue was with our understanding of some of the questions and answers that were provided.

Perhaps we’ll turn it over, then, to David. Perhaps you could introduce yourself and any other team members that are going to participate.

D. Byres: Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much to the committee for having us back today to respond to a number of questions that you have.

[2:45 p.m.]

Before I do introductions, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge and respect the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking peoples as well as the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ Nations, on whose land we’re meeting today, and also just express regrets on behalf of Deputy Minister Stephen Brown. Stephen had a planned trip out of the country so could not be with all of you today. He does send his regrets.

I am David Byres. I’m the associate deputy minister for clinical leadership within the Ministry of Health. A whole number of services that are related to the provision of direct clinical care fall under my portfolio, including our provincial programs and B.C. emergency health services.

With respect to the ministry, our role is to provide oversight of the work that EHS does. Similar to your opening comments, Madam Chair, we, too, are taking this work seriously and have acted on the recommendation from the Office of the Auditor General in terms of the ministry’s role in becoming more involved with municipalities and communities in partnership with BCEHS. You’ll hear more about that today, as well as our role in supporting them to achieve those objectives and providing direction, as required.

We are here today to speak specifically to some of the questions you had, including understanding about the collaborative agreements — what those were, what’s contained within them, how they work, questions that the committee had around communities where those have been established and where they are working well — and other questions that you may have for any of us today.

What I’ll do is…. I’ll go first to my right to introduce Susan Wannamaker. Susan is the executive vice-president with the Provincial Health Services Authority — under which BCEHS, emergency health services, falls. Then I’m going to go to Neil and ask him to introduce himself for the record.

N. Lilley: Hi, my name is Neil Lilley. I’m the senior provincial executive director with B.C. emergency health services, covering the patient care, communications and planning for the organization.

J. Tallon: John Tallon, with BCEHS as the chief medical officer.

N. Kotani: Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Kotani. I’m the chief transformation officer of B.C. emergency health services.

D. Byres: Great. Thank you.

I’m going to turn it over to Susan, who will walk us through our slides. Any of us might join in with her presentation. Certainly we’ll respond to your questions, as you might have them.

I just wanted to check, Madam Chair. Do you want us to go through all the slides, and then you’ll open to questions? Or would you like us to take questions as we proceed?

S. Bond (Chair): No. Our preference would be for you to walk through the entire presentation. We’ll start a speakers list, and that way, we’ll allow you to get through it. Otherwise, we could be interjecting numerous times throughout the presentation.

By the way, welcome to all of you. We appreciate you taking the time to be here this afternoon to answer our questions.

With that, Susan.

S. Wannamaker: Great. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. On behalf of BCEHS and also the Provincial Health Services Authority, we’re very grateful for the opportunity to come back to the committee to provide you further information to your questions. We, like you, take this work very seriously. I think we’ve really tried today to bring subject-matter experts to the committee to support any questions that you have.

Just as an example, Neil Lilley, in his accountability, has responsibility for dispatch as well as our Patient Transfer Network. Neil actually comes to EHS through extensive experience internationally through both the Welsh Ambulance Service as well as, most recently, New Zealand. We really want to showcase the fact that we’re bringing in best-practice international models to our work.

You would have had the presentation by Dr. John Tallon in the past. I just did want to highlight that Dr. Tallon is very much an expert in emergency medicine, also from a pre–hospital care perspective, and has practised that in four different provinces in our country.

Finally, Nancy Kotani, as the chief transformation officer, has really been leading a very complex action plan to look at the integration of BCEHS into health in an integrated fashion. One of the things that Nancy has been leading, over the last three years, is the implementation of community paramedicine as well our advanced-care practitioners in rural and remote communities.

[2:50 p.m.]

We bring a wealth of experience here to support you in any questions that you further have.

Today, as David said, we’ve got three key questions that we have combed through, looking at the transcripts, to provide you further information. I think how we want to start this out is really recognizing that the work we’re going to be doing going forward is very much creating that partnership and collaboration with our fire first responders across the province as we look to enable and ensure that we’re developing a system of care where we’re recognizing the skills and abilities of all our care responders across the care continuum.

As I’ve talked about, first responders play a very important role in the pre-hospital emergency health service system. As you’ll note in the slide, there are critical components to that pre-hospital care that…. Our fire first-responder partners very much support us in the delivery of pre-hospital care, that being CPR, and certainly vehicle extrication and tactical support and support for scene management. That can be very complex and focused and something that we need to work on together as a team.

What we do know is the fact that fire first responders assume various roles community to community. That’s largely based on local decisions with respect to the type of medical calls a service may respond to. There also is a variability in the makeup of the service. There are 294 fire-service-responding communities in our province, of which 7 percent are full-time professional, known as career.

There’s also a group that are a composite that are a mix of professional as well as volunteer. They make up 11 percent. Then the volunteer, which is exceedingly important to the delivery of pre-hospital care, is the predominance of that, and it’s over 82 percent of that 294.

As we start to delve into the difference and the work of the consent agreements, and then as we are transcending that into collaboration agreements, I wanted to just highlight for the committee that of the 294 fire first-responder groups across the province, we have currently 276, or 94 percent, consent agreements across the province with our fire first-responder partners. We provided that information to you in the appendix.

What I wanted to really make clear for the committee is — you’ll see in the deck — that there was discussion around consent agreements and then discussions around collaboration agreements. The consent agreements actually have been well established with BCEHS and our fire first responders for over 20 years. They were originally put in place as a partnership, as really focusing on an indemnification of first fire response by B.C. Ambulance in the field and, through that, a focus of really clearly understanding that fire first responders would accept direction from paramedics at the scene.

Over the course of time, given the facts, we have seen significant change in the complexity of, certainly, the demand in our system. Year over year, over the last five years, as an example, we have seen a 2 percent increase in our call volume across BCEHS.

We know that there’s an increasing demand. We know that there’s an increasing complexity in the type of calls and the response required by our patients and families across the system. As a result, this really necessitated us to take a look at how we can improve our use of our finite resources across the system and better understand and focus the roles of fire first response in pre-hospital care and, thus, the move into more focused and more, I think, up-to-date collaboration agreements that we have started over the course of the last number of years.

[2:55 p.m.]

As I’ve said, the consent agreements have been in place for a number of years. This really does acknowledge that the fire first-responder program is voluntary to the local government and the fire service. It really at all times remains the decision of the fire first responder to respond to events if notified.

Regardless of whether we have consent agreements in place or not, we continue to call fire first responders in those municipalities where they’re not in place, because we completely understand how that’s important for the care and service to the patients and families that we serve.

What I also wanted to talk about here was: as we’ve moved into the new reality of collaboration agreements, what do they look like, and what has that meant? Those have really come into play since PHSA has become part of PHSA in 2014. That was when there was a transfer of the program from government. Again, that was an intended focus to try to look to integrate BCEHS into the health sector to ensure that we are focusing on that continuum of care.

As a result, given that the focus is on how we can modernize these agreements and move from the old indemnification focus to a focus that is about collaboration….

The committee had asked: frame the key deliverables within a collaboration agreement, and what does that look like? I understand that we provided an example of one of those collaboration agreements to the committee, and there were a lot of questions that came as a result. I believe you had received the past Vancouver city collaboration agreement.

The key components of a collaboration agreement that are different than a consent agreement…. It further clarifies the responsibility and expectations of both parties. It strengthens the medical oversight requirement. And as I talked about, as we understand how care complexity and acuity are increasing across our system, as we look to ensure that we are providing standardized, evidence-based care, medical oversight is keenly required to enable that best possible patient and family experience.

The other opportunity with a collaboration agreement is to look to how we bring our partners together in quality reviews. We, again, are a system in pre-hospital care and how that is important for us to work together, to learn together and to improve our care and service together.

I think also, very clearly, we need to recognize that it’s not a one-size-fits-all for our province and that we have complexity and challenges across our province based on rural remote and the differences that that brings for how we deliver a complex service and work with our partners in fire first response.

The other key component of this is to ensure that local government is involved in these agreements, ensuring that there is a key signatory to that agreement based on the local government leadership.

Finally, I think a very important component to that is including the fact that these agreements have a time-stamp. They are three years in the running, which means that we have to have an ongoing dialogue, connection and collaboration with our fire first responders and our municipalities to understand their issues, their challenges, what we can work together on strongly and how we actually continue to improve our service. That is a key component of these agreements.

[3:00 p.m.]

As you can appreciate, given the numbers of fire first-responder agreements across the province, this is an important process for us to lead. As such, we were very pleased with the Auditor General’s recommendation No. 4 and how we can work in partnership with our municipalities as well as with our ministry program partners to move this forward.

To give you an example of some of the work that happens in preparation to a responder agreement, it really brings BCEHS, the local responder, the local community together to really understand and do an assessment of the group and the capacity available there, and then, through that, understanding the existing gaps and then working together with local government to understand how we can address those gaps. Through that, and through an ongoing commitment to the agreement, is how we continue to offer support to the local community, to the local fire first responders, to really support that partnership and, again, to how we continue to look at that partnership over time as things change.

One of the important things that we continue to do…. I know, in looking at the transcript from the past, that there was a lot of discussion about how we’ve intersected and how we’re working with First Nations across our province. So I wanted to actually bring a couple of highlights here because, again, this recognizes how we came together, recognized the gap, and how we’re actually supporting the community and our First Nations community in doing that.

As an example, we have a first responder program manager who also is our Indigenous health liaison. He’s been collaborating with the First Nations Health Authority over the last year to deliver first-responder training in Terrace, Port Alberni and, most recently, in Prince George to approximately 60 individuals from 18 First Nations communities. That is ongoing. But that just gives you a snapshot of some of that collaboration and capacity-building.

The second key connection is the fact that we’ve piloted a program where local paramedics are trained to become first responder instructors and support isolated communities by delivering that training in the community — again, about creating that capacity to support our patients and their families. The first session of this pilot is going to be delivered later this month, and it’ll be to a First Nations community in Prophet River. This is near Fort Nelson.

D. Byres: I just want to add for the committee, as well, that what Susan is describing in the ongoing collaboration with the municipalities in creating the agreement and understanding their needs in response to the Auditor General’s report is that government and the ministry needed to have a greater role in that process — that the ministry is also there for those discussions and that work in collaboration with the municipalities.

S. Wannamaker: I think another good example of that is that one of the first opportunities we took with that partnership with the ministry was a presentation that we did collectively at the recent UBCM, where we engaged in dialogue with municipalities and hearing their feedback. This will actually help us move forward in how we continue to work with our communities in collaboration. In fact, Mr. Lilley will be connecting with the Central Okanagan over the next little while to do some focused connection and engagement with some of the intricacies in that municipality.

Slide 8 actually gives you an overview of some of the structures that we have in place to really move forward on consulting with our fire first responder organizations. There is a regional administrative advisory committee in place. We meet regularly with the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C., as well as the Greater Victoria Fire Chiefs Association. Coming out of our connection and engagement at UBCM with a number of municipalities, we heard strongly the great need to have a rural first responders working group. This is just underway, and, again, it’s how we will continue to have that ongoing engagement and then start to work on things together.

[3:05 p.m.]

Finally, as David had said — how we continue to connect with municipal and electoral governments and representatives in the regional districts. Again, we had that strong connection through UBCM.

What I really want to highlight in the next slide is the fact that this is about consultation. This is not about the BCEHS directive creating the work. We need to work together with our municipalities and very strongly focus on how we strengthen areas of medical oversight from a quality-of-care perspective; from our abilities to strengthen those quality reviews, as I’ve talked about earlier; how we set clear expectations for all of the parties in this agreement; and then again, how we use, coordinate, maximize and optimize the resources that we have available to us.

We recognize that we have finite resources, both within fire and within our BCEHS, and also across the health sector. It’s imperative that we work together to use those resources as wisely and strongly as we can.

From a medical oversight perspective, given the large number of first responders, I did want to highlight that since we presented to the last committee, we’ve actually created a partnership with Iridia Medical, who provides medical oversight to over 100 fire first-responder agencies in the province. The opportunity that that affords us is to enable standardization and to strengthen that medical oversight, working with fire first responders.

The next three slides actually showcase, based on the feedback we had from the committee, where we have agreements in place and how they’ve been working to focus on the needs of the community.

The first example is one that showcases Bamfield. Bamfield is a remote community where we actually do not have a BCEHS station in play. In 2016, the first responders, as well as the regional district, identified that they had a significant challenge of being able to support transfer of patients to a higher level of care. Based on the provincial regulations, a class 4 driver’s licence is required to enable that emergency medical responder to transport patients, and volunteer first responders licensed at that EMA FR level had no appropriate vehicle to transport.

We worked in partnership with Bamfield. As a result, we have been able to establish a first-responder transport policy, where we’ve worked with local fire first responders to train them. We’ve actually supported them through use of an ambulance vehicle for them to use. Through that, we have enabled, through our indemnification and our support, the ability for them to transport to a higher level of care.

I think this really shows that…. The work that we’ve done in Bamfield is really tailoring a standard approach but at the needs of a community, to be responsive to those needs.

The next example we’ve brought forward is Prince George. We recognized, as has been discussed early on, that in moving forward with a consent agreement in Prince George, there were some challenges related to that. But in 2010, following collaboration and engagement between the district manager and fire chief in Prince George, a consent agreement has been enabled. Since then, what we’ve seen is continued focus and engagement on how we better prepare, on how we better plan and on how we actually work on the ground as fire first responders and B.C. Ambulance.

[3:10 p.m.]

Ongoing, we have our BCEHS dispatch and fire dispatch service working collaboratively to update and look at any issues in play. They’re also focusing on how, operationally, they’re working together to manage challenges. What has been successful, based on the consent agreement to date, is close working and enabled management of emergencies such as flooding, mill incidents and airport incidents.

The final example is that of Vancouver, a busy urban metro area, where fire and B.C. EHS have worked together for years but never had a collaboration agreement in place. Finally, in January 2016, the document that would have been sent to you previously was enabled to really address the crisis of the opioid situation in Vancouver. Following the ministerial order, this agreement really helped to focus and support fire first responders to deliver naloxone, or Narcan, to overdose victims to prevent death. This was really a response to a public health emergency to allow us to best utilize resources on the scene, again tailoring a collaboration agreement to support the needs specifically in a population. This is something that we would see going forward — and the strength of our collaboration agreements.

Before I go into the last slide, I thought it might be appropriate just to give you an update of where things are at as it relates to our work of the Auditor General’s report and just to give you some highlights of some of the work that we’re continuing to lead, many of this in partnership with our first responders and our municipalities.

The first is that we are continuing on our work related to our performance, and we are on track to create a public-facing report card, if you will, by the end of March 2020. At the same time, we have also been working collaboratively with our regional health authorities and our hospitals, and through our patient transfer network, we’ve gone live with a transport dashboard. These are in our hospitals. This is helping us better streamline and focus on how we transport our patients but, actually, then, how we support patient flow within our hospitals and how we ensure that we are getting our crews back on the ground as fast as we can. Again, that’s helping in the pre-hospital system for us to respond appropriately to the calls. That’s something that we’re very proud of and just went live in September.

The other piece is that we’ve placed six advanced-care paramedics in rural communities. This is really piggybacking on some of the success we’ve seen in community paramedicine. We are proud to say that we have 127 community paramedics in 99 communities across the province, and the work that they’ve done is exceptional, both from seeing patients in the home to doing capacity-building in communities as well as to do response into the community based on urgent need.

The acute care paramedics are being focused on key communities, and we’re actually working with the University of Northern B.C. on an evaluation of this to ensure, based on these roles working in the community, that we’re making the best use and that there aren’t any other gaps. That evaluation is ongoing.

I did want to highlight that in the north, for example, we have positions that will be going into Prince Rupert and Valemount. Currently those two advanced-care practitioners are finalizing their acute paramedic training, and we expect them to be in their new positions in early 2020.

[3:15 p.m.]

We also have a position in Fort St. John that we’re actively recruiting in partnership with Fort St. John. This actually came up at the table at UBCM, and we’re working on how we can strategically think about Fort St. John being a great place to recruit for one of our advanced-care paramedics. We also have positions in Campbell River, on Saltspring and in Cranbrook. We expect that the evaluation will be completed over the next year, and happy to bring back that evaluation response as part of this.

As I’ve said, through our work with Iridia Medical, we’ve created that strong sense of connection with fire first response as it relates to a medical adviser. Again, that’s going to strengthen our medical oversight as well as our focus on standardized, evidence-based care.

We also, with the support of Lower Mainland municipalities, have established, in principal, a data-sharing plan to be trialed at E-Comm and Surrey fire dispatch to have a better opportunity to share response data. I think that has been one of the challenges — that at BCEHS, we have our data, and fire have their data. The opportunity that we have, working together as a system, is integrating that data and looking where there are opportunities for us to improve as a system.

The other focus is that we actually have established a joint working group to review the consent and collaboration agreements, to clarify roles and responsibilities. This is with ourselves and the fire chiefs of B.C. Nancy Kotani will be co-chairing that with Phil Lemire, who is the president of the Fire Chiefs Association.

We are going to continue our work with supporting fire-response training in First Nations communities.

Again, the other piece of work that we’re doing is how we continue to support training and capacity-building in advanced CPR, because we recognize that supporting that basic life support is critical and time-stamped in order to save lives.

Just in closing, we want to thank you again for the opportunity to bring forward answers to your questions. We look forward to working together in collaboration with our ministry partners, our municipalities and our fire first responders to really enable a highly resilient, reliable and quality system of care for pre-hospital — and integrating that into our health care system. Thank you, and happy to open up to questions.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much. We appreciate the presentation.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have a couple of questions that are different, but the first one might have a follow-up. I don’t know how long the Chair will let me ask the questions.

S. Bond (Chair): Just go ahead.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. I’m still a little bit confused about the difference between a collaboration and a consent agreement. So that’s the first, kind of, general question.

With regards to the purpose of first-responder consent agreements, there’s a statement on your slide: “Under an agreement, fire first responders accept direction from paramedics on the scene.” Then I looked at the graph. Does that mean — because I’m from North Van — that the city of North Van and the district of West Van will not accept direction from paramedics on the scene, but the district of North Vancouver will?

S. Wannamaker: Because we have an agreement in place?

J. Thornthwaite: Right. You don’t have an agreement in place. What is the reason for the difference between the two North Vancouvers?

S. Wannamaker: Just to clarify on your first question, which is about the consent versus the collaboration agreements — I’ll get my team to jump in as well — the consent agreements have been in place for a number of years and were firstly meant to indemnify the first responders based on the work that they were doing in the field. But it did actually call out the fact that the paramedics would be giving that.

[3:20 p.m.]

The collaboration agreements are the next generation of the consent agreements and are really meant to further the connection and the collaboration with fire first responders, with municipalities, to enable a better system of care and to clearly understand roles and responsibilities. I think it’s a generational difference. It’s meant to be more focused and also meant to be time-stamped from a collaboration agreement.

From the fact…. As I said earlier, where we don’t have agreements in place, I don’t think that there have been challenges related to direction, non-direction in the field. I haven’t heard of that. Perhaps one of the team can jump in, but I haven’t heard that that’s an issue because we don’t have an agreement in place.

N. Lilley: Actually, the relationship between the fire first-responders and the paramedics on the ground is a very good relationship. Paramedics are very appreciative of the work they do, and they have a very good understanding and working relationship on who has ownership of what in relation to either medical events or whether it be fire or search and rescue events.

That relationship has always been very good. What we’re trying to do is improve that relationship more on the management and higher level by developing the policies and procedures and the sharing of data, that side.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for that. I get the more formalize-and-update desire moving forward.

Specifically about the North Vancouver issue, I’m just wondering why there is…. I recognize it was 2003, I guess, that the one was signed in the district of North Van. But then the same ambulance paramedics in North Vancouver would also be going to the district of North Vancouver and the city. Yet it says that in the district, they have an agreement. In the city, they don’t.

That’s my question, specifically, about my own municipality.

S. Wannamaker: To your point, I think that’s where…. We’ve got a history of these agreements being placed over a number of years. Now we need to get to a system where we have collaboration agreements across all our communities, and that’s the work that we need to advance.

I can’t speak to what was happening in the past. I can only suggest what we need to do is move strongly forward to ensure that we have those agreements in place and that we’re working strongly with the municipalities on that. At the same time, as Neil has said, we’ve got, usually, great relationships happening on the ground with our fire first-responders and our paramedics.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you. I’ll probably ask that question to the firefighters when I see them next.

My other question was about the Vancouver one. As your presentation indicated, it was basically launched because of the opioid crisis in 2016. That’s great. It sounds like that’s been working really well. I’m assuming that firefighters do not transport to hospital, though. You’ve got the truck that comes. Even if they’re reviving, it’s the truck that comes.

Interjection.

J. Thornthwaite: The ambulance; that’s what I meant. Not the fire truck; I meant the ambulance.

My question is: if an ambulance or a paramedic revives somebody from an overdose and that person does not get transported to hospital, is that recorded as an overdose?

N. Lilley: On two accounts, it’s recorded as an overdose. Within what we call our computer aided dispatch system, which is the computer system where all our 911 calls are logged, that would be recorded as an overdose from the outset, based on the call triaging of the 911 call by all call-takers.

Subsequent to that, after a paramedic arrives on scene, whether they convey the patient to hospital or not, they still complete a patient clinical record, and those are now electronic. We would complete that and record it. The patient’s condition would be recorded on there as an overdose as well, but it would record as a refusal of treatment or a refusal to transport.

J. Thornthwaite: Just to follow up on that, the data with regards to the number of overdoses is not different depending on whether or not that individual makes it to hospital or not.

N. Lilley: No. Absolutely not. We share that data with BCCDC as well. We don’t….

J. Thornthwaite: The coroner?

N. Lilley: Yeah. With the coroner’s record. We share the input of the data as it’s taken and triaged by 911 call-takers. We identify which ones are actually overdoses and not at the outset. Then we also record the patient care records of all patients, whether they travel to hospital or not. It may not be identified at the outset of the call that it was an overdose, but it may be identified on scene.

[3:25 p.m.]

A classic example may be somebody in cardiac arrest or respiratory arrest. It might not be identified on the call that it was an overdose. We will record that data afterwards, and we share that with CDC to make sure that we’re truing up the data to fully understand the true reflection of the overdose calls.

J. Thornthwaite: That was going to be my next question. I do understand from first-responders that I’ve talked to — not in Vancouver but in other areas — that an overdose can be recorded…. Even if they suspect an overdose, it can be recorded as, say, a cardiac arrest. So the number of overdoses could potentially be underestimated because of how they are categorized. Is that correct?

N. Lilley: Yeah, that’s correct. The initial cause may differ from the end triage — the end, sort of, categorization of the patient. But we always go on the last part of that call, which would be the patient clinical record and the paramedic’s impression. So if it was identified as an overdose on scene, then that is what we use as our overdose numbers, not just the initial triaging.

J. Thornthwaite: Then just a last question. That sounds pretty organized, obviously, in Vancouver and maybe in other metro areas, but what about rural areas, when the first person that’s getting to that person is not a paramedic?

N. Lilley: Sorry, can you say that again?

J. Thornthwaite: What happens if the first-responder that’s getting to that patient and revives that person, or not, is not a paramedic? Would that data still make it into the system for overdoses?

N. Lilley: Yes. Again, we work off a provincial system, and all our calls are categorized in the same way in the initial outset. But yeah, absolutely. If it was recognized at any time that that patient was an overdose system, there are two ways to alter that. We could actually do what we call time-stamp in our computer system by the dispatcher that has dispatched the resource to further clarify it was an overdose later on. That’s been a policy which has been put in place since the opioid crisis because we really wanted to track the number of true overdoses, not just the initial triaging.

The fire first-responders also complete patient care records, which are shared with BCEHS, so we can check on that data as well. Even if a patient is revived, we always send the resource to those patients even if they’re refusing to transport. We always go, as a paramedic on scene, anyway, and check on that patient before they are released.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much to all of you for being here and really listening to our questions and being here to provide us with information. It’s really important to us as a committee.

Obviously, we’re here on behalf of the whole province. We’re representing the whole province, but I really appreciate that we can’t go at this with a cookie-cutter approach. If I think about just my constituency, I have career, volunteer, composite and military fire departments. I have urban, suburban and rural communities. I have three Indigenous communities, four municipalities, a base commander and a federal prison. So I totally get that we have to really sit down and work out what’s going to work for each community. I really fully understand that.

So I have a few questions, if that’s okay, Chair. Thank you.

You were talking about even if there isn’t an agreement in place, you will still send the information out. One of the things we talked about at the last committee was what information is getting sent out. So can you just give us a bit more detail, because it’s your organization that gets the call. How often does that information go straight to the local fire first-responders?

One of the issues that we’ve noticed in our communities was that there had been a shift and that our local first-responders were not getting all of the calls that they used to get. So can you give us an update on that?

S. Wannamaker: Sure. I think I’ll ask Neil to take that question, because he was very much involved with the implementation of the clinical response model and what that looks like.

N. Lilley: Okay. I think I understood the question. I think you’re asking around the changes in how many notifications we’re making to the fire service first-responders since the introduction of the clinical response model.

Historically, just to note, even prior to the clinical response model and the subsequent, none of the way in which we triage our calls through medical priority dispatch has changed. Neither has any of the skills of the paramedics or what they’re allowed to do changed in any way. We’ve just changed the categorization of our patients. Previously, we always used to automatically dispatch fire first-responders to around 48 percent of all calls. They were what we called emergency calls.

[3:30 p.m.]

We only ever categorized our patients into two different categories. They’re either what we called emergency, lights and sirens; or non-emergency, without lights and sirens. We always used to respond to those patients and always took those patients to hospital. It was what I call an old ambulance service sort of system. We needed to adapt to that and change.

What we did with the clinical response model was we then changed the triaging of our patients to separate them into six different categories, which are six colours. What we really wanted to do was highlight those really high-acuity ones where minutes, even seconds, really do count — your cardiac arrest, your respiratory arrest. They are what’s in our purple category, which represents about 2 percent of our call volume. We automatically dispatch the fire service to those calls, as we did before.

The next category we have is a red category. Again, they’re our life-threatening calls where seconds and minutes count. A classic example would be an elderly person with previous cardiac history experiencing chest pains. So 24 percent of our call volume. We still automatically dispatch the fire service to all those calls.

We’ve changed nothing in our high-acuity calls. The changes have come in our mid-category, what we call an orange category. The only change which we’ve made in dispatching fire first responders to those calls is that, if an ambulance is going to arrive on the scene within ten minutes of when the 911 call was placed — so from call answer to ambulance arriving on the scene — then we don’t send the fire service to those calls.

What we wanted to do…. We just want to make sure that we’re dispatching our resources more appropriately and keeping precious resources available to respond to those high-acuity calls as quickly as possible. The orange category is quite a big category outset. It’s about 30 percent of our call volume. Then our yellow is 44 percent of our call volume. So 75 percent of our call volume really isn’t what we’d class as a life-threatening emergency.

It’s the small in number. We don’t want to overcommit resources to the low-acuity calls. We want to make sure some of those resources are available to get to those purple calls as quickly as possible. And you had seen from some of the results now in the clinical response model, a majority of those purple calls, since the introduction, have dramatically reduced in response.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that.

So for the orange and yellow, if you can get there in ten minutes, you don’t call fire first responders.

N. Lilley: Just for the orange calls.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Just the orange. Not the yellow.

N. Lilley: Yeah. Fire first responders previously never used to respond to the yellow calls either.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Okay. So the change is in the orange.

N. Lilley: Exactly.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Going through the process of creating collaborative agreements, if a municipality and a local fire department says, “We would like you to still send us the orange,” can you reach that agreement with them on a community-by-community basis?

N. Lilley: We can. It does change slightly. One of the challenges we have in dispatching the fire resources, for example, is that when we set different rules for different municipalities, it can become quite difficult because of the computer system. A classic example is E-Comm, for example, will dispatch to, I think, around 20 municipalities. Surrey fire service dispatch a large number of different municipalities over on the Island and also on the Lower Mainland. So when we’re doing that, we just need to ensure that our systems mirror each other, because what we don’t want is to make slight changes for different municipalities which affect other municipalities as well.

What we’re doing is working very closely with the fire service departments and the dispatch systems, both their IT teams, on doing more in-depth analysis on how we can change our system to potentially change for the fire services, share the data with them. But we’ve got to work with that and with them.

D. Byres: Adding to that — another “yes, but” — would be that we would continue to monitor response times across all the categories, because we would want to also ensure, depending on the size and the resources available in that community, that we’re not negatively impacting the high-acuity calls by doing so, and continue that dialogue with the municipality if our data starts to show an issue.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): So philosophically, you’re not opposed to sending out orange calls to fire departments. It’s a technical barrier that you’re experiencing.

S. Wannamaker: I think part of it, as Neil talked about, is the system piece. We would have to ensure that the integrity of the system…. I think it gets to your point, MLA Dean, that some of the work we need to do is really understand municipalities. Some of the things we heard at UBCM, for example, is that municipalities want to go with the orange calls. Some municipalities do not, right? So we have to recognize that complexity.

[3:35 p.m.]

Also, there is a financial issue that some of the municipalities have to bear, based on that, as well. So I think it bears us further in dialogue. As David had said, we have to continue to monitor the impact to the calls. Strategically, we can do that much better if we’ve got data-sharing agreements to actually see what that looks like. That’s where we want to focus with the collaboration agreements.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Okay, so we have a commitment there, like that ongoing monitoring and dialogue about: “Well, actually, ambulances aren’t getting to our community in ten minutes, and we’ve had these examples.” Okay.

I’m wondering, also, about federal jurisdiction in military communities — like military bases, for example. Is there a different expectation of provincial services and responses in federal areas? Or whether a federal responsibility is, like, where we’ve got munitions or where we’ve got some dangerous things…. Or is it not? Is it, again, just agreed on a local basis?

S. Wannamaker: Nancy, do you want to take that?

N. Kotani: We recognize the jurisdiction in terms of military installations and compounds and federal…. Another example would be the national parks. So we try to work together with that, recognizing that in some areas, we may not have access and we would meet the…. Just as we do on some worksites, there would be a transfer to BCEHS at an appropriate spot.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Could you tell us what the terms of reference are for the rural first responders group? What are you expecting that group to do?

S. Wannamaker: Neil, I’m going to look to you, because that’s something that’s going to….

N. Lilley: Okay. That hasn’t started yet. I’ll give you some background as to how that did start and some of the work which we have been doing with the fire first responders.

I actually presented to the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. in Penticton, in June this year, to a room of around 85 to 90 fire chiefs. It was at that point it became very evident to myself that there was a larger proportion of fire chiefs from the rural areas compared to the urban areas which we needed to engage in. They shared very similar concerns.

At that meeting was where I agreed to set up a separate working group with the rural fire chiefs to work through some of their challenges, similar to what we’d already put in place in the Lower Mainland with a regional administrators advisory committee. I committed at that meeting to set up a working group.

I’ve been subsequently working with the president of the Fire Chiefs Association of B.C. to get a true representation from different areas around the province. Only last week I was at the regional district of Central Okanagan to discuss it and get one of their members to sit on the working group.

We’re hoping to start that working group within the next couple of weeks. One of the first things will be to jointly work through a terms of reference rather than us dictate the terms of reference. It’s our group. I would prefer it to be engaged with everybody around the table to work through what those terms of reference would be and how that meeting is going to shape, and we’ll work through our challenges.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I appreciate that.

I’ve just got a couple more. Is that okay?

Getting back to the OAG report, recommendation 4 is around collaboration and creating these agreements. The response in the report from your agency acknowledged that, but it doesn’t give a timeline. Have you set any targets around timeline and targets — if we want to get 50 percent of them done by this time? Anything like that yet?

N. Kotani: We don’t have that established time frame at this point. Part of this is…. I think what we’re trying to do at this stage is get an appropriate kind of grouping, if you will, between rural and remote services and metro and urban, and then look to see what we can do in terms of trying to come to, first off, an agreement on what would be foundational or a template for a collaboration agreement from both rural and urban municipalities — and then look to see what we might be able to establish with respect to a time frame, I think, and a target. We’re just not there yet.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Wannamaker: At the same time, just to highlight, we actually do have an engagement plan that’s been structured out and has been time-stamped to move forward. One of the key milestones was at UBCM and beginning that engagement with the municipalities. Certainly, we’ve documented the feedback of that. We actually have a document that frames what the engagement is going to look like and time-stamped over the next number of months.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Okay. My last question. On page 2 of the agreement with Vancouver, it says, under F(iii), “collaborate, to the extent that BCEHS considers appropriate, with agencies, municipalities and other organizations,” etc. What would happen if there was a disagreement, if an agreement couldn’t be reached between the fire first responders, the municipality and BCEHS in trying to create that document that would govern that relationship for a three-year period?

N. Kotani: I think you raise one of the great questions in this whole process for us, in the sense that…. Why we seek the support of and we’re grateful for the recommendation of the involvement of the Ministry of Health in this is because we are on unique ground, in between having municipal accountability for the fire service and PHSAs, responsibility for B.C. emergency health services and how we come to some consensus if we can. Or how do we address any points at which we disagree?

In most cases, we are able to find a solution that works for us together, when we talk about how we look at day-to-day operational issues. But from a policy perspective, that is a challenge. It’s one that the Auditor General’s report recognized and one that we’re keen to work with the ministry and the municipalities to find a solution.

D. Byres: I would just add, while we work through what that kind of formal framework would look like, B.C. emergency health services is governed underneath a board of directors and has a CEO. So there is a process that exists today where they could actually contact the CEO or through the board to ask for a review or express concern — and also directly to the ministry, given our role in terms of the oversight and direction we provide the board and the agency — while we work through what can become the final process and framework to manage this. But there is an existing mechanism for a review and for those issues to be escalated to, if not resolved satisfactorily.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much, David.

B. Ma: Thank you so much for being here. I’m really glad that we’re able to get answers to some of the questions that maybe we had difficulty getting answers to previously.

In the interest of time…. Actually, Jane already asked my question. It was, in particular, about the absence of the agreements for West Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver. So I will allow that to move on.

R. Sultan: I think this whole afternoon illustrates be careful what you wish for. I held up this anonymous document with no date, no addressee, no signature. It didn’t say anything in response to our previous inquiries. And believe me, politicians are expert at memos that don’t say anything. Now today I get a 13-page legal contract with Vancouver, plus five pages of appendix, a four-page listing in very fine print of approximately 300 communities, from the smallest Indigenous village all the way to the city of Vancouver, and whether or not they have a collaboration agreement.

As Jane and Bowinn have already noted, five communities pop right out at the top of the page: Burnaby; the city of North Vancouver; the district of West Vancouver — that’s cutting close to home; Coquitlam; New Westminster; and Delta. For whatever reason, which probably will go unexplained, these people do not have a collaboration agreement.

[3:45 p.m.]

My hypothesis is they have robust, macho fire departments that aren’t going to take orders from anybody, and they work for the mayor, and that’s the long and the short of it. Therefore, I plan to have a chat with at least four of these mayors that I know personally, saying: “Get with the program, folks. It’s 2019, and the old-fashioned way of running your fire departments is not consistent with the good delivery of services, as our experts have amply demonstrated today.”

I commend the Ministry of Health, the B.C. emergency health services and the Provincial Health Services Authority for having laid it all out in, perhaps, excessive detail. Thank you.

D. Byres: You’re quite right. The consent agreements were agreements that were a little more one-sided and really intended to indemnify the participants and the providers, as Susan has articulated.

Now we’re really, actually, trying to sit down and have a conversation with each of the communities. As Neil has also articulated, not all of them want to work in the same way, so we’re trying to balance having a coordinated provincial system while, at the same time, creating an agreement that meets the local needs. It’s a fine dance that we continue on.

R. Sultan: My counsel to you would be very tough and say: “I’m sorry, folks. The game is over. We’re running a provincial health system here. You have an important role to play, but it is a minor role. You adapt to us. We don’t adapt to you.” That’s my suggestion.

D. Byres: We appreciate that.

S. Bond (Chair): I know Garry wants to go, but I’m just going to build off of Ralph’s comments. The reluctance isn’t on one side. It’s not just Fire that is concerned. There are EHS concerns, as well, about how to operate on the ground.

Let’s just grapple for a moment with a consent agreement versus a collaboration agreement. The consent agreement, basically, is to hold a person harmless if there’s some sort of issue. That is not a collaboration agreement. It’s a big leap from consent to collaboration, because the purpose is different.

Consent agreement — of course they’re in place, because it indemnifies a person. It protects them. It holds them harmless if something goes badly. Is that correct?

D. Byres: That’s correct.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. A collaboration agreement is about operation, I would assume, on the ground. One of the most colourful comments — and Ralph has got a history of them…. What we’re trying to sort out here is, as he described it, “the drag race down the street,” where you’ve got fire trucks, an ambulance and more people than you know what you’re dealing with.

As we talked about last time, the person in distress and their family don’t stop to check the colour of the uniform and who is who. They want the best possible care for their loved ones. Maybe the question here is: is a collaboration agreement a document where people, after talking to one another, are looking at expertise, whether you’re fire or ambulance, the public dollar…?

Ralph’s point was “the drag race down the street.” People look out their windows, and there are two fire trucks, an ambulance and everyone under the sun there. So when you talk about who answers — the orange, the yellow, whatever they are — all we’re asking, and British Columbians are too, is: how do you rationalize service on the ground? Nobody looks up and goes: “Oh, you’re from Fire. I would rather an ambulance was dealing with me.” They don’t do that.

We’re comparing apples and oranges, to be fair, when we’re talking about consent and collaboration. They are two different things. Of course, everybody has a consent agreement, because they want to protect firefighters or others from the risk they’re being indemnified.

The issue at stake that we’ve had now two meetings to talk about is that British Columbians expect there to be more collaboration and a focus on patient care. Is there a willingness, both on fire and EHS, on both parties…? Are both parties willing to come to the table, stop having what looks like turf and all those other kinds of things and actually put the patient at the centre of it, to say: “You know what? If a fire truck gets there first and they can actually manage whatever the medical situation is on the ground, are those the kinds of things we’re going to sort out and continue to press for in a collaboration agreement?”

[3:50 p.m.]

That’s the heart of the issue that I think we’ve been trying to get to for two meetings. Can someone tell us?

D. Byres: That’s exactly the issue that we’re trying to get to and, as Neil has articulated, to do that in a way that also considers the resources so we make sure that those available resources that have the right kind of training, especially for those high-acuity calls, are available and can respond quickly, especially when it’s life-threatening.

We’re working with communities. And as you heard, some communities want to be responding and called out on the orange. Some don’t. So we’re just working through that to make something that actually works and can respond to those needs across the community that involves both fire and ambulance and gets rid of the turf. Exactly as you have articulated, it’s about getting the right level of service to the patient when we need it and protecting the resources for those higher-acuity calls that really need the fast response.

That’s part of the dialogue that’s occurring municipality by municipality and why the ministry is also involved in those conversations, along with the fire first responders and B.C. Ambulance Service.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, thank you for that, David. I think that no one here is suggesting that people who do not have the expertise to respond to a medical call should be dealing with it simply because they’re first on scene. We’re not suggesting that, and it’s not our job to tinker and do those things anyway.

To Ralph’s point, at some point is there more than a “let’s talk about it”? Is there a cost-benefit analysis that looks at how response is dealt with in British Columbia, that looks at a more systemwide approach, that has a little more oomph behind it than: “Okay, we want to talk to you about this”?

At some point, it is about resources. It is about financial resources. It is about people on the ground. Most importantly, it’s about the person who is impacted by whatever the medical circumstance is. And there does need to be a collaborative approach and a sense that if you are trained, you should work to the full scope of your training, because that’s where costs escalate out of control in health care. People are not utilized to their full scope. And we’ve certainly seen that with the back and forth.

You know, I admit that I’m from the previous government, and this was a very difficult conversation all the time. It was EHS, and it was fire, and it was health. At some point there needs to be an overarching discussion about what’s best for British Columbians, and we need to be willing to say, “This is what we expect of you,” rather than: “We’re going to keep talking about it for generations.” So maybe give us just your response to that, and then I’m going to let Garry wrap the question session here. So is there a response to that?

D. Byres: Well, you asked a lot of things. I think, overall, you have articulated well what the goal is and where we’re trying to get to overall.

In terms of the cost-benefit analysis, there certainly is evidence that has informed both the current model and how calls are triaged. I haven’t seen…. I would have to ask Susan to respond to whether EHS has engaged on that. We haven’t done that yet with the new system being in place, although we are working, as she mentioned, with some of our academic and research partners to do, now, an evaluation of that process. We’re just trying to work through and get to exactly what you have talked about.

Then, based on the recommendations from the Auditor General’s report, there’s one obviously, as all of you are well aware, directed more to the ministry about our involvement and oversight. That’s part of, kind of, a bit of the level set we’re bringing now to the conversation as we move forward in response to those recommendations.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for…. I think we needed to grapple with consent versus collaborative. They’re apples and oranges, and we need to actually set that aside and look at the whole, look at the focus on patient care, limited resources, “how do you get there quickly?” and “who should do what?”

If that’s what we’re talking about being captured in a collaboration agreement, I think that’s the bottom line of what we’re trying to get to. We’re not going to…. It’s easy to dance around this issue because there’s a lot of turf. There are a lot of things at stake here, but that shouldn’t stop us from getting to the optimum care for British Columbians.

D. Byres: That’s right.

S. Bond (Chair): It really doesn’t matter to most of them. If their loved one is in distress, they’re just going to want somebody on the scene who knows what they’re doing.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think we have to come to that place where we’re prepared to tackle that, those barriers that are put in place. I think what you’re saying to us today is: “Yes, we’re working our way. We’re transitioning away from simply….” Of course we want people to be indemnified, but that, to me, is an administrative agreement rather than a practice agreement. There’s a big difference there. I certainly appreciate Jane saying, “This doesn’t make sense,” because it doesn’t. They’re apples and oranges.

Garry, over to you to ask the last questions.

G. Begg: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for helping put us into focus, because that’s exactly why we’re here, or that’s what brought us back here — the idea that the care that is delivered should be centred on the patient, not on the supplier of the medical care.

Emergency medical care or an emergency response to a perceived medical care need runs the gamut — right? — from very minor, which doesn’t require transport, doesn’t require diagnosis, basically a hand-holding exercise, to very critical care that is required. We don’t have the ability, it seems, to differentiate between those calls, because it requires presence to make that determination.

There are frequent flyers, I’m sure. That is, repeat calls for service to the same residence or to the same area or the same group of individuals. I wonder if there is an opportunity that perhaps you are already taking advantage of to educate users of EHS service that can cut down on the calls for service.

Do you understand what I mean? Do you take the opportunity, if you’ve been to the same house for a chronic complaint about something that is non-medical, to inform the patient of other avenues? Would that not be helpful to you and to the service and, by extension, to all people who are dependent upon emergency medical response?

N. Kotani: You’re very correct on that. We do work with other providers to try to identify those individuals who utilize the service in that way. I would also add that in rural and remote communities, the community paramedics do a great job of eliminating the need for 911 calls.

Overall, one of the things we’re trying to do is add more clinical ability at the front end of the call. So, increasingly, you’ll see that we’ll convey fewer and fewer lower-acuity patients to hospital unnecessarily, because they will have the opportunity to speak to a nurse directly, or we will be able to find an alternate pathway for them besides transporting them to hospital. That’s in the best interest of everybody.

D. Byres: I would just add, too, that if they do end up in hospital, we’ve actually also been working with the emergency departments across the province, so we can often set up care plans for those patients. We’re really clear, should they arrive, that the history is down and we have a plan. We do that plan in partnership with that individual as well as other community providers so that we can also have the best plan of care set up for them when they do arrive in the department.

S. Wannamaker: I guess another example would be that some of the work that we’re doing in targeted municipalities in the province right now is training our paramedics on palliative care. Certainly we do know that, over the course of the year, we respond to over 2,500 calls. A lot of this is…. We can provide support and comfort measures in the home, so we’re actually supporting those patients to stay at home, which is so much better than actually then being transported to an emergency department.

Those are some of the other strategies that we’re looking at to really support that patient-centred approach and actually helping to support families in that care as well.

G. Begg: That perhaps segues nicely into the next and last question, which is about the sharing of information between agencies.

Has that improved, or is that a work-in-progress?

N. Lilley: Between BCEHS and fire services?

G. Begg: Between any…. Does the responding paramedic have access to vital information as quickly as he should on the scene? Or does the fire department, when they arrive first, communicate adequately with ambulance service?

N. Lilley: Yes. There’s, I suppose, a differentiation of levels, but we do share a lot of information with the fire-first responders, and we have increased that level of data sharing from our end to them, so they have a lot more data, when they are responding, as to what they’re responding to.

[4:00 p.m.]

We are working very closely at the moment, especially with Surrey fire dispatch and E-Comm fire dispatch, to really increase the level of data sharing between the two. Whether it be specific information that goes in the notes so both agencies are updated…. A classic example may be an unsafe scene, so they can stand off and not enter. The levels which we really want to get to around sharing data….

All of our resources have the capabilities of what we call AVL, which is an advanced vehicle locator. Like GPS tracking on all the units, we would like to get to the standard where both of us can actually see where each other’s resources are. Then we can do true, targeted responses based on availability and location of units. But it’s going to get us some time to get there. I think what we’re trying to do is initially do some smaller steps to try and increase that data flow. Then, eventually, we’ll get better and better at it.

D. Byres: I just might also add — it’s a bit different — just so that you’re aware, in terms of our emergency health services, that crews and responders also have the ability for medical support, should they require it, out on the scene and can contact for that support. If they’re concerned about anything within that picture and they need to talk with a physician, they have the ability to connect and do so right from the scene.

S. Bond (Chair): John has promised me. He gave me the little question signal. Then Rick’s hand went up. So hopefully, we can wrap this very efficiently.

J. Yap: Thank you for coming, for this follow-up. I’m really just responding to my colleague Ralph’s comment about municipalities in urban areas that haven’t signed on. In Richmond, there is a very robust and powerful and proud fire service that has entered into an agreement and has, in fact, a co-located fire hall with an ambulance service right next door to each other, so it looks like they’re in the same building. If it can be done in Richmond, I think it can be done anywhere in British Columbia. Your reaction to that, and any comments on how that’s going?

N. Kotani: We’ve had some very good discussions with the city manager and his staff in the city of Richmond, and that’s been part of the collaboration as well. I think it has always been important to not only recognize the work of the fire-first-responder organization, but we’ve learned to be able to work collaboratively with the city administrator as well. In the case on the North Shore, we work very closely with Dave Stuart, who’s the co-chair of our fire-first-responder advisory group for the Lower Mainland.

R. Glumac: A quick question. Many years ago I had several conversations, when I was a city councillor, about ways that fire first responders and paramedics could work together effectively. One of the things…. I’m trying to remember exactly what the details were. There’s some kind of a measurement that the fire first responders can take. I don’t know if it’s an oxygen level or something like that. I remember being told that when the paramedics come, they have to do a measurement, in certain cases, of whatever this is, oxygen level or whatever.

D. Byres: Oxygen saturation. Yes, you’re right.

R. Glumac: Yeah, okay. So I am remembering.

They have to give it a space of time and then do it again, and they can’t use the reading from the fire first responders. I’m wondering if that circumstance has changed, as an example of good collaboration.

D. Byres: Maybe I’ll ask Dr. Tallon to speak to that.

J. Tallon: I think you’ve summarized it correctly in the context of oxygen saturation. Paramedics do routinely measure it at the scene. Depending on what licence level the first responder is licensed at, whether it’s FR or EMR, that skill is available in schedule 2 for that licence level.

R. Glumac: The situation now, I guess, is if there is an agreement in place, then that information can be transferred to the paramedics without having to do another…?

J. Tallon: It’s a good point. It’s such an easy reading to take. It can actually be taken continuously, rather than repeating it. But they do share that information, yes.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. I’ll quickly do this so that no other hands go up.

Thank you, Rick. That was quick and important. Thank you for that.

[4:05 p.m.]

Well, thank you very much for making a return visit. It’s important that British Columbians have a sense that there is that approach, that the work is being done to look at collaboration. I think we would be remiss if we didn’t thank, first of all, the emergency health services personnel — the men and women who serve there and in fire response. They’re the people who run toward danger while the rest of us are fleeing the scene. We are grateful for the work that goes on, on our behalf.

I think our goal is just to, first of all, make sure that the work of the Office of the Auditor General is taken seriously — obviously, it is; we appreciate that — and that we have a sense of comfort that those recommendations are impacting practice and policy. I think that today we’ve had that confirmed for us.

We appreciate you all taking the time to appear before committee. We’ll continue to monitor as we see these items moving forward, and we will look forward to hearing about successful collaboration agreements and how that practice on the ground is changing. I thank you for your time. Thank you to the Auditor’s team for the work that has been done, and we appreciate the return visit.

To the committee, I’m going to adjust the agenda just slightly because I want to be sure we get to the report from the subcommittee. There are a couple of potential recommendations that would shape the way we operate at the next meeting and moving forward. I think we can cover that off quite quickly, and then we’ll go back to the last reports from the Auditor General’s office.

Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure

RECOMMENDATIONS ON
ACTION PLAN PROGRESS ASSESSMENTS

S. Bond (Chair): You should’ve been given a copy of the report from the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We’re reporting out to you today basically on the work of our subcommittee that met on October 10.

Mitzi, you’re welcome to pipe in here at any moment.

I know that you’ve received the written copy. I just want to highlight a couple of things for you. You can see the membership of the committee. You know that it would be myself, John, Mitzi and Garry. We were also joined by the Auditor General to discuss some of the items that we’re bringing to your attention today.

The main item that we discussed was the result of work that had been done here at the committee table: what are we going to do with the growing list of action plans? As a committee, we’ve been very clear that while we have an initial appearance here, we want to be sure that there’s ongoing monitoring of those action plans, to make sure that we’re doing follow-up work. A number of items were discussed.

As you know, there are 30 action plans. I think it’s the correct number.

Carol, is that right?

C. Bellringer: Yes, that’s right.

S. Bond (Chair): Thirty action plans currently on the list. The concept that we discussed was looking at having a regular agenda item each meeting. We would balance the new reports against this agenda item, where we would bring two, three or four of the action plans to the committee, basically, to highlight them. I don’t know about you. Maybe some of you have, but I have not read the 30 action plans that are posted on the website. We now have copies of them.

We would like to propose to you that we create a standing agenda item that allows us to bring three or four of the action plans to each meeting. If there are no questions about them, it would simply be for information. I think our thinking — Mitzi can correct me if I’m wrong — is that it would cause us to focus on two or three of those each meeting, allowing us to then have a sense that there is some oversight, that there is some follow-up. If not, it’s just a long list of action plans that nobody takes the specific responsibility for looking at.

Our suggestion is creating a standing agenda item where we would bring a number of action plans to future committee meetings. The plans would be reviewed quickly. Members would be invited to bring forward questions on the status of the work. But it doesn’t mean we’d have a meeting like we had today. Those would be very specific follow-up meetings.

[4:10 p.m.]

We also looked at the fact that the Auditor had recommended that nine of the 30 action plans be removed, since the audit recommendations were implemented. There were two, I think, that were exceptions to that, of the nine. One was the biodiversity audit. I know that Rick had mentioned that before. He was interested in seeing that potentially come back to committee. The second one was securing the JUSTIN system, looking at….

There were a number that we looked at in terms of whether or not they should be removed. Our recommendation is that we should have the audit team and government witnesses return to committee to discuss the biodiversity audit action plan. The second one was the action plan for community gaming grants audit. Out of the nine that the Auditor recommended, I think the subcommittee felt comfortable supporting the removal of seven and would recommend to you that two come back to committee.

I believe we are willing to entertain a motion on the recommendations related to the report of the subcommittee. We’ll do a separate one for the acting Auditor General.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Just to add something, we talked about, with the follow-up reports coming back, that maybe an MLA could be a lead, could be identified as a lead. All of us, obviously, can read all of them. But at least then we would know that one member of the committee had the responsibility for taking a lead, and they would probably lead the questions or would just bring some highlights the whole committee so that each of us, obviously, always has the option of reading all of them but knows that we can rely on colleagues, as well, to do that.

I think the subcommittee then would just kind of allocate, follow up, the plans to members of the committee. And then, as they are on the agenda, we’d just make sure that nobody had more than one, and we’d be looking to that person to provide a summary or critical questions.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Mitzi. That’s a really important piece. If we were to have three, for example, return at each meeting…. If someone has a particular interest in one of them, they would take the lead, bring that back, make comments at the meeting. At least then, I think it gives substance to the fact that we as a group have felt very strongly about…. It’s one thing to appear here, but it’s what happens afterward. Are there steps being taken?

Today is an example where we’ve had two of those come back to have some sense of reassurance that that action is taking place. We have three, then, recommendations. The other part of this…. The first two are a standing agenda item on action plan follow-up, and as Mitzi noted, with a lead MLA attached to those. Secondly is that the audit team and government witnesses be invited to come back to the committee on the 2013 biodiversity audit and the community gaming grants audit and that the seven action plans identified by the Auditor General as her recommendation be removed. Those are things the subcommittee…. Both of those items we bring to you as a recommendation.

The third piece is that we’d like to…. We had the Auditor General attend our subcommittee, and it was very productive. We had a good, thoughtful discussion about the issues. We’d like to invite the comptroller general to an upcoming subcommittee meeting to look at the reporting mechanisms and a discussion about how witnesses appear at committee. We think that there’s some work we could look at and suggest there.

The three pieces we’re looking at for your feedback — or hopefully, your support — are those three items. They’re on the top of page 2 of the summary report. I’ll go on to explain the other two items once we deal with this one. I’m not sure if anyone is prepared to make that motion.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I move: “That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts approve the recommendations contained in the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure dated October 10, 2019, as presented today.”

[4:15 p.m.]

S. Bond (Chair): Are there any concerns? Any discussion?

Motion approved.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much for that. I think that the subcommittee did some important work there. I think it will continue to make British Columbia a leader as we look at sort of accountability and transparency as we move forward.

RECOMMENDATION ON
APPOINTMENT OF
ACTING AUDITOR GENERAL

S. Bond (Chair): The second item is simply that we’re going to canvass you for one more of your precious days to try to work through a number of reports that are listed there for you. We’ll be doing our regular canvass for a day during one of our November constituency weeks.

The other item is also important. We understand that this has been canvassed with House Leaders, etc. Members would be aware that the Auditor General provided written notice to the Speaker of her resignation, effective December 31. The assembly has recently created a special committee….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assem­bly): That’s correct. It’s the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General. Pursuant to section 2 of the act, that would be the full-term appointment of eight years.

S. Bond (Chair): The area that we needed to deal with is based on section 2 of the Auditor General Act. We need to make sure that there will be an acting Auditor General while the process of permanent selection is undertaken. So what we’d like to suggest…. Rather than have this entire committee deal with looking at how we get an acting Auditor General, we hope that you would consider delegating that responsibility for bringing back a recommendation to this committee around the appointment of an acting Auditor General. We just felt that it would be more effective and efficient to deal with that at the subcommittee level.

Ultimately, the recommendation comes back here, as PAC has the ability to make that final determination. Mitzi and I wanted to be sure that we brought this recommendation to you, asking that the committee could consider referring, to the subcommittee, the task of recommending a proposed candidate, and we would like to begin to do that work so that we can bring it to the committee no later than November 18 of 2019. As you can imagine, we need to keep this moving and make sure that we do not have a gap in the important work that’s done in the Auditor General’s office.

That is our recommendation, and I am open to whether or not someone would make that motion.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I’m happy to make that motion, thank you, Chair.

I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts refer to the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure the task of selecting and unanimously recommending to the Committee no later than November 18, 2019, a candidate for appointment as Acting Auditor General pursuant to section 7 of the Auditor General Act.]

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, Mitzi. Again, I do want to reiterate that the work of finding a permanent Auditor General is work assigned by the Legislative Assembly through a special committee. This is really just the work of making sure that we do not have a gap while that committee does its work. The members were appointed in the Legislature, I think, during the last week.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Of the special committee, yes, I have their names. For the information of members, the Legislative Assembly appointed the following members to serve on the special committee of appointment: Doug Routley, convener; Janet Routledge, Shirley Bond, John Yap and Adam Olsen. They will be beginning their work relatively soon.

If I might, I know we had anticipated, with the preparation of the draft motion that Mitzi just read into the record, the timeline of November 18, but with respect, I might suggest that the committee consider extending that to the final day of the fall sitting, which is expected to be November 28. That will probably give us sufficient time and flexibility, given the two break weeks in early November.

S. Bond (Chair): Are you open to that amendment, Mitzi?

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Yes.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Thank you very much.

S. Bond (Chair): I’ll ask for any comment or feedback on an amended motion that looks at November 28. I feel a huge sense of relief that that would be the date. Is there any discussion on referral to the subcommittee, mindful of the fact that you will all have an opportunity, as we bring the recommendation forward?

Motion as amended approved.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, thank you very much. I want to thank subcommittee members, and the Auditor General for her contributions to that subcommittee meeting. We look forward to a constructive meeting with the comptroller general. We’ll work on setting that up as well.

[4:20 p.m.]

Thank you for expeditiously handling that item. I wanted to make sure it was covered off. As you can imagine, November 28 feels like it’s coming very quickly. We will have our work cut out for us in finding time to begin that work.

Correspondence

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

S. Bond (Chair): With that, let’s just deal with the correspondence. I think that’s just a matter of receiving it, unless anyone has any questions about the consideration of the correspondence. It is information coming from the deputy minister, Ministry of Education. As you might remember, Deputy Minister MacDonald came, agreed to provide some feedback. We now have that. Is there anyone that has questions or a need for further information on that input that we’ve received? Perfect.

Kate, I don’t have to do anything procedurally. It’s just….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): That’s fine. I will make a note that the committee has received that information as part of your minutes of today’s meeting.

S. Bond (Chair): Great. Thank you very much.

All right. Let’s go back to item 6 then, because I know I want to try to honour the timeline. You literally are all amazing. This has been a very long and very thorough meeting. I know that it took a lot of prep on committee members’ parts as well as the Auditor’s office.

Let’s go to item 6. We’re going to try to finish this. It’s 4:21, and our end time is going to be, hopefully, five or before, to facilitate some travel that needs to take place as well.

We’re going to begin with the consideration of the Office of the Auditor General’s report Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Financial Statement Fiscal Years Ending 2021, 2022 and 2023, released in October of 2019. We’ll then move on to the performance audit coverage plan, 2020-21 through 2022-23, again released in October of 2019.

With that, we’ll turn it over to Carol and her team.

Office of the Auditor General

FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT
COVERAGE PLAN

C. Bellringer: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll go through this. We’ll be doing a presentation on the financial statement audit coverage plan. We will give you a brief update on the performance audit coverage plan. We discussed it with you recently in September, and we’ll show you the changes to that. They haven’t actually been released. They haven’t been published in any way. I’ll explain the next steps, because they have to go through the budget process.

With me for this section is Peter Bourne. Peter is the principal in financial audit, and he’ll present the financial statement audit coverage plan. Stuart is the Deputy Auditor General in financial audit; Laura Pierce, senior manager in performance audit; and Malcolm Gaston, Deputy Auditor General in the performance audit portfolio. We’ll figure out who’s doing what.

As you’re aware, I’m required by the Auditor General Act to table the three-year financial statement audit coverage plan for your consideration and approval. That’s just the financial statement plan. It’s not required by the Auditor General Act to present the performance audit coverage plan, but we’ve been doing that publicly now for…. I think it’s probably the fifth year. It’s either the fourth or fifth year that we’ve made that a public document.

Last year we certainly had thought it through, but we appreciated the comments that the committee made, in looking at the financial statement coverage plan, that it was useful to you to have both of the plans in front of you. So we’ve done that this year. We’ve provided you with both. We’ll explain what’s in there.

As I say, the approval is limited to the financial statement plan. That is going to outline which of the financial statement audits our office is doing and which ones will be audited by private sector firms. It’s something, as I said, that’s required by the act, but it’s also designed to give us enough coverage so that we are able to sign the opinion on the financial statements for the province as a whole — for the summary of financial statements, the public accounts.

[4:25 p.m.]

There are some precise auditing standards that we have to analyze and figure out the extent to which we have to do direct work, the extent to which we can oversee the work of the private sector auditors and the extent to which those private sector auditors are doing some work, but they really are minimal to the impact on the statements, so we don’t do much with that.

From year to year, those coverage levels don’t vary greatly. We’ll be giving you a bit of a summary that focuses on the changes, but the big one is having picked up UBC and B.C. Hydro. The approval to include that in the plan took place in the past, but we’ve now had the experience in terms of the detail in the planning to have much more information about exactly how long it’s going to take us.

We had anticipated the time for those based on what we knew the previous auditors had taken, but they are both complex audits. Some of that time is not divided up the same way we would be used to seeing it, because there are component audits and subsidiaries, and there are some other pieces of work that are done to support the accounting practices and so on. Having gone through the detail now, we do know that we are going to need a budget increase to be able to do that financial statement work.

The other thing we’ve done is really thought through the way that we’ve presented our budget and the way we’ve been managing the budget for the last couple of years. I know this isn’t your decision. We go to the Finance and Government Services Select Standing Committee on Monday for the budget discussion. When we put together the two plans, it actually results in that in order to do that work, it will require approximately a 10 percent increase to our overall budget. It’s significant. We will provide them with the detail they need to understand what that is. Much of it is to do with the UBC and Hydro audits, but not entirely.

I’m also of the view that we’re not reporting enough to the Assembly on the work of our financial statement audits. What you get on a regular basis for those audits is an audit opinion that accompanies the financial statements and says that they’re presented fairly, that they’re presented complete and accurate. We find out lots of things in the course of doing those audits. We’re required to report them to you in accordance with the act when we feel it’s of a nature that you should be advised. It’s quite a vague section of the act.

We’ve really given it some serious thought around how we have to do more. There are more things we know that we’re not reporting. We do them in the context of reports like the rate-regulated accounting report that we issued last year. We certainly have done so in the past — reports on public accounts. But there’s a great deal more that we could be including. So that’s part of the request.

As well, citizen inquiries have increased exponentially. The number of people coming to us with concerns is going up. The number of those issues coming to us that look like they warrant some additional work is increasing, and it is additional work that I believe the office should be doing.

That’s what’s going to be happening. I think you’ll have to work through if you’re approving just the financial statement component. Then there’s a decision at the budget committee. For example, if they were to say no to our request, we are going to need to determine what the impact of that is on both of the plans.

We would have to come back to you, as this was discussed when we came to you with the request to do the Hydro audit — that in the event that that were to occur, we can come back and give you the impact. You had a certain way that you did the vote so that you took into account the fact that there was a budget that had to still be approved by Finance and Government Services.

I’m happy to answer any of your questions around the plans — either of them. But of course, it’s the financial statement one that you’re required by the act to approve. We’ll start with that one. Peter will go through an overview of the financial statement plan, and then Malcolm will just update you on the performance audit coverage plan.

[4:30 p.m.]

P. Bourne: Thank you, Carol, and good afternoon, Members.

The annual audit of the summary financial statements is the largest audit performed in British Columbia and provides assurance on whether the financial statements present fairly the financial position and operating results of the province. The opinion on the summary financial statements is the Auditor General’s alone, but in B.C., the audit of the government reporting entity is accomplished through the combined work of the OAG and private sector auditors.

Today we are seeking your approval for three things: the detailed plan, as presented in appendix A, beginning on page 21; for the Auditor General to continue as the auditor of seven entities, where the term exceeds five years, as noted on pages 17 and 18; and for the Auditor General to continue as the auditor for one entity outside of the government reporting entity, which is discussed on page 19.

This plan meets the professional requirements for audit coverage under generally accepted auditing standards and will allow the Auditor General to sign the audit opinion on government summary financial statements. These standards require us to be involved in the audit for all significant entities included in the summary financial statements.

We define our auditing involvement with the 144 government entities as being either “limited,” “oversight” or “direct.” In deciding our level of involvement, we look at the risk involved at both the entity and the sector level, as well as the capacity of our office to perform the work. We also look at new organizations, for which we are entitled under our act to be the auditor for the first three years. For the one new organization included in the government reporting entity this year, the B.C. Family Maintenance Agency, we have actually decided to allow a private sector audit firm to audit the agency rather than the OAG being the auditor.

The provision in our act to request approval for extending direct involvement beyond five years recognizes the need to manage inherent audit risk where necessary. In the plan, we have to balance the benefits achieved through auditor rotation with professional standards that require us to maintain appropriate knowledge and experience in order to fulfil our mandate. For audits that exceed five years, including ministry audits, we employ senior staff rotation and other safeguards as required by assurance standards to ensure that our objectivity is maintained.

In the preparation of this plan, we reviewed each appointment exceeding five years and considered if rotation to a private sector audit firm would be necessary. In this year’s plan, we are requesting the approval to continue as the auditor of seven entities. Of these, one is a shell corporation that takes less than ten hours to audit and two are already being audited under contract with private sector audit firms.

Turning now to our detailed plan. On the screen is the table on page 14 of the report that summarizes our planned coverage for the next three years for the existing 144 entities for financial statement fiscal years ending in 2021 through 2023. This is a rollup of the detailed plan as shown in appendix A of the report. The first column shows the type of entity. The second column shows the expected number of entities of each type for their fiscal year ending in 2020. The remainder of the table shows our planned coverage by entity fiscal year and level of involvement.

The level of involvement. For example, in 2021, for the universities, colleges and institutes, we plan to have limited involvement in 16 of the 25 entities, have an oversight involvement in seven and directly audit two. As you can see from the totals, our level of involvement does not change significantly between years.

To give you an idea of how our plan results in our overall involvement with government’s expenses, this chart shows that the Auditor General had either an oversight or direct audit involvement with 85 percent of government entity expenses in the 2019 fiscal year. Our plan provides for a similar involvement in future years.

[4:35 p.m.]

Looking at trends by organization type. For school districts, in the past, we have directly audited five of the 60 school districts at any one time for five years each. However, our plan is to reduce our involvement with school district financial statement audits and to gain assurance through targeted audit work in a larger number of school districts. We also plan to have an oversight role in at least two school districts each year of the plan, and we will rotate our oversight involvement through the school districts.

For the post-secondary sector, in this 2020 fiscal year, we have taken on the audit of UBC; 2020 will be the last year we audit Vancouver Community College; and in 2021, we will audit Capilano University. We also plan to have an oversight role in six to seven universities, colleges or institutes each year of the plan.

For health authorities and hospital societies, we will continue to directly audit the Interior Health Authority for the remainder of our five-year term, until 2022, at which point we plan to rotate onto the Provincial Health Services Authority in 2023. We also plan to have an oversight role in five health authorities and one hospital society each year of the plan.

For Crown corporations, the slide shows that for fiscal years ending in 2020, we started auditing B.C. Hydro. There were no additional Crown audits added in 2021. Crowns that we stopped auditing for 2020 were the B.C. Immigrant Investment Fund, B.C. Transit and Destination B.C. We also plan to have an oversight role in seven to nine other Crown corporations across various sectors during the three-year plan.

We plan to continue with one engagement outside the government reporting entity: the provincial employees community services fund.

New to the coverage plan this year is a listing of entity subsidiaries. Appendix C, starting on page 30, shows that there are over 100 subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that are consolidated into the government entities in the plan in appendix A. We have noted in appendix C where these additional entities may be audited by the OAG versus a private sector audit firm. In some cases, the subsidiaries are not audited.

Each year we consult with organizations impacted by the plan where we will be changing or taking on oversight or direct audit coverage. At this time, we have met with or contacted by telephone almost all the affected organizations. I think we just have one or two more that we will be meeting with or contacting tomorrow. We will follow up with a formal communication to these entities once the committee has reached a decision on the plan.

That concludes our presentation of the financial statement audit coverage plan. Again, we seek three approvals: (1) of the plan itself, (2) to continue as the direct auditor for more than five years at seven organizations and (3) to continue to be the direct auditor of one organization that is not part of the government reporting entity.

I’ll now turn it back to Carol.

S. Bond (Chair): Well, why don’t we deal with this first. I think it would be good to…. This is the one that we really need to deal with, since you’re moving on to Finance on Monday.

For the committee’s benefit, the three things we have to look at are on page 5 of the report. One is the financial statement audit coverage plan for financial statement fiscal years that are listed there. Number 2, as was noticed, is that typically, there are five consecutive fiscal years where the Auditor General’s team is engaged. This is permission, in essence, to continue for an additional two years. Is that correct?

P. Bourne: We have to request each year to continue, and we may continue on more than one year.

S. Bond (Chair): So the request is generally to exceed that limit of five years, and you don’t have a timeline for how long that would continue.

P. Bourne: Correct.

S. Bond (Chair): Then the final piece is to look at being appointed auditor for one entity outside the government reporting entity. You can see that it’s provincial employees community services fund.

The only caution that I will add, and I think we’ve said this before: we’re not here as a committee to endorse a budget increase. That’s not our job.

[4:40 p.m.]

What we’re hearing today is the request for us to approve this financial audit coverage plan, based on approval from Finance Committee. We don’t have the authority to advise or to recommend or to support that. That is really a decision between the Auditor and the other committee.

It would be important, if we provide approval…. This plan would be contingent, apparently, on an increase. That would be determined at another committee, not ours. We would want to, likely, add to our motion something to the effect that in the event that that increase is not provided, there would have to be a revised plan presented to us or some other version of this. Our job is not to say: “Yes, Finance, please do this.” That’s not our role.

Kate, did you want to make a comment?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Yes, and I know Carol does as well.

For the information of members, I’d advise that a similar process arose in your committee in November 2017. Following the committee’s decision by way of motion to endorse the three recommendations in the financial statement audit coverage plan, your committee considered and adopted a motion at that time that should the upcoming budgetary estimates proposed by the Office of the Auditor General fail to be approved by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Auditor General return to this committee with any amendments to her financial statement audit coverage plan which might be required as the result of that decision. That is a model that you may wish to consider, given the circumstances today.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you for that.

Carol, did you want to make a comment before we move on? If you could just sort of think that through, that would certainly be my recommendation in terms of what the motion might look like if we are to approve the plan.

C. Bellringer: It’s a little bit of background that might help you with that one, a little bit with this. That would still be an issue, but we don’t have a lot of room within the financial audit coverage plan to remove things. I mean, we’re already doing the quarterly audits at Hydro. UBC has begun. Those are big audits. We can’t just say: “We’re not doing them.”

It would not be true to say there’s no room at all. There are some smaller audits we could drop and move a few things around. So if something…. The biggest impact of the budget discussion will be on the performance audit coverage plan. Just to give you a little bit of sense of where it’s at, there’s not a huge amount of room in here, having gone the route we’ve gone.

S. Bond (Chair): I am positive that you will be making a persuasive argument as you request that budget increase. It is certainly not our mandate to make that determination. That is another committee’s work.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): I appreciate that, Carol, that there’s not wiggle room, but, just hypothetically, help me with this. Say, for example, the employees community services fund came off your plan. Who then pays for that? Do they then have to pay for that themselves? For example, a university or a health authority — they would have to have an audit done anyway. So when you’re not doing that audit, do they have to adjust their budget and put into their budget an external audit?

C. Bellringer: They pay us for the audits that they’re doing. It’s not money that we can use. It goes into general revenue. The budget approval is for all of the expenses of our office to do all of these things. For the organization, they’re either going to pay us or they’re going to pay an external firm. There’s no impact to them. That one, that community fund audit, is the PECSF. It’s the employees donation fund, if you will, and it’s not a big one. And we don’t charge for that one.

R. Sultan: Chair, do you want to entertain comments on the budget plan itself now?

S. Bond (Chair): Yes. You’re welcome to…. About the actual items that are in the plan?

R. Sultan: Yes.

S. Bond (Chair): Yes, of course. You’re welcome to do that. And while we’re doing that, we’ll circulate the motion we used in 2017. Ralph, go right ahead, if you’d like to make those comments.

R. Sultan: Thank you, Chair. The audit item that is of some curiosity to me is the audit of the Columbia Power Corp.

[4:45 p.m.]

If memory serves me correctly — perhaps it was 12 months ago or more recently — there was an obscure footnote referring to a pending transaction involving, as I recall, Columbia Power Corp., but it seemed the Auditor General could not really speak freely about it because it was a pending transaction and there were market considerations front-running, perhaps on a share purchase. Who knows exactly what was implied by that. So we were not further enlightened, except that the Auditor General did comment that that was an item of interest — sufficient interest, in fact, to bury it in a footnote for us.

Now we see Columbia Power Corp. again on the audit plan. I can’t find it in my rather dense pile of paper here, but it seems to me I noted, in an earlier scan of these documents, reference to Fortis Inc. If memory serves, it almost seemed to imply that Columbia Power Corp. was maybe planning to invest in or buy a chunk of Fortis, a rather large Newfoundland-based, as I understand it, natural gas transmission company.

Now, this certainly would be innovative on the part of Columbia Power, partly because…. I was educated on Columbia Power by, shall we say, a very high-ranking officer of B.C. Hydro some years ago, in which he commented that this operation was gifted to the people of the Columbia Valley, exclusively for their benefit, by all of the taxpayers of British Columbia. They continue to run their affairs as if this was something that was really totally their property and, certainly, in the spirit of independence. Maybe they feel now they go around and buy pipeline companies. Who knows? I’m curious.

I always felt that perhaps it was the political thing to do at the time, but requiring Hydro to divest itself of these assets at that time struck me as pushing the envelope a little bit. But I guess those are cabinet decisions, not, perhaps, this committee’s concern.

So back to the real question: namely, can the Auditor General cast any light as to whether her planned Columbia Power Corp. audit would perhaps include some aspects of an acquisition by Columbia Power?

C. Bellringer: This is actually included in the description, in the rationale for the exceeding five years, on page 17 of the report. It does reference the $1 billion purchase of assets.

R. Sultan: A billion dollars.

C. Bellringer: One billion.

R. Sultan: With a “b.”

C. Bellringer: It’s actually not a bad example, either, of what I was describing in terms of why we want to do the audit and the work that we would need to do. That is one of the more complex areas. We’re seeing more and more complex transactions that we’re having to audit, and there’s an increase in the time that we need to do that.

At the end of the day, the financial statement audit will only verify the accounting treatment for the transaction. If, in the course of looking at it, there are other very interesting components that we think should be known by the assembly, we need time to pull that together in a constructive way that we can then report it to you. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about in the other part of the budget, where we’d like to spend more time doing so. So this would just be the time required to do the financial statement looking at the accounting transactions.

That is a rather large transaction to be auditing. It takes some time, and it’s a risk that we’re interested in looking at directly.

R. Sultan: I would certainly agree. It raises my eyebrows in a time when pipelines themselves seem to get a lot of people agitated. Would you look into and perhaps pass judgment on the wisdom of Columbia Power branching out into related energy transportation spheres?

C. Bellringer: That would require a performance audit that might look at…. I don’t know about wisdom. I don’t recall it being framed quite that way. But for us to look at it in more depth would be a separate audit that is not currently included in the plan.

R. Sultan: Well, I suppose it’s really none of my business, but certainly, the government, if this is their plan…. And obviously, it’s a government decision — at least, I hope it is — not a Columbia Power Corp. decision. Maybe that in itself is an interesting question.

[4:50 p.m.]

Well, anyway, I’ve raised the issue, Chair.

C. Bellringer: I don’t think we want to go there.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you. Are there any other comments about the actual plan? Okay.

Procedurally, what I would entertain, then, is a motion to accept the three recommendations that are on page 5, and then, hopefully, a second motion — which we actually put in place previously — just around the fact that it’s actually up to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to deal with the financial aspect, and if there is an issue with the budget, we would ask that the Auditor come back with any changes that may or may not be necessary.

Is someone prepared to move the first motion, which relates to the three items listed on page 5 of the report?

G. Begg: I move:

[That the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts endorse the three recommendations listed on page 5 of the Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for financial statement fiscal years ending in 2021, 2022 and 2023, as required by sections 10 and 14 of the Auditor General Act.]

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you very much.

Is there any discussion about that motion?

Motion approved.

S. Bond (Chair): Now, hopefully, the second motion, which basically just asks that in the event that something happens at Finance and Government Services…. Is someone prepared to make that motion?

J. Yap: I’ll move that.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you, John.

J. Yap: I move:

[That should the FY 2020-21 Budgetary Estimates proposed by the Office of the Auditor General fail to be approved by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, the Office of the Auditor General return to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts with any amendments to the Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for financial statement fiscal years ending in 2021, 2022 and 2023 which may be required.]

S. Bond (Chair): Is there any discussion about that motion?

Motion approved.

S. Bond (Chair): Thank you to the Auditor and her team for working through those motions with us.

PERFORMANCE AUDIT COVERAGE PLAN

S. Bond (Chair): I want to just be sure, because I think I might have misspoken at the beginning…. We have looked at the performance audit coverage plan, but that was from January, I believe. Is that correct?

C. Bellringer: It was the one that we issued publicly in January for last year.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. So this item, then, is for information. Is that correct?

C. Bellringer: Correct. It’s the current year version of what we recently talked about. It’s three short slides. We can tell you just very quickly what changes are in this particular plan compared to that last one, just to bring you up to date.

S. Bond (Chair): Okay. I think that would be most helpful. It will certainly, then, be on the public record.

C. Bellringer: Will the whole thing be on the public record?

S. Bond (Chair): Well, as I understand it. Kate will have to answer that for me, because that’s where I was concerned.

Kate, do you want to address that?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Acting Clerk): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, the typical practice of the committee when meeting in public session with respect to any agenda items will be to upload to the committee’s website any supporting documentation. So pursuant to our usual practice, subsequent to this meeting, I would have proceeded to upload the Performance Audit Coverage Plan 2020-21–2022-23, as a result of this discussion on the public record.

I’m happy to proceed as members may wish with this opportunity. If it’s an option to discuss in camera, if that’s more suitable to the audit office, members could consider that approach.

S. Bond (Chair): Or we could defer the item to a future meeting when there’s been a discussion about where the item needs to be best managed, because we certainly don’t want to cause an issue here. This is….

I should advise the committee. We do not approve or…. We don’t have any role in creating a motion regarding this report, so I don’t know if the Auditor would like us to defer the item until we sort out where it should go.

[4:55 p.m.]

We do have it on the agenda now, and we would typically upload this document unless we’d like to defer it and we can have a conversation about it.

C. Bellringer: There’s nothing from our perspective that is of concern. I think the concern would be that it be seen as final, and it isn’t until such time as the budget has been approved, because it is budget-dependent.

If it was clearly marked as draft…. I mean, there is a way to do that. I certainly don’t have any…. We’ve been encouraging conversations about the kinds of audits we choose to do.

One of the concerns we have is if there is a budget discussion that requires us to go back to modify the plans, we can’t sort of say, “Well, if you approve this much, then we’ll do this bit, and if you approve that much, we’ll do that bit,” because then it’s giving that decision…. It’s taking away the impartiality of our selection of the audits. So we will have to go back and look at both plans. It could potentially change, but so could the financial statement coverage plan. If it’s draft, I’m okay. If you don’t want to know about it right now, we can pause.

S. Bond (Chair): I think Mitzi’s going to make a suggestion here.

M. Dean (Deputy Chair): Yes. Chair, my suggestion is that we defer this because I know the meeting with the Finance Committee is on Monday. I would prefer that we have some greater clarity with the direction given to the OAG from that committee before we then get into this level of detail and put it on the public record.

S. Bond (Chair): And that’s why Mitzi is a great Deputy Chair, because I was going to say virtually the same thing. I appreciate that.

From our perspective, we understand that it’s a draft, but it isn’t marked “Draft.” That isn’t something that we can facilitate. So I think the best thing is to agree with Mitzi’s recommendation. I think we should defer it. That will allow the Auditor and her team to go to Finance and Government Services. Then, by the time you come back to us, we’ll be able to deal with this at that time. I hope that it works for the committee and also for the Auditor.

C. Bellringer: Yes.

S. Bond (Chair): All right. With that, a heartfelt thank you to the committee members. I know you’ve been doing a lot of homework and lugging a lot of paper. I really appreciate the input today.

I want to thank the Auditor and her team. It’s been a long day but an important one. With that, a motion to adjourn?

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 4:57 p.m.