The committee met at 9:02 a.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Presentations

Rohini Arora (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is Rohini Arora. I’m the MLA for Burnaby East and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are here on the lands of the lək̓ʷəŋən, including the Songhees and the xʷsepsəm Nations.

This morning we’ll be receiving an update from representatives of the Ministry of Children and Family Development on the status of implementing recommendations in the Representative for Children and Youth report titled No Time to Wait: A Review of MCFD’s Child Welfare Workforce, Part Two and the ministry’s response to the report, titled Too Many Left Behind: Ensuring Children and Youth with Disabilities Thrive.

Following the ministry’s presentations, the representative will answer any remaining questions related to the two reports. Before we get into the updates on the actions and responses to the reports, the ministry has requested to provide a brief on information-sharing and protection of privacy.

We’ll hand it over.

Briefing on Information Sharing
and Protection of Privacy

Keith Godin: Thank you, Chair. I’m Keith Godin, Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I want to thank the committee for the invitation today. We’re pleased to be here.

I, too, want to acknowledge that we’re coming today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən-speaking people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I also want to recognize the many territories MCFD is grateful to do its work and express my sincere appreciation for the keepers of these lands as well as to the Métis and Inuit peoples who also make their homes here.

We are, as requested by the committee, here to update on No Time to Wait: A Review of MCFD’s Child Welfare Workforce, Part Two as well as an update regarding Too Many Left Behind: Ensuring Children and Youth with Disabilities Thrive.

As mentioned by the Chair, as cleared through the Chair and the Clerk’s office, we want to provide an opportunity for a brief overview on privacy and confidentiality provisions in the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I will draw the committee’s attention just to slide 2 in your package. There are a few minutes of context-setting. If you’ll indulge me just for a minute or two to provide that, it is intended to be informative and helpful and set the context with which these two reports are situated.

[9:05 a.m.]

I also want to introduce and recognize some colleagues as well. I first want to recognize Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth, who’s in the room today, and her team for the enormous amount of work, outreach and analysis done in creating these reports and for continuing to meet with us as we embark on a new path forward.

We often actually find ourselves in agreement about how best to support B.C.’s most vulnerable children. In this light, RCY is an important partner in a larger British Columbia context, and many other jurisdictions don’t benefit from that partnership.

and for continuing to meet with us as we embark on a new path forward. We often actually find ourselves in agreement about how best to support B.C.’s most vulnerable children. And in this light, RCY is an important partner in a larger British Columbia context. Many other jurisdictions don’t benefit from that partnership.

As a province, we need to continue to work collaboratively with the RCY and all partners to continuously improve our provision of care for children and youth. We always remain open-minded to advice and counsel from the RCY and others as we do our work. And in that light, you will see lots of agreement and the welcoming of recommendations through the No Time to Wait report.

I’d also like to acknowledge our incredible ministry staff and those working in Indigenous Child and Family Services agencies, the child protection workers, social workers and those who dedicate their entire lives, working careers, to providing support for vulnerable children and youth and their families, including those with complex support or mental health needs. Each day these individuals and many others are doing the hard work that is needed with dedication and empathy and compassion, with professionalism and skill, and an enormous amount of commitment. I know everyone here on the team and in this room shares my respect and gratitude to those in this field of work.

I’d like to take a moment now to introduce some of my colleagues who are joining me here today. To my left, Cory Hevener, assistant deputy minister and provincial director of child welfare; Kelly Durand, assistant deputy minister of service delivery division; Fisnik Preniqi, executive financial officer; and we have Soji Bryant, who’s our chief human resources officer, joining us today.

I also want to take this opportunity before the committee today to take a moment to ground our discussion about these two specific items in a broader recognition of Colby. The little boy at the centre of the representative’s Don’t Look Away report. Colby’s story — what he endured in his young life, the missed opportunities, the horror and tragedy of his last months, of his passing — will always remain with me in my role. And I know it does with this entire team as well — as it should.

His story, and that of others, is at the heart of the work we are doing in this ministry and across government to fundamentally transform the way we support vulnerable children and families, and I want that story with us today as we walk through these two reports, to shift our focus and a fundamental change towards child, youth and family well-being and what that really means: stability and safety, a sense of belonging, a loving home, food on the table, education, health care and housing, accessible supports and services available when and where they are needed early in a child’s life where crisis can be prevented.

Colby’s story is the catalyst for the kind of systemic change that was long overdue, and as challenging as it is to reimagine and create a new system, we welcome the work that we are presently engaged in and that work lies ahead. Collectively, we are under no illusions about the breadth and depth of the work it will take, the energy and resources it will require to create a new system that builds children, youth and families up rather than a history of division, and we are in it for the long haul.

We will continue to be guided by the voices and experiences of families, of partners, of parents and oversight bodies, of professionals and subject matter experts and Indigenous Peoples.

And as with all our work, we continue to adhere to the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, as well as the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, DRIPA, this province’s framework for reconciliation.

As the representative has pointed out in her report, we all have a role and responsibility to change how we support vulnerable families. MCFD can’t and shouldn’t do it alone. Creating a new system that incorporates and weaves together the different services and supports ministries and government offer, reaching out to communities and partners and filling in whatever gaps might exist takes time.

We are working closely with our partner ministries to action and honour the commitments government made on July 16, 2024, at the time of the release of Don’t Look Away. And I can tell you that progress has been made on all eight commitments as outlined in the news release on that date.

Two closing comments before I turn things over to my colleague Cory. One, that commitment is reflected in our ministry’s 2025 mandate letter, which includes direction to prioritize in three key areas: honouring Indigenous jurisdiction over the care of children and families and continue to address and reduce the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in government care; leading work to design and implement a comprehensive child well-being plan and outcomes framework that aligns services across ministries and agencies; leading work with the Ministry of Health and with Indigenous peoples, key stakeholders and people with lived experience to realign and improve services for children and youth with support and mental health needs.

[9:10 a.m.]

The ministry now has structure and stability to lead this work. This is reflected in a new comprehensive strategic framework that spans the next three years that embeds these goals along with an important goal of striving to ensure children and youth in the system of care realize comparable outcomes to their

youth with support and mental health needs. The ministry now has structure and stability to lead this work. This is reflected in a new comprehensive strategic framework that spans the next three years that embeds these goals along with an important goal of striving to ensure children and youth in the system of care realize comparable outcomes to their peers.

Our strategic framework ensures that our intent, our aims, our goals and objectives are all focused and incredibly clear for the public and for our team. While we will get into this in some depth this morning, I want to close with an acknowledgement of the inaugural and recently introduced three-year workforce plan that encompasses our ongoing work in critical areas, including recruitment and retention, reflects new research into workplace health, encompasses recommendations from the No Time to Wait report that we’re going to go through.

Ultimately, we’ve embedded all of the recommendations from the No Time to Wait report part 2 into either the workforce plan or into our daily work, and we will get through that again in some detail.

Again, I want to thank the RCY for her report and recognize the courage and honesty with which almost 800 ministry and Indigenous child and family service agency staff and team leaders shared their voices and their experiences. It’s a very valuable input to us and, ultimately, informs the 17 recommendations in that report.

During our presentation today, we’ll hear more about the initiatives and actions the ministry is taking to bolster our support for staff in this critical area and, in so doing, helping ensure the health, safety and well-being of our workforce, each of whom is valued and integral to our work on behalf of children, youth, young adults and families.

In conclusion, we have much to talk about this morning. Thank you for indulging me just for a few minutes of context-setting and how these reports fit into the broader scheme of things. Thank you again to the RCY for the two reports that have been tabled here with this committee. Our team is here to present and answer the committee’s questions this morning.

I will now turn it over to my colleague, Cory Heavener, to cover the privacy and confidentiality provisions of our legislation. Thank you.

Cory Heavener: Thank you, Keith. Good morning, committee members. As Keith mentioned, I’m Cory Heavener, the provincial director of child welfare and an assistant deputy minister with the ministry. Thank you for the opportunity today to touch on information-sharing and protection of privacy of information regarding children and families and the statutory framework that child protection services are provided to children and families and how we operate in British Columbia.

Just to situate us for this conversation, we are on slide 3. As many of you know, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or as it is commonly referred to, the CF and CSA, governs child welfare practice in the province. When a child welfare worker becomes involved with a family, they collect sensitive personal information to help address the concerns about a child’s safety and about supporting the family. This is allowed and is gathered under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

This same law sets out clear limits on confidentiality and protection of privacy. The information that child welfare workers gather, as I mentioned, is private, confidential and very, very sensitive, and it could only be shared for specific purposes as is set out in the CF and CSA. For example, child welfare workers may disclose information if the disclosure is necessary to ensure the safety or well-being of a child.

At a provincial level, in the role I am in as the provincial director of child welfare and the new Indigenous child welfare director, we are statutory decision-makers under the legislation and we are accountable for what information can be disclosed to the minister and to the deputy minister. This is done on a case-by-case basis and any information shared must comply with the legal requirements of the legislation.

The provincial director of child welfare and the Indigenous child welfare director have access to all information involving children and families served under the legislation. The deputy minister and the minister do not. We have to ensure as a provincial director and as an Indigenous child welfare director that we provide them information they are entitled to under the legislation.

When an MLA is supporting a constituent, and the person provides their written consent for the ministry to disclose their information, only information pertaining to the individual that provided the consent can be disclosed.

[9:15 a.m.]

Child- or family-specific information, by law, cannot be disclosed to the general public. Only general information can be shared. That would include information about our policies, our practices, our guidelines, our training, and we do our best to share as much information with the general public as we can. While the ministry wants and works to be as transparent and helpful as possible, we also have a legal duty to protect the privacy of children and families that we serve.

And if we move to slide 4,

we do our best to share as much information with the general public as we can. While the ministry wants and works to be as transparent and helpful as possible, we also have a legal duty to protect the privacy of children and families that we serve.

Transitioning to the reports that we’ll be talking about today….

Rohini Arora (Chair): We have a question. MLA Chant.

Susie Chant: Thank you.

Hi, I’m MLA Chant. I’m from North Vancouver–Seymour.

I just have a couple of questions in terms of the sharing information. I was a foster parent for many years. First off, how much information or who decides what information is shared with foster parents, health team, team members at large within a community, and can a family or a child consent for information to be shared?

Because what I hear…. I understand it; I understand it really, really well, but it can also lead to siloing and children not managing to be able to say, or maybe people not being able to hear what children have to say.

Are you able to speak to that a little bit for me, please?

Cory Heavener: Yes, absolutely. And thank you for the question.

All the information that’s shared under the legislation is done on an individual-by-individual basis, as I mentioned. Many factors are taken into consideration when sharing information. The Child, Family and Community Service Act does give us the opportunity to share information so that we can ensure the safety and well-being of children and ensure that they are adequately served and protected.

So your question regarding foster parents…. We would share information that’s guided by the legislation, also guided by our policies, to ensure as a foster parent or a health care provider or other that you have all the information you need to care for the child. That is really important.

Quite often with children their information that we share is related to their care plan. Each child in care will have a care plan that outlines key areas in their life that we want to ensure they are receiving services and supports in. So it’s really critical that we share that information with the service providers that are providing that service to ensure they have all the adequate information to ensure the child’s safety and well-being.

I’m not sure if that answers your question.

Susie Chant: The other piece…. Sorry. May I follow up?

Rohini Arora (Chair): Yes. Please.

Susie Chant: You spoke about consent, and can a child provide consent for their information to be shared and the family, both components of that.

Cory Heavener: Again, I would preface that by saying each situation is individual, and it would depend on the legal status of the child that is being served. But yes, with consent and consent from parents, we can share their information, and a child over 12 can consent to share their information as well.

Susie Chant: Over 12. Okay.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m wondering if I could get a little bit of an expansion on what the ministry’s position is on whistleblowing. I understand in the context of a child’s individualistic, private information that that remains sensitive, and it completely makes sense to me in the statutory scheme that you’ve described here, particularly with ongoing investigations.

The reason whistleblowing comes to mind is because I did read a news article about…. I believe it was actually a worker at the RCY who tried to come forward in 2024 and was alleging that there were systemic problems and work was not being done, and this individual received a series of threatening and intimidating letters from lawyers directed by the RCY. I believe that the legal basis there was two things. It was the CFCSA. It was also a confidentiality agreement that that employee had signed, which is sort of a separate thing, but I’m really curious to know.

Does the ministry acknowledge that there is whistleblower protection legislation in place here in British Columbia, and there is a situation contemplated outside of this act where people can come forward and make important information known that’s of public concern? Can you expand on that a bit?

Cory Heavener: Yes. Thank you for your question.

[9:20 a.m.]

I can’t speak to the RCY. I’m not familiar with the RCY information, but what I can speak to is…. The safety of children and youth in this province is paramount, and there is a duty to report if anybody believes that a child may be in need of protection.

Under the very legislation that I just spoke to, you do need to make a report if you have any reason to believe. So that doesn’t mean you’ve actually witnessed abuse or you’ve heard somebody talk about it. If you have

and youth in this province is paramount, and there is a duty to report if anybody believes that a child may be in need of protection.

Under the very legislation that I just spoke to, you do need to make a report if you have any reason to believe. That doesn’t mean you’ve actually witnessed abuse or you’ve heard somebody talk about it. If you have any reason to believe, you need to report that, and that is assessed by a child welfare worker. Then the next steps are determined. That would be my first point.

As far as whistleblower information, of course the ministry…. Any time a concern comes forward, whether it’s with respect to an individual child or a systemic concern, depending on how that is brought forward, we would look at it and analyze it and address it if it needs to be addressed.

Rohini Arora (Chair): We’re going to, I think, pass it back. Just keep in mind we are at 9:20, so we ran a little bit over. Just to ensure that we stick to time, I want to share that we’re going to stick to that 20 minutes. Then we’ll go into questions. If there are further questions, we’ll keep it to that portion there.

Cory Heavener: I’m now on slide 4, and I’ll move very quickly so we can get to the actual presentation.

This slide speaks to the agreed-upon process we have with the RCY to respond to report recommendations. I was planning to go through it all in detail, but I think each of the steps is outlined as mentioned.

What I can tell you is the RCY published the No Time to Wait report in February of this year, and we are actively involved in the action planning stage, as you will hear today. We need to have a final action plan to the RCY by August of this year that outlines in detail all of the actions and sub-actions we will be taking to respond to their report.

What I want to be really clear on…. Again, as you’ll hear today, there are a number of actions that are already underway or were underway, and we always look at whether there are initiatives that we’re doing that we may need to pivot or realign so that the intent is also focused on the RCY recommendations.

That is my quick overview of that slide. If we move to slide 5, I will now turn it over to my colleague, Fisnik Preniqi, to continue.

Fisnik Preniqi: Good morning, Chair and Members.

I want to also take a moment to acknowledge the Representative for Children and Youth’s most recent report and all the hard work that went into this report. The minister welcomes the important work and extends our sincere thanks to the staff, as well as to the ministry staff who contributed their time, knowledge and experiences to support the development of this report.

We know that child welfare workers in British Columbia have some of the most challenging roles in our province. Their work is demanding, complex and deeply impactful. Despite these challenges, these professionals continue to show unwavering dedication and passion to the children, youth and families, and supporting one another.

We recognize, as the ministry, the significance of the findings in this report and are taking meaningful steps in response. Work is already underway to address all of the recommendations through the development of a comprehensive action plan.

Additionally, I want to highlight, as mentioned, that many of these recommendations are already being addressed through the ministry’s workforce plan, which was released in March 2025, soon after the representative’s report. This plan outlines a series of initiatives designed to strengthen and sustain both the ministry and broader sector workforces, ensuring that those on the front lines are better supported to carry out their critical roles.

On slide 7, I wanted to highlight the eight themes that the representative has outlined and to categorize their 17 recommendations. In the comments slides, my colleagues and I will share details on the work planned or underway or already completed relating to these 17 recommendations.

On slide 8, I’ll talk about our workforce plan in some detail. This is a strategic framework that ensures that the ministry has the right people with the right skills in the right roles at the right time. It involves assessing current workforce capabilities, identifying future staffing needs and developing strategies to address gaps through recruitment, training, retention and succession planning.

The goal of this plan is to address workforce challenges, improve employee support and ensure that our workforce strategies are well aligned with our service delivery goals. We anticipate workforce need, and we make informed decisions to reduce turnover and ensure operational efficiency.

[9:25 a.m.]

The plan was developed through a major consultation process. Four consultation sessions, with 132 attendees, were held. This included MCFD’s leadership team from band 4 to band 6. That means directors, executive directors and senior executive directors or, as they’re known, executive directors of service. This helped us gather insights and understand workforce needs from different perspectives.

Another important piece

were held. This included MCFD’s leadership team from band 4 to band 6. That means directors, executive directors and senior executive directors, or, as they’re known, executive directors of service. This helped us gather insights and understand workforce needs from different perspectives.

Another important piece of developing the plan was data analysis. We conducted an in-depth analysis of the current state of our workforce. This involved looking at turnover rates, employee demographics, areas of high demand, and existing workforce trends. Data analysis helped identify priority areas and helps us understand the gaps in our workforce.

Development of strategies and actions in the report includes integrating several recommendations from the Representative’s report, and we are committed to developing further actions that support reconciliation within our ministry’s workforce. These efforts aim to foster a more inclusive and culturally responsive environment, aligning our work with the principles of reconciliation and meaningful engagement.

Using the feedback from consultations and data analysis, we developed targeted strategies and actions. These strategies focus on attraction and retention, workforce flexibility, employee well-being and enhancing skills to meet the demands of our ministry’s goals. Each action addresses a specific workforce challenge, from filling high-demand roles to supporting employee mental health.

On slide 9, we wanted to break down how the Representative’s recommendations in the No Time to Wait report aligned with our workforce plan and acknowledge that the four recommendations that are not currently supported by the workforce plan will be incorporated in future versions.

Later in this presentation, my colleagues and I will also outline how these recommendations are being directly addressed through coordinated efforts across the ministry, including new initiatives and ongoing work, making sure that each one gets the time and attention it deserves.

Starting on slide 10, I will walk through the key strategies we are implementing to strengthen our workforce at the Ministry of Children and Family Development. As mentioned, our focus is on attraction and recruitment, equity and belonging, health and safety and then ministry priorities to ensure that we have a sustainable, engaged and diverse workforce.

Under the attraction and recruitment, we aim to position MCFD as an employer of choice, showcasing the importance of the work that we do. We want to improve hiring practices to increase workforce diversity. This is a key priority. We’re also focusing on attracting students, interns and new graduates, expanding our pipeline for future talent. A review of our excluded staff compensation and benefits will also help ensure fairness and equity in our workforce.

Under equity and belonging, we recognize the importance of Indigenous cultural safety and reconciliation in our work, and we’re committed to providing the necessary resources for this. We’re expanding flexible training options, which will help us foster greater inclusivity, meeting employees where they are. Removing barriers for equity-deserving groups is a priority, and we are strengthening our commitment through an equity, diversity, inclusion and anti-racism action plan.

On slide 11, we have the other two focus areas. Under the health and safety, we are continuing to build internal resources and capacity, including iConnect education and training materials. We’re also evaluating and enhancing employee wellness programs like critical incident response and pilot programs as they are key to supporting our frontline staff.

The health and safety action plan was released in February using data on psychological risk factors, and strategies are included to address key gaps in service and education. Part of the health and safety action plan is the Guarding Minds survey, which was launched on May 5, 2025, and is still open for staff of the ministry to take. The results of this survey will be used to ensure health and safety supports for staff and to update the health and safety action plan.

Under the focus area of ministry priorities, a thorough needs assessment is underway to ensure we understand current challenges and research effective solutions. We will ensure that organizational priorities are met and properly resourced to support long-term workforce sustainability. Leadership development is a critical area of focus. A strong leadership directly impacts staff retention and engagement.

Finally, we are exploring flexible work options, including part-time, remote and four-day workweek models to improve work-life balance for our staff.

For slide 12, I’ll pass it over to my colleague Kelly to walk through on the staffing levels.

[9:30 a.m.]

Kelly Durand: Thank you. My name is Kelly Durand. I’m the assistant deputy minister of service delivery division.

I’m going to walk you through slides 12 and 13. I just want to draw your attention that they’re just, in fact, quite

Kelly Durand: My name’s Kelly Durand. I am the assistant deputy minister of service delivery division.

I’m going to walk you through slides 12 and 13. I just want to draw your attention that they are quite similar slides, but they both speak to front-line staffing. The difference between slide 12 and 13 is that slide 12 is going to include our complement of administrative staff, and it doesn’t reflect any staff who are on leave. So you’re going to see a higher number of staff on slide 12. Slide 13 is also our front-line staff. However, it does not include our administrative staff, and it also reflects the staff who are on leave as of March 31, 2025. I just want to say the slides are quite similar, although just a different complement: admin staff and staff who are on leave.

Starting with slide 12, I just want to draw your attention there. We were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ministry experienced a 6 percent decrease in the number of front-line employees from March 2020 through to March 2022.

During the fiscal year of 2023-2024, MCFD recovered to its pre-pandemic front-line staffing level, and we’ve recovered since then through to March 2025.

In March 2025, MCFD had 314 more front-line employees than it had in March of 2020. This graph includes active employees only, not employees who are on leave. Front-line workers and team leads include positions such as program officers, social worker assistants, correctional services, licensed psychologists, nurses, health care workers, dieticians, child care counsellors, food production services, as well as administrative officers and other professionals such as clerks and clerk stenographers. Employees who work in these positions work across all six services lines in the ministry. Those would be such services lines as child and youth with support needs, child and youth mental health services, child safety, family support, adoptions, resources and youth justice services.

I am now going to move to slide 13. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a similar slide. It does not include our administrative staff, and it also includes those staff on leave. As you would expect, it’s a lesser staffing number, and it ranges to show you that in March 31, 2020, direct service employees numbered 3,407 and that number increased, through recovery after COVID, to 3,641 by March 31, 2025. It also represents the same six service lines, and it also reflects front-line staffing.

With that, I’m going to turn you back to slide 14 to my colleague, Fisnik.

Fisnik Preniqi: Thank you, Kelly.

Chair, if I may ask now, how much do I have? Because I have a few more slides to go through. Oh, OK, that’s plenty of time. Thank you.

Starting on slide 14, I have a couple more slides to speak to. Thank you. We also have many actions underway and plans that align with the themes shown on slide 14, which we’d like to highlight for you in the next couple of slides.

On slide 15, under recommendation 4, the ministry is committed to better understanding its workforce and the staffing levels necessary to deliver services that children and families rely on. The tool developed by Deetken — which the committee, I understand, has heard of before — predates many of the transformative projects the ministry has undertaken since the tool was developed in 2019. Work on transferring and respecting jurisdiction, expanding post-majority supports, and changes to service delivery for children and youth with support needs are just some of the changes that would need to be reflected in an updated tool.

On the workforce measurement, we plan to start with a jurisdictional scan looking to what other ministries and jurisdictions do in similar circumstances. Our intention is to learn the best practices and use our findings from the scan, along with Deetken’s earlier work, to determine how we plan and measure workforce needs going forward.

On recommendation 5, as the ministry has a better understanding of what is an appropriate staffing level, we will use that information to better inform annual funding requests to central government.

[9:35 a.m.]

Under slide 16, we have recommendation 17. The exit interview survey was launched in February 2025. This survey is voluntary and only eight employees have completed it. I must say that the research shows that exit interviews may not be the best indicator of the reasons the employees leave, as they’ve already made that decision at that point and are leaving their current position.

Other surveys, such as Guarding Minds and work environment survey, focus on what the employees need to stay in a position.

I must say that the research shows that exit interviews may not be the best indicator of the reasons the employees leave, as they’ve already made that decision at that point and are leaving their current position. Other surveys, such as Guarding Minds and work environment survey, focus on what the employees need to stay in a position.

We have a list of requests under the union agreement — stage 3, appendix 4, article 29, joint committee agreements — and these have been tracked on a regular basis for a number of years. The employer’s perspective is this isn’t a true reflection of workflow load issues. This is based on employee perspective about workload. It is subjective, and we don’t have a baseline formula for workload due to complexity and team supports between service delivery areas.

Tracking for recent years is as follows. In 2025, we have 18 requests; 2024, 13; and in 2023, we had nine. Note that the totals are a point in time and the focus is on resolving the issues as they’re raised rather than tracking the number of cases.

On slide 17, for recommendation 1, I will say that we are conducting a full workforce analysis of delegated staff credentials to clearly understand the prevalence of various credentials in our workforce. Once we have that understanding, we’ll do analysis of our programs and coursework at the institutions we predominantly draw from. We have summarized findings from the earlier expanded credentials project in 2019, and we have analyzed the jurisdictional scan of credential standards across Canada. We’re also reviewing how we currently determine competency in the hiring process and the implications for subsequent onboarding of incoming staff.

On recommendation 2, our learning and development team is leading a comprehensive review of onboarding, training and practice supports for our new hires in child welfare. The team distributed surveys to approximately 300 new hires, which is defined as staff within their first two years of service of the ministry.

Regarding recommendation 3, there are several different ways to achieve registration of MCFD child welfare workers. The ministry is actively exploring different options for how the representative’s recommendations could be addressed. This is complicated work, and we will focus on how and where the ministry can make the most meaningful outcome. We will consider the representative’s advice to implement any changes in a way that avoids disruption to a fragile workforce. This work will also need to be informed through targeted engagement with key partners to fully understand the implications of different approaches.

Recommendation 16, we’re developing a plan to include contextual data, like staffing levels and workload, into our quality assurance work. That would be practice audits, which look at overall patterns in practice, and child and family practice reviews, which focus on the specific experience of an individual child or youth.

Right now, these reviews primarily focus on whether practice followed policy. We’re exploring how to also consider the conditions staff were working in, and we’re working with our HR branch and other teams to identify useful data, assess gaps, and plan for safe and thoughtful use. Our goal is to have a plan ready for January 2026.

On slide 18, recommendation 10, in February 2025, our learning and development team launched a new course called Upholding Jurisdiction for Child and Family Services, which provides staff with an overview of various pathways to jurisdiction. It’s well received and many staff, 764 employees, have completed the training so far.

On recommendation 11, the theme of professional development, the ministry absolutely supports staff participation in local Indigenous ceremonies and cultural events and plans to deliver communication to all staff to reiterate this, as well as to provide this guidance to supervisors. We are actively working on a process to be able to input and track staff participation as part of staff professional development plans and specialties as appropriate.

Recommendation 12, the team is also reviewing the foundational child welfare course, based on learner feedback, to determine the most effective training modality and to explore opportunities for in-person delivery where appropriate.

Recommendation 13, the development of a new training for team leaders remains on track. The first cohort will participate in a learning pilot in mid-October with a full course launch planned for winter 2025 and staff are also working to create supplemental materials to support the implementation of the training program.

In conclusion, we have a few bullets summarizing this on slide 19.

[9:40 a.m.]

This concludes my presentation of the status of our implementation of recommendations contained within the Representative for Children and Youth’s report, No Time to Wait: A Review of MCFD’s Child Welfare Workforce, Part Two.

As you can see, we are committed to building a new vision for child well-being and that includes expanding our support for employee well-being, particularly child welfare workers

recommendations contained within the Representative for Children and Youth’s report, No Time to Wait: A Review of MCFD’s Child Welfare Workforce, Part Two.

As you can see, we are committed to building a new vision for child well-being and that includes expanding our support for employee well-being, particularly child welfare workers. We appreciate the time you have all taken today to be here for this presentation. We’d now like to welcome any questions from the members.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Thank you so much. Sorry, we had to speed through that a little bit, but that was a wealth of information. Amelia, you had some questions. Please go ahead.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Yes, thank you. There’s quite a density of information there. I do appreciate it.

I have a couple of questions. My first question is just with respect to some of the timelines, I appreciate that some timelines were provided, but it’s a little hard to follow at this speed. So what I’m wondering is whether the ministry would be willing to provide us with a table that says, “Recommendation number blah anticipated to be finished by….” and provide us with a table that shows us these timelines.

In particular, I was thinking of on page 9 there are sort of three buckets: some of the recommendations have work already underway, some are supported by the 2025-2028 workforce plan and then the remainder are supported by a future plan.

So with respect to the recommendations that have been covered today, for brevity of time, would the ministry be willing to follow up and provide that to the committee?

Fisnik Preniqi: Yes.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Okay, perfect. Thank you.

My second question is with respect to exit interviews. I noticed in the notes here for the first time that the exit interview is only a pilot program. I guess I didn’t catch that detail when we talked about it in estimates. I asked if exit interviews were happening, and I was told that they were happening. Now that I’m understanding that it’s a pilot program, can you just tell us what percentage of exit interviews are happening? How many? And when, if at any time, we can expect this to, hopefully, be an actual permanent policy in place throughout the ministry?

Fisnik Preniqi: Thank you, Member. Thank you for the question.

Yes, the exit interviews are now in a pilot testing. They were always available, as noted in the estimates, but they were not consistently applied in various areas. They are still a voluntary tool out there. You can’t force people to participate in an exit interview. I would perhaps ask our chief human resources officer if you’d like to add anything to this answer, Soji.

Soj Bryant: Yeah. The pilot is, in itself, just how we’re asking employees to identify when they’re leaving and how we’re asking the questions. Right now, we send an email when we know that an employee has indicated they’re leaving the workforce. The pilot just is around the modality. We’re wanting to look at how many people actively participate in that before we, say, dedicate time to schedule interviews or do a more robust questionnaire. We’re just looking at that modality. But the intent is to continue to ask employees about their experience when they have decided to leave the ministry.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Thank you, I appreciate that. Can you just provide me with numbers? How many people have you tested this new modality on or what percentage? How big is the pilot program is what I’m trying to understand.

Soji Bryant: Yeah. I think we will commit to continuing that pilot for 2025, and we’ll see what the participation rate is. As of right now, we’ve had eight employees volunteer to participate in the corporate pilot. We know that there are other local exit interviews that take place with managers, but we don’t collect that information consistently at this time.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): So the number is eight?

Soji Bryant: Yeah.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Thank you.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Thanks. In the interest of fairness, if there are other questions…. I know Susie has her hand up. Once Susie speaks, if there are others, please let me know and indicate. Okay, Amshen next.

Susie Chant: Okay, I actually have a number of questions, but I’ll keep it to one for now and then maybe you can come back to me when there’s a chance. Thank you so much.

You talked about the planned consultation that occurred with about 132 attendees, and you said they were band 4 through 6. Does band 4 through 6 include people that are on the ground as child welfare workers?

Soji Bryant: Band 4 through 6 is our management complement. We gathered the input from our direct service workers and employees through another modality of the work environment survey, which is administered every two years.

[9:45 a.m.]

Susie Chant: Right, I’m familiar with the work environment survey, but I was just….

Soji Bryant: We used a number of different inputs for the collection of that data, but those sessions were just with the management groups.

Susie Chant: So the consultation was with management only? Okay, thank you.

I’ve got more

which is administered every two years.

Susie Chant: Right. I’m familiar with the work environment survey. But I was just….

Soji Bryant: We used a number of different inputs for the collection of that data, but those sessions were just with the management groups.

Susie Chant: So the consultation was with management only. Okay.

I’ve got more, but….

Rohini Arora (Chair): Amshen, go ahead.

Amshen / Joan Phillip: In light of UNDRIP and Canada’s new First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families act, what steps are taken to assist communities or nations to take over the jurisdiction over children and families?

Fisnik Preniqi: Thank you, Member, for the question.

Keith Godin: Can I ask a clarification question? As it relates to the preparation of the workforce or more generally?

Amshen / Joan Phillip: No, it has…. My husband is a member of the Penticton band, part of the Okanagan Nation. Our southern counterparts, the Colville Confederated Tribes, have what’s called domestic sovereignty, and the state has zero jurisdiction within their children and family issues. It’s delegated directly from the federal government.

The First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and families act was designed to facilitate jurisdiction coming directly from the federal government to the communities instead of being delegated through the province. So what are we doing to…?

In my experience, of children that come into conflict with the law, 99 percent had been in long-term care of the ministry or were in care of the ministry, and so I assume that children that grow up at home don’t get in trouble. So we want to be able to…. If we want to honour UNDRIP and respect nations’ rights and sovereignty over their children and families, what steps are we taking to help facilitate that process?

Keith Godin: Yes, a great question. Government is doing a lot. I hope it came across in my context setting that one of the core pillars of the strategic framework of the ministry is just that, as well as mandated through the minister’s mandate letter. We generally refer to it as jurisdiction, but there are in fact multiple ways for an Indigenous governing body to access more information, co-decision-making on child welfare matters and then ultimately assuming control over child welfare matters through what’s called a coordination agreement. So there are multiple pathways that a First Nation can take to, again, have greater influence and, ultimately, control over those matters.

If of interest to the committee — this is a very large topic — we’re happy to come back and explain all of the various ways, or offline with the member.

The second aspect I would add relates to this agenda item in this workforce report. Fisnik did highlight all the training that goes underway for front-line staff to now work in this multilateral environment with the federal government, nations assuming jurisdiction. This is a fundamental change in the system that just did not exist mere years ago and now is a major driver of the competencies required for that profession. We’ve addressed that through a number of recommendations.

Again, I’m answering that briefly. There’s a lot more to that response, but that’s the answer in brief.

Susie Chant: I’m going to go back to the simple questions.

[9:50 a.m.]

I saw you had recruitment there. I didn’t see a lot on retention, but my assumption is that retention is a big piece of what we want to do. Have you got anything that’s focusing on mentorship on site, at-the-elbow? I’m a nurse by profession, and I know we’re losing young nurses all the time because we don’t have a lot of us old nurses around to support them as they get accustomed to the work that they’ve decided to undertake. If you don’t have that support, you can burn out real fast

and I know we’re losing young nurses all the time because we don’t have a lot of us old nurses around to support them as they get accustomed to the work that they’ve decided to undertake. And if you don’t have that support, you can burn out real fast — in my opinion, of course.

I just wondered if there’s a focus — what kind of focus there or what it looks like.

Soji Bryant: The short answer is yes, we are focusing on that, because we do also recognize the importance of that, the peer support and mentorship. The ministry has a position identified that our more seasoned workers can move into, for up to a two-year period, where they will mentor their colleagues and still maintain a smaller caseload at the same time.

Given the demographic difference of our urban and rural service delivery…. We have a very strong team in the Lower Mainland. We are hoping we can extend how that team is utilized in the Lower Mainland and look at how we can ensure that mentorship is provided throughout the province. So that’s what we’re looking at right now.

Susie Chant: So it’s really focused in the Lower Mainland, but you’re working towards moving it out.

Soji Bryant: We have two very strong teams in two areas of the ministry, and we’re looking at how we can duplicate that for other areas, yes.

Rohini Arora (Chair): I actually have a question, so I was hoping I could pose that in front of you.

On slide 15, you were talking about jurisdictions. I was just curious: which other jurisdictions are being considered? Is it within Canada? Is it neighbouring countries? Often I hear that there’s a focus on European countries and Canada and the States, so I’m just curious about which jurisdictions have been considered, and other ones as well.

Fisnik Preniqi: I would expect the team that is working on this project to look at the international jurisdictions as well, and if they’re not, I will make sure that is part of their review. I’m not sure if you know for sure, Soji?

Soji Bryant: I think we do usually work with other similar nations. I know most recently New Zealand has reached out, as well, to see how we can explore jurisdiction for both of…. Or, sorry, this jurisdiction of the jurisdiction scan, not jurisdiction yet — so the jurisdictional scan. So Australia and New Zealand would be other like nations.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Thank you so much. Then I had one other follow up which is probably more of a comment, but something that’s very near and dear to me.

I heard you tie professional development to participation in Indigenous and spiritual practice. I don’t often hear this kind of commentary. It’s often cultural and not tied to professional development. So I just want to say I deeply appreciate that piece.

Of course, I’m not First Nations, Indigenous or Métis, but I am from the South Asian community, and I know that cultural practice, while it may look like that from someone’s perspective…. Actually being a part of it and involved allows you to understand the protocol — how to communicate and connect with our communities. And it does make a difference.

So I just wanted to say that I really appreciate that language. And I think that more and more of that is integral to moving in the direction that we need to move to, to become a much more inclusive province. So thank you.

Heather hasn’t spoken yet, so we’re going to let Heather go ahead, and then Susie, and then we’re out of time for questions. We’re going to move on to the next portion.

Heather Maahs: So I understand that we’re talking about training and staff and whatnot. I just have a question regarding the ratio of staff to children in care. Where are we at? Do we have enough staff or…? Actually, I should qualify that. I mean social workers, front-line folks working with the children. Where are we at with those numbers?

[9:55 a.m.]

Kelly Durand: Maybe I could take that question.

I’m just going to orient myself. I had a few notes prepared thinking I would manage a few of the questions.

I’m just going to orient myself. I had a few notes prepared, thinking I would manage a few of the questions. I want to answer the question in terms of the numbers, but if you’ll indulge me, I want to give you just a bit of context. Thank you for the question.

Generally speaking, about: “Do we have enough staff?” I want to say that we do have sufficient staffing levels. We have a very dynamic workforce that delivers services to children, youth, young adults and families across multiple service lines. Those were the service lines I spoke to earlier.

Not only do we have a dynamic workforce, but we have a dynamic province that requires a varied approach. The circumstances under which we deliver services in a rural and remote community do not look the same as they would in an urban centre.

We deliver services to every corner of this province: Kitimat, Telegraph Creek, Atlin, B.C. — you have to drive through the Yukon to access Atlin — Dease Lake, Hazelton, Gitsegukla, Ulkatcho First Nation, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Grand Forks, Lillooet. Those look very different than delivering services in an urban centre such as Surrey, Richmond, Nanaimo, Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna and Kamloops.

The ministry has 28 designated hard-to-recruit locations, and there have been long-standing challenges with those locations. That has not changed. However, what has changed is the ministry’s ability to adapt practice to ensure that delivery meets the needs of children, youth, young adults and families.

Taking the lessons we learned during COVID and leveraging technology, maximizing virtual technology and utilizing our workforce in different ways, day in and day out we keep the doors open to provide direct service in 168 front-facing ministry offices, in addition to running 24-7 operations and three contact centres, including provincial centralized screening that answers approximately 198,000 calls per year — 198,000 calls. That’s what we do. We did it during COVID, and we still do that today.

I would be happy to report out on staffing numbers. I can give you those numbers. But I think it’s more important to tell you about the work that we do, to help you understand on a weekday what happens in a rural and remote community.

I could choose to tell you about a service interruption on a ferry that impacts a worker trying to get from Prince Rupert to Haida Gwaii, and that impacts the service that we were going to do or the home study we were going to do in Haida Gwaii. I can tell you about a road closure for a staff member travelling from Fort St. James through to Takla and how that impacts service delivery, or two flat tires that occur because they’re on a logging road.

Instead, I’m going to tell you about Tsay Keh Dene. It takes approximately eight hours for a child protection worker and their team to drive into Tsay Keh Dene. It takes one hour by fixed-wing aircraft. There are no hotels in Tsay Keh Dene or Kwadacha. When social workers fly into Tsay Keh, there’s no guarantee that the plane is going to fly and come and pick them up. This is usually due to inclement weather.

I know this because I’ve made the flight. I know this because I chose to make the drive. I wanted to know what those social workers experienced. I’ve been the one standing on the tarmac when the plane didn’t come to pick you up, when you couldn’t get back to your family and back to your team in Prince George that was counting on you.

Likely, for that team in Prince George, it might have felt like there was a staffing shortage, that you were down a body. Someone had to go to court and report out in your absence.

[10:00 a.m.]

But that isn’t the story. The story is that you were impacted because you worked in a rural and remote community, and due to economy of scale, you couldn’t get back to the larger centre where you were based.

Last Friday I received an email from Rolf Van Driessen. He was the social

because you worked in a rural and remote community, and due to economy of scale, you couldn’t get back to the larger centre where you were based.

Last Friday, I received an email from Rolf Andresem. He was the social director of Tsay Keh Dene, and he wrote to me unsolicited. He said this, and I quote:

“This past week was one of my more enjoyable weeks in Tsay Keh. In particular, I enjoyed working with my young MCFD colleagues, who exhibited such a high degree of professionalism and commitment to do this difficult work.

It was a significant commitment for each of you to take time away from your families and in less than ideal conditions to work intensely to complete a large agenda of work. MCFD should be proud to have such strong, committed employees in the field.”

My point is that we provide service in communities all across B.C.

Tsay Keh Dine is served by a child welfare workforce and a team leader based in Prince George, 500 kilometres north of Tsay Keh and Kwadacha. When they don’t return on the plane, it might feel like we’re short-staffed. It doesn’t happen often, but in rural and remote communities, it does happen.

I want to let you know that in 2024, there were seven hiring competitions led by SOGI to hire specifically into hard-to-recruit locations. They netted us 23 new hires.

To provide context for you, we hired into communities like Haida Gwaii, Mackenzie, Port Hardy, Williams Lake. To provide further context, we hired a social worker into Princeton for the first time in five years. Four workers into Port Hardy. I can’t remember the last time that happened.

We are putting staff in every corner of this province. And when we can’t bring staff to where the work is, we bring work to where the staff is through technology, through virtual services, by adapting and doing the work different than we ever have before.

We have a provincial mobile response team that was implemented in 2014. We have recruitment incentives and retention incentives that were started in 2016. In 2019, we switched our hiring patterns to develop a seven-on, seven-off schedule if that was more attractive to some of our staff.

We have a volunteer social work program where folks can raise their hand for an opportunity to leave their base position and travel up north. That was expanded to include guardianship workers this past year in 2024.

We have centralized support teams that live in more urban areas that provide child and youth mental health services, so they travel up north into rural and remote communities. We have a provincialized response support team that provide child protection services and also travel up to rural and remote communities and the North.

In 2019, we created social program positions and increased experience in education.

Rohini Arora (Chair): I’m so sorry, but we do have to move on. We are over time. We have to move on to the next one, but if there are questions at the end, once we’re done the reports, we can continue those questions if we have time.

We’ll move on now to the next report, please. Thank you.

Kelly Durand: If I can follow up let me know, Member, especially with the numbers.

Heather Maahs: Thank you.

[10:05 a.m.]

Rohini Arora (Chair): Okay. Next on the agenda is the

Rohini Arora (Chair): Next on the agenda is the ministry’s response to the report Too Many Left Behind.

I will again turn it over to the ministry representatives for their presentation. We have 20 minutes allotted for the presentation, followed by questions from the committee.

Keith Godin: I will not repeat the introduction that I made in the previous report, other than to note that we do welcome the report from the Representative For Children and Youth on this matter, acknowledging that it doesn’t come with recommendations but nevertheless is influential in our work and how we inform our work on children youth support needs.

With that, I will introduce another colleague, assistant deputy minister Emily Horton, to run the committee through the presentation.

Emily Horton: Yes, I’m Emily Horton, the assistant deputy minister of policy, legislation and litigation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I’m happy to provide an update today on the ministry’s work that is aligned with the Representative for Children and Youth’s spotlight report Too Many Left Behind.

This report is both a call to action and a validation of direction the ministry is pursuing. As Keith has mentioned, we welcome this spotlight report, and we really do view this as a continuation of a long-standing focus the representative has placed on improving outcomes for vulnerable children and youth, particularly those with disabilities and their families.

This includes reports that date back to 2018: Alone and Afraid, which highlighted the dangers of fragmentation and a failure to adequately support children in care and in crisis, and numerous reports that followed — Excluded, Left Out, Toward Inclusion and now, Too Many Left Behind, which underscores the structural inequalities families face navigating services.

It also highlights areas that align with where the ministry is actively working to strengthen services, to engage families and Indigenous partners and to lay the groundwork for reform.

The first really groundbreaking report, Alone and Afraid, made clear the risks children face when systems fail. Too Many Left Behind confirms that without sustained effort, these risks persist. We are acting with urgency but also with care to co-develop solutions that are sustainable and effective.

The Too Many Left Behind report identifies three key priority areas where government focus is essential to improve outcomes for vulnerable children and youth, and in particular through this report, children with disability.

The first is child wellbeing, emphasizing the importance of ensuring children with disabilities have equitable opportunities to thrive, including addressing gaps across our system, including education, health and community services.

The second relates to family support and navigation, and reinforcing the key theme that families need timely, coordinated and easy-to-access support and that our current system is too challenging to navigate, and services are not provided early enough and sometimes limited by prohibitive criteria such as a singular diagnosis.

The third area relates to data and accountability and the concept that improving services relies on strong data systems that allow for outcome measurement to effectively target investment and monitor our success and monitor equity.

These three areas of wellbeing are not only in the RCY report but are also calls to action that the ministry has received from families, advocates and partners over the course of the last two years and engagement that’s been undertaken. They guide our work to pursue practical improvements and longer-term transformation in what is a challenging fiscal environment.

[10:10 a.m.]

I wanted to highlight a number of current efforts underway that seek to address these RCY findings and themes. We have, in December, just concluded two years of engagement with families and Indigenous partners and service providers to build

I wanted to highlight a number of current efforts underway that seek to address these RCY findings and themes.

We have, in December, just concluded two years of engagement with families and Indigenous partners and service providers to build an improved CYSN service model in B.C. Really, our findings there reinforce the RCY’s findings and recommendations regarding supporting children and youth with disabilities and their families; in particular, the lack of crisis response, inadequate navigation supports and the consequences of fragmented systems.

We’re now in a place with that work where we have the information to build a more coherent system of CYSN services that reflect the lived experiences of children and families. I will speak more to that in a subsequent slide, but I would also like to touch on the parallel and complementary work that government has underway to develop a cross-government child and youth well-being action plan and outcomes framework. This work, in its essence, is to work as one government, to reduce fragmentation across ministries and to focus on families that are facing intersectional vulnerability, such as poverty, disability, intimate partner violence.

The plan is also about coherence across systems and bringing together the systems where children interact on a daily basis — health, education, MCFD services. We are encouraged to see in the mandate letters of both the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Health this priority being reinforced, recognizing the need to strengthen and improve CYSN services and align these services with child and youth mental health services, but also more broadly with the health care continuum.

I’m wanting to highlight very quickly the engagement themes that are being identified through the work that the ministry has undertaken as it relates to CYSN services. The engagement has been clear, and it has been consistent. Families and partners are calling for increased funding. They’re calling for access to more equitable supports, including expansion of access to direct funding and choice.

They are calling for integration across systems, in particular mental health and disability services. They are calling for more crisis response, robust navigation and family support and reducing inequities across the province, whether those inequities be rooted in rural and remote factors or inequities that exist between children that have a diagnosis and those that do not. These are not new concerns, but they’ve been reinforced loudly and clearly through engagement and through the RCY’s report.

The ministry is now in the process of analyzing what we heard through engagement, alongside the representative’s spotlight report, to determine feasible opportunities for service improvement within our current environment. This includes assessing which elements of this future state, such as expanded access to direct funding, can be implemented sustainably and equitably, while ensuring services reach those with the greatest needs first.

As we move forward, our focus is on identifying phased, sustainable actions that maintain momentum and reflect mandate commitments and build towards longer system transformation. The work is guided by questions such as: when considering expanded direct funding, what does equity look like in this context? Who needs access? How much access? These are not questions that we can develop in isolation and need to be informed through dialogue with experts, reflecting on the RCY’s report and continuing to engage families in our work.

The next slide relates to our work on how CYSN is one component of our work, more broad work on the child and youth well-being action plan, which government committed to out of the Don’t Look Away report and Colby’s story.

[10:15 a.m.]

The action plan represents a cross-ministry effort to reduce fragmentation and improve outcomes and, as I mentioned, with a particular focus on families facing intersecting challenges, whether that be violence in the home, socioeconomic hardship, parental health challenges or parenting a child with disability. We are working with a consistent focus to integrate all of our efforts on CYSN improvements into this broader plan.

challenges, whether that be violence in the home, socioeconomic hardship, parental health challenges or parenting a child with a disability. We are working with a consistent focus to integrate all of our efforts on CYSN improvements into this broader plan, ensuring that families of children with disability are not facing exponentially challenging barriers to navigating disconnected systems.

We recognize that doing this work in a time of fiscal uncertainty is difficult. You know, we’re being asked to drive meaningful change while also being realistic about capacity and constraints. It is our belief that incremental improvements, if strategic, can lay a foundation for systemwide transformation.

That’s the approach that we are taking through the child and youth well-being action plan, focusing on strengthening early response and navigation, improving information-sharing across systems, interagency collaboration and building the tools for partnership and accountability. In this context, it’s more important than ever to focus on high-impact foundational steps that bring us closer to a system that’s sustainable, equitable and responsive to the needs of children with disability.

In closing, on slide 28, I want to acknowledge that the representative’s recommendations regarding children and youth with disability and their families have been accumulating for many years. The ministry is listening and acting. We are aligning policy, mandate direction and the voices of families into a cohesive reform agenda.

I think it is important to highlight that the ministry and the RCY, as outlined in Too Many Left Behind, do not find themselves on diametrically opposing sides of this topic or this issue. There are many points of congruence around needs, challenges and opportunities. We’re now in a place where we have the information, and we need to roll up our sleeves and develop a thoughtful and incremental plan of action to move forward.

This is a moment of opportunity, and we are committed to sustained change, working closely with the RCY and our partners, to ensure that we are accountable and responsive. I welcome any questions.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): I have a comment that I’m trying to formulate into a question. Where this comes from — I’m sort of going back a few slides here — was a comment that Mr. Preniqi said. If I understood him correctly, he was reading a quote from, I think, someone else.

It was indicating that whether or not a staff member has too much work is a somewhat subjective exercise. Then Ms. Durand said: “We do have sufficient staff levels.” Those two comments, married up together, create a lot of concern for me, because my very clear understanding, from reading all the data and all the reports, is that whether you want to call it a staffing issue or not, most front-line workers, overwhelmingly, are saying: “We have way too much work.”

Whether you want to look at it as a number of cases that they have — some say the recommended number is 17 — we have discussed in estimates that that number can change, depending on the type of front-line worker, but overwhelmingly, the data that’s coming out of the RCY, that’s coming out of the quality assurance reports, to me, is so clearly saying that either there aren’t enough people working here, or they have too much work — whichever way you want to say it.

My question is: how can representatives from the ministry make a statement like, “Whether or not you have too much work, that’s kind of subjective,” and also, “We have sufficient staffing levels,” when that seems to me to fly in the face of all the other data and information that we have? Please help me understand that.

Emily Horton: I’d like to respond to this question with a focus on children and youth with disability and CYSN services.

[10:20 a.m.]

The ministry supports a subset of the children and youth with disabilities in this province. We have a service model currently, in B.C., that has multiple prongs, including community-based delivery of services, direct social work supports and a direct-funding model for some children with specific disabilities.

One of the things that we know is that the support that family.

have a service model currently in B.C. that has multiple prongs, including community-based delivery of services, direct social work supports and a direct funding model for some children with specific disabilities.

One of the things that we know is that the support that families are receiving from their social workers is not necessarily always the type of support that they want to receive. And that’s one of the things that came out clearly in both the RCY’s report around navigation and family supports, but also in our engagement.

In fact, the staffing piece, as it relates to this report and to CYSN, was less about staffing levels and more about the type of support that families are seeking, the fact that many families wish to receive supports that are disconnected from a child protection system, that there are prohibitive factors with the coexistence of child protection and children and youth with support needs services.

And so, the staffing levels were less of a prominent theme as much as the type of supports that families seek and the fact that those supports are built into the existing model of CYSN and social work in MCFD.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Susie, please go ahead.

Susie Chant: With the child and youth well-being action plan, my perception is that it’s cross-ministries. I assume that SDPR is there and Health is there and Education is there and MCFD is there and a few other oughts and sorts are there, with no disrespect to any other ministries. Do we have a timeframe for when we think that plan might get off the ground?

Emily Horton: Thank you for the question.

The point at where we are right now in the process is all of those ministries come together under a deputy minister’s board, and then there are cascading levels of governance that support the development of the actual plan itself.

There’s going to need to be engagement on what the action plan looks like so that it is not built solely in isolation by government. But it is important that when we go out to our partners to say, “This is the proposed action plan that we would like to take,” that we’ve done our due diligence to be able to document the landscape as it is today in terms of the supports and services that exist, whether it be through SDPR or housing or the health system.

Where we are right now in the process is really developing quite a robust service inventory of all of the different supports that may exist for a family that in today’s landscape are fragmented, but exist across B.C. — document those, and then look at the opportunities to knit those together in a way that makes sense for families.

That work will be continuing into the fall, and I expect that we will be able to be working with partners later in 2025.

Susie Chant: Okay. As a follow-up, in terms of impact on kids in our province that need our support, when do you think we’ll start seeing the impacts?

Because I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility before, and one of the things I was whining and whinging about was that I was supposed to only focus on people over the age of 19, which I didn’t do.

It paid me to worry. I worry about everything. I just really feel that we really need to see some impact real soon. Respite: in home respite, out of home respite. Families having to choose to put a child in care because they can’t get the supports they need, and they figure their kid will get it in a group home.

You know there’s a whole litany that you are fully aware of. I mean I’m not speaking anything that’s new and exciting. It’s just we really need to see a difference, and I just wonder….

I hear, and I think this is great that we’re doing the cross-ministry stuff, but I worry that some of those kids are going to be adults, and I’ll worry about them as over 19 before we see some impact. I am hoping to hear something different.

Emily Horton: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify because the work to develop a cross-government action plan is not in place of taking necessary action now.

[10:25 a.m.]

While that work is underway, there are a series of actions that are well on their way

across government. Some of them quite specific to some of our most vulnerable children, including those who are involved in the child protection system.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify

is underway, there are a series of actions that are well on their way across government, some of them quite specific to some of our most vulnerable children, including those who are involved in the child protection system. So thank you for the opportunity to clarify that the government is not awaiting a child and youth well-being action plan to be taking action right now in response to some of those pieces that can make a difference in a child’s life today.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Are there any other questions? Okay.

Well, thank you so much. Next on the agenda is an opportunity for committee members to ask any follow-up questions of Dr. Charlesworth in relation to the two presentations the committee has just received.

I’ll ask Dr. Charlesworth to make her way over.

Welcome, Dr. Charlesworth. Great to see you.

Folks, do we have any questions based on the two reports that were presented to us today?

Susie, please go ahead.

Susie Chant: Sure. Given the information that came through today, where are you at in terms of following progress? What is your sort of game plan for that, please?

Jennifer Charlesworth: I just want to begin by saying that I really appreciated my colleagues from the ministry and the way in which they presented information. There was a tremendous amount, as you said, of information there.

In terms of our process going forward, as Cory mentioned, there is a requirement in our agreement for six months, an action plan. We talk about that a great deal at that point, and what we’re trying to do is ensure that the intention of the recommendations is fulfilled within that action plan. I’m quite comfortable if Keith comes to me and says that there’s a better way of doing it. Of course, we’re not going to be saying: “No, you have to do it how we envisioned it previously.” That’s an important step.

We’re in the midst of that now on a number of things with respect to both Too Many Left Behind and Don’t Look Away, quite frankly, as well as No Time To Wait. So we’ll get briefings, we’ll take a look at the action plan, we’ll have a back-and-forth. And then following that, on an annual basis, so on the annual date of the report’s release, we ask for evidence of progress and then we evaluate that evidence.

Having said that, that’s our formal steps, but for example, Keith and I meet very regularly every two weeks. I meet with the minister every two weeks as well. I meet with the other deputy ministers that are involved, particularly around Don’t Look Away. There are many things that we can do to try and move things along.

I wanted to pick up one thing that you said, MLA Chant, that I really appreciated. It’s really important that we have a North Star and know where we’re going. That was set out in Don’t Look Away, but there are needs right now.

In Don’t Look Away, we identified some immediate measures, same with in No Time to Wait. That’s the work that is getting done in the service of getting closer to that North Star over time. I think that is important to mention.

We’re monitoring that. That’s much more granular. When they come back and say: “Here, we’re going to do this around child safety. How does that fit with what you had intended in your report?

[10:30 a.m.]

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Thank you so much for being here. I have a question, and I would just like to say that where I come from as a future legislator and an elected official is that the first step to solving any kind of problem is having agreement among all the

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you so much for being here. I have a question, and I would just like to say that where I come from as a future legislator and an elected official is that the first step to solving any kind of problem is having agreement among all the stakeholders that there is a problem. So I just want to say that that’s what my motivation is with my question.

I’ve read your report in quite a lot of detail, and I’m looking at page 25 where it says: “Foremost and most concerning, due to the combination of excessive workload and understaffing, there are comments about newly hired staff being asked to take on responsibilities they are not ready to undertake. Again, due to workload demands, team leaders don’t have adequate time to train and mentor new staff.”

And this theme, with the exact words of “understaffing” and “excessive workload,” is used very consistently. And the data and the language used in the report that I read I thought was incredibly clear.

So I’d like to know, Dr. Charlesworth, do you agree with Ms. Durand’s comment that the ministry is adequately staffed?

Jennifer Charlesworth: I didn’t hear that Kelly Durand was saying that the ministry is adequately staffed. I think we agree that the ministry needs additional staffing that will…. The complexity of the work…. And I think that’s what Kelly was trying to convey, and I thought very persuasively.

This is probably the most difficult ministry in terms of the direct service work that the ministry does. Of course, Health is very complex as well, but that’s delivered through health authorities and whatnot. As a ministry, the complexity of the work, because of the needs of the young people but also the diversity of geography, the diversity of community composition, etc.….

So no, I don’t agree that the ministry has sufficient staffing, and I think that we’ve…. I mean, the evidence, I think, is that the ministry is saying: “We’ve got to move forward on all of these fronts. We’re going to be doing those workload measurement metrics. We’re going to be going to the Legislative Assembly, to the Treasury Board, etc.”

So I think that there is agreement that this work is hard. It’s very difficult to understand exactly what’s needed, but we have to try and get closer and closer to it, and we know that this needs to be well-resourced. And it’s hard.

I think it’s really important for us all to be mindful of the narrative that we use about the ministry and the work, because if we talk about the ministry as being a terrible place to work and not have that sense of this is honourable, sacred, important work…. And we need to lift up our staff as best we can.

So I think that there is agreement, and I’m actually very encouraged by the progress that has been made thus far in this period of time.

Susie Chant: Just in perspective…. And I’m not trying to be difficult in any way, shape or form. I’m assuming you have this information. And if you don’t, I’m sorry. But I’m betting you do. How many kids are in care? How many kids have the intersection of care and accessibility issues? And how many kids are not in care — they’re still living with their families, but they’re receiving support? And then how many more are out there that should be?

Because that’s the…. As a nurse working in community, I know that about 15 percent of the people in my community that could receive the support we offer actually get it. And whether that’s because they choose not to, which is always out there, or whether it’s because they don’t know how to, which is another option, or whether they can’t…. There are many buckets that these folks fall into.

Can you give me what your best guesstimates are of that grouping?

Jennifer Charlesworth: I don’t have the numbers, but I’ll do my very best. Obviously, this is something that we would need to do with the ministry. We did get some information just recently, so I don’t have it before me.

But you identify some really key things. There are kids in care. There’s the intersection of disability and in-care status. And the vast majority of kids with disabilities are receiving services outside of the protective services system.

[10:35 a.m.]

Having said that, Too Many Left Behind said that we estimate that there are about 83,000 children that are not getting the spectrum of disability services that would enable them to thrive. And that’s for a whole variety of reasons. For some of those children, it might be a little bit of

Too Many Left Behind said that we estimate that there are about 83,000 children that are not getting the spectrum of disability services that would enable them to thrive. And that’s for a whole variety of reasons. For some of those children, it might be a little bit of intervention that’s necessary. In others it might be a significant intervention. And you will remember the Excluded report that spoke specifically about FASD. That’s a population that has not consistently received the kinds of supports that they need.

The big push, going forward, is to focus very much on equity and not be diagnostically driven, because there are many children who don’t have a firm diagnosis, either because it’s impossible to get the assessment and diagnosis in a timely way, or because of the nature of their neurocognitive disability, it doesn’t fit neatly into a category. But nonetheless, you can interact with that young person. You say, “There’s some work that we could do,” whether it’s occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech language, behavioural interventions, etc.

I think that’s the key thing. If we think about 120,000 kids with disabilities, there are many thousands of children between 50 and 83,000 that are not getting the disability services that they need in order to thrive.

Moving forward, that’s the intention, if we combine Don’t Look Away and the well-being strategy and action plan, family supports and then specific disability services. Just on that front, I want to say, too, that it’s important that we always remember that it’s not just MCFD. It’s Health, Education — all of those. Social Development and Poverty Reduction is a key player. I think that’s the big push too — to say it’s an all-of-government effort to wrap around families.

Hopefully, that’s helpful, but happy to get you some more detail.

Susie Chant: No. That’s good. It gives me a perspective. Thank you.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Any other questions from members? Great. Well, that’s it.

Thank you so much for coming, Dr. Charlesworth. Any comments, actually, from you, from hearing some of what maybe you got to hear today?

Jennifer Charlesworth: Yes, Again, I think it’s really important we should celebrate where we can celebrate in this crazy world that we’re in, and I’m very, very grateful for the relationship that I have with the Ministry of Children and Family Development staff and with the minister and with many other ministries. I know that I’m quite unusual across the country, in terms of advocates having good working relationships. I can be independent but not isolated, so that’s a positive, and of course our office hasn’t always had a good relationship.

I don’t know whether it’s appropriate, but would it be…? You raised an important question around information-sharing. I don’t know whether, for the record, it’s important to address that. I seek your guidance.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Is that something that you would like addressed, Amelia?

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Sure, to the extent that I asked for questions, I want to be clear that I’m asking with the expectation that it would be shared equally with everyone around the table, so whether or not the Chair and the committee would like me to formulate that as a motion, or whether we would just have an agreement that any communication that any one of us receives would be shared with all of us, I’m fine either way.

Jennifer Charlesworth: Okay, thank you.

I appreciate your question about the media with respect to the former staff member, and I just wanted to put that in context. The former employee did share confidential information about a child and a family and a community, in fact, and we did indeed send a letter, sent several letters. The first letter was ignored.

I think it’s really important that we situate this, because I want you to have confidence in the way in which we express and fulfil our responsibilities and our oaths. If somebody is an employee with an independent office, they actually do two oaths. One is your public service oath and one is a unique oath to the independent office, because we have a higher standard of accountability as your servants in the Legislative Assembly. So we did, in this situation, remind the former employee that they had a responsibility under both oaths, and that’s in perpetuity, because of course if it’s not in perpetuity, somebody could then leave and start to spill the beans on all sorts of things.

[10:40 a.m.]

I think it’s really important, and I appreciate that the ministry spoke about information-sharing and confidentiality at the beginning, as well, because if we aren’t accountable to the very important private information that we share, that is shared with us, then we can do harm. We can either damage criminal investigations

and I appreciate that the ministry spoke about information-sharing and confidentiality at the beginning as well, because if we aren’t accountable to the very important private information that are shared with us, then we can do harm. We can either damage criminal investigations or court proceedings. We could cause harm to that child and their safety and their family’s well-being. It could harm the relationship that we have.

We have information-sharing protocols with ministries around what can be shared. And if we violate that, then the ministry and the Attorney General could well say: “You don’t have access to that information anymore.” That would impact our ability.

In this particular case that caused harm to the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and Indigenous child and family service agency, community organizations, including a daycare, and most importantly the extended family of the child. So we do take those things very, very seriously. Of course, there is whistleblower legislation, Public Interest Disclosure Act, that people can use if they feel that we’ve conducted ourselves inappropriately.

I just really feel it’s important that we speak so that you have confidence that we hold this precious information about our children in very close. Sometimes it’s extremely frustrating, because I would like to be able to share more. I’m sure ministers do as well. But we’re always kind of balancing what’s in the public interest, but it’s also what is at the centre of the well-being of the child. I just wanted to put that context.

I will say in this particular situation, the information was also inaccurate. Once we were able to explain that to the lawyers that were involved, everything stopped. So don’t always believe what you read in the media, I guess, is the important thing in this.

Hopefully that addresses the question, but always happy to answer any questions that any of you members have, either within the context of our meetings or privately.

Rohini Arora (Chair): And then we have one more question from Susie, it looks like.

Susie Chant: So we’re looking…. I’m going to talk about a child who’s disabled. If a family reaches out directly to you, say, because they’re feeling like they’re having a hard time accessing. This is just a very general…. Do you have a direct line to redirect people?

Jennifer Charlesworth: Yes. Wonderful question, and I’m glad it’s going to be on the public record too.

When we actually have…. A very significant number of our advocacy calls are from families of kids with disabilities because they are having a very difficult time accessing the system. And you pointed out, it’s a complex system to navigate. So, a call would come into our intake team. They would discern is there something that they can either guide that…. It’s most often parents that call in such a situation, sometimes caregivers. We can either guide…. They might just need a little bit of coaching about what questions they should ask or where they should go, so we can dispense with that really quickly.

In some situations, though, it’s much more complex, and it does appear that that they’re either being denied services inappropriately or they need some more walking alongside. Many families with kids with disabilities are, quite frankly, hanging on by their fingernails. They need help. So then our advocates, or what we call our case-carrying advocates, will walk alongside that family. They will contact ministry staff, health care staff, community agency staff and try and work with that family to activate the service delivery system, and they’ll stay connected for as long as possible or as long as is needed by that family in order to get the services that they should be eligible for.

Sometimes the advocates…. And these are things that’s really hard for our advocates. In many cases, there is nothing. So then what happens is they come to me, in essence, to our systemic review process. I get updates on a regular basis, and we review all the data on a quarterly basis from advocacy that says what are those recurring systemic patterns or structural issues that are getting in the way of kids getting what they need. And that’s what helps inform the reports that we do, like Too Many Left Behind. So we’re dealing with it individually and systemically. Thank you.

[10:45 a.m.]

Rohini Arora (Chair): Do we have any other questions? No?

Thank you so much for coming today, Dr. Charlesworth. And, of course, Keith, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate your time and for walking us through some of these details. Really important for us as a committee to be able to understand the depth of the work that you’re doing. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for coming today, Dr. Charlesworth, and of course, Keith, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate your time and for walking us through some of these details. It’s really important for us as a committee to be able to understand, really, the depth of the work that you’re doing. Thank you very much.

Also, just recognizing that there was a request. It’s accepted practice for committees to have agreement before requesting follow-up information from witnesses. This allows the Clerk to send requests on behalf of the committee and then to share the information with the committee and post it to the committee’s website.

Do we have general agreement to request timelines for implementing recommendations?

Yes? Okay, great. Wonderful.

Susie Chant: Can I add to that a little bit of a time framework around the overall child and youth wellness plan to ask for some timelines for that maybe. Does that need to be a separate thing? It’s just kind of an outline of at least what the hopes are.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Is everyone okay with that?

Yeah? Okay, wonderful. Great. We’re in agreement.

Our next agenda item is an information item to acknowledge receipt of the response to a request we made at our April 2 meeting and to formally make that response public.

Correspondence

Representative for Children and Youth

Rohini Arora (Chair): Members will recall that following the representative’s presentation at that meeting, we agreed to request an update on a number of items regarding the work of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. The representative’s response was received and distributed to committee members last week.

Do members have any comments about that correspondence?

No? We’re all good? Great.

Is there any other business?

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Is this an appropriate time, Rohini? Are there further agenda items, or is now the time to…?

Rohini Arora (Chair): We’re basically at the end.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Okay. If you don’t mind, I’d like to just make a few comments about some of the structure of the meeting, and I have a few recommendations.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Sorry, we’ll take that piece in camera, then, to have that discussion.

Amelia Boultbee (Deputy Chair): Okay, yeah. Thanks.

Rohini Arora (Chair): Can we have a motion to go in camera.

Motion approved.

The committee continued in camera from 10:47 a.m. to 11:02 a.m.

[Rohini Arora in the chair.]

Rohini Arora (Chair): That concludes our meeting for today.

I’ll seek a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:02 a.m.