PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,742,045,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. M. Dean: I’d like to start by acknowledging that today we’re doing our work on the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees and Esquimalt nations, and also to recognize that I represent Scia’new Nation as well, here in the Legislature.

This is an opportunity for me to extend my sincere thanks to all of the staff in the ministry, nearly 5,000 staff, as well as to staff at Delegated Aboriginal Agencies, now calling themselves Indigenous child and family service agencies, and B.C.’s many community service agencies as well, our partners out in the field and those who work with the DAAs and everybody who dedicates themselves to this work every single day for families and children living here in the province of British Columbia.

As we know, the work over the past two years has been especially challenging for front-line staff and even more vital as well. I really acknowledge the dedication and the emotional labour that has gone into supporting children and youth and families during this time of the pandemic, as well as the multiple climate emergencies and the ongoing opioid crisis and the traumatization for Indigenous peoples as evidence continues to mount on how many Indigenous children forced to attend residential schools never made it home.

[2:45 p.m.]

A special thanks here to my executive team. We have Allison Bond, my deputy minister. We have assistant deputy ministers: Rob Byers, the executive financial officer; Denise Devenny, from Indigenous engagement; Teresa Dobmeier, service delivery; Cory Heavener, provincial director of child welfare; and Carolyn Kamper, strategic integration, policy and legislation.

It’s just such a pleasure working with them, and they’ve been working so hard leading the ministry, not only through these last couple of very challenging years, but they’re also working at this point in time to bring in some of the biggest improvements in the ministry’s history.

And even though she has joined the team at the Ministry of Education, I do want to recognize the Minister of State for Child Care and her staff. She has brought passion, persistence and invaluable lived experience to the historic work of building a quality, inclusive and accessible child care system, one that B.C. families can count on when they need it, at a price that they can afford. I know that she will continue this great work in the Ministry of Education.

Working as a part of this team is really an honour and a privilege for me. I’m just very pleased to stand up today to talk about how we’re working to make life better for B.C.’s children, youth and families — and the investments that support that work.

My ministry’s top priority is the health and safety of children and youth in B.C. Every child and youth needs to be supported to achieve their goals and also to stay connected to their families, their communities and their cultures. The pandemic has taught government a lot about the needs of the children, youth and families we serve — from housing and mental supports, to more flexible options for learning life skills and getting help with mental health, to more accessible and reliable services that are available throughout the province.

We worked quickly across government to make sure that we provided emergency supports and services for children, youth, young adults and families to help support them through the pandemic. We brought in emergency measures, for example, that allowed young people to stay in their homes past their 19th birthday — young people who are in the care system — as well as making financial support through the agreements with young adults program more flexible and easier to access.

For children and youth with support needs and their families, we introduced an emergency relief support fund. That provided direct monthly funding to help more than 4,300 families ease some of their daily stress with options like grocery delivery and virtual respite programs.

We also introduced, and we’ve now made permanent, flexible respite funding, which allows families to use their funding in the way that best suits their needs.

We’ve heard directly from families and young adults that these measures have made all the difference for them as they navigate this difficult time of the past two years of the pandemic. We’re listening to them, and we’re listening to Indigenous organizations and communities, community agencies and advocates like the Representative for Children and Youth.

Budget 2022 is investing in improved supports for some of the most vulnerable children, youth and young adults in the province. We are making good on our promise to support all youth and young adults transitioning from care. We’re building the first comprehensive system of supports for youth transitioning to adulthood, starting by investing $35 million over three years to help improve housing and financial supports and bringing in dedicated support workers to help youth navigate programs and services. That will help them as they transition to adulthood.

We’ve also taken the first step in the move to more accessible and inclusive services for children and youth with support needs with funding to begin laying the groundwork for the new needs-based system that will provide better services for more children. This funding is the first step towards establishing family connection centres, while continuing to provide the support families count on.

As part of this year’s budget, we are also increasing funding for the At Home medical equipment fund. This will help save families thousands of dollars on equipment that is really vital for their children to get by in their daily life, and it’s the first significant funding increase to these benefits in 20 years.

Another key concern for our government and my ministry is supporting mental health and wellness in children and youth. This is especially important right now as we not only continue to experience the challenges of the pandemic, but we’re also experiencing the effects of the ongoing crisis caused by the poisoned drug supply.

That’s why we continue to work with our ministry partners, including Mental Health and Addictions, to invest in and improve the programs and services that people count on. A Pathway to Hope aims to create a comprehensive system of mental health and substance use care that works for everyone.

[2:50 p.m.]

In Budget 2021, my ministry committed over $70 million over three years toward the expansion of child and youth mental health services. This funding is part of government’s new $97 million investment in the improved wellness for children, youth and young adults pillar of a Pathway to Hope.

My ministry continues to work closely with the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to focus on prevention, early intervention and treatment of mental health issues in children and youth. We’re committed to ensuring all children and youth have safe, secure and happy lives and can fulfil their potential.

Yet we know that the trauma that Indigenous peoples have experienced through the colonial system and the so-called residential schools continues in the modern child welfare system. Canada, as a country, and here in B.C., are coming to terms with what families and communities have always known and what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission told us.

It’s been almost a year since the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation made public the evidence of unmarked graves on the grounds of the former so-called residential school. I know that this has been retraumatizing for many, and I understand that the trauma that Indigenous peoples experienced in the past is relived in our current systems, particularly that of the child welfare system.

I appreciated meeting with Kúkpi7 Rosanne Casimir and council members last month on their territory. They were very generous with their time, and I was most grateful to be able to pay my respects to Le Estcwicwéy̓, the missing.

For too long, the system has caused harm to Indigenous children and their families, as well as causing broader inter­generational impacts. We are finally moving away from a colonial model of child welfare, with the goal, instead, of family connection, reunification and well-being. We know that children have the best outcomes when they are connected to family and to community and to culture.

That’s why we have taken important steps to keep Indigenous children and youth in their communities. We’ve changed provincial legislation so that front-line workers can reach out to communities and ask: “Is there an auntie? Is there someone in the community who’s able to offer and help care for a child or youth?” We’ve signed, historically, a section 92.1 agreement with the Simpcw First Nation in April, as well, which is an indication of another step, another way, that we’re able to work with Indigenous communities for them to increase their direction and control within the child welfare system.

We lifted the monthly rate given to extended family members — aunties and grandparents and relatives who care for children and youth — and we’ve put it on par with foster parents for the first time ever. We’ve continually increased our budget to invest in more families and better supports, including investing in options to keep children out of the care system.

We’ve changed the way we work with expectant parents, as well, to work more supportively to keep families together. As a result, we’re seeing the lowest number of children in care in 30 years and the lowest number of Indigenous children in care in 20 years. The number of B.C. children and youth in out-of-care arrangements has increased by almost 70 percent.

These arrangements support children and youth who need care to stay within their family and their community. Budget 2022 provides increased funding to services for children and youth in care, as well as increases to further support alternates to care.

While we’ve taken steps to improve how we work with and share information with Indigenous communities, we know we need to do much more to support Indigenous children, youth and families. We are committed to the important work we’ve begun with our partners on a new fiscal framework to ensure equitable funding for Indigenous children, youth and families in our province, no matter where they live. We’ll continue working with Indigenous communities and rights holders on returning their inherent jurisdiction over child welfare, services and laws and systems. We remain committed to helping families stay together whenever and wherever possible.

[2:55 p.m.]

As Minister of Children and Family Development, my top priority is ensuring children, youth and families have the supports they need to thrive. There is a lot more work do, and I look forward to building on the work that we’ve already done. I welcome the questions from the member opposite.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

K. Kirkpatrick: Yes, please. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for that. I would like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, thank you to your staff. You are very fortunate to have just fabulous staff. I’m sorry; I’ve got to get away from saying “you.” So I will say, through the Chair — exceptional staff.

I do believe this ministry is at the heart of everything else that we do. Finance, AG, everything else — the whole reason that we’re here is to support young people in community and families in community. I’m honoured to be the critic on this file, and I’m sure the minister feels honoured to be the minister on this file. It’s just such an important one.

I’d also like to thank and recognize Dr. Jennifer Charlesworth, who is the representative for children and families. She does exceptional work, and I know this is a very difficult and very emotional ministry to be supporting.

I’m also very happy to see or looking forward to see what comes out of the $40 billion announcement, out of the federal government, in terms of child welfare jurisdiction back to First Nations communities, and see where we’re going to support that this year and what we’re going to do in British Columbia.

Thank you very much. I’m happy to start the questioning.

The Chair: Please go ahead, Member.

K. Kirkpatrick: An RFP was recently issued respecting the delivery of B.C. adoption services, including intercountry adoptions. As I’m sure the minister can appreciate, two remaining adoption agencies in B.C. and the thousands of families who have been supported and that have been built through adoption agencies, including my own, are concerned about why and what the impact is of this RFP.

I’m going to ask, on behalf of Sunrise Family Services Society, which is located in my own riding of North Vancouver: can the minister provide explanation on two of the RFP questions that are of particular concern? I’ll let you know which two those are.

I don’t know the easiest way to do this. I can read the question, but it’s RFP scope 3.32. I’m afraid I don’t have the actual name of the RFP, but I’m going to presume that the minister and her staff know which one I am referring to. And then RFP scope 3.3….

Interjection.

K. Kirkpatrick: Oh, I’m sorry. Well, we’ll get this into the record properly.

It’s 3.32(1) and then 3.32(2). I will read these out: “What are the options and recommendations respecting government’s role in the delivery of intercountry adoption services?” The second one is: “What are the options and recommendations for modifying or replacing the current intercountry service delivery model?” Is the minister able to explain what those two RFP questions are referring to?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Here in British Columbia, to explain the situation of intercountry adoptions, the international adoption services are provided exclusively through adoption agencies, and those are licensed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The licensed adoption agencies are independent non-profit organizations, and they’re responsible for their own operating decisions, their strategic plans and their service models.

The ministry is undertaking a regulatory review of intercountry adoption services. The RFP that you’ve talked about has been posted, and we’ve now signed a contract with KPMG to actually undertake the intercountry adoption service and regulatory framework review. That work is ongoing and is underway now until June 30, 2022. In the meantime, international adoption services continue to be available to B.C. families through the Adoption Centre of B.C. and through Sunrise Family Services Society.

We’ve taken this step because many of the ministry’s policies and procedures date back to the 1990s. There might need to be significant changes, and there probably have been important lessons learned since then. Over the past decade, international adoptions have actually decreased because many countries are choosing to keep their own children within their own borders.

A regulatory review, which is what we’re doing, will explore the ministry’s oversight of independent adoption agencies in B.C. with consideration for how that landscape might need to be changed and modernized or shifted. The scope of this review has broadened to examine not only the licensed adoption agency model but how intercountry adoption services are provided so that, at the end of the day, what we’re able to do is to provide the best services and supports for B.C. families.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

If I could just confirm, then, the concern here. There are two remaining licensed adoption agencies in British Columbia, and one is in my riding. Is MCFD exploring bringing all adoption services back into government, including intercountry adoptions? Could that potentially be the outcome of this review?

Hon. M. Dean: We’re not presupposing the outcome of the review. We look forward to receiving that work once it’s complete.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m sorry to harp on this, but the question is…. Conceivably, that could be an outcome, based on whatever recommendations come out of this — that intercountry adoption services could then come back within government. That is a potential outcome.

Hon. M. Dean: We’re asking for outside help, and we want to be able to listen to their feedback. The landscape has changed, and we want to get some advice on how we can best serve B.C. families.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there anything in particular that has occurred or that the ministry is concerned about that has led to the decision to do this regulatory review — anything specific, other than just that the landscape has changed?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: As I mentioned earlier on, the ministry’s policies and procedures date back to the 1990s. It’s very likely that we will need to make some changes and modernize and update the policies and procedures.

Over the past decade, international adoptions have really declined a lot, because most countries are wanting to keep their children within their own borders.

Having a regulatory review will actually provide us some feedback into the ministry’s oversight of independent adoption agencies and help us to adapt to what the shifting landscape is. But at the end of the day, what we want to be able to do is to continue to provide the best services and supports for B.C. families.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Just to confirm with the minister: this is not based on public complaints or issues with the quality of placements. There’s nothing that has indicated that the system is broken. This is simply a review.

Hon. M. Dean: The motivation is broad. It is because the landscape has changed and because the policies are so old and go back so far.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m still not 100 percent sure, but I’m going to move to the next question.

The Representative for Children and Youth recently released a report which is called At a Crossroads. It identified serious concerns about how MCFD manages its expenditures. It identified serious fiscal discrimination to equity in Indigenous child welfare. The representative has made three recommendations to the ministry, all to be completed prior to the end of this fiscal year.

My question to the minister: can the minister commit to acting on these three recommendations from the representative in this report and put changes in place before the end of the fiscal year, and if not, why?

Hon. M. Dean: The next step after having received the report from the RCY is to do a thorough review, and we’ll then be developing an action plan. We do that in collaboration with the Office of the RCY, the Representative for Children and Youth. We’re reviewing recommendations. Then we have a process that we go through with the Office of the RCY when we receive a report that has recommendations. That process is underway.

I do want to advise the member that we have already started work with the Indigenous children and family service agencies. We regularly engage with them, and we’ve started work discussing with them the funding. We’re also working in a tripartite working group with the federal government and with First Nations leadership to develop a fiscal framework. That work has also already started.

[3:10 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

A big challenge with looking at the expenditure management within MCFD, and within many ministries, is the lack of disaggregated data so that you know where the funding is going. Is part of the work the minister is now undertaking also going to be dealing with that data management and whatever kind of system or modifications you need to make sure you’ve got that disaggregated data?

Hon. M. Dean: We’re absolutely committed to being able to look at disaggregated data. That’s really vital and critical, and it’s something that’s important to our whole government. Government is actually doing work across all ministries, led by Citizens’ Services, to make sure that we’re able to very safely capture disaggregated data and make sure it’s used in a safe way as well. We’ve been very significant, substantial partners in that work across government. We’re very committed to that.

Within the ministry, the system that we’re developing for our procurement and contract management is something that will also help us be able to augment and improve the tracking of investments through the ministry and outcomes for children and youth as well. Our procurement and contract management system will eventually interface with our integrated case management system, which is where we keep details of children and youth who are being served. Then we’ll be able to generate data that are more valuable.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The announcement on October 27, 2021, respecting changes to the current CYSN funding model caused, obviously, a lot of confusion and concern to families and service providers in B.C. Can the minister point to another jurisdiction that has moved to this hub model and whether it has been successful?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: In Canada, we’re the first jurisdiction to build a whole system that is a functional needs-based system, and we’re building this very much informed by the many recommendations that we’ve had from the Representative for Children and Youth.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

To clarify, what I’ve heard is that there is not another jurisdiction or some place we can look to as a shining example of the success of this program and that the program is being built based primarily on information that has come from the representative for family and children. If the minister can perhaps correct my statement if it is not correct.

Hon. M. Dean: I would say to the member that we have looked at other models, and there has been a lot of information that we have received. We have learned from other models. We’ve also been able to see from other models what doesn’t work.

We’ve been listening to families as well, families who have been reaching out to the ministry for a long time. Not just with doing engagement and consultation formally, from 2019, but for many years the ministry has been hearing from families, from service providers and also from the Representative for Children and Youth as well.

[3:20 p.m.]

The Representative for Children and Youth has written a number of reports that have really stressed the importance of moving to a needs-based system. The Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth of the Legislature, in the last parliament, created some recommendations as well, recommending to government to move towards a system of needs-base service.

What is really important in the model that we’re building here in British Columbia is that it’s a functional, needs-based systemic response. We’re building it, also, in order to meet the needs of families around our province working with community agencies, because we know they know and understand their community and will know how to deliver services in their communities.

We will be able, through this model, to serve children and youth with support needs and serve them sooner.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I’m not sure where to go after that response.

In looking at the 2019 engagements, 1,500 individuals and families had been spoken to. My understanding is that there was never discussion of a hub model or anything that looks like the system that has been created now.

I’d like to talk, perhaps, then…. If the minister can speak about process. When did the ministry’s advisory council first meet? How many meetings did they have prior to the announced new funding system?

Hon. M. Dean: We’re just getting the details of the number of meetings and the inaugural meeting, when that was.

The Minister’s Advisory Council on Children and Youth with Support Needs was established to seek guidance and advice from a broad range of parents and service providers on the new children and youth with support needs framework and its implementation.

The call for applications actually opened in January 2021. We were seeking a broad range of individuals from right across all of the province as well. Appointments were announced in spring 2021, and we’ll let you know when the inaugural meeting was held.

The council consists of…. It fluctuates a little bit, over the year. It has 15 members, which does include parents and caregivers of children and youth receiving CYSN services, child and youth with support needs services. We’ve got a very diverse advisory council, with diverse ethnicity, coming from different parts of the province. We were very blessed, for a long time, to have an Indigenous Elder with us as well. We have a youth representative. We have representatives from a range of provincial CYSN umbrella organizations as well.

[3:25 p.m.]

The advisory council provides the forum to build collaborative and respectful relationships through ongoing communications and engagement, to discuss important issues related to planning and the delivery of the full range of CYSN services and to support the ministry’s work to improve the system for children and youth with support needs in B.C., making sure that we keep families at the centre of those changes.

We do meet regularly, and we do have a workplan. We’ve all talked about what the content of our future meetings is going to be. I find it a real honour to take part in the advisory council. I really appreciate everybody who’s on the council who very generously share their time and knowledge, their expertise, their lived experience and their insights.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I read the bios of all of the members of the minister’s committee. It was hard to get a true sense of whether there were actually families with lived experience with children with autism participating.

The ongoing communication and engagement piece was difficult because each of the members participating had to sign a non-disclosure agreement so that they were actually even unable to have conversations with their own organizations and groups about the conversations that were happening.

I would like to confirm what the minister has just said that applications to join the committee opened in January of 2021; work started or it was announced who was on that committee in spring of 2021; and already by October of 2021, there was a full new system announced, if those dates are correct. I do appreciate that the minister has offered to come back with the specific meeting dates. That is from January 2021, where there was no committee, to a full recommendation and a complete change of system in October of 2021, so within eight months.

Hon. M. Dean: Yeah, the first meeting was May 5, 2021. There were 11 meetings in 2021. We have also continued meeting in 2022, and the announcement was made in October 2021.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The press release for the new MCFD funding says: “The new system will provide help to approximately 8,300 more children and their families, representing a 28 percent increase in the number of children who will be able to access disability supports and services.”

How does the minister come up with that number?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: The press release regarding the implementation of the new system across the province that talked about increasing services to more children and youth was based on analysis that had been done in the ministry. We looked at demographic information. We looked at what the population of need is in British Columbia. We did that through reviewing multiple models that are used in the public sector — for example, from information from Community Living B.C., school boards, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Citizens’ Services and WorkBC, so a number of different data sources.

We also had the information that there are approximately 79,000 children and youth with support needs in B.C., based on knowledge from the Ministry of Education. We also had the information that more than 30,000 children and youth access one or more MCFD children and youth with support needs programs as well.

The analysis was done to estimate the number of children and youth who would be eligible for MCFD, considering the total B.C. population under 19 years and this source of data — so who’s currently being served, who do we know is identified with having needs. Then we were able to do that analysis to work out how many children would be needing to access these services under this new system with the new framework.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. If I could just clarify some numbers here with the minister.

There are approximately 30,000 children currently receiving CYSN funding. The minister is suggesting that the analysis done says that there would be 8,300 additional young people covered under CYSN as it broadens its reach. But I understood the minister to also say that there were 79,000 young people in B.C. with some kind of special needs or support needs designation in the education system.

Would not all of those young people who are provided with support needs in education…? Would they not all be able to access the new system?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I wanted to clarify for the member. I talked about 30,000 children receiving CYSN services, so not funding but services. Education catches a broader group of the population of B.C. — children and youth. Not all of those children and youth in that number of the 79,000 will need the CYSN services that are delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Of course, these services are going to be delivered in community by community agencies. What we did was do the analysis to understand what the gap is — what the gap in need is, what the level of need we have estimated through our analysis to be. That’s what has informed our planning.

K. Kirkpatrick: I had a hard time getting specifics out of that answer. I’m wondering if the minister would be prepared to perhaps send us some of the information with respect to the analysis that was done and how those numbers were determined.

The reason why I’m struggling a bit with this is because this program is very broad and needs-based, and the news release also says that any child, from birth to 19, will have access to these services, regardless of whether they have a referral or a diagnosis, so even any kind of referral. What I understand this to mean is that any child in British Columbia, up to the age of 19, could come to one of the hubs to access services or at least to get an assessment. That sounds like a very, very big number would potentially be able to access these services.

I’m having a hard time getting from that potentially very big number to the 8,300 that the minister is claiming is going to be the increase. Am I not understanding how those young people can be accessing the assessments? If that’s the case, perhaps if the minister would provide more detail to me outside of this on the analysis that was done, it would be very helpful.

Hon. M. Dean: We’ll be able to provide you with some more detailed information, and we’ll provide that when we’re able to.

The services delivered through the family connection centres will be based on needs of children and youth with support needs.

[3:40 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. We’re trying to get to the place where we can determine if a child or youth has support needs, so that’s where I’m getting caught up here. The way I’m reading this is that any child under the age of 19 or a parent or a guardian in British Columbia could come to these hubs to request an assessment.

Is there some kind of qualification prior to their being able to come for an assessment? It does say that these services can be accessed regardless of whether a young person has a referral or a diagnosis.

I’m hoping there’s clarity. I know sometimes when I’m explaining these things, I’m not as concise. So that is the question. How do you know you’re going to be able to actually get in there?

Hon. M. Dean: It takes a family to recognize or to think they have an issue or a concern with their child. A parent, for example, might think their child, their three- or four-year-old, isn’t meeting their developmental milestones, so that might prompt them to reach out to the local community agency that’s delivering family connection centre services.

They would reach out to the family connection centre and connect with an intake worker and have an intake process, where they would work with that professional and identify what the level of need is. If the best type of service to match up to that child is through the family connections centres because that child has a support need, then they would be connected with somebody there.

But if the need for that child or youth is actually for more community-based services, then the worker at the family connection centre would actually be able to help with that navigation and be able to help connect the family with a more appropriate type of service. It’s really very much about identifying the need and finding the most appropriate service. That might be a health-based service, or it might be a community agency that’s delivering preventative services in the community. It might be education and guidance being delivered to the family as well.

It really is very much led by the family originally having that concern. But as the member said, it could also be through referral. What’s really important is that it’s not a family having to wait for a diagnosis before actually reaching out and saying: “I have this concern. Can somebody help me navigate the system?”

[3:45 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I was going to say…. I’m going to go on to something else for the sake of time, but there was something that came out of the minister’s answer that I just want to clarify.

My understanding is that one of the reasons that we’re doing this is to reduce that wait time, so a young person who does not have a diagnosis doesn’t have to wait for the diagnosis before they can access the services.

Does the minister know that there’s not going to be a wait-list to come into these hubs to even access or get an assessment with the increase of however many kiddos are going to have access to this? What about an increase in the time that it takes even to get into the hubs? How will that be resolved?

Hon. M. Dean: In the current system, the problem isn’t just that there’s a long wait-list for diagnosis. It’s also that a diagnosis for some families doesn’t even lead to any services, and for other families, it might lead to services, but it depends on where you live in the province.

What we’re doing is building a system that’s based on need and responsive to need. What that means is that children and youth…. When they reach out and make that connection with the family connection centre, there are lots of different ways that they will go through the intake process. As I said, some families will be helped to be navigated to more community-based services. So the response to families reaching out for service is actually a very different process to families waiting for a diagnosis.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I will come back for clarification on how long that wait will be, but I’m going to move on to a couple of other questions here.

As many of my opposition colleagues have found out this last year, getting responses on FOI s has been a little bit difficult, so I do have a couple questions here that I’m hoping we can shed some light on with respect, again, to CYSN. As we all know, in February of this year, the Canadian Association of Journalists bestowed upon the B.C. government the accolade of the Code of Silence Award, an outstanding achievement of government secrecy category.

I’m going to walk through a couple of FOIs, which have been submitted by opposition, as is our duty to hold government accountable in this estimates process.

[3:50 p.m.]

Last year, the opposition submitted an FOI asking for “CYSN hub model hiring projections and/or anticipated usage data.” Given how integral staff are to ensuring that these new centres are going to be able to function, especially with what we’re seeing in the health sector with doctors and nurses and all sorts, it’s obviously going to drive the budget and the cost of these centres.

Imagine our surprise when we received the following response: “Please be advised that the records you requested are withheld in their entirety, pursuant to sections 12, ‘Cabinet and local public body confidences,’ and 13, ‘Policy advice or recommendations,’ of FOIPPA.” Will the minister release these hiring projections and usage data to the opposition?

[P. Alexis in the chair.]

Hon. M. Dean: We applied the FOI legislation in response to an FOI request.

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s a team effort; welcome to the Chair.

I find that response troubling. This is an integral piece of information in a system that MCFD is completely changing.

I’m going to refer back from the recommendations tracking sheet which the Representative for Children and Youth has available publicly on her website, and recommendations that she made out of Alone and Afraid: Lessons Learned from the Ordeal of a Child with Special Needs and His Family.

In that document, MCFD committed to the representative to produce a predictive workload analysis and simulation model designed to examine workload, staffing and service-level risk. That was to be made public. My understanding of that document from the RCY is also that MCFD had committed to have that done by October 24, 2019.

Has this analysis been done? Has it been made public? Is this what is being used in order to determine staffing and cost of these hubs?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Madam Chair, welcome.

We’re going to get more specific details for the member, just to make sure that we provide the most accurate response to the member. The modelling that we did was looking at the availability of qualified professionals and organizational capacity.

We know that we have many partners, and there are agencies and service providers across the province, in different parts of the province. We looked, also, at what current services are being delivered, which include services that we know are being delivered to children with autism, services being delivered through child development centres, other MCFD contracts that provide services to children and youth with support needs, and analysis of existing contracted services. Hours per year accessed for types of services were also included.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

One of the questions…. I wonder, when information that I believe is fairly simplistic in terms of hiring projections and usage data, if perhaps the minister is uncomfortable, based on some information such as the B.C. Autism Advocacy, which recently did a survey asking service providers about the new model.

In the question, they asked: with the information you have now, would you feel comfortable working within a hub system managed by MCFD? These are qualified professionals. These are the exact people that this ministry is going to need to engage and have working with them. The answer to that question: 80.3 percent answered no. My question to the minister, then: is this one of the reasons that there is an unwillingness to provide this information to us?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: The member asked why the information wasn’t released. As I mentioned before, the FOI legislation was applied. That was why the information wasn’t released.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The RFP is currently posted for the four locations. The lead proponent will be selected September 2022 and contract finalized October 2022. Can the minister confirm November 1, 2022, will be the start date for the lead proponent and for subcontractors?

Hon. M. Dean: I can confirm for the member the lead proponent will be selected in September 2022, and the contract finalization with the lead proponent will be in October 2022. The contract term and transition will commence first of November, 2022. The expectation is full services will be delivered — so the family connections centre and whatever satellite or subcontracting services — and be operational starting first of February, 2023.

K. Kirkpatrick: I just want to confirm my understanding of what the minister has said. The minister is confirming that February 1, 2023, both of the family connection centres and network of centres will be open, with a full staff complement and services being provided.

Hon. M. Dean: Yeah, that’s the intention.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will the service delivery division that will be administering and managing the contract be heeding the Auditor General’s advice regarding contract management?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I’d like to take the opportunity, if I may, to introduce a couple of other staff members with us. We have Jan White, who is the executive director of early years and inclusion policy, and Debbie Samija, executive director of service for the North Fraser.

In answer to the member’s question, the ministry has developed a procurement and contract management framework that ensures that contracts are clear and have deliverables that focus on the goals and development of children and youth.

The ministry has taken into account a lot of recommendations, including those from the Office of the Auditor General. We’ve taken those recommendations into account and built those into this new procurement and contract management system. They have been built into the current RFP as well.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Again, in the RFP, services are described as developmental and goal-focused services. Can the minister confirm that no treatment services will be provided in the FCC model?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: In response to the member’s question, the use of the word “treatment” can mean lots of different things to different people. I’m going to talk through the services that are delivered through family connection centres under the developmental services and goal-focused services.

For example, under developmental services, that can include education and guidance, developmental screening, developmental monitoring. Under goal-focused services — these are designed for children, youth and their families who have identified functional needs — the services delivered would include support planning assessments, family support, behaviour and skill-building supports, intervention. There will also be mental health supports and clinical mental health supports delivered alongside services for children and youth with support needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

Will the minister confirm that those children and youth currently receiving services by the ministry or their service providers will be the only ones provided services starting February 1, 2023? So only the existing families and children accessing it in February.

Hon. M. Dean: There’s a transitional time frame from November through to the first of February. Children and families who are currently receiving services will be supported in transition. The services are expected to be operational from February. That’s the needs-based system for children and youth to be able to access services.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m understanding that it would then be open to any child or youth who would previously have gone through the diagnosis and the CYSN. Anyone who is not currently in that system can start to access the services on February 1, 2023.

Maybe I will just add on to this. Can the minister confirm that “mitigating barriers to access” includes a child or youth who’s not currently receiving services and is part of that 8,300 announced in October? Are they able to access the services starting in February?

Hon. M. Dean: The answer is yes. To give an example, some children might be on a wait-list for a diagnosis. They would still be able to access services through the family connection centre, and then they can make their own decision about the diagnosis and if that would still be a helpful tool for them. But yes, the family connection centre services will be operational.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

How is it determined, with the four regional areas, who can access the services there? Is it based on the home address of the family or child?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: The service delivery is based on geography. Of course, we would expect services to have to take into account special needs, if they do arise. We do understand that the lives of families can be fluid.

K. Kirkpatrick: Under operation deliverables, it includes caseloads. “The aim for cases per therapist to align with a shift away from the concept of one-to-one intervention as the only option through maintaining caseload numbers as per relevant professional practice guidelines.” Can the minister confirm only group therapy will be provided for behaviour intervention and other therapies?

Hon. M. Dean: No, that’s not the case. What that’s talking about in the RFP is that we’re building the system based on a multidisciplinary approach. The services will be delivered in order to meet the needs of the child and youth.

What it’s really pointing to is saying that it’s not just one provider. We’re moving away from what the current approach is, so we’re moving towards a multidisciplinary team approach that’s going to be able to deliver services matched up to the needs of the child and youth.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I don’t know if that’s the answer to the specific question I was asking.

The idea of the one-to-one therapy with the child — is that moving now so that children can only access therapies in group settings? Or are they still able to access, which many children do now, one-to-one services with their service providers?

Hon. M. Dean: No, that isn’t the case. The services that will be delivered to children and youth will be based on their needs, and there are lots of different modalities that will be used. So one-to-one services, where that’s what is needed by the child will be delivered.

There will also be opportunities for services to be delivered virtually, maybe outreach services, in-home services. There might be a satellite service, for example. Because of using the family connection centre model and a multidisciplinary team, it’s possible to be able to provide that circle of care that really meets the needs of the child and youth.

That’s the shift that we’re making, making sure that we have the services delivered by the professionals who are best suited to meet the needs in the way that the child, youth and family best need those services to be delivered.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you.

The concern that’s been expressed to me from families and service providers was that in reading the RFP, it appeared that there was going to be a move completely away from the provision of one-on-one services. I think that’s where there’s a lot of concern and activity on Twitter right now about that.

[4:20 p.m.]

I am hearing the minister say, and just to clarify this, that children and youth won’t be excluded from programs and services if they’re unable to participate in group therapy, and that depending on the assessed need, there still would be, if it was appropriate, the ability for one-on-one therapy or support.

Hon. M. Dean: Yes.

K. Kirkpatrick: Who will make the decision about the services provided to young people? Will it strictly be MCFD, or will parents be making the decision?

Hon. M. Dean: No. It’s not MCFD at all. When families identify that they may have a concern, they will reach out to the service providers who are delivering the services through the family connection centres. Those services will be delivered by community agencies, and the community agencies will know their community and know how best to deliver services that are accessible in their community as well. So the first point of contact would be an intake worker who is employed by the community agency that’s delivering the family connection centre services.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I just want to clarify my understanding there, then. If a parent determines a child requires a certain kind of support, they actually don’t call or contact somebody at the FCC. They go directly to a service provider who is working for the FCC and do intake through that? Is that my understanding?

Hon. M. Dean: The services are delivered through the family connection centre, so a family will reach out to the family connection centre. I was wanting to make it clear that the services delivered through family connection centres are delivered by community agencies.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I had misunderstood the answer and thought that there was yet another spoke on there.

In a letter to the minister, concerns with the use of the Vineland and PEDI-CAT screening and identification tools were expressed. The letter was signed by 34 B.C. organizations. I will quote from the letter.

“There is also much concern about the proposed needs-assessment tools. More robust consultation needs to be done to ensure that the tools being used to assess needs will not cause harm or exclude children and family from supports and services that they need. We feel that assessors should not serve as gatekeepers but instead open the door to exceptional support for all children and youth who need it. We are concerned the hubs will not accomplish the latter.”

Will the minister confirm there will be meaningful consultation on these proposed assessment tools?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: We actually hired CanChild — that’s a national research body — because of their expertise. We asked them for their recommendations, and they have identified these as the best tools.

K. Kirkpatrick: I understand from the minister that no consultation outside of the recommendations from CanChild…. No consultation will happen with service providers in British Columbia that will be involved in this.

Hon. M. Dean: We are working with B.C. Children’s Hospital, with Sunny Hill, because they’re the experts. These are the tools that are recommended to us by the experts, and we’re continuing to work with B.C. Children’s Hospital.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

From the RFP: “The ministry has embraced its commitments and obligations under the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, codified in B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, to engage with Indigenous peoples and rights holders. The province is developing an engagement process to build and implement a model of CYSN service delivery that meets the need of Indigenous peoples.”

To quote UBCIC: “While British Columbia claims it did ‘consultation’ in 2019, that consultation was not on this specific proposal, was not with First Nations and does not come close to meeting the basic standards of the UN declaration.”

Prior to the minister’s advisory committee appointed in March 2021, will the minister confirm that was “no consultation, cooperation or free, prior and informed consent” that has taken place with First Nations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I committed to First Nations Leadership Council last year that we would do further Indigenous consultation, and we have sent communication to all rights holders. We have also hired an Indigenous consultant. There is a plan being devised to make sure that they’re able to engage with rights holders and with communities. The work and the engagement will inform the service delivery, and that will ensure that we meet the needs that are required under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

If I can confirm with the minister that the new CYSN model rollout, the announcement made in October 2021, was actually done prior to meaningful consultation with First Nations.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: No. We did engagement in 2019. We engaged with Indigenous families and service providers. Those engagements were really instrumental in the development of the new CYSN framework and the RFP process as well. We did hear that Indigenous service providers are absolutely critical to delivering successful and barrier-free services for Indigenous children, youth and families as well.

The engagements did include specific sessions done by Reciprocal Consulting, which is an Indigenous-led firm. They worked very closely with many Indigenous families and service providers so that we could actually understand barriers to CYSN services. That did inform the framework and also did inform the RFP.

We know that in the context of the new DRIPA legislation…. We’ve heard that we need to do more consultation. We’re doing additional work, and that will inform the future implementation and next steps of delivering this provincial system of services for children and youth with support needs.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the Chair will indulge me, my colleague the member for Skeena would like to ask a clarifying question.

E. Ross: I’m listening to the conversation about consultation, specifically on some of the engagement process that was actually commented on by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, who said: “While British Columbia claims it did ‘consultation,’ that consultation was not on this specific proposal, was not with First Nations and does not come close to meeting the basic standards of the UN declaration.”

Normally, under existing case law on aboriginal rights and title…. The minister made mention of rights and title holders already in one of her answers. Normally, under existing case law established by the courts of B.C. and Canada, this wouldn’t have been an issue. This doesn’t necessarily address rights and title issues. This normally, in the past, was an administrative issue, government to government, in relation to a common issue between the Crown and First Nations people.

That all changed when this government brought in UNDRIP, the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. The NDP government actually highered a standard of consultation. It didn’t really change the definition of consultation, because that definition was already there in the Haida court case of 2004, for example. That higher standard of consultation has got a foundation, a process, already attached to it.

When we were really talking to this…. I’ve talked to a number of the minister’s colleagues about this in terms of what does actual meaningful consultation mean when the minister’s talking about it. It was my understanding, when we were debating UNDRIP in this Legislature, that meaningful consultation would take place with 204 rights and title holders of B.C. Now we’re finding out that this government has no intention of living up to that commitment.

[4:40 p.m.]

In fact, if anything, this government is now doing one-stop shopping with groups like the Union of B.C. Union Chiefs or the leadership council, who do not represent rights and title. They do not represent community interests. If you talk to any chief and council across B.C., they’ll tell you the same thing. Rights and title are held on behalf of the community.

Normally, this wouldn’t have been an issue for rights and title consultation and accommodation, but UNDRIP has opened that door for every single issue relating to a First Nations interest having a level of meaningful consultation. In saying this, I’m assuming the minister is going to fulfil the obligation, under UNDRIP, to consult 204 First Nations on this initiative.

If that’s the case, meaningful consultation…. The process, has been developed ever since 2004. Within that process, there has been capacity funding attached to consultation and accommodation processes all across B.C. First Nations chiefs and councils are quite busy, and they’re quite stressed in terms of their duties that they’re trying to fulfil. When they’re trying to achieve something for the Crown or with the Crown, there’s always a level of capacity funding that goes with it to pay for the expertise that a chief and council might not have in trying to read some type of policy or legislation that the Crown wants to implement.

My question to the minister is: in the contemplation of the engagement — which, I assume, is going to be meaningful consultation — will there be capacity funding for 204 First Nations in terms of this initiative?

Hon. M. Dean: Well, we do take this responsibility seriously, and even just in the work with our ministry, there is a lot going on. I do acknowledge that there are changes going on just even in my ministry, let alone across all of government, and communities, to varying degrees, will have different areas of interest in wanting to be very closely engaged and consulted.

[4:45 p.m.]

Within our ministry, we actually wrote to all of the communities’ rights holders to explain that we want to maintain a good way of keeping in communication with communities and keeping the communities updated on the work that’s happening in the ministry and on how communities will be able to engage with the ministry and what opportunities there are, as well, and to provide a contact number and a really easy way for whomever from the community to actually connect with the ministry on what particular initiative they would have an expressed interest in.

We’ve started writing newsletters and bulletins that are sent regularly. In February 2022, we sent a newsletter out. This is to all nations, all communities. In March 2022, we sent out a bulletin. In May 2022, again we sent out a newsletter. In each of these there was some information provided, related to the implementation of the children and youth with support needs framework implementation. So we’re continuing to make sure that communities are aware of the work that we’re doing.

In particular for children and youth with support needs, we’ve hired an Indigenous firm to do the consulting to make sure that there are ways to appropriately find ways to accommodate and to facilitate the effective and meaningful engagement and consultation on the implementation of the framework.

E. Ross: Yeah, I thought we’d covered that. The question was capacity funding in terms of consultation of what is an issue between the Crown and a First Nation. Capacity funding for a band council that might not have the expertise to look at a bill or a policy or some legislation that can affect their children or their community. Capacity funding could pay for their own consultants so they actually get an answer coming from their own community, from their own band council.

Capacity funding has been attached to every single project, since 2004 to 2017, in my own community, not only from the Crown but from the proponents that are advocating for forestry, for LNG, for oil, for mining. Capacity funding was always one of the first subjects that we settled. When you’re talking about the jurisdiction of what band councils have to go through, you’ve got to understand it’s complicated.

It’s not just what they’re trying to deal with on reserve. Band councils are also expected to look after the band members all across B.C. In my case, they’re mainly situated in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Alberta, Washington state. Because they’re on the band list, the band council has a responsibility to them, including their children. They’re trying to look at 20 issues per day, and they see the idea that somehow some consultation is going to affect their citizens. Or more importantly, their children are what we’re talking about here.

Is there a level of capacity funding for the 204 bands so they can actually engage, on their own terms, on issues that affect them? Will there be capacity funding offered to the 204 bands of B.C. so they can be meaningfully consulted and actually return that engagement on a level playing field?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: My ministry does not have a line item for capacity-building. We don’t have the funds for capacity-building. The mandate of my ministry is delivering services. There are grants that are provided by my ministry directly to communities, but that is for services.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

The question was about capacity-building. What I would like to do is ask if perhaps the minister’s staff could take that away to determine: under UNDRIP, does government provide the funding to ministries to provide to these First Nations while consultations are happening? If I may ask them just to take that away and provide that back to us.

Hon. M. Dean: Yes, thank you.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you.

Has a GBA+ analysis been done for all four locations and the hub model? Has it been done for all the centres to open in 2025?

Hon. M. Dean: Yes, GBA+ analysis is applied. In fact, the values that underpin GBA+, gender-based analysis plus, really drive the work of our ministry. We really want to meet the needs of vulnerable and underserved children, families — and their communities, as well. So that was a real driver, actually, of moving towards the new model, because we had observed and been told about all of the gaps that existed and the children that were getting left behind, as well.

In particular, for example, we were looking at underserved communities. Many families experience many barriers in the way that the current approach is designed and delivered — maybe immigrants, people with English as a second language.

[4:55 p.m.]

Many communities don’t approach traditional and, some might say, colonial services as well. We know there are children and youth with diagnoses who are not served, and of course, we know that there’s a delay in waiting for a diagnosis as well.

Low-income families, for example, who really struggle with the model of having to be able to pull together different services and case manage different services in order to meet the needs of their child and youth…. Low-income families who are maybe trying to get two or three different jobs might have several children in the house or have an elderly relative to care for as well — and really thinking about the burden there between men and women carers as well.

And remote and rural communities too. Again, with the current approach, even if your child has a diagnosis, in many parts of the province it’s not possible to pull together those services, because they’re just not there. One of the early implementation areas is in the northwest, where we know that the communities there are underserved.

The model is based on community agencies delivering these services in their communities, so the community agencies know their communities well and know how to create a network of services that are accessible and that will be available throughout their area as well, so that we know that by building this network of family connection centres, we will be able to get those services to families who are in those underserved communities, who are in rural and remote communities as well.

The gender-based analysis plus lens has very much informed the work that we’re doing that will result in a system across the province that will serve more children and youth, and because they’re not waiting for a diagnosis, we’ll serve them sooner.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. So the GBA+ analysis is being done. That’s great.

Next, I’m going to ask the minister about some of the concerns I’ve heard from service providers. Does the minister believe that small and independent service providers will not be disadvantaged by not having substantive resources or experience to respond to an RFP?

Hon. M. Dean: We worked closely with an advisory committee, so we were looking at barriers and issues in relation to RFP processes. We’ve employed that learning into this RFP process. The RFP is open to anybody, so we want to attract the best proponents to apply through this process.

[5:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you. Unfortunately, we have so little time here. I’m going to move forward on just a couple other areas here.

Can the minister explain the Minister of Education and Child Care’s comments in estimates. I’ll quote the Minister of Education and Child Care: “We don’t yet have a sense of what the model will look like in those places where MCFD and Education intersect.” However, from last year’s estimates, MCFD said the system is closely linked to partner ministries and agencies who will also provide assessment and support for CYSN clients.

Can the minister explain why there seems to be a disconnect between working closely with other ministries and the Ministry of Education not having information on the impact of moving to the needs-based system?

Hon. M. Dean: I can’t speak to what the Minister of Education said, but I can reassure the member that there’s a lot of work going on between the relevant ministries. So there is a staff-level working group that’s working very closely together. There is also an executive-level working group as well.

We will make sure that there’s good collaboration and communication and coordination between the family connection centres, the local education system and the Ministry of Children and Family, together, because what we know we want to do is to bring together all of those agencies that circle the community that are involved with children and youth so that we can really accelerate that improvement for supports and services for children and youth as they move between different systems. We want to make sure that we’re able to support them as seamlessly as possible.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

[5:05 p.m.]

There still is a disconnect between MCFD no longer requiring designations to receive service, yet the Ministry of Education still requiring medical diagnoses in some ways in order to be able to access supplemental funding.

I’m going to quote again, from estimates from several weeks ago, the Minister of Education and Child Care: “Just to clarify, I think the first point to be clear about with respect to the K-to-12 system is that we do have a system that’s driven by assessment, that’s driven by medical diagnosis. That is required in order to access supplemental funding. That is not changing as a result of changes to MCFD, and what happens in K to 12 on this question is not dependent on what happens with the changes that are being contemplated in MCFD.”

My question to the minister is: will parents have to then go out and seek and pay for their own medical diagnosis so that they can then have their child access supplemental funding in the K-to-12 system?

Hon. M. Dean: That’s a question for the Ministry of Education.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate that that is a question related to Education, but my understanding, and what the minister has stated, is that there is collaboration going on between these two ministries. There is obviously a significant intersect in young people — young people with support needs — and Education.

I believe that the minister and the ministry should be able to answer the question in terms of what conversations have happened, and what is MCFD going to do to respond to the process and system that the Ministry of Education has in place now?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: The early intervention programs will support children and youth before they are even into the education system. Of course, because the family connection centres will support children and youth before they have a diagnosis, they will be able to deliver those services.

As soon as someone has a concern about a child, they’ll be able to receive those services, whether they’re waiting for a diagnosis or not. A diagnosis might be a useful tool in future planning for a wraparound plan for a child or youth. Then when children and youth are entering into the education system, for the services that are being delivered, the primary support coordinator will be able to support and assist that child and that family with the transition into the education system.

Then if that child, as they continue through their education journey, continues to need services from the family connection centres, because these services will be zero to 19, they will be able to continue receiving those services that will be delivered in whatever way works best for that child and family. At the same time, those services won’t detract away from anything that might be offered and provided and delivered within the education system.

Indeed, the primary support coordinators and the family connections centre will be able to build that relationship with other key people in that child’s life and community. That would be maybe a key contact in the education system and in other systems — in the health system or in whatever community-based services and activities as well.

One of the things that’s really important about this model is having that primary support coordinator, who is the lead contact with each family for the services at the family connection centre, but they’re not delivered in isolation. They’re delivered in the circle of care of that community for each unique, individual child and youth.

K. Kirkpatrick: The reason I was raising the concern is because the CYSN funding — which has, up to this point, required the diagnosis — is also what is used in the K-to-12 system in order to access classroom supports. That was the concern. I just want to ensure that the ministry is working with Education so that there’s not a gap there.

I’m going to move on to my next question. Can the minister walk through the current staffing levels in the provincial office of domestic violence and note any vacancies, if there are any?

Hon. M. Dean: That’s not within the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

K. Kirkpatrick: May I ask the minister when that moved from MCFD? I know that up to 2018, at least, it was still sitting with MCFD.

Hon. M. Dean: Madam Chair, we’re just double-checking the answer, to be able to provide that to the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much. That’s a surprise, and it’s good to get some more information there.

To talk a little bit about benefits to youth in care, many youth in care have experienced trauma and been victims of violence. How does MCFD ensure that children in care receive the benefits they’re entitled to, such as the benefits under the crime victim assistance program?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Social workers are expected to work with children and youth who often are traumatized, and work with them on an individual basis. They would look at what needs they have, what their history has been. They are expected to be able to bring together the services that are needed. They might also work with the Public Guardian and Trustee as well. So it really is based on each individual circumstance.

K. Kirkpatrick: Just for clarification then, for the minister, I’m referring to the crime victim assistance program, which actually provides funding in certain situations where someone has been a victim of trauma and crime. How does the ministry ensure, because this has not happened in the past, that young people who actually qualify for that, who have been victims of violence, can access what is rightfully theirs?

I’m going to tack a second piece onto this, because it’s the same theme. Does MCFD ensure that youth in care are aware of and have access to the B.C. training and education savings grant of $1,200 to open an RESP?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: There are lots of different benefits that are accessible to different children and youth, depending on their status and their experiences. Then there are other benefits that are also available to caregivers. Again, there are lots of different conditions and eligibility criteria around that as well. What we would like to do is to offer to give you some more information as a follow-up, just because it is a bit complicated.

In relation to the crime victim assistance program, it is within our policy that social workers need to work with the Public Guardian and Trustee to make sure, if any child or youth in care is entitled to those funds, that they’ve been able to access them.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. I would appreciate that. It would be very helpful for me to have an understanding of how those benefits are managed.

In October of last year, Premier Horgan said: “The coroner, in her work, records deaths as natural, accidental, homicide, suicide, undetermined. There is no ‘overdose for children’ category. We’ll talk to the coroner about this, now that it’s been brought to my attention” — this is still the quote from the Premier — “here in the House, and we’ll see what we can do about making changes there.”

What has the ministry done to ensure youth-in-care opioid deaths are reported?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: We do follow the coroner’s categorization. Questions about the coroner should be directed to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Speaking of which, we did get clarification that the office of domestic violence moved in 2019 to Public Safety and Solicitor General.

K. Kirkpatrick: If the Chair will indulge me for a moment, I want to make sure I get the right questions in before we run out of time here. I may come back to that.

In September of 2021, the First Nations Leadership Council stated: “We further call upon the province to take immediate steps to ensure all social workers working within the Ministry of Children and Family Development are required to be registered with a public body to put in place monitoring and accountability safeguards.” When will the minister listen to the First Nations Leadership Council?

Hon. M. Dean: Yes, we received the letter and absolutely take seriously the views of the First Nations Leadership Council. In actual fact, there’s a lot of interest in social work governance and the social work oversight as well. We’ve listened to those who have been calling for a review of the social work oversight model, and we’re absolutely committed to ensuring that social work practice throughout B.C. is professional and ethical and competent.

[5:30 p.m.]

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

That’s why we’re actually taking on quite a large project to engage, in a broad way, with so many people who are stakeholders and interested in this discussion. We’ll explore what the strengths are, what the weaknesses are, what the impacts are of the current model. We of course need to be exploring areas of equity and inclusion, anti-racism, reconciliation and how social work oversight affects the many diverse groups who access social work services across B.C.

We’re engaging with a wide range of partners that will include First Nations Leadership Council and people that are interested in social work oversight. That will include social workers, social work representative groups, Indigenous partners and communities, sector partners, our partners in the community social services sector, registered and unregistered social workers — and the public, of course, people who have been or might be in receipt of services from social workers.

We know, of course, that social work oversight impacts Indigenous people who access social work services and those who practise social work in communities — in Indigenous communities and in non-Indigenous communities and in urban communities.

We are committed to early, consistent and transparent engagement with Indigenous peoples, in alignment with section 3 of the Declaration Act and the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We will engage directly with Indigenous peoples in B.C. who wish to participate, and that includes First Nations, Métis and Inuit people and organizations and communities as well.

Over the past year, we’ve held initial conversations with internal and external partners to discuss the engagement scope and the approach, and the engagement will build on insights that we’ve gathered through those initial discussions. We’ll share reports on what we heard at the end of the engagement.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

In British Columbia, social work is a regulated profession, with the exception that social workers working with MCFD have an exclusion to that. Perhaps if the First Nations Leadership Council isn’t compelling enough, on May 14, 2021, there was an open letter to members from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, who said: “At no time has the act fully protected the title ‘social worker’ or mandated registration for all social workers with the college, despite significant efforts by the association and the college. The Social Workers Act does not require all B.C. social workers to be registered with the college, and therefore, the act does not fully serve the public interest.”

Will the minister require all MCFD social workers to be regulated?

Hon. M. Dean: This is the process that we’re undertaking, so we look forward to hearing from the engagement process.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there currently a review of the complaints process happening within MCFD, with respect to social workers?

Hon. M. Dean: No, there’s no review.

K. Kirkpatrick: If I could correct the term I used when I said social workers. Currently there is an internal MCFD complaints process. If a family has an issue with the way they’ve worked with a social worker — they’re not happy; they don’t think it went well — there is currently a system for actually making a complaint about that person who may or may not be called a social worker. That may have been the confusion when I said social worker, based on the last question.

My understanding is that there’s been some unhappiness with the current process and that there is a review and the hope to put in a new kind of oversight or complaint process with respect to MCFD staff. Can the minister confirm, please, if that is correct?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: I think what the member might be referring to is that under our transformation of quality assurance, the ministry’s complaints program is going to be redesigned to include an additional focus on outcomes for children, youth and families, as well as the current focus on compliance to legislation, regulation and policy.

There has been created a child and youth complaints circle. That creates an opportunity for youth and young adults, Indigenous Elders, Delegated Aboriginal Agencies and MCFD staff to co-create recommendations that will shape the future state of how the ministry’s complaints policy and practice involving children and youth should be created to result in better outcomes.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That’s helpful.

We’re going to bounce a bit here again, to prioritize our time. Can the minister explain where, in Budget 2022, the funding for the four prototype centres is, given that the recent posting of the RFPs has them open prior to the next budget being tabled?

Hon. M. Dean: In Budget 2022, on the line item of CYSN, children and youth with support needs, you will see there is an extra $39.3 million for this year, this fiscal. That is inclusive of the work on the early implementation areas and the service delivery that will be operational before the end of this fiscal year.

Madam Chair, I would like to ask for a short recess.

The Chair: All right. We’ll take a short recess, 4½ minutes.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay, 7½. Negotiations are over.

The committee recessed from 5:40 p.m. to 5:47 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

Will the minister release the economic analysis that was done on the CYSN framework, to the opposition?

Hon. M. Dean: If you have a request for that information, then by all means, you’re able to submit that through an FOI.

[Interruption.]

The Chair: A reminder to members to turn off their sound on their devices.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m disappointed with the minister’s answer, but I’m going to move back to service provider questions.

My question to the minister: how will pay rates be determined for service providers? This is under the RFP that we were speaking to. Does the minister expect that current service providers, the majority being women-owned small businesses, will be earning less for the work that they are doing under the new hub system, and will administrative fees of service providers also be included in their compensation?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: We are in the RFP process at the moment. We do have to protect the integrity of that process, so that isn’t something that I would be able to answer directly in a session like this. As the member is aware, there’s information available in the public domain. There are frequently asked questions, etc.

If a service provider, for example, had detailed questions about levels of pay that clearly are related to the RFP, then the mechanism they can use is posting that question on B.C. Bid. When the answer is provided, it’s provided to everybody who might be interested in the RFP process.

K. Kirkpatrick: There’s already a shortage of qualified service professionals supporting children and youth with support needs.

The nature of a bid process is to limit the number of suppliers and screen some out. How does the minister see the reduction of service providers impacting the already small number of providers, while at the same time increasing the number of children being served?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Actually, the structure of the family connection centres will bring more sustainability to the sector and to being able to deliver services that are accessible for children and youth with support needs. Being able to bring professionals together, bring service providers together in the model of the family connection centre provides more guarantees for those service providers, and stability as well. That actually creates more reliable service delivery for service providers and, critically, for children and youth and their families.

The approach of building a system and creating a whole system is also to be working to be able to have family connection centres delivered on multi-year contracts. Again, the model is bringing together lots of different service providers and professionals to create a multidisciplinary team that creates a sustainable model to be delivered by community agencies, in community. That benefits everybody involved in the sector, because there’s much stronger reliability there, and consistency and sustainability.

K. Kirkpatrick: I don’t understand the answer, because we’re looking at a scarcity issue here. If we already, today, do not have enough service providers…. The purpose of an RFP is to screen people out, so you are actually going to reduce the pool of providers within the province. I don’t understand when the minister talks about that being more sustainable.

I would like to remind the minister of something I read earlier, which was the B.C. Autism Advocacy survey asking service providers about the new model. When asked specifically this question, “With the information you have now, would you feel comfortable working within a hub system managed by MCFD,” 80.3 percent answered no.

We have two issues, and I’d like the minister to explain how this will work. One issue is that you’ve got a lot of independent service providers who have expressed that they have a desire not to work through an MCFD-managed hub. The second is: should not all service providers who are currently providing services to children and youth with special needs…? Wouldn’t they all be part of the system, and if they’re all going to be part of the system, why are we doing this RFP process to screen people out?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Our approach to the RFP process is actually to generate collaboration and to bring people together. What we’re building are family connection centres delivered by community agencies. We’ve been working with the community social services sector, and we’ve been working with them to identify issues and barriers within the sector in order to make sure that we’re able to address those through this RFP process. The sector has been telling us what issues they’ve been facing that have actually been causing some of the scarcity as well.

We’re working really closely with our partners, and as I say, the family connection centres will be managed and delivered by community agencies. They’ll be multidisciplinary. Because the proposals will come forward from community, the community agencies will know how to work with a range of service providers on how to make sure they build that sustainable model that’s able to deliver services across their community. They know their community, and they know the services that are available in their community as well.

Really, the point of family connection centres is to bring those people together so that we get that enhancement of services. I’ve read far too many reports that tell me vulnerable children, youth and families fall through the cracks. We know that working together and delivering services collaboratively in community is much more likely to be successful and to generate positive outcomes for vulnerable children and youth.

The way we’ve structured this service framework is to generate that collaborative model that’s led by community, from within community.

K. Kirkpatrick: In a hypothetical scenario, so I can understand how this works, let’s say I’m a speech-language pathologist, and I currently have a number of clients who I am working with, children, providing one-on-one services.

Am I to understand, then, that if I wanted to continue delivering these services, I would need to be hired or contracted by a separate community social services agency who is then running a contract under MCFD? Or as an independent, woman-owned-business person myself, would I be able to work directly…? Do I have to have an intermediary, or am I still able to work directly with families? That’s not as articulate as I would like to be at this time of day, but I believe you understand what I’m asking.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: If the member is asking about the funding arrangement, then in the future system, the province’s relationship will be with the family connection centre, and then the family connection centre will have those relationships with service providers.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Minister.

If I am a speech-language pathologist and I’m now working with young people, I don’t have to worry about the RFP. As an independent, I would then, once the RFP…. You have the FCCs. I would then contract with them directly, as opposed to having to come through this RFP process. Am I understanding this correctly?

Hon. M. Dean: We are in the RFP process, as I said, and we do need to preserve the integrity of that. I’m not going to be able to provide answers that might in any way interfere with that.

K. Kirkpatrick: That was just simply a structural question, in terms of how the system is going to work, but I will move on from that.

One of my colleagues has reminded me that there was a question with respect to youth suicides that I should have asked. What are the overdose and suicide numbers of youth in care?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Between April and December 2021, there were no suicide deaths of children and youth in care. In the same time period, there were two overdose fatalities of children and youth in care.

K. Kirkpatrick: I am, in a moment, going to turn the mic over to my colleague, the Leader of the Third Party.

I would like to ask the minister, as a closing comment, if she can provide some statement or something for all of the families and service providers that have been contacting MCFD and contacting the minister, asking for her to listen and to stop the changes on CYSN. What is it that the minister can say today that will make them comfortable that their children are going to be well served by this new model?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: All children and youth with support needs will receive services. That’s children and youth who have a diagnosis, who don’t have a diagnosis, who are waiting for a diagnosis. The system will be based on their needs, and it will be a provincial system that will bring accessible services to children and youth and families throughout the province.

The new system will serve more children and youth, and serve them sooner. What’s really important about that is that they’re less likely to miss out on their milestones. When a parent has a concern about a child or youth, they’ll be able to reach out to a family connection centre to be able to access support and services and make sure their child gets them in a really timely way. That will really help with their longer-term development and being able to thrive and fulfil their potential as well.

The investment in Budget 2022 is laying the groundwork. We will continue doing our engagement. We know there’s a lot more work to do. We will take learnings from the early implementation areas. We’ll continue our engagements and our consultation — importantly, as we’ve talked about today, our engagement with Indigenous communities and Indigenous leadership, our engagement with families and with service providers and with community agencies as well.

We will build a collaborative service model that’s available throughout the province, delivered by community agencies in their communities, with knowledge of their communities, so families are able to access services their children need at the time they need them.

K. Kirkpatrick: I would like to thank staff of MCFD — I know it’s a lot of effort to put the work in — and thank the minister.

I would, however, like to express my disappointment. I feel that I’m leaving this room today with not much more information than I came in. I’m disappointed with the lack of specifics, the responses to the FOIs on basic things like staffing and structure and the economic analysis and the costing, things that I would consider are very basic.

I do thank staff for their time, but I am disappointed. I also don’t believe that the families who were just listening to that heard anything new that is going to make them more comfortable.

I hope, for everyone’s sake, that the rollout of CYSN is everything and more than the minister promises it to be.

Thank you very much, and I will pass to the Leader of the Third Party.

A. Olsen: Thank you for this opportunity to ask a few questions to the Minister of Children and Family Development. I want to follow up on some questions that were being asked about the CSYN hub model.

One of the things that’s been curious for me is if there’s no diagnosis necessary for these children, these youth, how do we know what we’re treating, and what services are to be provided? If no diagnosis is necessary, how do we set milestones? How do we accomplish what needs to be accomplished for these children if they’re not required to have a diagnosis? How does that help the education system, for an example, to be able to provide them the services they need and the support they need as students?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: When a child or youth is receiving services from the family connection centres, they will have a needs assessment that will be completed between the child and youth and the family and the clinical professionals there at the centre. A primary professional will be identified to be a link with the family, and an intake process will be completed. The therapist — it might be a speech therapist, occupational therapist, physiotherapist — will work with the child and youth and the family to do a needs assessment.

The model of the family connection centres is to have that multidisciplinary team be able to work with the family and identify what the goals are with that child and youth and with that family and to continue monitoring progress towards those goals as well. Part of this model is making sure we’re able to deliver that early intervention so that children and youth aren’t at risk of missing out on key developmental milestones. Actually setting goals that are achievable and that are supported by the services is a really critical dimension of this model and this service delivery system.

A diagnosis could be a helpful tool, and diagnoses are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. What’s really critical about the new system is that services aren’t locked behind a diagnosis. Again, we are moving away from that unnecessary delay for children and youth to actually be receiving supports and services.

Requiring services to be accessed based on a diagnosis puts lots of barriers in the way for many people. For example, families that are living remotely or in rural areas, families who find it difficult to access those kinds of health systems, families who might be living in poverty, might not have the ability to be able to get into the system to get a diagnosis.

It’s really important that, as far as possible, children and youth are able to access early intervention. Those supports will be able to work with the education system and help children and youth make that transition into the education system.

[6:25 p.m.]

These supports aren’t taking away from whatever that child or youth might receive in the education system and actually will work collaboratively and complement that. All service providers delivering services for children and youth, if they work collaboratively, are able to achieve success better for those children and youth.

A. Olsen: It just sounds so absurd, really, to be honest with you. If you were to take any other condition and say: “I’m not going to diagnose you; we’re just going to start to treat you.” If you take the criminal justice system: “We’re not going to really know; the judge is just going to have to sentence you,” right?

It just sounds so antiscientific and so absurd that we’re in 2022, and the model isn’t based on understanding and identifying exactly the challenges that an individual might be feeling and then tailoring a plan to be able to support that and not only that, having it integrated across multiple ministries so that when that child goes to school….

The number one challenge that I have in schools is that there are not enough educational assistants to support children who have assessments and who are diagnosed. Now we’re sending that education system more children because the MCFD has decided that a diagnosis before treatment or before creating a plan isn’t necessary. We’re sending more children into that system with less resources and less ability to be able to understand how exactly to help that person. We’re just going to give them speech therapists and everything without understanding what the clinical diagnosis is.

There is a wide range of neurodiverse — I’m not sure; I don’t want to be offensive — disorders or neurodiverse needs that children have. It just sounds absurd that we’re not going to actually do the diagnosis at the beginning. It sounds very antiscientific, frankly.

Okay, I’m going to switch gears here a little bit, because there are many, many questions, and we have very little time.

I’ve been asking every minister about how it is that they’re going to make sure that reconciliation remains a key and central focus of their ministry.

Now, it’s very clear that MCFD has been probably the most challenged ministry when it comes to the relationship with Indigenous people and has probably, other than the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, the most interaction, unfortunately, with Indigenous families and Indigenous children. I would like to know how it is that the minister is going to make sure that the reconciliation effort that’s ongoing across all ministries remains a key focus and a key function of the ministry, remains a priority. But I’m going to be more specific with MCFD than I am with others.

First, I would like to know…. In 4.16 of the draft action plan, it talks about moving forward with jurisdiction over families. I’d like to know specifically what the timeline is for 4.16.

For 4.17, I would like to know what the budget is to reflect the transition that’s being talked about here.

The third piece is around why it is that MCFD…. We have, in health and in education and in justice, an acknowledgment that there needs to be a review of systemic racism. Why is it that MCFD is not doing a broad review, for 4.18 — or just in general here, I should say — an investigation of systemic racism within this ministry?

[6:30 p.m. - 6:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: To return to something the member said before the question, we’re not actually changing anything in the system of diagnosis. There will be professional assessments of need that will be completed. That will mean that needs can be met, goals can be achieved before children actually receive a diagnosis. Using professional expertise, it is possible for there to be early intervention based on assessment and to be able to measure outcomes and measure progress for children.

On reconciliation, I want to start by recognizing that this ministry does have a special duty and responsibility. There has been an overinvolvement of this ministry in the child welfare system, in the lives of Indigenous children, youth and families. Over-intrusion has caused harm and intergenerational harm.

We absolutely need to change, and we’re committed to changing the child welfare system. We’ve started, but we have a long way to go to totally change the way that our ministry does its work and engages with Indigenous children and youth and families and the communities. We’ve started changing how we work with families and with communities and with rights holders as well.

The member asked about jurisdiction. We’re currently at five coordination tables with five nations. Of course, the timeline is actually driven by Indigenous communities, but we are absolutely a committed and strong partner at those tables, with the Indigenous community and with the Canadian government as well. We are very strong, very supportive. We’re very happy to be at those tables, and we’re absolutely committed to supporting jurisdiction in the way that all communities want to exercise their jurisdiction.

This is the future. We are open to all Indigenous communities having the conversation about coordination tables, and the time is now. The time is now to do it.

We also entered into our first section 92.1 agreement with Simpcw. That was celebrated with amazing ceremony with the community. They are working very quickly on a coordination agreement as well. We’re absolutely committed, and we will follow the pathway that is being led by Indigenous communities.

The member will know that in 2018, we changed provincial legislation. The purpose of that was to enable front-line staff to be able to share information with Indigenous communities, to reach out to Indigenous communities if a significant action was going to be taken and ask if there’s someone in the community who’s able to step in and help and take care of a child or youth so that children and youth are able to stay connected to their family and to their community and to their culture. We know how vital that is in successful outcomes.

We increased the funding for out-of-care placements, so for members of community, members of the extended family who are able to provide that home, on a short-term basis or a longer-term basis. We increased that level of funding to be on a par with foster-carer supports as well. We are overhauling the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in order to absolutely and fundamentally create a new approach. We’ve started that engagement now. We know it will take time. We know we need to do it in a very meaningful way.

We think it will take us a couple of years to be able to create those changes in the act that are going to be meaningful and totally change the path and the trajectory, moving forward. We know there’s more work to do, and as the member will know, as well, from the action plan for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, 4.16 commits us to creating a fiscal framework.

We’ve already started that work. We started that work through the tripartite working group with Canada and with the First Nations Leadership Council as well. We’re making progress. We’ve already engaged some consultation and support services. We are making some foundational changes.

We know there’s a lot more work to do, and we are absolutely committed to doing that.

[6:40 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Noting the time, and it’s moving to the end here, I’ve got several questions on adult eating disorders. I asked a question in question period a couple of weeks ago. I’m not going to be able to get through them here, so I will submit those questions in writing and hope to be able to get a response back on behalf of the advocates that have approached me, seeking my support with respect to their engagement with the provincial government.

I’ll end my time here with this question, going back to the hub model. Recently the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs wrote the ministry a letter with respect to the proposed changes to the hub model. I’m wondering if the minister can explain how it is that the ministry is going to accommodate this request, based on the very comprehensive letter written by the UBCIC.

Hon. M. Dean: We’re absolutely committed to continue working with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to make sure their questions are answered and to make sure we can provide detailed information to them. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we build a system that delivers culturally safe care and that we deliver more and better services for children and youth with support needs.

I’ll be continuing that work. That has been a priority for me. I’ve been having regular meetings with the First Nations Leadership Council, so that work will continue.

In the meantime, we have engaged an Indigenous firm to do the work of consultation, and they will be doing additional engagement with Indigenous leaders, rights holders, partners, families and service providers. The findings from that work will be incorporated into next steps as we actually finalize the provincial implementation, which is going to be operationalized in 2024.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response.

I may have misread this, but the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs represents a number of the nations, the rights and title holders. Their letters usually come through motion. My understanding is they requested that this process be paused while that work is ongoing. Is that the case, and if so, will the minister be pausing the work while that consultation happens?

Hon. M. Dean: This work has been ongoing. There have been continued conversations. I committed in writing that we would be undertaking this work, and that’s what we’re doing.

A. Olsen: I’ll end with this. I’ll say that everything this government says is: “We’re working with and listening to Indigenous nations, until they deliver the message that we don’t want to hear. Then we’re doing what we want to do anyway.” I just want to put that on the record. It needs to be noted. It will probably be repeated time and time again.

The reality of it is that it needs to be consistent. Actions and words must be consistent. Unfortunately, we continue to see the inconsistency.

[6:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I ask the minister if they would like to make any closing remarks before I call the vote.

Hon. M. Dean: Well, I want to say thank you to all of my colleagues who have come in and engaged in discussion and dialogue about what’s really important and critical services throughout the province of British Columbia.

Again, I want to say thank you to all of the staff and also to all of the staff who aren’t present here and who are out there on the front lines delivering services.

We’re making really significant changes, especially in the area of Indigenous child welfare and, as we’ve discussed here today, in the area of child and youth support needs and also tackling the issues in child and youth mental health and many other areas of work where we know that we need to be making improvements. At the same time, staff continue to deliver services whilst we’re making improvements and building systems as well. My appreciation goes out to all of the staff.

Our approach is to make sure that we work in partnership with community agencies, Indigenous partners, children, youth and families. Our commitment is to make sure that we continuously improve and that we deliver the best services and supports for children and youth throughout B.C.

The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I’ll call Vote 20.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,742,045,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the committee rise and report resolution and completion and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:47 p.m.