Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

[G. Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of
Children and Family Development

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of Supply, Section A, to order. We are meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $2,442,836,000.

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

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do, Chair. It is an incredible honour for me to be here today to have discussions about the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I want to start by making an introduction of

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

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do, Chair. Thank you.

It is an incredible honour for me to be here today to have discussions about the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I want to start by making an introduction of ministry staff that are here to support us through the coming hours.

First and foremost, I have our Deputy Minister Keith Godin. We also have available and working with us today our ADM of Indigenous child welfare, Jeremy Y’in Neduklhchulh Williams. We have Denise Devenny, ADM of partnerships and Indigenous engagement.

We have ADM of finance and corporate services, Fiznik Pernice. We have ADM of strategic services, Marnie Mayhew. We have ADM of policy, legislation and litigation, Emily Horton. We have ADM of service delivery division, Kelly Durand. We have ADM of practice and quality assurance, Cory Heavener.

We also have joining us executive director of service, provincial priorities, Dana Long; chief human resources officer, Soji Bryant; chief financial officer, Nicole Anderson; deputy director of child welfare, James Wale; and executive director of quality assurance, Jackie Lee.

I want to give a special thanks, to the staff that are here, for supporting me in the last couple of months and getting us ready for budget estimates.

I also want to thank my critics, the member for Penticton-Summerland and the member for Chilliwack North, for the work that they’ve done in preparation for these estimates.

I have incredible respect for the role of the opposition. I once stood in the opposition in this very room and asked questions to the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education, so I hope that we can have a very fruitful, transparent conversation about how the ministry operates and how we look forward to the future and doing good things for children, youth and families in this province.

I just want to start by thanking you for being here today and the efforts and the work that you’ve done.

I want to quickly take the moment to say how unbelievably honoured I am to be the Minister of Children and Family Development. I love children. I have two children of my own. I always say that I’ve been a fighter for children since I was a child myself.

I believe, and I think that our government believes, that children are our most precious resource in this province. I think that this ministry is crucial in advancing our province in good ways and looking out for the future of all of our children, particularly the most vulnerable.

Families come into contact with my ministry at some of the most difficult times, so this work is incredibly important to me, and it hits me in very personal ways. I, first and foremost, am a mom to a 15-year-old and a 19-year-old, both who haven’t always fit into the normal box of how they need to be supported in life. So I have had both personal and professional experience with my ministry.

My very first job when I moved out to British Columbia when I was 17 years old was to care for a young girl with cerebral palsy. Megan and her family taught me about resiliency, about compassion and about challenges in accessing the right services and how early intervention can really change the trajectory of a child’s life and a family’s life.

I’ve been passionate about these services my entire adult career. I’ve had the opportunity to work with hundreds of families in our province, helping them advocate, helping them learn about programs and services. The fact that I have the opportunity to stand here in this position is an honour of a lifetime and something that I will adore for my entire life.

I want to quickly chat about the work that our government has done, because I am proud of a lot of the work our government has done. We have seen the largest increase in investment in this ministry this year of 321 additional dollars.

We’ve also seen the number of children in government care decline. We have the lowest number of children in government care in over 20 years, and we are the first province to recognize Indigenous jurisdiction of child and family services in legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

I think that those are really important steps in the right direction and things that I’m really proud that our government has done. I want to take a moment to thank our direct service staff, the thousands

and we are the first province to recognize Indigenous jurisdiction of child and family services in legislation. I think that those are really important steps in the right direction and things that I’m really proud that our government has done.

I want to take a moment to thank our direct service staff, the thousands of staff that we have working in the Ministry of Children and Family Development delivering these crucial services. They go to work every day in very challenging circumstances and do their level best to ensure that children, youth and families are cared for. So to the social workers, to the team leads, to all of our staff: I just want to say that I am grateful for the work that you do. I know that it is difficult, and I will work every day to support you in those roles.

I also want to take a moment to thank the thousands of organizations that we also have delivering services in our province. We contract to thousands of organizations to deliver very important specialized care to children and youth, and they do that work incredibly well.

I know that there is more work to do, and I’m standing here in this role because I do think that we can do better. I do think that there are things that we can do to improve our services, to remove barriers for families. I know that we are going to do that work over the coming years.

In my mandate, central to everything is honouring our commitments to B.C.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. We are working with First Nations to support their resumption of jurisdiction over their children and families. I know that children belong with their parents, with their grandparents, with their aunties, with their uncles and in community. The best outcomes that children can have is when that happens.

We have signed six community agreements, five coordination agreements and we have 14 other negotiations underway. This work is transformational and will be transformational to our child welfare system. And it is work that across the country we are being looked at in what we are doing here in British Columbia.

We are also leading work across government on a comprehensive child and youth well-being plan and outcomes framework. We know that we need to do things differently. We know we need to meet children and families before they get to a place of crisis. This work will really look at getting children, youth, their families, their extended families the support they need prior to being in a crisis.

And then finally, working to strengthen and realign our services and supports for children and youth with mental health and support needs. We have engaged in exhaustive consultation with families. We have heard that families want us to remove barriers to increase access to some of our most vulnerable, and I’m excited about the work that we have ahead of us on that.

I look forward to canvassing a wide variety of topics and providing the opposition with the information that they’re looking for. I look forward to the next couple of hours, and I’m just really proud to be here today. With that, I will hand it over to the opposition.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Chilliwack North. Would you like to make any opening remarks?

Heather Maahs: Thank you Mr. Chair.

Well, I’d like to acknowledge the huge responsibility of this department and the work that this ministry and the individuals who care deeply for children and youth and families who require assistance and support of the services provided through MCFD.

Thank you, Minister Wickens, your staff and the vast array of service providers supporting this work.

Without further ado, I’m just going to jump in here. My first question to you today is: has MCFD had an external financial audit? If so, when, and by whom and how often are these conducted?

The Chair: Before we continue, I’d just like to remind members that questions are through the Chair.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Every year, as a standard process, as a part of Public Accounts, the Auditor General audits my ministry and all ministries in government. That happens annually.

Heather Maahs: Was this an external financial audit?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The Auditor General is an independent body of the B.C. Legislature, so that would be considered an external audit.

Heather Maahs: The March 29, 2022 news release from RCY said that MCFD’s system for allocating funding is so broken that it is not possible to link ministry funding with the commitments to reconciliation government has made or to outcomes for children.

This is a sobering and terrifying admission, recognizing that there are approximately 4,900 contracted social service agencies in B.C. besides the 4,500 full-time staff.

Considering the complexities of this ministry and the challenges in monitoring and providing oversight for such a vast, multifaceted ministry, what has MCFD done to streamline the relationship between the federal government and the province to provide a more comprehensive and consistent ability to hold people, agencies and contractors accountable for funding regarding their roles and responsibilities associated with this ministry?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would say that we have multiple fiscal arrangements with the federal government. All are typically multi-year agreements. They’re established. They have tracking and outcome agreements that we have with the federal government. They’re on par with other ministries, across our government, with how we interact with the federal government and have to account for those agreements and report on those agreements.

MCFD has a very robust public portal that you can go in and look at our outcome measurements in a variety of places. We track number of kids in care. We track number of Indigenous kids in care. We track a number of things that any member of the public, opposition or otherwise, can go and look at. There are, sort of, rigorous practices in place for our relationship with the federal government.

Heather Maahs: As of 2021, Stats Canada census said 68 percent of the children in care are Indigenous, yet Indigenous are only 5.9 percent of the population. How does $821 million allocated over three years for children in care specifically target the needs of the Indigenous children and youth?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to start by saying how transformational the work is that we are doing in the Ministry of Children and Family Development with respect to recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous communities, Indigenous governing bodies around jurisdiction of child and family services.

[3:15 p.m.]

Firstly, we, importantly, provide funding to Indigenous child and family-serving agencies across this province to provide direct services, child welfare services, to Indigenous communities. That’s one way that we provide services for Indigenous children and families.

We also have taken a generational shift. Indigenous leaders

province to provide direct services, child welfare services, to Indigenous communities. So that’s one way that we provide services for Indigenous children and families.

We also have taken a generational shift. Indigenous leaders, communities, Indigenous governing bodies have done generational work to work with MCFD to sign a number of historic agreements. We have signed a number of community agreements, a number of coordination agreements. That ensures that those Indigenous governing bodies that strike their own laws provide child welfare services as they determine for their community.

In our budget for child welfare services, there is a number…. Much of that budget goes directly to Indigenous governing bodies, to Indigenous child-and-family-serving agencies. I think that we have seen some of the results of that be that we are seeing a lower number of children come into care. We have far more particularly Indigenous children in out-of-care agreements, being cared for by family members, community members. So we’re seeing a shift in the right direction because of the work that’s happening in this ministry.

Heather Maahs: In my question, I was asking for specific targets for the needs of the children. The minister is telling me that hiring contractors…. I think the question that I was asking was more about the specific needs of these Indigenous children and youth, not the hiring of people. I’m looking for a more concrete example of how that is helping the Indigenous children and youth, if that makes sense.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to clarify that our Indigenous child and family service agencies aren’t…. That’s not us contracting. Our work with Indigenous governing bodies is not us contracting. That is Indigenous communities reclaiming their right to provide services for their children, their youth and their families. The services that are required for child protection and child welfare are outlined in our Child, Family and Community Service Act. Any of those services that are required are delivered by MCFD. They’re also delivered by Indigenous child-and-family-serving agencies and they’re delivered by Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous communities.

Heather Maahs: All right, I’m going to move on here. What amount of the MCFD budget is targeted for Indigenous children and youth?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think it’s important to recognize that no matter who you are as a child, a youth or a family, or where you are, you have access to services through MCFD. So there are a couple of things that I’m just going to talk about.

Firstly, if you are an Indigenous family that wants to access MCFD services through, let’s say, a child development centre in a community, that Indigenous child and that family has access to those services. If an Indigenous child requires access to child and youth mental health services or any number of services that we provide in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, all of it is available to any child or any youth.

Beyond that, we also have specific line amounts of budgets that we provide to Indigenous child and family community-serving agencies. We also have specific amounts that we provide with respect to the signing of community agreements and coordination agreements specifically for Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous communities that want to resume jurisdiction.

Trevor Halford: The minister just moments ago talked about early child development. Is the minister familiar with Semiahmoo Family Place?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, I am.

Trevor Halford: Does the minister know many families are served by Semiahmoo Family Place?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I don’t know the specifics of the number of families that are served by Semiahmoo Family Place, but I am very familiar with family resource centres. I’m very familiar with the work that family resource centres do across our province and the numbers of families that they serve.

In previous roles, I was directly responsible for overseeing the services that family resource centres delivered. So I’m very familiar with the work, and I’m happy to chat with the member on this very specific case. I’m aware of it and can likely provide some information to the member.

Trevor Halford: Really glad the minister is familiar with Semiahmoo Family Place. Actually, it’s hundreds of families that they provide services for, whether it’s single moms, new immigrants, parents or moms that have fled domestic violence.

It’s a great, great place. I visited there a lot. They’re reducing their hours now. They’re actually looking at closing their doors.

[3:25 p.m.]

Can the minister confirm in this fiscal, previous fiscal, how much MCFD has provided specifically to Semiahmoo Family Place?

confirm in this fiscal, previous fiscal, how much MCFD has provided specifically to Semiahmoo family place?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: To the member, I can provide him with the specific numbers after, at a later time, later today or tomorrow.

What I can say though, in general, around these particular services is that they are typically procured at the local level, and the local community organizations come together to decide how an array of services in the community are delivered in partnership with local ministry offices like the director of operations and the contractor.

There are a number of reasons why services may change or adapt. It could be that local operators have come together to look at the needs in different parts of the community or there’s been a change of need in the community. So there are all kinds of reasons why, when a contract is delivered, it may change over time.

I can certainly work with the member on what has happened in this situation, get the numbers and sort out things further. For sure.

Trevor Halford: Okay, I think it should be a pretty simple question to the minister. Can the minister confirm that the number is zero?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would say that we are happy to look it up. There are thousands of contracts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development — thousands. Just for the member opposite, a contract for a family resource centre would be one very small contract out of all of those thousands of contracts we are delivering.

And again, there would have been a comprehensive procurement process that happened at the local level that was a decision made with the local organizations on how they wanted to deliver services for children and families. I can assure the member, however, that there have been no cuts to services, and there have been no cuts to family resource centres.

Trevor Halford: I think the minister and I have a different definition of what the word “cut” means. Semiahmoo family place was receiving funding to keep their doors open. It’s a small contract. We’re talking about a couple hundred thousand dollars. They’re serving hundreds of families. Hundreds. Their funding has been cut. The minister can try and find out what the numbers are. The number is zero. Whatever it is, it’s not able to keep their doors open.

To me, if you’re funding something and you’re no longer funding it, I define that as a cut. The minister can try and say whatever they want, but right now, this place is looking at closing its doors because it was getting funding from MCFD that it’s no longer getting. That to me is a definition of what a cut is. If you are funding something, and then you no longer fund it, you have cut it.

[3:30 p.m.]

So I don’t understand. The minister said she’s familiar with Semiahmoo family place, not familiar with the fact that they are getting zero dollars from MCFD right now, not familiar with the fact that they are actually having to close their doors on certain days and turn families away. It is a fairly small contract.

I don’t understand. The minister said she’s familiar with Semiahmoo family place, not familiar with the fact that they’re getting zero dollars from MCFD right now, not familiar with the fact that they are actually having to close their doors on certain days and turn families away.

We’re talking about a fairly small contract. Again to the minister…. Like, I define that as a cut. When you’re turning families away and no longer providing services, no longer funding important programs, that, to me, is a cut. Again, I’m going to be a huge advocate because I see the work that they do every day. I see what they do for families that are coming in there. It’s very, very important.

The fact is that for the last number of years, this organization has done almost everything they can to try and secure funding, and it’s fallen on deaf ears. Again to the minister, can she please commit today to take a look at Semiahmoo family place? I can assure her that it’s an adequate program, with great people running it, but this government has left them out in the cold.

Again to the minister…. This is exactly what people are expecting MCFD to be funding, but right now they are absolutely struggling to keep their doors open. That means that moms that are on the brink who are trying to find those few hours to interact with other parents and have their kids interact with other kids, that new immigrants who are coming in that have language barriers and that are finding this a safe place, even to get healthy meals…. This government has gone completely cold on this group, and I find that completely unacceptable.

I’m hoping that through this process, the minister will commit to give this another second look, because this is very, very important, not just to me but to Surrey and White Rock, and I find it unacceptable. The fact is that they’re not even giving any funding to such an important organization.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I really appreciate the member’s advocacy for this organization and the care and compassion and advocacy for the programs and services that are delivered through crucial programs like family resource centres. What I would like the member…. I will offer to follow up with the member, but I would encourage the member to understand that family resource programs are a part of a suite of services that are delivered in community with respect to early childhood development and early-years services.

Those contracts are delivered through organizations. Semiahmoo may have a contractual relationship with another organization. There are decisions that are made at local levels on how to best support the community. MCFD in general leaves those decisions up to the local organizations.

I understand this because I was responsible for contracting many of those programs and services, and I had to make decisions on what programs and services…. I sometimes would have to close a program because of a variety of issues that may not be clear to the member opposite. There are right now leasing issues. There are challenges with space. There’s a whole wide array of reasons why the local community may make a decision.

I will look into the specifics of this particular family resource centre and work with the member opposite to provide the information that he needs on why the decisions have been made that have been made.

Heather Maahs: My next question is: how is the $821 million allocated over three years for children in care distributed to alternative care contractors, specifically those involving Indigenous child and family services? And would you please give us a budget breakdown for, for example, foster care, specialized homes, independent living programs or Indigenous-led care homes?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to first start by answering this question by saying that the numbers that we spend on children who are in care in a variety of placements are not static. They change, and they are based on what the need of that child might be.

[3:40 p.m.]

Children, when they come into contact with the ministry, there needs to be an assessment of what that need is and what type of care is going to be arranged or that they are going to go

change, and they are based on what the need of that child might be. Children…. When they come into contact with the ministry, there needs to be an assessment of what that need is and what type of care that is going to be arranged or that they are going to go into. That care arrangement can also change over time as well. And so what I can say is that the priority that we have, and the expectation, is always that, wherever possible, we ensure that children stay in the care of their family or in kinship care arrangements.

We’ve done work to harmonize the rates for kinship care with rates for foster care to ensure that family care givers are being provided at the same rates that foster care givers are provided.

Our budget really is driven by the number of care in each of those placements. It changes, and I would also say that our specialized care is very complex and costs far more. If, for whatever reason, a child needs to come into one of those specialized homes, we do have to be dynamic in how we are providing funding, because it is based on that child and that need.

Heather Maahs: So I’m not getting a budget breakdown is what that boils down to.

I understand the complexity that this ministry is dealing with. I would have thought that there would be certain amounts of money in different buckets that are centralized for each of the individual categories. Anyways, we’ll move on.

Does MCFD transfer all responsibility of Indigenous children and youth in care through the Child, Family and Service Act, CFSA, to the Indigenous…?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to talk about the uniqueness of this work, and it really is

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to talk about the uniqueness of this work. It really is work that the ministry, MCFD, does in collaboration, in partnership and with Indigenous communities. It’s a gradient of how we work with Indigenous communities and Indigenous governing bodies.

We support Indigenous communities to increase their involvement and authority and resume jurisdiction over child welfare through a number of pathways that they can choose. First is through community agreements. These are under section 92.1 of the CFSA, which pertains to consultation and cooperation with an Indigenous community on child safety work with their families, such as assessments, investigations, development of care plans and placement decisions when Indigenous children come into care. That’s one pathway.

We have delegation-enabling agreements under section 92 of the CFSA where a director enters into an agreement that delegates any or all of the director’s powers, duties or functions to an Indigenous child and family service agency to deliver family support services and child protection of Indigenous communities. Those delegation agreements are varying based on the Indigenous child and family community service agency, the community they’re in and what has been agreed on between that agency and MCFD.

There are joint and consent-based decision-making agreements setting out how the province and Indigenous governing bodies share decision-making about child and family services under the CFCSA and sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration Act.

There’s also exercising jurisdiction through processes set out in the federal act, including those under section 20, where the Indigenous governing body provides notice of its intention to exercise its legislative authority without a coordination agreement to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada and the province or territory in which the community is located, or under section 20.2, where the Indigenous governing body submits notice to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada and each province or territory in which the Indigenous community wishes to exercise jurisdiction to enter into a tripartite coordination agreement in relation to child and family services.

Once an agreement is reached or after a year of reasonable efforts, the Indigenous law will have the force of federal law.

Self-governing agreements negotiated with the First Nation, B.C.’s Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and Canada, such as treaties or reconciliation agreements…. These agreements may also be bilateral between the First Nation and Canada only.

So there are a number of different agreements that we are working with and can certainly provide sort of a breakdown of the Indigenous communities, Indigenous governing bodies, where we have Indigenous child-family-serving agencies, where we have coordination agreements and where that work is currently at.

Heather Maahs: I’m just going to preface this next question. With all of the agencies and different organizations and responsibilities that the minister has mentioned, I’m going to hearken back to the report called Don’t Look Away. One of the complaints that the director stated was that it didn’t seem like the right hand knew what the left hand was doing, which led ultimately to the death of this ten-year-old boy, in that report.

[3:50 p.m.]

There are so many moving parts and so many players in this ministry. From the moment I received this portfolio, I began a quest for a flow chart

There are so many moving parts and so many players in this ministry, I have…. From the moment I received this portfolio, I began a quest for a flow chart, and it’s impossible. There is no means of a flow chart or none that’s been provided to me.

Ultimately, my question, then, is: what responsibility does the MCFD retain, in this big web of people, where these Indigenous children, who are at great risk, are concerned?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, I would start by saying that we have a collective responsibility with respect to the safety and well-being of children and youth in this province.

[3:55 p.m.]

The Representative for Children and Youth would say that — often I’ve heard her say that — we need to take a cross-government approach in the way that we ensure the safety and well-being. That includes our education system, our health care system and MCFD.

of children and youth would say that. Often I’ve heard her say that we need to take a cross-government approach in the way that we ensure the safety and well-being…. That includes our education system, our health care system and MCFD.

To the member’s question around accountability, I would start by saying that…. You know, I gave a long list of the varying different ways that First Nations, Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous child and family community service agencies may provide services to Indigenous children. It’s varying, and wherever the Indigenous governing body or agency does not provide service, it is MCFD’s responsibility to ensure that that service is provided.

It’s also expected that any time a child…. Just to give an example, if a child was in need of interaction with a social worker…. The co-development of our work with First Nations was really about ensuring that there is a seamless system of support. So if a social worker was working with….

If an Indigenous child was in need of protection or in need of support, once that social worker concluded that there was a First Nation, or involvement from a nation, that social worker doesn’t just step away. They also coordinate and communicate and work with that nation to ensure that all of the services that are required for that child are being provided.

So really, it is a collective responsibility, and it’s one that can be complex for sure. I have had the opportunity to meet with Indigenous family and community serving agencies, to meet at our local offices with local social workers who talk about the very important collaborative work that they do together.

Certainly, I think that there is a lot of work that’s being done right now in partnership to discuss roles and responsibilities, ways of communicating, so that children don’t fall through the cracks.

Heather Maahs: What means of accountability is provided to MCFD — the government, the public — regarding follow-up data and accountability for the Indigenous children?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I think that I’ve understood the question, but I’m going to ask the member to just clarify the question again, please.

Heather Maahs: I’ll just read the question again. What means of accountability is provided to MCFD, the government, the public, regarding follow-up data and accountability from the agents, from the providers, for the money?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The answer to this question really depends on what domain we are talking about with respect to delivery of services. If we are talking about Indigenous child family-serving agencies, those agencies have Aboriginal operation practice standards and indicators that they are required to abide by and work with the ministry to provide reports and outcomes and data with respect to those agencies.

[4:05 p.m.]

If we’re talking about Indigenous governing bodies, where they have exercised their own laws…. And I just want to be very clear that I believe in the inherent right of Indigenous jurisdiction, that First Nations have every right to care for

governing bodies where they have exercised their own laws. I just want to be very clear that I believe in the inherent right of Indigenous jurisdiction — that First Nations have every right to care for, to raise and to love their own children in accordance with their laws. When a First Nation has struck their own laws, MCFD would not have oversight.

With respect to MCFD agencies and organizations and data and accountability, there are a number of things with respect to that. We have oversight bodies that are independent from this Legislature. We’ve talked about the Representative for Children and Youth, the Ombudsperson, the OAG. We also have our public portal that reports on numbers of children and youth served, outcomes. There are rigorous reporting standards for contractors across MCFD that report on the number of children served, their outcomes, service hours, and so it is dependent on the service. It is dependent on what the relationship is with MCFD and the contracted agency or in the situation of a First Nation exercising their inherent rights.

Heather Maahs: First of all, just a point of clarification, what is OAG?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The Office of the Auditor General.

Heather Maahs: Thank you so much.

We know we have MCFD. We have Nations. Through the MCFD, Nations have contractors. I guess what I’m asking is: if there is a contractor who has a really bad track record, where is the accountability? Who is ultimately responsible, especially if it’s through Nations?

I concur with the Minister in that the ultimate goal is to have the Indigenous families looking after their own. Obviously, that is what we all want. However, when there are contractors who are hired who have a bad track record, at what point is there data…? Is there follow-up? Does MCFD step in and say: “Okay. Hold on a second. Time-out. We are seeing that we’re not getting good results here.”

Where does the buck stop, basically, is what I’m asking?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, any child, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, that receives services under the Child, Family and Community Services Act…. Ultimately, MCFD is accountable and responsible for those services, whether that is ICFSA or a ministry-contracted organization that isn’t ICFSA. I’m going to get tired of using acronyms: Indigenous child family serving agency. Ultimately, MCFD is responsible for that.

There are practice audits that occur, and where there are needed adjustments to practice or any sort of quality assurance or things that need to be changed, MCFD would work closely with that Indigenous child family serving agency. Where services are delivered under Indigenous law, we would not intervene in any sort of contractor.

[4:15 p.m.]

I would say that we also have, like I mentioned before, the standards and indicators that Indigenous child family serving agencies are responsible for. Also, when those agencies contract with another provider to provide a home, the contract overseeing those contracts is in the purview of the delegated agency, so there are times

Indigenous child and family service agencies are responsible for. Also, when those agencies contract with another provider to provide a home, the contract overseeing those contracts is in the purview of the delegated agency. So there are times where those contracts are discontinued or other contractors are used.

Heather Maahs: The RCY stated in No Time to Wait, Part Two, that a review of the workforce capacity of the Indigenous child and family service agencies would require a separate and distinct approach.

In light of the fact that approximately two-thirds of all children in care are Indigenous, when can we expect the minister to address the concerns coming out of the Don’t Look Away report?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want some clarification from the member opposite. Is she inquiring about the Don’t Look Away report or the No Time to Wait report?

Heather Maahs: It was the No Time to Wait report that I was referring to.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I would say…. In respect to No Time to Wait, the No Time to Wait: Part Two was released in February. There are a number of actions that are underway. Within weeks of the No Time to Wait: Part Two report the ministry released a comprehensive workforce plan that addresses a number of the recommendations by the Representative for Children and Youth. I can certainly provide that workforce plan to the member opposite.

We also undertook rigorous health and safety planning based on some of the feedback with ministry staff. We have increased our direct workforce up to 20 percent. The two-year staffing levels have increased, year over year, since the pandemic, so that was really comprehensive work that the ministry has done, really important work to ensure that we’re supporting a wide range of work that our social workers do and the recommendations of the Representative for Children and Youth.

[4:25 p.m.]

We know that there is quite a bit more work to be done with respect to our direct service staff. I’ve had the opportunity, over the last number of months, to go around the province — the Lower Mainland, Kelowna — to visit social workers, protection social workers, resource social workers, CYSN

to be done with respect to our direct service staff.

I’ve had the opportunity over the last number of months to go around the province — the Lower Mainland, Kelowna — to visit social workers, protection social workers, resource social workers, CYSN social workers, team leads, to hear directly from them about the important work that they do, to hear about the challenges they’re facing and the supports that they need going forward.

We’ve been able to talk about the things that are going well, the investments that they are seeing happening in the workforce, training opportunities, incentives to recruit more social workers, things that we need to do to retain our workforce. This is vitally important work as we move forward, and it’s ongoing. I can provide the workforce data to the member opposite.

Heather Maahs: To the minister: thank you. I would appreciate any and all data that you have. That would be great.

I’m just going to circle back to the last question that I asked about responsibility. For clarification, if nations had hired a contractor who, continually, under their watch or jurisdiction, had children die, abuse take place — generally speaking, a very bad reputation — is it your contention that MCFD has no jurisdiction and would not take any jurisdiction in that situation?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to clarify for the member that Indigenous communities do love their children and have the right to care for their children and to raise their children. And where a First Nation has struck their law, that law is paramount.

And so I think we all have a collective responsibility to the well-being of children and youth in this province. Any time a child or youth is at risk, where the children are receiving services under the Child, Family and Community Services Act, my ministry has a responsibility.

First Nations laws are paramount in this province. So I just want to clarify that.

The Chair: Members, we shall take a 10-minute break and return at 4:38 p.m. This committee is in recess.

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The committee recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I now recognize the member for Chilliwack North.

Heather Maahs: Thank you very much. Welcome to the chair.

I just have to go back to the question that we were discussing. I didn’t ever contend that people didn’t love their own children. That is obviously…. They are precious to them. But I’m just wondering….

Again, this is not a matter of law. This is a matter of responsibility. If a known contractor is not providing good care and actually jeopardizing lives, whose responsibility, ultimately, is it when children’s lives are lost, as has been the case?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I need to correct the member opposite, because this is a matter of law.

The responsibility that we have as the ministry, we are responsible under the Child, Family and Community Service Act to provide services to all children in the province with respect to the their self safety and well-being.

Where a First Nation or Indigenous governing body has struck their own law, we do not have oversight, and that is crucially important to understand. We have a government-to-government relationship with First Nations who have struck their own law. So it absolutely is a matter of law.

With respect to concerns about care providers providing services, contracted by Indigenous community–serving agencies or organizations contracted by MCFD to provide a service, there are…. First and foremost, anytime there is a concern, the expectation is that concern is reported. That is also written into our child, family and community services law.

Where there is a concern about the service delivery or a contractor, we have protocol investigations, so those investigations happen in real time. When an investigation occurs, there are recommendations that are made out of that investigation. Where there are contractors contracted by a delegated agency, that delegated agency is a part of that investigation and makes a decision about that contractor. We take these concerns very seriously.

Then, as far as oversight and accountability goes, MCFD is accountable to our oversight bodies, to the Representative for Children and Youth, to the Ombudsperson, to the Auditor General and to the public.

[4:45 p.m.]

I think, we’ve seen, in this session so far, that when there is a concern, when there is something that happens to a child or a youth that is that is heartbreaking and concerning that I as the minister have to answer

to the Auditor General and to the public.

I think we’ve seen in this session so far that when there is a concern, when there is something that happens to a child or a youth that is heartbreaking and concerning, that I, as the minister, have to answer questions about that, that our ministry is held accountable to that. I think that happens on a regular basis.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

If I could just clarify what the question is. In this case, we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where there’s full jurisdiction, so the delegated Indigenous agency has their own laws. According to what I’m understanding from the minister, it’s no longer under the CFCSA. It’s under their laws, full jurisdiction. In that case, if there’s a problem after there’s been an investigation, if I’m understanding what the minister just said, that it would be reportable, an investigation would take place.

Should known changes occur to the quality of the outcomes after that investigation, what, if any mechanism, does MCFD have to either (a) intervene and assure the quality of outcomes, if any, or (b) remove funding?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to specifically answer the member’s question about an Indigenous governing body and a First Nation striking its own law. That would be a government-to-government relationship, like a relationship between B.C. and Alberta. The jurisdiction of child and family services, when an Indigenous governing body and a First Nation have struck their own law, is government-to-government. We do not have jurisdiction over their children and their families when they have struck their own law.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you for that answer. I think I’m starting to understand. In other words, once jurisdiction is fully vested in the Indigenous governing body, it is lost forever vis-à-vis MCFD and the government of British Columbia, correct?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It’s a little bit more nuanced than how the member has described. Where an Indigenous governing body, a First Nation, has struck their own laws with respect to child and family services and the delivery of those services pursuant to those laws, they are accountable for those services.

We have a situation where we have a multi-jurisdictional approach to jurisdiction that is different in every single situation. Where we have coordination agreements with First Nations, we work closely with them as they exercise their own laws and jurisdiction. We work collaboratively with those nations to ensure that there is an ongoing understanding of how services will be delivered and how we will work in partnership or alongside.

It really is up to the First Nation to determine how and what they want that to look like.

Heather Maahs: What you’re actually telling us is the story of the boy in Don’t Look Away, which was written about July 2024…

The Chair: Member, if I can remind you to refer to the minister rather than “you” — “What the minister is telling us.”

Heather Maahs: Oh, sorry. Yes.

The Chair: Thank you so much. I do appreciate your help on that.

Heather Maahs: Certainly. The minister’s contention then would be that this report is nobody’s fault. Nobody’s fault. The boy was in a home under nation’s jurisdiction, and yet, he was tortured and he was murdered. And MCFD says: “Well, nations have their own laws, and we don’t interfere.” But ultimately, this boy falls under MCFD jurisdiction…

The Chair: If I may interrupt for just a minute, Member. Please, no props in room, and that’s considered a prop. Waving the report around is considered a prop.

Heather Maahs: Oh, okay. Certainly, no problem.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Heather Maahs: Yep, thank you.

I don’t know how much further I want to go on this line of questioning. It seems preposterous to me.

So I’ll ask another question. What role do Indigenous communities play in the decision-making process regarding placement of Indigenous children in care?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I disagree completely with the premise of the member’s question and have to clarify a couple of things because I think that the member has misunderstood that what has happened, has missed what happened in the Don’t Look Away report in the case of Colby and misunderstood what jurisdiction actually is.

The First Nation did not have jurisdiction with respect to the services being provided to the child in that report, and for the services that were being provided in that situation, MCFD was responsible. Those were services that were delivered under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I think the line of questioning is concerning and can do incredible damage to First Nations communities that have an inherent right to care for their own children. The Don’t Look Away report was a collective failure of multiple different places in government, in community. And there were multiple times, and the Representative for Children and Youth rightly points out that there were multiple touchpoints where we could have done better for Colby and his family. It is a devastating outcome to something that should have never happened.

However, I need to underscore that that was absolutely not a failure of jurisdiction or of First Nations inherent right to care for their own children and to deliver their services the way they deem that those services should be delivered in their community. That is exactly one of the recommendations that the Representative for Children and Youth made in that report. One of the recommendations that she made was to ensure that MCFD did the work necessary with nations, with Indigenous governing bodies, to ensure that we did a better job of looking at communications, information-sharing, roles and responsibilities, how we work with nations.

We’ve canvassed the various agreements that nations can pursue, but I really have to underscore that the Don’t Look Away report was a collective responsibility of everybody, and those services were being delivered under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

Heather Maahs: That was my preamble, and then I asked the question: what role do Indigenous communities play in the decision-making process regarding the placement of Indigenous children in care?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There are multiple different scenarios and multiple different roles that a First Nation–Indigenous community and the ministry play in the placement of a child in a variety of different ways. So the process can be very complex.

When a report gets made, when there’s a concern for protection, the first step is always that a social worker investigates that report. Wherever possible, they will do safety planning with that family to ensure that the child can stay connected to their family and then work with that family on the potential supports or services that they may need.

When a child is needed to come into care because of safety concerns, the social worker needs to let the nation involved know that that child has come into care. Then there is a hearing, there is a process, where the feedback from the family, the nation, and, if the child is old enough and appropriate…. That feedback comes into place on the placement of that child and where it is best suited for that child to go.

[5:05 p.m.]

My expectation is wherever possible, that child is placed connected to their community, their culture, and their family. With respect to the placements, there are home studies that are done for providers. There are criminal record checks. Placement families, individuals, are screened and

connected to their community, their culture and their family.

With respect to the placements, there are home studies that are done for providers. There are criminal record checks. Placement families, individuals are screened and assessed for the appropriateness of the placement. Like I said, wherever possible, we try to ensure that child is kept connected to their family and their community.

Heather Maahs: Okay maybe this is an easy one. How many Indigenous children in care are being cared for in and/or by their community.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: For the member, the number…. We had 3,277

Hon. Jodie Wickens: For the member, the number…. We had 3,277 Indigenous children in care. Of those 3,277 children, 1,603 were in out-of-care agreements, meaning in kinship care or in community.

Of important note is that 87 percent of Indigenous children in care were able to reunite with their families. Also, the numbers of children in care are broken down between Indigenous and non-Indigenous on our public portal which is available to members opposite and the general public.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that answer: 87 percent is an encouraging number. Absolutely. How many Indigenous children are missing right now?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Of the Indigenous children who are under care of the director through the Child, Family and Community Service Act, there are currently no missing children in care that do not have contact with a caregiver or guardianship worker in some form.

Heather Maahs: Thank you for that answer. I may come back to that.

What safety and precautionary measures have been implemented to ensure the health and safety of Indigenous children in care so that injuries and deaths are reduced or, better yet, no longer occur at all?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m going to talk about Indigenous children and, by extension, all children. MCFD is responsible through the….

[The bells were rung.]

Saved by the bell.

The Chair: I’ll draw the committee’s attention to the fact that division has been called in the chamber, so we will take a recess at this time and reconvene immediately after the chamber finishes the vote.

Thank you so much. See you soon.

The committee recessed from 5:19 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

The committee recessed from 5:19 p.m. to 5:32 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Heather Maahs: In the early years of Colby’s life — this is the fictitious name of the person from Don’t Look Away — one of the difficulties identified was the hardship for his parents, who could not afford specialized formula, costing $200 a month, which forced them to water down the formula that he was being given. What actions have been taken to ensure financial hardship in circumstances such as this are addressed today?

And I’m going to add two more parts to this. What is the ministry doing to help struggling families with early intervention and prevention strategies with, of course, the Indigenous nations?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to start by just saying that our budget for child safety, family supports…. The historical budget…. When we came into government in 2017, the budget was $603 million. This year, our budget is $1.327 billion dollars. We have made incredible investments in supports for children and families.

There are a couple of things in response to the question. Medically complex children in our province are eligible for our at-home program, where specialized formula would be paid for, for the family. One of the things that we know from the Don’t Look Away report is that even when services and supports are available, those services and supports are hard to navigate and families don’t always know what they have access to, and so we need to do a better job of ensuring that navigation and coordination of services is available.

Our direct workforce, our social workers, also have access to discretionary funding. When they are working with a family that has financial hardships or needs additional support, there is discretionary funding available. We haven’t always clearly communicated that policy in a way that social workers all understand, and so we have done work to address that issue from the Don’t Look Away report. That recommendation will be complete by June.

I would also just say that there are a number of support programs and preventative programs that are delivered in our communities. There are family preservation and reunification programs in community. When there is a concern that a child that may need protection, a social worker can refer to some of these programs in the community. Those family support workers can work with families to refer them to other programs.

As an example, in my community, when we have a preservation and reunification program, those family support workers can work with a family directly and refer them to parenting programs, things like Nobody’s Perfect, Mother Goose programs. They can connect them with tenant support or look at their housing situation.

[5:40 p.m.]

We talked a little bit earlier about the family resource programs, where families come together and can access various things, get connected to the local food bank. There are so many programs and services that are delivered in our communities, and I know from experience that sometimes it’s incredibly difficult

family resource programs, where families come together and can access various things, get connected to the local food bank.

There are so many programs and services that are delivered in our communities, and I know from experience that sometimes it’s incredibly difficult to navigate or access or we don’t do the best job of supporting families to know how to get what they need. We are working consistently in the ministry to ensure that we do a better job of providing support to families early on so they don’t end up in crisis.

The example that the member gives of a family not having access to formula is an example of just a heart-wrenching thing that didn’t need to happen. I think that that’s a part of a number of the things that I mentioned when we began estimates today on my mandate and the different direction that we need to take in this ministry. It’s all a part of what the member speaks of.

Heather Maahs: I appreciate the frank answer from the minister.

Also from the report Don’t Look Away, one senior staffer shared the possibility that MCFD social workers might have had concerns but didn’t feel safe to speak up for fear of being labelled racist.

Are there whistleblower safety measures in place so that information is shared regarding children’s best interests and ensuring that the needs of the children come first?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, it’s important to outline that every single British Columbian has a responsibility under the Child, Family and Community Service Act to report when they feel a child is unsafe, whether that be a social worker, an MLA in this House or a teacher. Anybody that feels that there are concerns is required by law to report that concern, and contravention of that law can come with a fine. It’s taken incredibly seriously.

[5:45 p.m.]

We also have what is called our provincial centralized screening, and there is a large team in place around our provincial centralized

of that law can come with a fine, and it’s taken incredibly seriously.

We also have what is called our provincial centralized screening. There is a large team in place around our provincial centralized screening, where social workers can report, where community members can report, and that is all anonymous. Even if you identify yourself through that report, you stay anonymous through that reporting process.

I am actually incredibly impressed with our provincial centralized screening. It is an incredibly important tool that we have in this province and receives hundreds of thousands of calls a year. I have personal experience using the screening myself.

That is just the responsibility that people have in the province. With respect to whistleblower policy, our Public Service Agency has a government-wide whistleblower policy, and every ministry has an ethics adviser for all staff to access. These are robust policies that staff are aware of, and there should not be a concern for any sort of reprisal or reprimand for reporting a concern.

Heather Maahs: These policies were in place during the time frame of the Don’t Look Away report, and yet …. This comes right out of Don’t Look Away, so obviously it is a problem. I know. I’m well acquainted with the whistleblower policy that came into place through this government, being on the board of education, and the changes that were made.

I guess it’s there, and that’s great, but monitoring, perhaps, might be something that this government might want to be interested in, if there is confidence, because this was in place when Don’t Look Away was written.

I’m just going to move to a different question. What type of safeguards have been put in place to prevent those with sexual abuse charges from being contractors for MCFD?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Firstly, it’s the ministry’s policy that staff, MCFD direct staff or contracted staff, have vulnerable person criminal record checks. Those are of higher intensity and look into individuals more deeply, with respect to criminality, than a regular community criminal record check. Those criminal record checks are centrally done, and so each person that has that criminal record check, it follows the person. It isn’t about the contracted agency. If there’s a person that works at one contracted agency and then moves, their criminal record check follows them and MCFD has access to that centrally.

We also have regular audits of criminal record checks. Contracted agencies that are contracted for over $500,000 with MCFD are required to go through an accreditation process. That accreditation process would include ensuring that all employees of that contracted agency have criminal records on file. If an agency didn’t have criminal records on file, that could jeopardize their continued contract.

Heather Maahs: In Don’t Look Away, the couple, fictitiously named Staci and Graham, were being recommended for permanent custody, and they actually had…. There was a record of sexual assault in, I believe, it was Graham’s records. What action has this ministry taken to ensure that there are adequate processes in place to be followed to prevent such an atrocity from happening again?

Now, I know the minister has just stated that there is a process, but that process was in place when this situation happened as well. What further actions can the ministry take to prevent this from happening again and holding all accountable?

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to acknowledge, and we have acknowledged, that what happened to Colby shouldn’t happen to any child and that the things that were missed for him and his family were devastating. I share with the member that when I read the report, I was horrified. It’s just a horrific situation.

There are a couple of things that we have done to ensure that oversight happens in a better and different way. One of the things is establishing a caregiver registry where there is one central place that there’s provincial oversight for caregivers that includes all of the screening and the prevention things that I mentioned. I think that there are lots of examples where we have that in other service delivery where it does really provide a tool and an ability for service providers to look someone up and ensure that they are qualified and credentialed.

We have the ECE registry. In the autism community, we have the autism service provider registry, where people can go on that registry and look up a service provider and ensure that they have what they say they have. Ensuring that we have this caregiver registry is one piece of provincial oversight that will help with respect to this. We also are now able to audit in real time, ensuring all contracted care has what I mentioned by way of criminal record checks and standards.

[6:00 p.m.]

We implemented a standardized electronic tool for documenting and tracking visits for children and youth in and out of care. At any point in time, staff can go into the system and pull up a child’s file and look at when a visit occurred, what happened at the visit and whether we are ensuring that that is happening

visits for children and youth in and out of care, so at any point in time, staff can go into the system and pull up a child’s file and look at when a visit occurred, what happened at the visit and whether we are ensuring that is happening in the timelines to prevent, unfortunately, the tragedy that was outlined in the Don’t Look Away report.

Heather Maahs: I’m going to now turn it over to my colleague MLA Boultbee, who will take some additional time.

Amelia Boultbee: Could we just have a two-minute recess?

The Chair: We will have a short recess. If everybody could be back in their seats, I’m going to say, in five minutes. Two minutes is just…. I can’t work with two minutes. If everybody can be back at 6:04, please. Short recess.

The committee recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[6:05 p.m.]

The committee recessed from 6:01 p.m. to 6:07 p.m.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

The Chair: I call Committee of Supply, Section A, back to order. We are currently considering the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Amelia Boultbee: Just to cap off my friend’s line of questioning before I get into a different topic, can the minister please provide, expressed as a number, how much provincial funding is allocated to delegated Indigenous agencies or Indigenous governing bodies? Whether it’s full jurisdiction, and they have control over their own affairs, or whether it’s the half delegation, please let us know, expressed as a number, what the funding annually is.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to just express that for the numbers that I’m providing, they’re for Child, Family and Community Service-serving agencies. It’s for 2023-2024. And the reason that we’re using that number is because we provide funding, in real time as well, based on caseload. So that number would be reported out. I would be able to get you access to that number once we know what we’re providing based on the caseload in Indigenous-serving agencies.

For that year, we spent $247 million on child-and-family safety services, so children in care services.

We provide other sources of funding to Indigenous child-and-family serving agencies for programming that that wouldn’t be included in that line item. So those might be different types of programming related to children and youth with support needs, family support-type programming that’s not included in that number.

With respect to Indigenous governing bodies, it’s $13 million for coordination and community agreements.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate that answer. Taking a look at the voted appropriations, a lot of them in the description say that it also includes transfers to Indigenous governing bodies.

[6:15 p.m.]

It sounds like based on the minister’s answer, in addition to those numbers that I was just provided, that there are, embedded in other line items, other transfers as well. So I would appreciate a follow-up after estimates with the total number up till today’s date, please.

so it sounds like, based on the minister’s answer — in addition to those numbers that I was just provided — that there are, embedded in other line items, other transfers as well. So I would appreciate a follow-up after estimates with the total number up till today’s date, please.

Since the Premier was sworn in, in November 2022, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has issued approximately 127 contracts over $10,000, totalling more than $35.5 million. While some contracts may have supported aspects of service delivery, nearly half that total, approximately $15 million, has been spent on five high-priced consultants.

These funds were not used to directly hire front-line staff or expand access to care. Instead, they were spent on external firms, often with little public visibility. This reflects a pattern of choices that favour bureaucracy and consultants over front-line services and the children who rely on them.

While families across the province wait months for mental health supports, while social workers report crushing caseloads, and while children with support needs remain stuck in limbo, this government is quietly spending millions on consultants to develop strategy documents, internal evaluations and frameworks — not to deliver direct care.

I had a series of questions seeking to elicit numbers associated with particular contracts, but I was informed at the break that that level of granularity is not available to us. So with the Chair’s discretion, I’ll give a small overview.

The numbers speak for themselves. Deloitte, one of the largest global consulting firms, secured $2.3 million across five contracts. KPMG received $1.37 million through just two contracts. MNP, a frequent fixture in NDP outsourcing, was paid nearly $600,000 for three contracts. Elevate Consulting was issued nine separate contracts, totalling $1.85 million. But the largest share, over $9 million, or approximately one-quarter of all contracted amounts, went to one firm alone, Deetken Enterprises, through 15 separate contracts.

While this unfolds, the ministry continues to sign off on contract after contract with external consultants. Meanwhile, this year’s budget quietly cuts $4.1 million from adoption services.

This raises a fundamental question. If the government has $15 million to spend on five high-priced consultants, why isn’t that money being used to hire more clinicians, fund more respite care, support the front-line workers holding the system together or reverse the cuts to adoption services? The priority should be getting services to children, not getting invoices to consultants.

With that, what specific services has Deetken Enterprises been contracted to provide under its contracts with the ministry, and why was this particular vendor selected so frequently over others?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to start by just saying that wherever possible we use in-house support for a wide variety of things. When we are looking at large systems changes and transforming how we deliver programs and services — and I’ll get to the list of things that we have done — it is important for us to look at how we can do that in the most effective, efficient, and least costly as possible. We have a stringent and robust procurement process that looks at those very things and has criteria whenever we are going to use a third party or contract with a provider or a consultant.

I want to talk about adoption services because there have been no cuts to adoption services. In general, there actually have not been any cuts at all to any services in MCFD. We saw a $321 million increase to this ministry this year. Since we formed government, we have invested year over year more than, I think, probably, the decades before.

The way that adoption services happen in this province, the landscape of adoption services have changed. There are less children being adopted because there are more children that are staying with their families. We have seen the biggest decrease to children in care than over a decade and so we are spending less on adoption. It doesn’t mean we are cutting services. The landscape has changed and how we deliver services in our province changes over time.

I also just want to say that we have had big policy shifts in this ministry since forming government. One example is our SAJE program, our strengthening adults and journeys to empowerment. When we formed government there were very few young adults that were getting services into adulthood when they turned 19.

[6:25 p.m.]

We went from seeing approximately 600 young adults being supported to almost 4,000 young adults. We transformed that program, and those types of project management and change management take resources to be able to implement and deliver.

Like I said, wherever

being supported to almost 4,000 young adults. We transformed that program. Those types of project management and change management take resources to be able to implement and deliver.

Like I said, wherever possible, we do things in-house and, actually, there are times where contracting is a cost-saving exercise, because we need temporary support. We don’t need to add staffing internally. These are projects that happen over a period of time, and the project is done, the change management is done, and then we no longer need those services.

I just want to reiterate we have not had any cuts to my ministry or any services in the ministry.

Amelia Boultbee: With all due respect, I didn’t hear an answer to my question. My question was what specific services has Deetken Enterprises been contracted to provide, and why was this particular vendor selected so frequently over others?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple things. The contracting out that the member is pointing to is $8.4 million this year out of a $2.4 billion

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple things. The contracting out that the member is pointing to is $8.4 million this year, out of a $2.4 billion budget. With respect to the particular provider, we have core policies and procedures in government with respect to procurement and contracting.

The Deetken Enterprises that the member mentions went through an open procurement and selection process. There is criteria in that process that any vendor can bid for a contract, and there is evaluation of that. If there was someone that got a contract, it was because of that open and clear process.

I would also say, with respect to some of the things that Deetken Enterprises has supported the ministry with, we have implemented a specialized home and support services. We contracted the same way for these services for over 30 years. A transformation of how we do that work is a massive undertaking. It’s massive change management. It involves many different contracted agencies, so they did some work around that.

We are doing quite a bit of work on co-development of a funding model with respect to jurisdiction and First Nations. And just a couple things, as a part of some of the recommendations out of the No Time to Wait workload modelling tool, and looking at how we’re looking at workload. There are a number of tools, engagements that need to happen. Those are just a couple of the things that Deetken Enterprises was engaged on.

Amelia Boultbee: Listening to what the minister has just given us of a few examples that Deetken does…. With respect to developing a model of funding for Indigenous jurisdiction, my understanding is that there was a report done on this quite some time ago in that the funding model chosen was block funding — in other words, lump sums of funding passed along without specific line items. Do I have that wrong?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yes, that’s incorrect. The funding model is currently being co-developed with First Nations. It’s a commitment that we made under our DRIPA action plan.

[Jessie Sunner in the chair.]

It would be premature to talk about what that funding model includes, and it’s under development.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m going to return to my line of questioning on Deetken and contracts. But since the minister brought up staffing modelling…. I believe she said it’s something Deetken was doing. I’d like to ask about the workforce modelling tool that the ministry developed and was fully developed in 2019. In fact, I would like to know in particular what that tool cost.

On April 16, at the meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, Alan Markwart, executive lead for legislation and special initiatives at the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, shared deeply concerning information about the Ministry’s long-standing workforce challenges.

[6:35 p.m.]

He confirmed that in 2019, MCFD developed and implemented a workload measurement tool that found the ministry needed 636 additional full-time positions to achieve 85 percent compliance with practice standards. That’s not full compliance; that’s

and in workforce challenges.

He confirmed that in 2019, developed and implemented a workload measurement tool that found the ministry needed 636 additional full-time positions to achieve 85 percent compliance with practice standards. That’s not full compliance; that’s 85 percent. Yet between 2019 and 2024, the workforce grew by only 3 percent, and despite this well-documented need, the ministry abandoned the tool.

My question is: what did that tool cost, and why was it abandoned in 2019, necessitating Deetken to do that work apparently over again?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to just express that some of the numbers that were read with respect to the select standing committee are not in alignment with some of the numbers that the ministry has with respect to workforce. And happy to loop back with the Representative for Children and Youth and the member opposite on some of those numbers.

I would say in response to the workload tool, the workload tool that was mentioned was a tool that was developed in 2016. Since that time, social work has changed fundamentally. The profession has evolved fundamentally.

[6:45 p.m.]

How we are working with Indigenous governing bodies and how we have to do our work in coordination with First Nations has drastically changed. So the tool itself from 2016

how we are working with Indigenous governing bodies and how we have to do our work in coordination with First Nations has drastically changed. So the tool itself from 2016 has been stood down.

The work with Deetken is to look at what things, as a recommendation of the Don’t Look Away report or the No Time to Wait report, we can use from that, learn from that, and how we move forward better.

But since the tool that the member opposite was talking about, things have changed drastically.

Amelia Boultbee: We can loop back on the matter of 85 versus 100 percent compliance. But as it relates to the workload management tool, somebody in this meeting asked Alan Markwart, who was the witness, why MCFD stopped using the tool, whether it was because it was creating an administrative burden or was no longer useful.

He responded: “No, I don’t think that was the reason it stopped. It’s a bit of a mystery as to why it stopped. I don’t know if this is true, but I used to be an ADM at MCFD. I suspect they didn’t want it documented how short they were.”

So with respect to the work that Deetken is now doing — since according to the minister, this workload tool has been abandoned for some years now — what is Deetken forecasting that MCFD requires in terms of FTEs?

[6:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: It would be premature for us to identify the number of FTEs required currently, and particularly before we implement the recommendations of the No Time to Wait report. We are in the early stages of looking at the workload tool and, to that end, looking at the lessons learned, what needs to be changed, what needs to be adapted.

What I can say is that we are doing a number of pieces of work to address No Time to Wait. We’ve seen an almost 20 percent increase, as I’ve mentioned before, in ministry staffing levels, with year over year increases. The exit rates for staff in 2022 totalled 1,300 employees. That decreased to 792 employees in 2024.

I think there is work to be done, absolutely, in looking at historically what has worked or what hasn’t worked in development of what we need in the future. But I think it’s premature to give a number when we have to implement recommendations, consult with our frontline staff and do a lot of very large pieces of work before we can get to that place.

Amelia Boultbee: With all due respect to the minister, it doesn’t make sense to me that the recommendations would have to be implemented, and then you figure out how many FTEs you need. That seems very cart before the horse. You’re going to have to figure out how many FTEs you need in order to implement those recommendations.

I’m assuming that this deliverable is somewhere in the contractual relationship with Deetken. So what is the timeline? When can the public expect to have that report back from Deetken telling us how many FTEs we need in the ministry?

[6:55 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to say that we aren’t waiting for a new tool or a report from Deetken at this time, that our consultation with Deetken has been about the tool that was stood down, the learnings from that, how the workforce has changed significantly since 2016 and to that time.

I would also say that our ministry’s workforce plan addresses many of the recommendations. Work is underway to look at our onboarding processes, see where opportunities exist and expand new hire training, completing feasibility analysis around regulation of social workers, expanding the cumulative stress management program to be available in all program areas. Our health and safety action plan has been developed and will be fully implemented.

Looking at the Guarding Minds at Work survey administered every two years to gain feedback from staff, revise the incentive strategy and submit to the public service agency as bargaining, increased emphasis on ensuring cultural events and invitations are distributed to staff, encouraging to participate, developing mentorship positions….

These are all things that are underway and are a comprehensive part of the workforce strategy that aren’t just about, yes, increases to direct service staff, but there were a number of recommendations made that our ministry is implementing and committed to.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you for that answer. I find it very surprising that social work has changed so much in those ensuing years. You would think that, if that were the case, there would be a slew of people leaving social work because they no longer fit the job description for which they were hired, and that we would be seeing a total radical change in job descriptions being put out for social workers. To my knowledge, that hasn’t happened.

Before I move on, I would just like to note that I have not yet received an answer as to what the original workload tool cost. If that information is not available, I would appreciate it in follow-up.

[7:00 p.m.]

Of the five major consulting firms — Deetken Enterprises, Deloitte, KPMG, MNP and Elevate Consulting — how many of these contracts were awarded through a sole source or limited competitive process? And if so, what justification was provided for not opening those

of the five major consulting firms, Deetken Enterprises, Deloitte, KPMG, MNP and Elevate Consulting, how many of these contracts were awarded through a sole source or limited competitive process? And if so, what justification was provided for not opening those contracts to public competition?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We’re going to have to go back and look and provide the information once we have a chance to take a look at that.

What I will say is that, again, we follow all of the policies and procedures around procurement. We proactively disclose any time that that situation might occur with respect to what the member is meaning with respect to sole source. Anyone, once they see that proactive disclosure, can challenge that.

There are processes that we use in the ministry that are call for responses where providers are pre-qualified based on their qualifications and in situations where there is no other firm, organization, entity available to do the particular type of work that we are procuring, then there would be an award.

[7:05 p.m.]

Again, that would be proactively disclosed and can be challenged by the public or another organization or firm at any time.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you. I appreciate that answer, and I will follow up with the minister

then there would be an award. And again, that would be proactively disclosed and can be challenged by the public or another organization or firm at any time.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you. I appreciate that answer, and I will follow up with the minister’s office to get some further detail, in particular, what the timeline and procedure is for challenging such a contract.

I have a series of questions that I’ll be following up with the minister’s office regarding some details on how they decide when a project requires external consulting rather than being completed by internal public servants, especially for core policy and planning functions as she alluded to from the Don’t Look Away report.

[7:10 p.m.]

That being said, noting the hour, I’d like to turn to a little bit of a contracting matter, which is what does MCFD pay monthly and annually in legal fees?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I’m going to provide the member opposite with the annual amount because it would fluctuate monthly in a way that would be difficult to break down.

This year, $30 million. More than half of that is spent on directors counsel. That would be for local legal matters, when there’s a court hearing with respect to child safety, with respect to custody, things like that. We also fund independent legal advice for children who are in care, and we fund mediation services for families as well.

Amelia Boultbee: Would the minister be able to provide me with the number or proportion of that $30 million that is not directors counsel, not independent legal advice, not everyday corporate matters, but, rather, ongoing litigation?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: So $4.5 million for litigation.

[7:15 p.m.]

Amelia Boultbee: Is that a pretty typical annual cost for litigation for MCFD, or does it vary over, say, the last five years to a great degree? More than $1 million, let’s say.

or does it vary over, say, the last five years, to a great degree? More than one million, let’s say.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We can get the member the numbers for the last five years. It fluctuates, and we don’t have those numbers handy.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you, I would appreciate that.

My next question is, what has MCFD paid in either court-ordered or out-of-court settlements over the last five years?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The Ministry of Children and Family Development doesn’t pay settlements. It’s done through the Ministry of Finance, through the Crown Proceedings Act, and that question would be better directed towards that ministry.

Amelia Boultbee: Speaking of staffing, according to page 82 of the November 2024 ministry transition binder, approximately 77 percent of the ministry’s 5,500 staff are classified as direct service employees. The remaining 23 are identified as administrative support, excluded management or other corporate roles. The transition binder further acknowledges that the average employee age is 43.5 years, with an average tenure of nearly 10 years, an indicator that significant succession planning challenges are on the horizon in addition to lack of retention.

As outlined on page 85 of the transition binder, the ministry references a range of recruitment efforts and incentive programs, including incentive pay, regional support measures, and staff wellness initiatives. But it does not present a measurable or fully developed strategy for rebuilding the front-line workforce at the scale required to meet the current demand, and external oversight bodies have validated these concerns.

In No Time to Wait, Part One, released in July 2024, the Representative for Children and Youth described MCFD’s social worker workforce as being in a state of crisis, marked by persistent and substantial understaffing, unmanageable workloads, an inability to meet practice standards and an unhealthy work environment characterized by undue stress, burnout and fear.

No Time to Wait, Part Two, released in February 2025, echoed those findings, confirming that the same conditions still exist. On page 24, the report highlights supervision and mentorship gaps across the province, with front-line staff reporting inconsistent access to support and team leaders too overwhelmed to provide meaningful guidance.

Despite internal recognition and repeated external warnings, the ministry still lacks a measurable plan to stabilize, support and scale its workforce. Until that happens, service expansion efforts will continue to run aground, not because of ambition, but because of capacity.

According to page 82 of the November 2024 transition binder, 77 percent of MCFD staff are working in front-line service roles. Can the minister explain why nearly one quarter of the ministry’s staffing resources are allocated to non-service delivery rules given the large number of children who remain unserved?

[7:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I appreciate where the question comes from. I think that we can recognize the incredible importance of direct service staff in providing, particularly, the very important services for Children and Family Development. But I have to point out that there’s a number of staff and there are a number of functions of the ministry that are required to actually support those direct service staff.

We have eight divisions of the ministry that directly also support service delivery in many different ways. I’m someone who comes from direct service delivery and from community where we had direct service staff, but we needed a ton of support around that, with respect to finance and ensuring people get paid, with respect to human resources, with oversight and supervision. We have thousands of direct service staff that need access to technology. Our provincial centralized screening is a really good example of the requirement for IT support. We have policy and litigation that we just overviewed the need for.

We have numbers of FTEs that are actually responsible for directly getting payments into the hands of families so that they can access supports and services. Those aren’t considered direct service staff. When we have people that are approving invoices — for example, for autism funding or for the at-home program and medical benefits…. When we have people doing work that is around supporting families but not directly supporting families, that’s a part of the entire workforce.

[7:25 p.m.]

I recognize that we need to ensure that we have the direct service staff required to deliver these services but direct service staff can’t actually do the important work that they need to do if we don’t also

but not directly supporting families. That’s a part of the entire workforce.

I recognize that we need to ensure that we have the direct service staff required to deliver these services, but direct service staff can’t actually do the important work that they need to do if we don’t also have the entire complement of the workforce that needs to support them. We have a whole department around partnerships and Indigenous engagement. Those staff are integral in ensuring that we are transforming our child welfare system and working in partnership with Indigenous community–serving agencies.

I believe in the importance of our entire workforce. Yes, we have more work to do to increase our direct workforce, but the important work that other members of the ministry do is crucial to ensure that that direct service staff can do their work as well.

Amelia Boultbee: Where I’m going with this is I believe the RCY identified that the recommended number of case files for a front-line worker, either child protection or social worker, was 17. And the report identified individuals with cases over 80, 150. My question is: what is the average number of case files per front-line worker, specifically child protection or social workers?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to recognize that we know that caseloads for a variety of direct service staff in the workforce are high, and this isn’t just specific to British Columbia. It’s across North America, and it’s across varying jurisdictions. We have seen unprecedented population growth — an additional 550,000 people come to this province over the last number of years — so we absolutely are grappling with caseloads and needing to increase our workforce.

I just want to acknowledge that, that whether it is a front-line social worker, a speech and language pathologist, a family doctor, a clinical counselor, all of these very important professions in our province, in our country, are struggling with high caseloads. We are doing everything that we can to recruit regulated professionals in this province.

We’ve made gains, as we’ve canvassed quite a bit, an increase in the direct workforce and the increase in our workforce in general, and we will continue to do that work.

Amelia Boultbee: Does the minister have a number for me of the average number of case files per front-line worker?

[7:30 p.m. - 7:35 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: A couple of things. What I can offer to the member is that we can come back and provide a bit of a range of caseload in, like, a service delivery area, for example.

The challenge with talking about caseload in a static way is that it is very varied and very dependent on the type of social worker or direct service staff and, you know, the situation and the complement of families that come in through intake. For example, there are guardianship social workers. There are resource social workers. There are family support social workers.

Those are all very different types of work that are happening. Then the types of families and children or youth would also be very different and need varying intensities of support. So in general, what I would say, because I had to oversee clinical staff, is you would look at caseload in a very holistic way.

One staff person may have, and these are just general numbers, a caseload of five. Someone else may have a caseload of 25, but it’s very different based on the needs of those children and those families. So it’s not a static number, and it’s not something that is just easily available. But what we can do….

We track every single intake that we get through our provincial centralized screening and other areas. We are able to generally see what we will need based on that and able to provide a range to the member once staff has been able to go back and get that.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate what the minister is saying. I appreciate that there are different types of front-line workers and that it could be anywhere from five to 30 cases. However, all the reports that I have read indicate that without exception, across the board, front-line workers have far more cases than what they are recommended to handle.

In fact, the RCY examined in what proportion of cases front-line workers were actually able to meet their practice standards when it came to documentation. In the vast majority of cases, they were not able to meet it due to having too many cases.

If I wanted to save the ministry $9 million, we could go and figure out how many cases they’re all supposed to have, how many they do have, figure out from there how many FTEs from front-line workers and save $9 million from Deetken.

But my question is: how many current job openings are posted right now for front-line workers, including child protection and social workers, in British Columbia?

[7:40 p.m. - 7:45 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I can see that internally the ministry moves a lot of staff around based on the needs of the ministry, as things change and positions come up, or if there are things that we need to do for capacity. What I can also say is that we currently have 45 postings open to the public for direct service staff.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m very surprised to hear that the number is 45. That sounds very low to me, given that six years ago, we know that we were 600 FTEs short.

That being said, my question to the minister is how many of the front-line staff are actually social workers as opposed to child protection workers? Expressed as a number or a percentage, please.

[7:50 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: We have 3,800 direct service staff. Of those, 1,010 are child protection direct service staff. Of those 1,010 child protection service staff, 65 percent have a degree in social work and the rest have preferred credentials.

Amelia Boultbee: I just want to make sure that I’m understanding this correctly. Are you saying that…? Out of the 3,800, 1,100 are child protection workers, so they’re not social workers. But I’m assuming, since the minister is saying 65 percent have a degree in social work, ostensibly a lot of them could, in theory, be eligible for registration.

Is the minister saying that the other 2,700 are social workers? Or are they something else?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: To clarify, the roles include things like child protection, resource adoption, children and youth with support needs workers, as well as CYMH clinicians and youth justice roles.

Amelia Boultbee: I appreciate what the minister has said, but with respect, she has danced around answering my question.

[7:55 p.m.]

In fact, MCFD does not track the number of employees who are registered with the college because it is not required for employment. The college also does not keep up-to-date records on the number of registrants who are MCFD employees. Anecdotally, it is believed that only a small proportion of MCFD child welfare workers are registered, again, because it is not a requirement of employment.

In 1995, the Gove report — so that’s almost

up-to-date records on the number of registrants who are MCFD employees. Anecdotally, it is believed that only a small proportion of MCFD child welfare workers are registered, again because it is not a requirement of employment.

In 1995, the Gove report — so that’s almost 30 years ago — had a strong recommendation that has been repeated in several reports since then: that all child protection workers in British Columbia be social workers. In fact, this government has gone the opposite direction of the Gove recommendations.

In 2019, the ministry moved in the opposite direction by expanding accepted educational qualifications for new social workers. I believe it’s only two years of relevant experience at this time. Data provided by MCFD indicates that 82 percent of current child welfare staff have a preferred credential, with 72 percent of those having a bachelor of social work. This translates into 58 percent of the current complement of child welfare staff appearing to qualify for registration with the college.

I believe one of the last reports from RCY said that in order to close this gap and achieve the goal of having 100 percent social worker registrants, it would, even if all the resources were poured into it, take ten years.

My question to the minister is: where in this budget is funding to expand the number of seats in the college of social work and to attract additional applicants?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I want to say, firstly, that seats for post-secondary education wouldn’t be in my ministry or my budget. That would be a question that would be more appropriate for the ministry of post-secondary and skills training.

I want to also highlight that there’s been a misunderstanding of the recommendation for the Representative for Children and Youth. The recommendation actually recognizes that mandating registration of all MCFD workers is a complex issue and imposing the mandatory requirement according to the current criteria for registration with the college would be unfeasible and unsafe.

The representative does not agree that a degree in social work is necessary to perform the functions of a child welfare worker and certainly not necessary to carry out all of the broad range of roles and functions of these workers.

We have to very carefully contemplate our workforce to ensure that children and youth are kept safe. First and foremost, the safety and well-being of children is our top priority. Ensuring that we can recruit front-line workforce, retain that workforce and that children, youth and families have someone that can support them is the number one priority.

[8:00 p.m.]

We are working with partners to explore how we would have a regulatory body on child protection work in general.

We are working with partners to explore how we would have a regulatory body on child protection work in general.

Amelia Boultbee: With respect, I have not misunderstood the report. I do understand that the RCY has said that it would be dangerous to impose this overnight because as we’ve seen, hundreds, if not the majority, of child protection workers would immediately not be eligible. So I agree that that would be unsafe to snap your fingers and mandate it because there would be an even worse staffing shortage than the one that we’re already facing.

However, it’s very clear to me that it is important that child welfare, child protection workers have a four-year degree of relevant experience and that they’re registered with an independent regulatory body. Anecdotally, when I get complaints that come across my desk, it’s very difficult when they’re not a social worker because there isn’t anyone arm’s length to complain to.

It is anomalous that virtually all other professions across sectors, many of whom work with vulnerable children, youth and families, are subject to oversight by an independent regulatory body. Yet, MCFD child welfare workers who work with the most vulnerable children in the province are largely not.

My next question is, does MCFD conduct exit interviews?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: Yeah, we do, and they are voluntary.

Amelia Boultbee: At what point did MCFD start conducting exit interviews? Has this always been a policy or is it new? Because my understanding is that MCFD was not conducting exit interviews.

Hon. Jodie Wickens: There has always been an opportunity through the Public Service Agency to provide information through an exit interview for public servants.

With respect to MCFD specifically, it has been at the discretion of the local service agency. The ministry has created a corporate policy around exit interviews beginning last year.

[8:05 p.m.]

Amelia Boultbee: Just so I have this right, according to the last two reports from RCY, the stress, burnout and lack of retention is leading this ministry to be at crisis levels. By the minister’s own admission, 1,300 people exited in 2022. And 792, if I heard her correctly, is the number given for 2024. Again, incredibly high numbers of turnover.

It seems to me only appropriate that there be

at crisis levels by the minister’s own admission — 1,300 people exited in 2022. If I heard her correctly, 792 is the number given for 2024. Again, incredibly high numbers of turnover.

It seems to me only appropriate that there be an immediate implementation of exit interviews in all cases to try to get some feedback on what is needed to actually retain people in this profession. To that end, one of the pieces of feedback that I receive regularly from front-line workers, whether it’s a social worker or a child protection worker, is that their wages are very low.

My question to the minister is where in this budget will I see a salary increase for front-line workers such as social workers and child protection workers?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The Public Service Agency is the bargaining agency for government that would bargain wages. Our front-line staff receive their wages through a collective agreement, and so those would be negotiated at the bargaining table.

MCFD has been consulted by the Public Service Agency. I will say that Budget 2023 saw a 17 percent wage increase through the shared recovery mandate and so front-line staff would have received that 17 percent wage increase over three years. We wouldn’t see what is reflected in that, going forward, because it’s currently going through a collective bargaining.

Amelia Boultbee: If I understand the minister correctly, they won’t look at it again until 2027. Do I have that math right?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: The terms and conditions are being bargained right now, so we won’t know until that is completed.

Amelia Boultbee: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Noting the time, I’m trying to move to a compact section seeing as we only have a few minutes here before we’re getting called to a vote. This might be a good time to talk about the integrated case management system.

[8:10 p.m.]

When I clerked on one of the longest-running child welfare cases in Canadian history, back in 2015, we heard a lot of evidence about ICM and how it was a very bad system, it wasn’t user-friendly. In fact, it was so difficult to use that it created safety issues.

Imagine my surprise to become an MLA ten years later and I’m reading reports that are saying the exact same thing. According to my research, it was launched

and how it was a very bad system. It wasn’t user-friendly. In fact, it was so difficult to use that it created safety issues.

So imagine my surprise to become an MLA ten years later, and I’m reading reports that are saying the exact same thing. According to my research, it was launched in 2008 as a partnership between MSDSI, MCFD and Citizens’ Services. It was completed in November 2014 at a total capital cost of $182 million. I’ve got about half a dozen reports in front of me here: an Auditor General report from 2015, an RCY ICM backgrounder 2012, BCICM Privacy and Security 2013.

The BCGEU report that was quite comprehensive from 2014 had an entire chapter dedicated to ICM, how it crashed, that it doesn’t work, that it’s not user-friendly. I myself receive a lot of those types of reports today in 2025.

So my question to the minister is: is there a level of awareness at the ministerial level of what a poor tool ICM is? If so, is there any funding allocated in this year’s budget to actually do something about this non-functional tool?

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I do want to recognize that $182 million is a significant investment in an IT system. It is a major IT system that we are making regular updates and improvements to. Very difficult to just, you know, throw a system to the side that costs $182 million and build an entirely new one.

[8:15 p.m.]

I’ve worked in community around case systems, IT systems, client management systems, a variety of different ones. There are challenges across the board in having systems that work really well for everyone. So I have yet to personally have experienced a system that does everything that

client management systems, a variety of different ones, and there are challenges across the board in having systems that work really well for everyone. I have yet to personally have experienced a system that does everything that every service user wants it to.

I think as far as our information management and technology investments that we have made, approval has been secured for almost $8 million of capital funding over three years to proceed with child safety information management and technology enablers. This investment will allow for social workers to electronically enter notes when they are in the field rather than handwritten notes and uploading them later, which will free up time.

Social workers will be provided with access to centralized and consolidated information to inform decision-making. And then the process for teachers, counsellors, police and other professionals to report concerns has also been streamlined.

I also know that we have invested quite a bit in our system to ensure there’s an appellate and real-time reporting around child safety visits and ensuring that we’re able to track that in real time to ensure that we’re meeting our desired standards of visits.

Amelia Boultbee: I’m satisfied with that answer. I do appreciate that $82 million is a lot of money to spend, so I’m really glad to hear that there’s $8 million in funding and other recognition that some additional support for technology and streamlining is being done.

I’ve had the opportunity to just refer back to No Time to Wait, Part Two. I just want to state for the record, because there was a question mark about this…. According to the report, the child protection workload model was developed in 2019, which found that there was a huge gap of 636 full-time equivalent additional staff required to achieve 85 percent compliance with child protection practice standards, i.e., there is empirical validation of significant levels of understaffing and consequent excessive workload.

There has not been an appreciable increase in child welfare social worker staffing levels between the time of the measurement of the significant shortfall and as of March 31, 2024. The workload measurement tool was abandoned by the ministry in 2021. The average number of cases at least for CYSN as of 2024 is 186.

And 81 percent of social workers and team leaders responding to the representative survey said that their workload does not permit them to effectively support the children, youth and families on their caseload. More than two-thirds, 68 percent of MCFD managers, shared the views of the social workers and team leaders.

So my respectful request to the ministry would be please don’t wait any longer to implement further recommendations or get a report from Deetken or whatever it is. Clearly, there’s a huge need for more front-line workers, and 45 people is nowhere near going to cut it.

Noting the hour, Madam Chair, it’s 8:19. Am I correct in understanding that we are closing this House down at 8:20 in anticipation of the 8:30 vote in the main House?

The Chair: Yeah, we can adjourn at 8:20 or 8:25. Whatever is suitable to…

Amelia Boultbee: Madam Chair, if it means that I lose the time off my estimates, then I will continue. But if adjourning just means that we’re not going to cut it off in the middle, then I would be fine to adjourn now in anticipation of the vote in the main House.

[8:20 p.m.]

Hon. Jodie Wickens: I just want to respond that we have a net increase of front-line staff by about 502 FTEs. I think that we have done an incredible amount of work to increase our front-line staff. So that

that we have a net increase of front-line staff by about 502 FTEs. I think that we have done an incredible amount of work to increase our front-line staff, and so that work isn’t waiting.

I would also just again say with respect to caseload, particularly on the CYSN side of things, that that is very nuanced and that not every child needs the same thing. There’s currently a lot of work underway in community to look at what is defined on that caseload. There would, on that 186 number, potentially be quite a number of children who are not required or in need of direct service. And so caseload is not a static number, as we’ve canvassed in this House previously.

And with that, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Thank you, Minister.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Thank you, Members. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee rose at 8:21 p.m.