The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Members and anybody who might be watching — our massive audience out there — I would like to call the special committee to review the Police Act to order.

In so doing, I thank the Malahat First Nation for the privilege of working from their territory today and for the honour of representing the Coast Salish people through­out my riding.

Today’s meeting will be a briefing. The briefings will be from the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This will be a continuation from our January 29 meeting so that members have an opportunity to ask the questions they weren’t able to at that meeting.

With that, I’d invite our first presenters to make an introduction and give us the benefit of their wisdom.

Briefings on Police Act

MINISTRY OF HEALTH,
MINISTRY OF MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS

C. Massey: Thank you for that introduction.

My name is Christine Massey. I’m the deputy minister for the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

[9:05 a.m.]

I’m speaking to you today from the traditional territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people. I want to acknowledge the traditional keepers of this land and express my gratitude to be able to do my work today here on these lands.

I will now turn it over to my colleague, who, as I mentioned earlier, is standing in for Mr. David Byres from the Ministry of Health.

G. van der Leer: My name is Gerrit van der Leer. I am the director for mental health and substance use services with the Ministry of Health.

It’s a pleasure that I’m speaking from the unceded Coast Salish territories of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people.

It’s a real pleasure to be part of this today.

C. Massey: Today I will be providing an overview for the committee of the intersections and connections that we see in the health sector between police and mental health and addictions.

My goal today, in the first part of the presentation, will be to cover the current roles of police and health care professionals when they respond to mental health and substance use crises in the community and also cover the legislated roles of police in the Mental Health Act. Then I will move on to some key facts and challenges related to police, substance use and the overdose crisis, point to some unique implications for Indigenous people and for rural and remote communities.

I will also provide some examples of promising practices we see here in B.C. and then finish up with an overview of the mandate letter commitments that I think are most relevant to the work of this committee. Then I’ve left time for questions and answers with the committee.

I would like to start by describing a number of societal factors that highlight the intersections between the health and policing systems. The first is the overdose crisis. As this crisis continues in B.C., we know that front-line workers; first responders, including police, fire and ambulance; and health care providers all have interconnected roles. I will return to this issue in a bit more detail later in this presentation.

Of course, also important are the trends we are seeing in homelessness and encampments around the province. People experiencing mental health and/or substance use challenges are overrepresented among the homeless population and effective response and support for these individuals requires a partnership between policing and the social sector.

The third key societal issue is systemic racism. Recent events, I don’t think I need to remind the committee, have shone a light on systemic racism, including in the health system and the justice system. So these issues have come to the forefront of discussions about police and health care in Canadian society.

Among all of these trends, our health and social services are seeing an increased prevalence of mental health and substance use related issues as well as increased complexity of these issues. That creates a corresponding increased pressure on downstream services like emergency health care, police and corrections.

We’ve included a few statistics on this slide that illustrate the situation, although I note that police agencies will have much more comprehensive data, which you’ve probably already seen on the demand for their services.

I want now to move to an overview of the different roles of police and health professionals when there is a mental health and/or substance use crisis in the community that requires a response. Police are often the first ones called to respond to mental health and substance use related inci­dents.

Their role is, first, to de-escalate the crisis situation. They also have to assess whether criminal activity has occurred and whether arrests or charges may be required. They need to determine whether they have to apprehend the individual under the Mental Health Act and/or connect them to health services. Then, in the next stage of the crisis response, the police may transport the individual in crisis to a medical facility where health personnel will provide assessment and treatment.

[9:10 a.m.]

They have to make triaged decisions and then admit and make decisions about treatment and when and how to discharge an individual and then arrange for ongoing treatment required.

I want to now describe how these roles for police show up in the Mental Health Act, which is primarily around the apprehension of individuals for admission to a designated facility. Section 28 deals with apprehension by police. That section authorizes police to apprehend and accompany an individual to a physician for examination. Under section 28, the police officer is responsible for determining if the criteria for apprehension under the act are met — namely, if the individual is endangering themselves or others and if they appear to have a mental health disorder.

If the criteria are met, the police officer must [audio in­terrupted] the individual to a physician for examination. The individual then remains in custody of police until a physician has determined whether criteria for involuntary admission to a facility have been met. Then the physician would complete the certificate of involuntary admission.

This requirement, that police can only hand off a patient to a physician, is what often drives the issue of wait time in emergency departments, which we’ll go into more detail on the next slide. If a physician determines that the criteria for involuntary admission under the Mental Health Act aren’t met, they don’t issue a certificate, and the individual has to be released.

Section 22 describes how, when a medical certificate is completed by a physician, it provides authority for anyone to apprehend a person to be admitted. In practice, this apprehension is most often carried out by police or other first responders. An example of where this situation might occur is if a family member or friend brings an individual to a physician who determines that involuntary admission is required. If it isn’t safe for the family member or friend to then bring that individual to a medical facility, police or B.C. Ambulance may be called upon to transport them.

Section 28 then provides that where obtaining a medical certificate would cause an unreasonable delay, a judge or justice may issue a warrant for police to apprehend the individual.

Sections 39 and 41 discuss returning an individual to a facility. That occurs where a director of a mental health facility may issue a warrant directing police to apprehend and return an individual to that facility. Section 39 pro­vides for a warrant to be issued for the recall of a patient if, for instance, the conditions of their leave haven’t been met or they need transfer to an approved home. Section 41 provides authority to apprehend an individual who has left a facility without authorization — so where, for instance, a resident is missing.

I’m going to move now to slide 6. This talks about one of the challenges you’ve likely already heard about, and that’s with the emergency department wait times for police. When a police officer apprehends an individual under the Mental Health Act, that person remains in their custody until a physician is available to conduct an assessment. The wait times vary by region, but in the context of the competing and urgent demands of a busy emergency department, these individuals are often given a lower triage priority unless a life-threatening physical injury is also present.

Another potential cause of longer than acceptable wait times is the lack of availability of a physician to conduct the required assessment under the Mental Health Act. Extended wait times consume a significant amount of po­lice resources and can cause undue stress and strain on the individual in question. Police agencies, in partnership with health authorities, will monitor police wait times in emergency departments with the goal to reduce the wait time to a minimum.

The example of the data that we have on this slide comes from Vancouver Coastal Health, where Vancouver police have tracked their annual average wait times for police at the hospital. As you can see, with some variation, the average wait time has gone up since 2013 and was at one hour and 22 minutes in 2019.

[9:15 a.m.]

We’ve looked at wait times throughout the Lower Mainland and in Victoria, where they are similar to this. This data is typically collected by police, and in some areas, they will regularly share that with hospitals. Unfortunately, we don’t have a provincial picture of all the wait times at this time.

In 2018, a toolkit was developed in collaboration be­tween the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Attorney General to support the development of protocols between police and health authorities. An aim of the toolkit is to support effective and integrated responses to individuals with mental health and substance use needs who are coming in contact with police agencies.

The toolkit provides guidance in a number of areas. For example, it includes guidance on strategies to reduce emergency wait times. One particular strategy would be to develop MOUs between health authorities and their police jurisdictions, including agreements on wait times.

One simple strategy that we’ve seen is for police to call ahead to a health care facility. That can help accelerate the triage process in the emergency department. There’s also the opportunity to streamline intake procedures and intake form.

The toolkit also describes the role of police in mental health and substance use services and provides examples of successful models such as integrated mobile crisis response services, where you will see police officers paired with mental health professionals in a police vehicle.

Integrated case management and outreach services are another example where you’ll see police embedded within assertive community treatment teams. You may know them as ACT teams. While there are several communities with ACT teams across the province at this time, Victoria and Vancouver are the ones that have teams with police embedded in them. We’ve also seen mental health liaison officers within police departments.

Privacy and information-sharing is another important part of this toolkit. A key issue for integrated response teams and agencies that partner in responding to these is­sues is formal understanding of the rules for sharing information and protecting personal privacy.

For example, police might need information from health authorities to locate an individual or better understand a situation before going in. Health care providers might need information from police that was collected at the scene of apprehension that could assist them in assessing that individual and to provide the most effective care. Of course, both police and health providers have ethical and legal obligations to protect personal information, so making sure that appropriate processes are followed is important.

The toolkit also provides examples of existing police and health authority protocols that can clarify how police officers and health personnel collaborate and share information to support the individual with mental health and substance use and connect them to the system of care. The Ministry of Health has standards in place on the development of local protocols.

I would like to move now to a discussion of how substance use and the overdose crisis affects the role of police. In 2016, the provincial health officer declared a public health emergency due to the number of people dying from opioid overdoses in B.C. We saw the number of overdose deaths continue to climb through 2018.

Before the pandemic, we were making progress. In 2019, for the first time since 2012, the number of overdose deaths decreased. According to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, more than 6,000 deaths were averted through increases in naloxone distribution, added supervised consumption sites and more treatment options.

Unfortunately, as you can see, the number of overdose deaths rose steeply again in 2020. The coroner will soon release figures for all of 2020, but we already know that 2020 was the deadliest year to date. For British Columbians who use substances, the dual public health emergencies of overdose and COVID-19 have shone a light on the existing health inequities and the ongoing risks of overdose and other harms.

One of the biggest risks we’ve seen during the pandemic has been a more toxic drug supply on the street, caused by closure of the borders and the interruption of regular supply chains. The drugs on the street today are more toxic and more lethal. Combine that with the stigma that drives people to use alone, plus a pandemic that isolates people even further, and you have a terrible recipe for an increase in overdose deaths.

[9:20 a.m.]

In June, July and August of this year, calls to 911 for overdose exceeded 600 in a week and 2,500 in a month. We saw July report the highest-ever month for calls, at more than 2,700.

I want to note that all regions in B.C. are affected by this crisis — mid- and small-sized communities, large communities, urban and rural. As the crisis continues, we know that the public health front-line workers and first responders, including police, fire and ambulance, all have interconnected roles.

At the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, we look at the intersection of substance use and the criminal system through a health lens. We want to identify the health impact on individuals and strive to provide people with the type and level of service that they need.

Experts say that addiction is a health issue, not a criminal one. In most cases, people living with addictions are best served by a health system response rather than a justice system response. For example, the use of police cells for sobering an individual is not the best use of that resource and isn’t really the best solution for that individual either. Ultimately, we won’t be arresting our way out of this crisis.

I want to say a few words about stigma and the role it plays for people who use substances in B.C. In Canada, federal law makes it a crime to possess drugs. The criminalization of people for the consumption, acquisition and possession of controlled substances causes and exacerbates stigma associated with substance use, and the stigma can create barriers for people who need access to life-saving health and social services.

Police forces are making the shift to a harm reduction approach. However, front-line workers in the overdose cri­sis and people with lived and living experience are reporting to us that there’s still fear of arrest or prosecution for possession or use of drugs.

This fear around police involvement can reduce the likelihood of people reaching out for support. For example, when there is overpolicing and surveillance of overdose prevention services or other community services for peo­ple who use substances, people tend to avoid those services. Instead, they will use alone or hide their substance use, which, of course, can increase their risk of a fatal drug overdose.

In B.C. the criminalization of simple drug possession has meant that many of our province’s most vulnerable citizens enter into the criminal justice system, where access to evidence-based treatment and harm reduction services can be limited. About 80 percent of people who experience incarceration also use substances. More than 50 percent of them have a mental health diagnosis.

We see that, in the transition from prison to community, people have a high risk of overdose and death. In B.C., 66 percent of people who died from illicit drug overdoses between January 2016 to July 2017 had prior B.C. Corrections involvement, and 10 percent died of an overdose within 30 days of release. People leaving prison may have reduced tolerance due to a possible period of abstinence, making them more vulnerable to harm from the toxic drug supply.

Finally, I want to ensure that the committee is aware of the federal Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, which became law in 2017. This act provides immunity from simple possession charges for those who call 911 in case of an overdose. This federal legislation is intended to help prevent overdose deaths by ensuring that witnesses to overdose can call 911 without fear of police involvement.

Indigenous People are overrepresented across the hea­lth, criminal justice and corrections system. As we’ve seen from the findings from both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, these inequities must be understood in the context of colonial policies and practices both past and present. These inequities show themselves very clearly through the overdose public health emergency.

The stats on this slide on the proportion of overdose deaths in First Nations People illustrate this disproportionate impact. The situation has been magnified by COVID-19, with the impact worsening compared to 2019. For the same period in 2019, 9.9 percent of overdose deaths were in First Nations People.

With the recent release of the In Plain Sight report by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, we have even more compelling evidence of widespread Indigenous-specific stereotyping, racism and discrimination in the health care system, and we know we have to acknowledge that Indigenous-specific racism is not isolated to the health care system.

[9:25 a.m.]

We acknowledge there’s racism in both the health system and the police system, and we have to seek to understand the experiences of Indigenous People, who are too often at the intersection of both the police and health care systems and, therefore, more likely to experience harms in that context.

I will share some of the common concerns that we hear on this topic through our engagements with Indigenous partners, but, of course, our ministries cannot speak for Indigenous communities. I would encourage the committee to engage directly with the First Nations Health Council, the First Nations Health Authority and Métis Nation B.C. on their perspectives on the role of police as it relates to mental health and wellness.

Some of the common concerns we’ve heard where mental health and public safety systems intersect are the experiences of stereotyping, profiling and discrimination and how they can result in people avoiding primary and pre­ventative care for mental health and substance use challenges. Also, we have heard that lack of culturally appropriate and trauma-informed responses to Indigenous people who experience mental health crises can retraumatize them and result in the criminalization of behaviours that come from illness.

The powers assigned to police and medical professionals in the Mental Health Act can also perpetuate paternalistic behaviours, attitudes and beliefs and are seen as being in­consistent with the interest to support equity and self-determination. Then, the concern for confidentiality among health care providers can limit the ability to involve family, community or broader cultural resources in care and discharge planning.

Lack of community-based mental health services — particularly in rural and remote communities, where the ability to provide aftercare is critical for ensuring a safe and supportive return to the community.

On this slide, I want to highlight some of the challenges experienced in rural and remote communities, as service delivery in these communities can be very different from urban centres. The first challenge, of course, is related to geography. These communities have a smaller population and fewer staff resources in both health and police services, and they are spread out over larger geographic areas.

Rural and remote areas have expressed a need for greater health presence when police are supporting individuals in mental health and substance use crises, but geography and staffing numbers limit the ability to develop those effective partnerships and protocols. In some communities, police are the only first responders.

In smaller communities, community-based services to divert people from the criminal justice system are limited or not always available. Services are also often limited or not available when individuals are released from police custodies. Hospitals in rural areas are smaller, and therefore, they have lower capacity. As an example, they have fewer designated observation units under the Mental Health Act.

As a result, incarceration can become the de facto setting that an individual has to go when dealing with an immediate mental health or substance use crisis because other services are not available. This results in increased incarceration in local police cells and delay in treatment.

We acknowledge there isn’t a service solution for many of these issues. It isn’t practical or possible to have the full suite of services in small and rural and remote communities. But while we can’t have treatment beds in every small community, we can work on increasing resources regionally and on transportation and referral pathways to get people to the services they need, and we are seeing promising use of virtual care options.

We know that in the Ministry of Mental Health and Ad­dictions, taking a long-term approach and increasing our interventions upstream is a key focus and that intervening earlier and helping to prevent issues from becoming crisis situations is key to being successful in the long term.

I want to point to some examples of successful models that we’ve seen where police are paired with health services to respond to mental health and substance use issues in communities. In general, these models have a few common approaches where you see the police and health services working hand in hand. You have health teams that are available as a resource for police to call on. You will see police with specialized training and expertise in mental health response, and you’ll see proactive health outreach teams. Of course, no single model will be appropriate for every crisis, every individual or every community.

[9:30 a.m.]

In integrated mobile crisis response services, this is where you see a police officer paired with a mental health professional in a police vehicle to respond to mental health and substance use emergencies in the community. Exam­ples that you may already be familiar with include the Vancouver police department’s Car 87, Car 88 program. That is actually the first documented Canadian co-response police mental health model. It pairs a mental health nurse with a police officer in plain clothes to respond to mental health emergency.

In integrated case management and outreach services, mental health and substance use services in local health authorities are partnered with community agencies to provide services and support recovery of individuals who live with complex mental illnesses and/or substance use disorders. Some of these models embed police officers — for example, the ACT teams in Vancouver and Victoria that I’ve referred to. Studies show that the ACT model is effective at reducing the frequency of police involvement, and we see a reduction in police officer contact.

A third model is mental health and substance use liaison. In this model, you’ll see a liaison officer assigned in a police agency who coordinates services from health care to law enforcement for the purposes of responding to an individual in crisis, facilitating outreach assessments, managing risk, doing case management or supporting case management and supporting review panel and extended leave processes. An example here is Surrey RCMP’s police mental health intervention unit, and there you will see police liaison officers working with community partners and agencies to provide solutions for individuals whose mental health needs impact their contact with police.

Of course, I’ve been speaking to you today about information on our current context, where we see what are currently the challenges we have with police and mental health and substance use issues. I’d like to look ahead to some of the work that our ministries have been mandated to do, through various ministries, that we think will help to address some of the issues we’ve talked about.

These include developing complex care housing to house and provide care for people with the most intensive mental health and substance use care needs. We’ve also been mandated to provide more front-line mental health and social services in communities to respond to people in crisis where there is no public safety concern so that police resources can be freed up to focus on serious crimes.

Expanding mental health intervention teams, like the ACT teams, to support people in their communities and address street disorder and public safety…. Again, here we’re trying to address the root causes and prevent the need for a justice system response.

We’re also looking to expand the situation table model, where front-line workers in multiple sectors, including police and mental health, get together to proactively address issues and support people before they reach the crisis point.

Working with the Attorney General and Minister Res­ponsible for Housing, developing a homelessness strategy that will address the needs of people experiencing homelessness, including those in encampments, which of course has been a high-profile issue of intersection between mental health and substance use and police. And we’ll be looking to pursue decriminalization of small amounts of illicit substances, which, again, will allow police to focus on more serious drug crimes.

Taken together and alongside other work this ministry has already been spearheading, we feel that these commit­ments will help us to make some real progress and support some of the most vulnerable people in B.C., who often have mental health and substance use issues, lack the ac­cess to appropriate services and supports, and then find themselves involved with law enforcement and the justice system.

With that, committee members, that’s the end of my formal comments. Happy to take questions.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. That was very informative.

I see Trevor had his hand up.

T. Halford: Thank you for that. I’ve got a few questions. Maybe I’ll start with one and then let others go.

Just in terms of Car 67 and Car 87, who funds that, specifically? Is that something funded by the different police, or is it funded through the province, and if so, what ministry?

C. Massey: Gerrit, are you able to respond to that question?

[9:35 a.m.]

G. van der Leer: Yes. It’s actually funded by both the local police department and the Vancouver police department, and the Ministry of Health for the nursing services. So the psychiatric nurse that’s partnered with the police officer is funded by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, and the policing component is covered by the Vancouver police department.

T. Halford: You might not have it on you, and if you don’t, that’s okay. Could you get us the amount of funding that the province has contributed to these specific cars, and in what specific communities?

I understand they’re in Prince George. They’re in Vancouver. I know that they’re in Surrey. It’d be helpful to get a breakdown of each region, where they are and what the province is putting into it. That would be good. Then if you could confirm whether or not the new police force in Surrey will have these cars ongoing as they go into the transition.

C. Massey: I’d be happy to follow up and see what information we can track down for the committee. I’ll return it to the Clerk.

T. Halford: On the one regarding the…. Are we going to continue to see these cars in Surrey, or is that unknown at this point?

C. Massey: Gerrit, are you aware of that? I’m not aware of the future of those cars.

G. van der Leer: We definitely are continuing on and providing a very effective service. The Fraser Health Auth­ority has been working with various police departments within their health authority, and there is a request for increased mobile crisis response teams, but we do have these services spread throughout the whole province, and they’ve been effective.

There are of course other arrangements as well. We have mental health centres with psychiatric nurses working in partnership with the police as well, through a mobile crisis response team. Not every community does have the critical mass to support a Car 87–type of model, for example.

T. Halford: What I heard from you, though, is that you are fully confirming that the new Surrey force will have these cars, going forward. I think that that’s positive. I’m encouraged to hear that.

K. Kirkpatrick: I have ten questions, but I’m going to limit it to two, just to spare you all. Somebody else may an­swer the other ones.

The wait times that you showed on that graph start in 2013. Prior to 2013, Riverview was open. The year it closed, I think, was 2012. Riverview had its issues and challenges, but what I understand from one of the presenters the other day is that for a police officer to be with an individual who’s having a mental health crisis, they could go and bring them to that facility. Somebody would deal with that person immediately, and that wait time would be impacted.

I’m wondering if…. Prior to 2013, did that facility, with the issues that it had, accommodate and deal with some of these wait-time issues?

C. Massey: Gerrit, that may be something we need to take away and look at the data prior to 2013. We’ll return that to the committee.

K. Kirkpatrick: The second one, and I’ll make this quick, is on the concern that many people have an overdose within 30 days of leaving incarceration. Are there addiction recovery programs available for them while they are incarcerated?

C. Massey: I don’t have the…. It depends on the type of incarceration they have, whether it’s a longer-term or shorter-term incarceration. That’s something that PSSG could certainly help to respond to. I understand that they will be at the committee later today.

K. Kirkpatrick: Great. Thank you very much.

A. Olsen: Thank you for the presentation and for the opportunity to ask a few questions here.

I just wanted to, I think, maybe ask a question in the context of defunding. I think one of the things that we’ve recognized over the past few years in British Columbia is that defunding mental health services in the early 2000s was a terrible mistake that has left our communities in a lot of turmoil that we’re dealing with right now.

I know that the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions didn’t exist, but I’m just wondering if, maybe, you have any comments to the impact of defunding — pulling important resources out of a service and the impact that that has on the social outcomes.

[9:40 a.m.]

C. Massey: Well, I think what we’ve certainly learned in the last few decades, since there has been a shift to having individuals with mental health issues be able to live in community, is that they need a variety of supports that, perhaps, were not as well understood as when we first started down this path. We have a much better understanding now of the types of resources that people need in community to be successfully in community.

I would say, also, that what we have seen in the homelessness encampments most recently is that there is a small number of the population that needs very intensive residential supports. You’ll see that reflected in our mandate letter commitment for complex care housing. We acknowledge that that’s a gap that we have in the range of services for people dealing with mental health and substance use issues now. Hence, the priority it has been given by highlighting it in our mandate letter commitment.

A. Olsen: If I may, Mr. Chair, I’ve just got a couple of questions along these lines.

Perhaps maybe a little context with respect to the challenge that we face now and the work that we have to do in catching up with the lost ground that we had.

I’m just wondering. Maybe you could speak to the challenge that the ministry has in terms of catching up now with these and getting the appropriate amounts of re­sources to deal with a much bigger situation that we have now due to a significant lack of resources in the programs and services.

C. Massey: Yes. The creation of this ministry, I think, is due to a recognition that, as you put it, MLA Olsen, there is a lot of catch-up to do and that that comprehensive mental health and substance use approach requires work across ministries. That’s the work of our ministry.

We bring a number of government agencies and ministries together, whether it’s PSSG, the Ministry of Health, the Ministries of Advanced Education and Education. All have a role in providing a more comprehensive approach to dealing with mental health and substance use, whether it’s prevention and early identification in the school system, addressing stigma more globally, dealing with transitions from corrections and from youth in care, supporting students in the post-secondary system.

Preventing problems early on is key. Providing people with the resources to address their own mental health challenges and access to resources is key. When you get to more acute mental health and substance use issues, like we often see that police get involved in, part of what we…. Our work involves standing up a more comprehensive adult mental health and substance use system.

You will see that also reflected in our mandate letter. We are required to increase the range of supports for adult substance use treatment, whether that’s bed-based services…. Just yesterday the ministry announced the funding of 100 new bed-based services.

We know there are a range of other services also re­quired, such as withdrawal services and, most importantly, aftercare services. Recovery from substance use is a road, and people can often relapse if they don’t have the support for aftercare in the community once they leave a supportive recovery treatment program.

I think we have a long road to go to create a system of mental health and substance use. We are making strong inroads. We’ve done some good work on the child mental health system in the last mandate, and we’re looking forward to making more inroads on the adult mental health and substance use system in this mandate with some of the work I just talked about on complex care housing and adult substance use treatment.

A. Olsen: Thank you for that response.

If I may just ask one more question, I think, on a slightly different topic. It was raised here with respect to the stigmatization of substance users.

[9:45 a.m.]

The stigmatization and systemic discrimination, bias and racism of Indigenous People and people of colour in our province has been noted, I think, by every presenter so far and is certainly part of your presentation. We’ve got the investigation that was recently done by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond in Health and now what we’re doing in this process, with the Police Act, in Public Safety and Solicitor General.

I’m just wondering. You talked about the intersectionality and multiple ministries working together. Is there anybody in the ministry that’s leading and creating a consistent approach across government to address these?

You just think of the handoff that happens between a police officer and a doctor, say, for example. We’ve got one investigation happening in a ministry over here. We’ve got this conversation at this committee going on over here. Who’s leading, from the bureaucracy, from the administration perspective, a consistent approach so that when that handoff happens, the person who’s under duress isn’t getting widely different types of treatment?

C. Massey: You’re right in that you’re hearing this from a number of agencies. It’s top of mind for all government ministries, particularly through….

The Declaration Act has focused all of our work across government. I’d say there are a couple of points there. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation has a key leadership role, and they are leading work across government for an action plan for the Declaration Act. All ministries will come together to demonstrate how we’re working towards reconciliation, particularly the alignment of laws.

Also, with respect to consistent approaches, we work closely with our First Nations partners. We are fortunate in the health sector to work with the First Nations Health Authority and First Nations Health Council. We are working with them on every action we take, whether it’s child and youth mental health or intervention. We’ve just recently talked about connecting with the First Nations Justice Council to ensure that we have those connections, as well, between Health and Justice.

I think we have some work to do to ensure a coordinated approach. I’m confident that all ministries are coming from the same trauma-informed and anti-racist approa­ches. But when it comes to the details of protocols, we pro­bably have some additional work to do there.

A. Olsen: If I may, Mr. Chair. One thing came up in that answer that I’d just like….

D. Routley (Chair): I think we’ve got four more people on the list with questions, and we’ve got about 12 minutes left. So if there are further questions, could members keep it to maybe two questions each and fairly concise at this point.

R. Glumac: This is such an important topic. Reforming the Police Act is critical. I know sometimes we have questions, and it takes time to work through them. But I think it’s critical that we have the opportunity to ask the questions and to really dig into some of these answers. It’s very complicated, some of this.

My question is…. You talk about catching up. There’s just so much that I have questions around this. The Mental Health Act’s section 28 was put in place because it recognizes that there was a problem. But I don’t know if the problem is put into the Mental Health Act. Perhaps the changes should be in the Police Act. That modernization needs to occur in the Police Act to recognize that mental health, issues of systemic racism and all that need to be addressed within the act in some way.

In that context, I’d like to — it’s a very complicated topic — look to areas where there has been success and replicate those and, hopefully, find ways to legislate that. We’re all aware of Car 87 in Vancouver.

[9:50 a.m.]

My question, first of all, I guess, is to the Clerks and the Chair. Will we be having an opportunity — I can’t remember offhand — to get a sense of the success of this program and to ask questions around it? That’s my first question. Yeah? Okay.

Maybe this is not your question to answer. Is there a way to legislate this, to find these best practices and to put them into the Police Act? Referencing what Adam was saying, there’s all of these areas that are responsible for certain things, but perhaps it all has to be the responsibility, ultimately, of the police to handle things in a certain way. I guess my question is: do you see opportunities to legislate or put into the Police Act areas that are around mental health and addictions? Any of you have any opinion on that?

C. Massey: I don’t know that I have an opinion, but I think it’s the right question to ask. We’ve talked about a number of promising practices, but we know that the prac­tices vary across the province. Whether that’s best achieved through a legislative requirement to work with the local health authority or to promote that through policy and influence…. I think that’s a good debate for the committee to have and perhaps even probe with the PSSG, who’s more familiar with those relationships with police. I think it’s exactly the right question to have.

Did I also hear you were looking for an evaluation of initiatives like Car 87?

R. Glumac: Yeah.

C. Massey: Okay. We can follow up on that for you.

R. Glumac: Okay. Thank you.

R. Singh: Thank you, Christine, for this presentation. Very informative. We see is what is working and what more needs to be done, which is wonderful.

What we heard in other presentations in the last few days is the gap. We know that when the police go and arrest somebody under the Mental Health Act and then take them to the hospital…. You have already mentioned in your presentation, as well, the wait times. Then also, there’s a catch-22 there. The hospital staff feel it’s a criminal matter, whereas the police had arrested them under mental health. Is something being done?

I’m sure you’re aware of this gap. Is something being done for that?

C. Massey: What I think I heard is the gap for an individual once they get to hospital and whether there are appropriate services for them when they leave the hospital. That is an issue.

I think we see an issue with the affordable housing crisis — so whether that individual has housing and, if they have a substance use or mental health issue, that they have appropriate services to be discharged to if they’re not required to be involuntarily detained or they don’t meet the criteria for involuntary detention. We have to have enough resources in community for voluntary mental health and substance use treatment programs. That’s in my mandate letter as well and also, as I mentioned, the range of adult mental health and substance use service, whether it’s bed-based or community services or aftercare.

Those are all gaps that we acknowledge and that have to be addressed and are an important piece of work under the working group, chaired by Minister Eby and co-chaired by my minister, looking at the intersection of homelessness, mental health and addictions, particularly the encampments. That leads to a lot of those gaps. A lot of those gaps show up there as well.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation today. I’ve got a few questions. I’ll try to maybe combine them all.

[9:55 a.m.]

You mentioned in your presentation about some of the rural issues facing…. I’m out of Fort St. John. Wait times. An hour would be amazing, if we only had to wait an hour in emergency. It doesn’t matter how serious your injury is or the issue is. We are up to three, four or, sometimes, five hours of wait times. As you can imagine, if someone is in some sort of a crisis, it’s not good.

Added on top of that is the lack of psychiatric nurses, the lack of specialized physicians. In Fort St. John, psychiatric patients, if they need pretty much anything, have to go to Dawson Creek, where the psychiatric hospital is, which is an hour down the road, and add everything on to it. These are some of the issues that just compound. They snowball into disastrous situations.

Fort St. John. We are lucky. We’re a decent-sized community. We’ve got a relatively new hospital. In some of the smaller communities, it’s even worse.

What are some of the things that the ministry is working on to try and…? I know this is a huge, loaded question. How do we move forward in getting these rural communities the resources that they need to deliver the best care possible and, hopefully, the best outcomes possible?

C. Massey: Thank you for painting a more vivid picture of the challenges in the rural communities than what I was able to do.

You’re right. It’s multifaceted: whether it’s around how to attract and retain those specialized staff that you’re talking about in rural communities or virtual care options, where that’s appropriate and where that can be effective.

I will note that in the announcement we made yesterday about 100 new adult substance use beds, we did not have as many beds in the Northern Health Authority as we would have liked. That’s something that’s going to be a focus for our ministry, to see how we can break through that, because we see that there is a real need across the north for those kinds of services.

They’re all challenging. I know the Ministry of Health has tried a number of strategies across the north for a number of specialties in addition to mental health and substance use. We are happy to take suggestions from this committee or perhaps the rural members about areas you think are also worth pursuing, what you’ve seen work. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution for these communities.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Yeah. Just to further paint away on the challenges, even beyond just the mental health issue, add in the addiction issue.

We do not have the ability here in Fort St. John to detox. Someone is in the hospital. They’ve said: “I need help.” They have to wait two, three, four days to catch the bus, the Northern Health Connections, because that’s how you get to Prince George, which is five hours away. The next bus to return them back home after they do detox could be three or four days. They’re now in a hotel or in a shelter in Prince George.

I would hate to say the percentage is probably 99.9 percent that they relapse immediately after their detox, just because of — and we keep hearing the word “gaps” — the gaps in the system. There are many, many, many gaps. I know we all know this on the screen.

I know the magic picture is if we had a bucketful of endless money, this would be a much easier…. Well, actually, the money isn’t the issue. It’s also getting the trained personnel and the expertise. It is so compounded and so complex in rural communities, where the distance that they’re removed from services and the ability to have access to the services is often as big an issue as getting the service, just having that access to it.

[10:00 a.m.]

Like I say, the issue is daily buses, daily vans, from Fort St. John, Dawson Creek to Vancouver. If someone wants to detox, they’re in a vehicle, they’re off to Prince George, and they’re getting the support they need. They’re put up in a facility where they can spend a couple days before their return, possibly, to their community — or not even to the community but into a rehabilitation program of some sort. Again, up here, we send people to Vancouver on a bus. There are stops. There are overnights on the way.

I wish I had all the cures, but I really want to paint the picture of some of what these rural communities are facing. We’re pretty lucky in Fort St. John, compared to some rural communities.

The other thing. I just want to follow up. I can’t remember who was mentioning it earlier, the integrated teams, the Car 67 and such. Those should be in every community. They need this support. I mean, that would certainly be a strong recommendation. Again, these are goals that we need to be achieving and setting for ourselves. I think that that’s something we need to be pushing as well.

C. Massey: Thank you for painting that more vivid picture. We do have some promising practices. For example, Gerrit can elaborate on a program to support those with eating disorders. There’s a virtual care support between St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver and Fort St. John. We would need to be doing much more of those things.

Gerrit, can you offer a couple of words on that program?

G. van der Leer: As a result of COVID-19, mental hea­lth care has significantly increased in terms of virtual mental health care. It has been very effective for people to receive mental health care within their homes.

For people that need very specialized care, we now see the hospitals in the Lower Mainland providing more support to our rural and remote communities, and that has been very effective. It’s not possible to have all the specialists throughout the province, so having these specialists linking in with physicians and experts in the north really can be a great assistance.

Also, the Dawson Creek facility, as you know, has a good complement of in-patient psychiatric services. They also reach out to the rural and remote communities through virtual care.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Sorry, Chair. Just my last comment. I know that we’re short on time.

Something to maybe put in mind, as well, from the ministry’s point of view…. Grande Prairie, Alberta, offers a lot of these services and care. Of course, it’s two hours away, compared to going to Prince George. I know that there’s a hesitancy by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Mental Health to engage Alberta health services. We want to keep it here. But with us, we’re on the east side of the Rocky Mountains. It’s an easy drive to Grande Prairie. It’s quick to get to Grande Prairie.

I would also maybe ask that these be additionally looked at and prioritized. If there’s the ability to send someone who needs that help right now…. If we can get them to Grande Prairie two days before we can get them to Prince George, we get them to Grande Prairie. That would be another recommendation too.

Thank you, Chair. I’m done.

H. Sandhu: I have a question and a comment.

My question is regarding Car 87. I know Gerrit mentioned that there is a plan to expand it to further communities. I was wondering if there is a timeline or any planning. When do we see that?

The other comment is about when we talk about rural communities and the retention of staff. Being a health care professional and having to work in Mackenzie, Terrace and those rural areas, I can attest that there are programs.

I’ll share where the gap is. We have loan forgiveness. We have a retention bonus. We have a signing bonus, which I also received years ago when I moved to Terrace, and it’s still in place. We give these professionals all the specialty training, all paid for. The problem is that often it’s a two-year contract that an employee signs. Once that’s up, they have all the education, and then they leave to the other cities. I think that’s where we need to look. I’ve seen and witnessed that.

[10:05 a.m.]

The other…. We have lots of foreign-trained professional nurses and doctors, even nurses with master’s in nursing, even from the States, you can say. They are going through so many bottlenecks. They’re more than happy, more than eager, to work in rural communities or wherever you give them work. I was one of them — the bottlenecks, the hoops I had to jump through. I didn’t mind working for years in northern B.C., and I enjoyed it. If it wasn’t for my personal family situation years after, I wouldn’t move.

I think those are the areas we talk very little about. I know there is a federal component involved when it comes to foreign credentials, but I think this will really, really help us. We have so much talent in our province, and B.C. is one of the best — the number one choice — for most immigrant professionals to move. I know many, many that are highly capable and well trained that we can really utilize, and they don’t mind going to wherever there is work for them. Something to think about.

Often when we have these resources and the Mental Health Ministry…. We get sidetracked by what’s not going right.

I would like to share a story with all of you this morning. I was listening to the radio. In Vernon, we’re getting eight beds, as per the recent announcement. The guy was very grateful in the radio interview. He was an addict. Then he said that having these resources helped him, and he is doing great now. He is clean for years. He has two kids, a career and is helping others. It was such a heartwarming story. Every step taken in this direction to address this severe crisis that we have is a step in the right direction.

I wonder if we can focus a little bit more on foreign-trained and even Canadians, like the new grads. I said these resources do help. I know I had a colleague move to Fort St. John because she wanted that ICU training. They gave her everything, and she is a Canadian graduate.

There are a lot of areas where we can work, and if we need to work with the federal government, we should be looking into that.

D. Routley (Chair): I don’t have anyone else on my list. We’re a little bit over time. I’d like to thank the presenters.

Myself, I have three or four questions I’d like to ask. So I’ll be forwarding those through the Clerk’s office. Hopefully, I can get a response to those questions. If members have any more questions, they can also do the same.

I’d like to thank you very much, both of our presenters, for the help in doing the important work we’ve been tasked with.

C. Massey: A good discussion and the advice. We look forward to your findings.

D. Routley (Chair): We will go to the next presenters, please.

Members, we’re welcoming a representative from the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Mr. Doug Caul, deputy minister.

Welcome, Mr. Caul.

D. Caul: Good morning. I didn’t know, Chair, if there were any opening comments from you before we got going.

D. Routley (Chair): No. I think the members have lots of questions for all of our presenters. So I keep my own remarks to a minimum and invite you to make your presentation. Everybody is very interested. Thank you.

MINISTRY OF INDIGENOUS RELATIONS
AND RECONCILIATION

D. Caul: I appreciate the time with all of you and ack­nowledge that I’m joining you from the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, known today as the Song­hees and Esquimalt Nations, and thank them for allowing us to be here to do the work that we’re doing.

[10:10 a.m.]

Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to present to you today. A copy of the presentation has been provided to you.

What I’ll do in this presentation, and I know we’ve got to keep it tight so that there’s time for questions, is I’ll be­gin by describing a bit of how we got here and what was behind the Declaration Act. I’ll talk a little bit about the Declaration Act and what’s in it — the what and the how. Then I’ll get into some…. We’ll have the discussion at the end around what it means for policing and the reforming of the Police Act.

In 2017, every ministry was mandated through minister mandate letters to review policies, programs and legislation to bring the principles of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples into action. The ministries and ministers were also tasked with moving forward on the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action, which called on government to implement the UN declaration as the framework for reconciliation.

This has carried on. The current minister mandate letters continue with this commitment by articulating that every ministry is expected to move towards lasting and meaningful reconciliation, and it’s a shared responsibility. It’s not a responsibility specifically of this ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, but it’s a responsibility of all ministries and right across the public sector.

The UN declaration is an international human rights in­strument containing 46 articles that represent the rights that many of us take for granted. I don’t know if anyone has had a chance to sit down and read the UN declaration. I always encourage, when I’m presenting to various audiences, that people do that. It doesn’t take very long. It’s only 46 articles.

I know that the very first time I read it, a long time ago, what really struck me is how fundamental and how basic it is. It is truly those things that any one of us take for granted that needed to be written down and done in a UN forum to be able to raise the awareness and the understanding of the importance of these kinds of discussions of reconciliation right across the world. It affirms the minimum standards for Indigenous peoples around the world to live with dignity and well-being.

It has been adopted by 148 countries, including Canada. In fact, there were several Indigenous leaders from Can­ada, and particularly, British Columbia, who were key contributors to drafting and negotiating the declaration.

Self-determination is truly at the heart of the UN dec­laration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. It is really about involving Indigenous peoples in those activities, policies and structures that have an effect on their lives and ultimately giving greater control to Indigenous people over their communities, their lives and their citizens.

To be clear, the UN declaration does not create new rights. Indigenous rights already exist in our Canadian constitution through section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, where it says that the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. The courts have consistently upheld those rights, especially here in British Columbia, where we have had, especially over the last 25 or 30 years, probably the leading jurisprudence around the importance of reconciliation and the changing Aboriginal law in Canada.

I’ll turn to the Declaration Act, which is B.C.’s legislation to implement the UN declaration.

I think everybody on the committee would obviously be aware, but in late 2019, B.C. became the first jurisdiction in Canada to pass such a law. The province developed the legislation in collaboration with the First Nations Leadership Council. The First Nations Leadership Council is made up of three organizations: the First Nations Summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations regional office.

[10:15 a.m.]

They represent most of the First Nations across the pro­vince of British Columbia, and they were mandated to work with us on developing the legislation by resolution of the First Nations chiefs in their assemblies.

It was quite a unique experience for us in how we moved forward. The First Nations Leadership Council representatives and their legal experts, their technical experts, were sitting side by side with us as we were developing the legislation. Their input was quite unique in that way, not only through their legal expertise but through the ability to form the spirit and the intent of the legislation through an iterative and collaborative process. They weren’t sitting in the same room with our legislative drafters, but they were sitting in the same room outside with us as we were creating the instructions and forming what we wanted the legislation to look like.

As I said, it was quite a unique experience, which is an important part of what the United Nations declaration really tried to embody: the ability for First Nations and Indigenous people to be able to directly participate in those kinds of ways.

We also engaged extensively with local governments and stakeholders. It was important to bring all British Columbians along in this work. Ultimately, as we saw, it was unanimous support for the legislation in the House with a lot of support from Indigenous and non-Indigenous in­terests alike. The success in bringing forward this legislation could be seen as a model for other governments and for other pieces of legislation within our own government. The federal government is going through this experience right now with their Bill C-15, which is their intention to bring the UN declaration into legislation at the federal level.

Now I’d like to talk about the act itself. The act creates the framework for reconciliation for the province, and it mandates that the government bring provincial laws into harmony with the UN declaration. The work that this committee is doing is the first clearly stated example of where B.C. has said that we will look at the Police Act and look at ways in which to align it with the UN declaration. This is the first.

The Declaration Act is enabling legislation. It doesn’t ex­plicitly and automatically make changes to the regulatory and legislative frameworks that we all work within. But it gives us the impetus to align laws. That will take time. Government has said that it will take a generation worth of work. There are many, many laws and a lot of work to do in that regard.

The act does not give legal force and effect to the UN de­claration or its articles. But it does set the UN declaration as the framework for the work that we do, going ahead, whether it’s aligning laws or for other activities around reconciliation. The UN declaration is already being used as an interpretive tool by courts in Canada. That was acknowledged and affirmed as part of the debates around our legislation.

I want to turn your attention to two really important words on this slide and in the legislation. The words are consultation and cooperation. The process of engaging with Indigenous people is as important as the actual outcome and the work itself.

Government is working with Indigenous people to develop an action plan that will outline how government will begin to achieve the objectives of the UN declaration. Again, we have to do that in consultation and cooperation. The legislation also requires annual reporting to monitor our progress. We delivered our first annual report last June. Together with the action plan and the reporting, we provided that transparency and accountability for the work associated with the act.

What I’ve described so far about our legislation is similar to the federal bill, C-15, that’s in front of Parliament right now. In addition, in British Columbia, the government decided to add core elements around two additional sections of the legislation that aren’t in the federal bill.

[10:20 a.m.]

In one of those, it identifies that there is a broad range of Indigenous governments. That’s complex work here in Bri­tish Columbia. It’s complex work everywhere in Canada, but particularly in British Columbia.

The key is to define…. The definition is that…. We want to recognize the entity that Indigenous people say will represent themselves under the Constitution Act. It’s really self-determination at its core, to determine who represents Indigenous people. Like I said, it’s very complex. There are over 600 Indian Act bands in Canada, and about one-third of them exist here in British Columbia. Those are Indian Act bands. That’s a colonial construct.

There are actually about 35 linguistic groups which could be representative of cultural groups here in British Columbia, historically and traditionally. Trying to find our way through that is, as I said, very complex. We are hearing lots these days, although for those of us who have been in this business, it’s been around and we’ve known about it for a long time.

There are the elected chiefs and councils under the Indian Act, and then there are the Hereditary Chiefs. Many nations are working now to try to re-establish what their Indigenous governing bodies should look like. Part of the UN declaration and our act is to create room and leave room for that. That’s one of those unique features that I mentioned about the provincial act.

Another unique feature is that, under certain circumstances and situations, the act provides the discretion for new decision-making agreements with Indigenous governments. Again, that’s enabling and available under the legislation.

I’ll move now to modernizing the Police Act in light of the declaration. As I said, this exercise that this committee is tasked with is one of the first examples of the effort to align laws with the UN declaration. We know, and I’m sure you’ve heard and will continue hear, lots about the data and that Indigenous people are way overrepresented in the B.C. justice system.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the overrepresentation of Indigenous people has been increasing over the last decade. There are many, many reports — and, I think, valuable reports — that anybody can go to and draw upon to try to look at strategies. It’s something that the committee, I’m sure, is aware of, but from my perspective, I would certainly encourage the committee to look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its calls to action.

There is also the B.C. First Nations justice strategy that was released a couple of years ago in British Columbia and that touches upon many of the same themes. Then, of course, there are the calls for justice in the final report of the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. All of these address the areas of human and Indigenous rights — cultural, health, wellness, security and justice.

They are aimed at reducing the number of Indigenous people who become involved with the criminal justice system, improving the experience of those who do, supporting the First Nations and Indigenous people to restore their justice systems and structures and improving the rel­ationship, trust and oversight of the relationship between Indigenous people and police services and the justice and public safety system.

In this context, of the Declaration Act in British Columbia, the UN declaration centres our reconciliation as the framework for reconciliation in British Columbia and our legislative framework, by requiring laws to be aligned with the UN declaration. There are, as I said earlier, 46 articles in the UN declaration, and I think many of them are relevant to the work that this committee has ahead of them.

[10:25 a.m.]

Just a few of them that I can point out that are of note for you. Article 2, the right of Indigenous peoples and individuals to be free from discrimination. Article 7, the right of Indigenous peoples and individuals to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person. Article 46(3), that the provisions set out in UNDRIP be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith. As I said earlier, it’s an important theme as we go forward in the work that we do, in this ministry and across government, around reconciliation.

My advice to the committee is that it’s as important to look at how we work together with Indigenous people — in that effort around consultation and cooperation and the ability for Indigenous people to have a say about policing and the justice system — as, ultimately, what the act should look like and the ability for them to understand it and to help shape it in a way that is meant to achieve the objectives of those systems in a safe and non-discriminatory way for all Indigenous people. The process is as important as the product.

We can’t do this work alone. We must work in partner­ship with Indigenous people. That’s really the mantra for us who do the reconciliation work of government. I encourage that that be an important piece of the committee’s work as it advances. This speaks to Article 23 of the United Nations declaration, the right of Indigenous peoples and individuals, to be actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and social programs that affect them.

There’s no one-size-fits-all, as I said. It’s very complex here in British Columbia, with the 204 Indian Act bands, the various different cultural groups, the Métis Nation and Métis people in British Columbia and modern treaty obligations that we have with our treaty partners. Creating space for that understanding of the different views and the interests and the rights of all those different groups is a challenge, but creating space for self-determination is really crucial to the work ahead.

That means supporting nations to restore their justice systems and their structures, for all of us to have a good understanding of Indigenous laws in that context, and doing that while reforming the police and the justice systems. It’s important that we recognize that bringing laws into alignment with the UN declaration is a process that won’t happen overnight, but it will happen over time. That’s government’s commitment.

With that, I’m very grateful for the time of this committee in looking at this topic. I’m happy to take questions.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Caul, and thank you very much for your many years of service to the province — excellent service and dedication.

Members, questions?

A. Olsen: Thank you, Mr. Caul, as the Chair said, for your incredible service to the province, really being at the forefront and leading a ministry through what is…. Well, you’re the only ministry in this country that has had the ability to get this law passed.

A lot of focus was put on the lawmakers, the people that populate the seats of the chamber, and perhaps not enough attention was paid to the incredible effort that was done behind the scenes by you and your staff to ensure that there was momentum, that that momentum was maintained and that we can today celebrate being still the only jurisdiction in this country to pass such a law and to legislate those 46 articles. We heard the previous presentation. Just around the Ministry of Indigenous Relations, I asked about the intersectionality of mental health with policing and public safety.

[10:30 a.m.]

I’m just wanting to get a sense of who’s directing a consistent, across-government approach to addressing Indigenous issues and addressing protocols and the fair and equitable treatment, the just treatment, of Indigenous people across ministries that Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation was pointed to. I’m just wondering if you could maybe highlight what role you’re playing in order to make sure that when someone is experiencing or interacting with multiple ministries, they get a consistent treatment, recognizing that each of the ministries are kind of bodies unto themselves as part of the bigger institution.

D. Caul: Thanks for the question. The straightforward answer on that is that it’s a work-in-progress.

Our ministry, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, works with every other ministry out there. Every ministry understands that it has this responsibility shared with us around reconciliation and looking at their programs and practices and legislation. But as you pointed out, there are many ministries. It’s a big government.

My ministry spends a lot of time working with other ministries to…. It really depends on where their starting point is. Some ministries are early on in this journey of understanding and building their competencies, and others are quite well advanced.

We do everything that we can to try to build that base level of understanding and the importance and, really, what the Declaration Act is intended for all of us to do. Then we also work across ministries in various different organizational structures — deputy ministers and committees that mirror some of the cabinet committees. Really, the idea is to try to make sure that there is that unified voice and that consistent approach. Like I said, it’s a work-in-progress.

I do see a lot of progress, though, over the last several years — or few years, in particular. We’re up to our eyeballs in it, trying to work with every single ministry to try to make sure that we give them the one-on-one help that they need as well as working with groups of ministries to try to bring along those programs and initiatives that ultimately touch upon many different ministries. The obvious example here is policing and mental health, and health and the wraparound services. Those kinds of things all touch upon many ministries. We participate as best as we possibly can with those discussions.

A. Olsen: If I may just quickly follow up with one other question.

I think we’ve got into this cycle where we’re seeing a lot of our ministers having to stand up and make apologies for the treatment of Indigenous people, in particular, but I think other demographics as well. Black, people of colour, I think, also are involved in this.

When it comes to the relationship with Indigenous peo­ple, which is the focus here, back in 2017-2018, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations published and shared with all of the other ministries ten draft principles. These really put in writing and put clearly to the public the expectation that Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation had of your colleagues on the administrative side but then, as well, on the political side.

Has there been a consideration from your ministry to draft a similar type of approach that can maybe create some cohesion with the response? If we have the Solicitor General, Minister of Public Safety, stand up and get this process underway to create a committee to deal with the Police Act, and the Minister of Health stand up and make apologies for the way that health is delivering programs…. I see that there needs to be some kind of cohesion here. Recognizing that this might be outside of our committee, has your ministry seen the opportunity there to create and prioritize this?

[10:35 a.m.]

D. Caul: The ten principles that you talked about, the document that we released in 2018, were exactly the intention.

A. Olsen: I’m sorry. I should be very clear. I mean, I think, with respect to dealing with systemic racism, discrimination and bias within a ministry, a whole-of-government approach that could be led by your ministry.

D. Caul: The exact methodology that you’ve suggested…. We haven’t contemplated that. But like I said, this is a work-in-progress.

When we came out with the ten draft principles, it was intended to do exactly that. It was intended to breathe some life into what was in the ministers’ mandate letters from 2017. Many ministries were looking at the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation to say: “Well, okay. I see this in our mandate letters. What should we do?”

We actually made use of the ten draft principles that the federal government had published. We saw the value in them and thought: “We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.” So we modified them so that they made sense here in British Columbia, without modifying the core intent. That’s when we released.

It was really aimed at the public service, to be able to help the public service to be able to understand the ap­proach. The “how,” as they say often, as much as the “what” we are doing. The “how” we’re doing that and the importance of working with Indigenous people.

That was exactly the intention there. There is more work to do, though, if I can assume what’s behind your question. That’s exactly what we’re doing with our efforts to implement the Declaration Act. There’s not a day that goes by that we aren’t talking. In fact, I was with a ministry executive just before I joined you to talk about the Declaration Act and to really dive into it and help them understand what’s important.

We’re doing it, like I said, in individual ways, executives to executives. We’re equipping the people in my ministry to be able to have those conversations with their colleagues out there. There are 30,000 public servants. We’ve got a lot of reach that we’ve got to try to get to. Then, of course, we’re doing it in those larger organizations.

We’re continuing to look at other ideas and new ways of approaching this to achieve exactly what you’re suggesting, which is that consistency of understanding and consistency of experience for our Indigenous partners.

R. Singh: I would really like to echo what my colleagues have said. Thank you so much for the great work that the ministry has done, especially creating the history here in British Columbia. So thank you so much. I completely hear you. It’s a very complex process. We have started it. It will take many years to reach where we want to go.

Just with the policing context. What we have been hearing, it is very clear about the systemic discrimination happening. We heard it from the coroner, and every presenter who’s coming is talking about that.

Have you had any conversation with the police services about how to deal with it? You were mentioning in your presentation having more conversations with the First Nations Leadership Council and developing strategies accordingly. Have you ever had that opportunity to have conversations with the policing. Although I know it does not fall under your mandate — it is under the Ministry of Solicitor General — but being the Indigenous Relations Ministry, have any conversations happened?

D. Caul: We’ve had many, many conversations over the past few years with the Solicitor General’s ministry, right from deputy to deputy. Mark Sieben and I are talking on a very regular basis and bouncing ideas off each other. I know that members of my executive and other members of the ministry team are working really closely with many different people in Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[10:40 a.m.]

As one example, they’re leading, in partnership with us, on looking at what’s necessary for B.C. to do under the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report and what some of the ideas and actions are that British Columbia should take.

Yeah. There are many, many different interactions with them. Yes, we work closely with them.

D. Routley (Chair): MLA Davies. By the way, it’s snowing on Vancouver Island.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): I’m not even going to comment. We’re still minus 35 here right now. So no comment. No comment.

Doug, thank you for your presentation and the work and commitment you’ve done over the past years. I certainly appreciate it.

This is just a quick question, purely asking for your opinion. If you had a number one recommendation and you had a magic wand, what would be your number one recommendation to policing, in general, in the province of British Columbia? Sorry to put you under pressure.

D. Caul: Well, it goes to the how. My number one rec­ommendation to anybody, whether it’s policing or it’s anywhere else, is to build the relationships with Indigenous leaders and people and hear their experiences, hear their ideas and allow them room to participate in the work that we do. That is at the core of exactly what I believe is the first best step for us if we’re going to make any progress on reconciliation. So that would be my number one recommendation.

D. Routley (Chair): I’ll insert myself here, since there’s no one else on the list right now. That will precipitate more questions, I think, probably.

Mr. Caul, could you describe how the ministry works with the First Nations Justice Council in formulating strategy around policing issues?

D. Caul: We have a few people who are working — again, part of the team Public Safety and Solicitor General has. They are the lead. They’re the interface with the First Nations Justice Council. But as needed, Public Safety and Solicitor General will call upon us, look for guidance from us, and we participate that way.

That’s, I think, a great example of that shared responsibility that we have across ministries, where not all things reconciliation-related need to be routed through the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation. I really firmly believe, and we’re seeing it work, that every ministry needs to take that leadership responsibility for those relationships and their strategies. That’s exactly what Public Safety and Solicitor General does, but we help them and assist with them and participate as they request.

D. Routley (Chair): I wonder if you could describe how the ministry has a role in negotiating between, say, Forests and treaty negotiations and parks in the Environment Ministry — how the prospect of the future development of parks is impacted by negotiations. How do you balance those interests?

D. Caul: Yeah. You described, in a couple of sentences, exactly the type of work that we have to do in this ministry.

When it comes to treaty negotiations, we are the lead ministry. It is our accountability to negotiate, but again, we do it as a team government. When we are talking about, whether it’s inside a treaty discussion or it’s in a non-treaty context, if we’re having a conversation about parks or land and resources, we involve those ministries that hold that core accountability, and we coordinate that with them and ask them to participate.

[10:45 a.m.]

It doesn’t, again, outside of treaty, always mean that we are the lead. We are the lead on many, many negotiations out there, but there are also negotiations and efforts and initiatives, good work that’s going on, across many ministries, where they lead, and we are the participant on the team to help guide or to help with that coordination that MLA Olsen was talking about. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag, but by and large, we are the lead on most major negotiations, and we bring the ministries along.

Part of that is also about trying to facilitate those direct relationships, whether it’s people in the parks service and the First Nation that we’re talking about. That’s another objective for us, because it’s important that when we finalize an agreement, ultimately the implementation of that agreement needs to occur through, in this example that we’re talking about, the parks service.

We want to make sure that the agreement is set up for success so that when it comes to implementation time, those people in the parks department of the Ministry of Environment are working closely with and have built that relationship with the First Nations partner in that parks arrangement — again, in this example we’re talking about.

I can repeat that similar kind of model for many different sectors out there.

D. Routley (Chair): One other thing. The First Nations Justice Council has promoted the idea of a provincial police force, an expanded Aboriginal force. I wondered, as the ministry, if you can share with us if the ministry has been involved in discussions around what that might look like.

D. Caul: I haven’t been, and I do not know of anybody in my ministry that has had that direct involvement. Again, if the Public Safety and Solicitor General Ministry, which does have the lead, was looking for our guidance on that, we’d be more than happy to help.

D. Routley (Chair): Are there any other questions from the members? I don’t see any.

Thank you very much. We really appreciate your help in the important work that the committee has been tasked with. We hope we can call on you afterwards, as well, if we have further questions.

D. Caul: Happy to engage again. Yes, absolutely.

D. Routley (Chair): All right, Members. We are ahead.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): What? How is that even possible?

D. Routley (Chair): I don’t know. There’s something wrong with my computer, I believe.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Our next presenters are scheduled for 11 o’clock. So perhaps members would like to take a short recess.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes. Members, all agreed? The com­mittee is in recess until 11. Thanks.

The committee recessed from 10:48 a.m. to 11:01 a.m.

[D. Routley in the chair.]

D. Routley (Chair): Welcome to the Special Committee on Reforming the Police Act. I’d like to welcome you back and thank you for being willing to revisit our committee. We had more questions, and we’re very grateful that you’re able to reconvene with us and entertain some of the questions from our members.

With that, I’ll get right into it. If members have questions, please put up your hand.

K. Riarh (Clerk to the Committee): Maybe I’ll clarify. I believe we wanted to finish off the last part of the presentation, as well, on systemic racism and reconciliation.

D. Routley (Chair): Okay. I’m sorry.

Please go ahead.

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

W. Rideout: Good morning, Chair and committee.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge, with res­pect, the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ peoples on whose traditional territory I present today, and the Songhees, Esquimalt and W̱SÁNEĆ peoples, whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day.

It’s our pleasure to be invited back to the special committee to complete our presentation on opportunities for reforming and improving policing in British Columbia. Once again, for the committee’s awareness, today I’m join­ed by Mark Sieben, Deputy Solicitor General; Alana Best, executive director of policing and public safety modernization; and Rebecca Salpeter, our acting policy director.

On January 29, we walked the committee through the current state of policing and public safety in B.C. We laid out the complexity of the police framework, touching on the broad-based pressures we are currently facing. We emphasized that effective community safety can only be achieved through cross-sectoral collaborative approaches that utilize empirical data and qualitative information to inform best practices, aid in the decision-making processes and develop a new standard for policing and public safety in British Columbia.

We have been pleased to see that the committee has invited some of these key partners to present already, and we look forward to reviewing these in future presentations to the committee. The work our ministry is undertaking in modernizing the public safety continuum will involve most ministries across government.

Before we resume the final component of our presentation, I would like to take a brief moment to remind the committee that our vision is to create an equitable, efficient and accountable policing and public safety model that meets the needs of all British Columbians. Underlying this is the intent to leverage the opportunities before us and embark on transformative changes to policing and public safety.

On January 29, we walked through three of our four major pillars. They were effectiveness and efficiency, roles and responsibilities, and public trust. Today we will work through pillar No. 4, systemic racism and reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples. With the committee’s agreement, we will move through that next piece, that presentation, at this time.

I’ll be turning this portion of the presentation over to Alana to take you through it.

[11:05 a.m.]

A. Best: Perfect. Thank you, Wayne.

Current environment. I would like to ground this conversation by beginning with the federal definition of systemic racism, which is the one we use to guide our work. System or institutional racism consists of patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the social or administrative structures of an organization and which create and perpetuate a position of relative disadvantage for racialized persons.

These appear neutral on the surface but, nevertheless, have an exclusionary impact on racialized persons. While there is institutionalized racism within all public institutions, within the context of public safety, this can lead to a lack of equitable and effective service delivery and protection of our communities.

In addition, it can lead to overpolicing or excessive en­forcement on Indigenous, Black and people of colour. Further, recent events involving police use of force against Black and Indigenous People have led to growing calls to address systemic racism in policing and the public safety continuum.

Indigenous People continue to be overrepresented in the B.C. justice system. In 2018, Indigenous youth represented nearly 9 percent of the youth population in Canada. Meanwhile, they represented 43 percent of youth admitted to the corrections services. This overrepresentation of Indigenous People has been increasing over the last decade.

In addition, the B.C. First Nations justice strategy and the calls for justice in the final report of the national in­quiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls addresses areas of human and Indigenous rights, culture, health and wellness, security and justice.

These are aimed at reducing the number of First Nations people who become involved with the criminal justice system, improve the experiences of those who do and support First Nations to restore their justice system and structures. Our goal is to ensure adequate, continuous engagement, as well as equitable and effective services are delivered, especially to racialized and marginalized communities that align with community needs.

Systemic racism continues to negatively impact public safety while preventing effective implementation of harm reduction strategies and initiatives. Broad, sweeping consultation and reports have been provided to all levels of gov­ernment with respect to the B.C. context. But the implementation on these actions has been slow. This is in part due to the nature of the recommendations and the community-centred approach they necessitate to implement. However, actions must be taken to respond to these calls for change.

Further, the lack of data on police and public safety interaction with racialized communities continues to pre­vent effective reconciliation. Similarly, the lack of diversity in recruitment and retention within policing and public safety service providers continues to be a serious challenge.

The work to reform the Police Act presents an opportunity to develop legislation in consultation with B.C.’s In­digenous People that applies to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Including Indigenous People in the process will be important to ensure that their unique community safety needs and concerns are met.

This also includes the rights of Indigenous People to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of persons, as well as the right to be actively involved in developing, determining and, when possible, administering social programs that affect them. Changes made to legislation, regulation and policy should include the recommendations provided from recent reports.

Service delivery. There are opportunities to enhance provincial governance for front-line policing and policing to Indigenous communities. This could be achieved thro­ugh identifying responsibilities for police and public safety, including improving on hybrid and integrated detachments and regionalization of services within geographic areas. It will be important to consider all Indigenous People, including Métis, Inuit and urban First Nations when examining possible opportunities.

While the existing provincial police service agreement and the community tripartite agreement through their letter of expectations require the RCMP to consult with the local First Nations communities, there is an opportunity to develop stronger relationships and an ability for local and Indigenous governments in setting their annual priorities, goals and objectives that better support local policing needs. This may be achieved by embedding provisions in legislation or regulations, such as legislating local or regional community-based boards of governance.

[11:10 a.m.]

Provisions in the Police Act that allow for the formation of a formal local police committee have not been utilized nor mandated. Addressing the issues associated within this section is an opportunity to enhance local and Indigenous governance over front-line policing and public safety services. The province is committed to working with the federal government in examining opportunities to further enhance the First Nations policing program, including exploring culturally appropriate alternative service delivery models and the provision of essential services.

As mentioned, Indigenous people continue to be over­represented in the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders. Crime rates in Indigenous communities are typically higher than other communities.

A total of 143 First Nations communities in B.C. parti­cipate in the federally driven First Nations policing program, leaving 55 communities excluded. The program aims to address marginalizing factors with dedicated culturally appropriate enhanced policing. Unfortunately, not all Indigenous communities within the province are part of this program, as a result of restricted federal funding.

Additionally, it has been identified that Indigenous com­munities are not satisfied with the level of policing and public safety resources provided. The under-resourcing of services is a contributing factor to the marginalization of Indigenous communities and is but one example of systemic racism in our province. Resourcing levels under this program are currently controlled by the federal government.

Other provinces and territories, such as Manitoba, Yuk­on and Saskatchewan provide alternative service delivery models. The special committee could consider if these service delivery models would be appropriate in B.C. What is important is that the services provided are reflective and representative of the communities they serve, and there is room for significant improvement with regards to policing of Indigenous communities.

Community-led justice programs are effective in ensuring the needs of victims have been heard, engaging communities in the justice process and holding offenders of minor crimes accountable for their actions while keeping them outside the criminal justice system and reducing the repetition of offences. These programs are consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which calls for alternatives to imprisonment and decreasing the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system. Expanding the use of alternative justice programs beyond the 34 that are currently in operation will ensure that as many Indigenous communities as possible have access to these beneficial programs.

Increased access to data and improving reporting is critical, as this will provide policy makers with the ability to identify systemic racism. It allows the province to timely monitor trends, apply a systemic lens to police complaints investigations and respond nimbly to policy changes that may be required. In addition, the committee could explore a procedure for the mandatory collection, analysis and public reporting of race-based data that will allow for a systemic lens to be taken when investigating police complaints.

Increased diversity along the public safety continuum needs to reflect the communities they serve. This representation allows officers and other workers to connect, relate and empathize with their communities. The committee could explore introducing minimum diversity targets of recruits of Indigenous, Black, people of colour, LGBTQ+ and women for the RCMP and municipal police services so that officers represent the diversity of the communities they serve.

In addition, psychological testing requirements and in­terviews upon recruitment should include consideration to cultural understanding and unconscious bias. All hiring practices should be in alignment with best practices to avoid any racial discrimination.

That concludes this part of our presentation. I will pass it over to Wayne for some concluding remarks before we open it up to questions.

W. Rideout: Thank you, Alana.

The opportunities we have described today are examples of key items that our ministry has identified. However, they are not the only opportunities or solutions that could be pursued.

[11:15 a.m.]

Regardless of the policing and public safety service providers, the arrangements around leadership of policing need to be re-evaluated to reflect B.C.’s provincial priorities while meeting local needs and maintaining operational independence. In summary, we need to be in a better position to manage our public safety destiny.

We encourage this special committee to look beyond the current structure and build a public safety and policing model that ensures a stable, predictable and transparent funding model; a public safety framework that is efficient and maximizes the socioeconomic return on investment; a model that has equitable service delivery with notable care for those overpoliced and those under-resourced. And build a comprehensive and collaborative model to make sure the responder is the most appropriate to meet the needs of the call.

We need to invest in preventative and proactive measures to lessen the strain on police and the justice system. We need an enhanced governance and oversight structure that will improve accountability and transparency. It is paramount that we make active and substantial strides to address systemic racism and discrimination and meet the requirements of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. The committee has an opportunity to recommend transformative changes and be at the forefront of the paradigm shift that is happening in Canada and, more broadly, in North America.

In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. We are happy to answer any further questions you may have. We are at your disposal if you would like us to return in the future. Thank you for your time.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you all for the presentation. Thank you all for your service to B.C. and the great work that you’re doing.

I think Karin has a question, MLA Kirkpatrick.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much. This has been a great presentation. I’m trying to remember all of the good things you said last time. I’ve got a few notes here, but I’m going to focus on this last piece that we looked at today.

When you talked to us last time, you talked about the First Nations policing program. I apologize if I don’t re­member and it was explained, but it’s a bit connected to what we’ve talked about here. Self-determination is the basis of UNDRIP. What I don’t quite understand is: does there need to be a change to the Police Act in order to have a First Nation determine and designate their own policing force without having to be working within the current legislative framework or governance framework?

That was a part of the question. The other is: how does the First Nations policing program work now? Is that the hybrid model that you were talking about? I’m digressing a bit here, but I’ll leave it at that, if you can understand my question.

W. Rideout: Yes. Thank you for your question.

We’re just consulting a little bit with some of our subject matter experts on the actual legal requirements, but I think there is a need to look at, overall, the Police Act to permit the self-governance model in a more expansive way and to ensure that the legislative framework there, for the future, is adaptable to the needs of the communities that are needing the service.

I think that right now, communities have the ability to apply to have their own designated policing units. They can be established, as we have seen in the St’át’imc police model. But I think there are opportunities to improve the legislative framework that is there and to expand it. I think there are examples elsewhere in the country where they have some expanded models.

I hope I’ve answered your question. I think that one of the things that we would offer the committee is to make some more detailed recommendations in specific pieces where we think that that might be applicable to this particular area and some specific recommendations as to the pieces of legislation that might be helpful.

[11:20 a.m.]

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): A couple of questions that I have. We had the Union of B.C. Municipalities present to us. I think it was yesterday or the day before yesterday. All the days are blurring together right now. They spoke about a couple of different things. One that comes to mind — I’m not sure where the public safety is right now — is the auxiliary policing program as a really good community-based model.

Is the ministry looking at this program? It’s certainly within the communities that are policed by the RCMP, but I think some of the municipal police forces also have a similar program. Is there a movement or any looking at how this policing angle may be used to assist within some of our Indigenous communities and the broader communities?

W. Rideout: Thank you, MLA Davies, for your question. It’s an excellent question.

When we talked, in our previous presentation, of the continuum of policing services and using a wide variety of resources in a synergistic approach to public safety, certainly, the auxiliary program is a part of that continuum. It has been a very effective policing resource for communities, as detailed by the UBCM. We have enjoyed the dedicated, brave service of auxiliaries in our communities for many, many years.

There have been some changes at the national level around auxiliaries, with the RCMP, in particular, altering their program that has…. We are continuing to work with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the national level on a model that fits better for British Columbia as an interim strategy. But we also are continuing our work to refine a program that is really B.C. based and meets the needs of British Columbians.

While we are, to a degree, obliged, as I discussed earlier, because of our linkage to federal Treasury Board guide­lines, federal policies, through our connectivity with the RCMP, we are looking at options for building a program that is somewhat distinct from that. That is something that would be, I think, included within the work that we talked about around sort of a more capable governance within the province that creates some ability for us to work outside of some of those federal rules.

As you are likely aware, our municipal police agencies also have auxiliary programs and reserve officers that they rely on very heavily. It’s a very effective tool. I might also add that the RCMP use a reserve program now and have for several years — it’s different — in addition to the auxiliary program. That is taking highly trained officers who have left the force or are retired and have come back. They’re brought in on a part-time basis to supplement policing resources. It’s proven to be a very effective tool for providing additional support.

I hope I’ve answered your question.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Yeah. Then, like you said, I certainly want to make sure that that is kept in the forefront. It sounds like it’s certainly a priority to look at.

I just want to talk…. Even up here in Fort St. John, I believe, it’s been quite some time since we’ve had a graduating class out of our auxiliary program. But three of the five, I believe, were Indigenous members. A great success. One of them, I believe, has actually moved on to the regular RCMP now, since then. I think it’s an incredible opportunity. I think that needs to be looked at.

On your one slide there, you also talked, under the op­portunities, alternative justice. I’m a huge proponent, a big fan of the restorative justice programs in our province. I’ve chaired our own North Peace Justice Society here for a number of years in Fort St. John. Too many times, we’ve come, hat in hand, asking for sustainable funding, appropriate funding for this model.

I’m glad to see that this is under some of these opportunities. I know government has mentioned it. I can’t re­member. It was under something about looking at these programs around the province. But they are greatly underfunded across the province. These programs should be operating in every community across B.C.

[11:25 a.m.]

Again, I’ll paint a picture, as I did with our last presenters. We made, within our own restorative justice board here, the decision to hire a full-time executive director. Her entire role, unfortunately, was fundraising enough money to pay her own salary, as opposed to being focused on restorative justice, which is what it should be. I think right now the province of British Columbia contributes about $2,500 a year, only, to these restorative justice programs.

I am very hopeful that this is a priority within the ministry to move forward and support these alternative justice programs, not only within the Indigenous perspective, but it’s a good model. It’s a good model for justice in many ways, and it saves money in the long run. It’s a huge money saving. We worked out the hundreds of thousands of dollars that it saved, just up here, out of the court systems, so I’m very positive that I do see this as one of these opportunities and certainly something that is a huge recommendation.

With that, I’ll leave it there for now to make sure other people get questions in.

R. Singh: Thank you so much for this presentation. I deeply appreciate that. We know that there has been an outcry about the systemic racism, not just in B.C., Canada, but globally, with the events that we have seen. I’m glad to see that you have mentioned the opportunities out there, but I would really like to know the initiatives that the ministry has taken to address racism in policing in B.C.

W. Rideout: I will start and impress, if I could, MLA Singh…. Then I’ll turn it over to Alana.

The ministry has taken action with respect to a number of areas. There is training that we monitor that exists within RCMP training. There is training that exists with the Justice Institute of British Columbia that is both for trainees or cadets, recruits, as well as in-service training.

We have established, through the ministry…. As you may know, I spoke to you last time about policing standards in British Columbia — that is, the powers that fall within my office to create standards that are binding to all police agencies in British Columbia. That includes the federal RCMP as well as the independent police departments, and we are engaged in consultation with a wide variety of stakeholder groups on bias-free policing standards to ensure that that is really the overarching standard that will encompass many of these elements.

Over the course of the last year, well before we saw some of the tragedies of last spring and winter, the branch had engaged in working with police and community stakeholders around what we refer to as police stops standards. That is a direct effort to control, contain and ensure consistency of approach when it comes to the way and the manner in which police interact with citizens on the street, how they’re stopped, how information is or is not recorded, when it can and cannot be recorded. Those interim standards went into effect well over a year ago. They’re currently being refined.

We are actually…. As we proceed through the work of the special purpose committee, listen to the various presenters, we’ll be using that information, your recommendations, as we put the final version of those police stops together.

I think there’s quite a bit of work going on, and I would also just like to add and commend our law enforcement within the province, both the RCMP and independent muni­cipal police agencies, who are engaging in that on their own, internally, within their own agencies and working with their local communities.

I’ll pause there and maybe ask Alana if she has anything further she wants to add.

A. Best: Thanks, Wayne. I think I would probably echo some of the same things around the unbiased police standards that are in their final stages, as well as the information already provided around the training.

Maybe I’ll open it up to Rebecca and Mark, if there’s anything around what the province has done in response to the national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. I know a lot has been done in that respect as well.

[11:30 a.m.]

R. Singh: Thank you so much.

M. Sieben: Chair, I’ll speak to that quickly. It’s at risk of being a bit of a tangent for the committee — an important tangent but something that not squarely fits within the terms of reference. The province has been a very wholesome participant in the national inquiry. We have facilitated a conversation among communities that produced a report about this time last year, I guess it was.

We’re anticipating that the federal government, which is currently working with a number of national Indigenous organizations as well as provinces and territories, is going to be identifying a time frame when a final response to the national inquiry is going to occur. We’re hopeful that the new federal budget, should that emerge, will identify both a timeline as well as what somewhat of a response is going to look like in order to support the work associated with reducing violence against Indigenous women and girls and the roots of racism around Indigenous communities.

W. Rideout: Mr. Chair, if I could just add one point. I apologize. I could only hear the deputy minister for the last half of his comments.

I just also wanted to add that each year the minister sends a priority letter out to this branch that is communicated out to all police agencies in British Columbia — police boards and police agencies, the RCMP — and that letter references the need to address systemic racism and bias within their internal agencies. So we look to police boards. And it talked about the local efforts. That is directed by our minister.

R. Singh: Great. Really good to know.

A. Olsen: I’m going to, I think, follow up. I really appre­ciate the acknowledgment and want to emphasize that again, we’ve heard in this committee that a lack of comprehensive data collection is impacting the ministry and the decisions that are being made.

I wanted to follow up a little bit on a comment or a question that I asked the last time around…. We are tasked with taking a look at this legislation now in the context of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. One of the commitments we have made is to align laws.

I asked a question at the last presentation just with res­pect to the choice — the tripartite and the other agreements — Indigenous nations have in the police that service their communities. I’m just wondering if maybe you could provide further comment on whether or not we as a committee should be taking a look at providing more freedom than I think currently exists with the resources that are already being spent on policing — if there’s an opportunity, in light of the self-determination clause particularly, that Indigenous nations have the ability to determine who’s policing their communities, rather than the restrictions that are currently there.

W. Rideout: Thanks to you for your question, MLA Olsen. I think I would, if I heard your question correctly, encourage that we look at those opportunities and whether it’s… It is currently possible for communities to engage and have their own police agency, as we’ve seen with the Stl’atl’imx First Nations community.

That said, I think that there are opportunities to align the legislation and to make it — I used the word “nimble” last time we spoke — more usable for communities to put into place should they wish their own policing agencies.

[11:35 a.m.]

Now, I think the tripartite agreements that exist and the service that is provided also need to be looked at expanding as an option. As you’ve heard us say, there are quite a number of communities that are not able to use that program currently, and it is an effective program. So giving communities the option to both, I think, is a particularly effective way to address the concerns. I would encourage that the committee look at that area.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Members, are there other questions?

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Not yet. I had another question written down here, but I missed it the last time I was asking.

Under the opportunities there — that diversity facilit­ates the recruitment and retention of women, LGBTQ, other visible minorities, and so on…. I know the RCMP do have a program, incentives and such initiatives to recruit diverse backgrounds. I believe the Vancouver police do as well. You talk about the ministry facilitating the recruitment and retention. What does that look like, additional to what’s being done right now? How do you foresee that being delivered?

A. Best: Thanks for the question. I think it’s a complex situation. It’s the requirement that the RCMP have been looking at in the past couple of years of who can join the force. Opening things up to landed immigrants and to other areas of populations within Canada help bring in some of that diversity.

I think there’s also an opportunity to look at the types of people that are playing different roles within our policing and public safety continuum and whether or not they need to be officers or whether they can be civilians and how they come in and the types of training that they go through in order to participate within the policing and public safety continuum.

I think there’s a wide range of things that we can look at in terms of the current system, what the requirements are and the types of training that they go in to be able to better incentivize different people from different walks of life that come from different areas to be able to come into the system.

W. Rideout: I think I would echo Alana’s comments. What we are suggesting is this concept of a public safety continuum. I think that the nature of using a wide variety of tools and services to affect public safety amplifies the opportunity to get the diversity that we’re looking for.

That’s not to say that that should be excluded within the ranks of the police themselves. I think that we can have the opportunity when we look at policing standards in the province, when we look at legislative amendments to give the director of police services and the province some additional powers there.

I have to also say that I think the efforts of our police agencies are very much desirous of achieving those objectives that you have referred to. It’s not that they are not trying to get there. I think they just need to continue to pursue that diversity that I think is so critical.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

From myself, earlier you used the phrase “alternative delivery models,” and your answer just now describes how other services in government can be aligned to affect public safety, which is a different service delivery model. What other range of models are considered at this point?

W. Rideout: I think we’ll both, perhaps, answer that, Mr. Chair. I’ll start with organized crime.

When we look at organized crime, for example, where there are many discussions ongoing today about money laundering and related economic crime activity, it strikes us and many of our colleagues across the country that we don’t need to train police officers often to do that kind of work in the same way that we would train them to be, perhaps, in a role of traffic enforcement, highway patrol or front-line policing on the streets of Surrey or on the streets of Prince George or in downtown Vancouver.

[11:40 a.m.]

We can be seeking to hire people with the academic credentials and the expertise that will focus on certain streams of work and, perhaps, do so through their whole careers, maintaining continuity, maintaining and staying in step with the evolution of these specialty areas. That’s very broad. That’s not just money laundering. There’s a broad range of areas when we talk about those kinds of issues. It’s much more sustainable.

We see opportunities when we look at mental health and look at the challenge of addictions and bringing in persons from outside of policing to work with policing or to work as one of the many partner stakeholder agencies in problem-solving the issue so that it never gets to a place where an arrest needs to take place or an application of force ever needs to take place. We see some effective models, but I think we can greatly expand on that.

When we look at stepping back from the model that we have now and looking at a much broader approach to these things, there is an opportunity to use a wide spectrum of experts. We have seen some very, very good efforts underway when we talk about dealing with the issue of the unlawful cannabis industry. We’ve got people that have regulatory powers that can do a great deal of work on en­forcement of provincial laws.

The term I often like to use is the disruption of the trajectory of crime, so rather than necessarily stopping crime by making an arrest or conducting an investigation, using regulatory tools and using a broad range of approaches that stop the offence from ever having an opportunity to be committed in the first place.

MLA Davies talks about the return on investment, the socioeconomic return on investment. Stopping these of­fences before they ever occur, before they can ever even have an opportunity to occur, is a far better approach and certainly a far more efficient one.

I hope I’ve answered your question.

D. Routley (Chair): Yes, thank you. I’d also like to ask you something about the B.C. First Nations justice strategy and the First Nations Justice Council and the work that they’ve done — the ministry’s input on the expansion of First Nations policing, First Nations police forces and the expansion of boards generally and how the ministry is dealing with the prospect of encouraging the expansion of boards and that First Nations policing expansion.

M. Sieben: I can probably take the question pertaining to the engagement with the First Nations Justice Council and the First Nations justice strategy, as well as a newly evolving Métis justice strategy that is emerging too.

Our colleague — sort of sister ministry — the Ministry of Attorney General and ourselves, and our two ministers, have been engaged with the Justice Council for a few years now, in order to support them in the development of the justice strategy. While both of our ministries, at a senior as well as a significant staff level, have been engaged with the Justice Council to provide information and support them in developing the strategy, it’s important to note that the strategy is theirs, developed by the council on behalf of the Indigenous Nations that they represent.

Currently not only our ministries but other ministries are in the process of working, at a working-group level, on the different themes and strategies within the strategy, inclusive of policing.

I’ll certainly leave a space for Wayne to pick up on the question pertaining to boards and other opportunities for First Nations to pursue their own policing, which is something that both the strategy embraces and we in the ministry support.

[11:45 a.m.]

A fair amount of work would necessarily have to be done at a national level, at a federal level. We’re anticipating some work to be done through the current federal Minister of Public Safety. He has identified this as an area of significant interest to him and that there’s opportunity to move the current First Nations policing program from a program basis to more of a legislative structure that has a basis of its own, which should create a legislative platform nationally for First Nations to explore policing. We would certainly support that.

I don’t know if there’s anything else, Wayne, that you’d like to note.

W. Rideout: I would just add that when we are working in the development of existing police boards, that is always a consideration and something we’re very conscious of.

Additionally, you heard me talk last week about the evolution of police governance in the province more broadly, initiating advisory committees for the provincial force and working with our branch in the ministry to oversee our provincial force. There are great opportunities there to engage equally on some of the police boards that exist around our designated policing units.

I think we’re conscious of it, conscious of the importance of it, and we’ll continue to be so in the future. We participate, as well, with the First Nations Justice Council to ensure that we are informed and conscious of the work they’re doing.

R. Salpeter: I’d also add that in the development of the B.C. policing standards, the First Nations Justice Council is also engaged through those.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you very much. It’s a really fascinating consideration. You referred to localizing police boards and having police boards, I imagine, from what you said, [audio interrupted] their communities in different ways and different priorities.

That’s, it seems to me, still a delineation of…. It’s a licen­sing of authority to a local board, even more than they have now. Am I mistaken? If so, how does the balance oc­cur between these things?

W. Rideout: I apologize, Mr. Chair. I don’t think I fully understood your question. Perhaps I can get you to….

D. Routley (Chair): You mentioned local boards, dealing with local police boards and having them more localized, I believe. Were you referring to a local character…?

A. Best: I think maybe I can speak to it. I believe I un­derstand where you’re going with it.

I think what we suggested is that there is a model currently being explored — legislation being put forward in Ontario — to have localized police boards, community-based police boards, in all different regions across their province. We’re suggesting to also take a look at that in consideration of B.C. I think it’s to provide a better relationship and that synergy with local community needs.

Previously in our presentation, we also talked about, within the effectiveness and efficiency of policing, how we need a structure and a governance structure that has local policing and local police boards meeting provincial priorities and needs.

I believe the UBCM also presented a similar consideration for the special committee and talked about something similar to a LGCMC-type model, in which there would be a governing board that has local government or local authorities — local boards — as well as the provincial government in place. So that when things happen urgently, communication is being sent up to the province for consideration and understanding so that we can address things as they emerge on a grander scale but also so that provincial priorities are being understood and met and considered in local strategies.

So that governance structure to have localized needs met but also in consideration with the province — those are two gaps that I think we, as well as the UBCM, have mentioned.

D. Davies (Deputy Chair): Sorry. I promise I’ll make it quick.

To follow up on that, coming from local government myself, I know that is one of the challenges, certainly with the RCMP, where there is a relationship between city council and their local inspector, usually. The boards would be an interesting perspective to have that direct input from municipalities, who are paying the majority of the bill.

[11:50 a.m.]

I wanted to bring up one other point. Specifically, Alana, you had just mentioned UBCM mentioning the disparity between municipal police numbers and rural police numbers. The B.C. portion of policing in the province seems to be very stagnant in regards to the support that seems to be required.

Is that something that is being addressed within the ministry — to look at those numbers? I know last time we spoke about the ratio, I think, in your last presentation, a week or so back. Like I said, I can’t remember the number exactly. Municipalities have been continually increasing members, but we haven’t seen that on the provincial side. Is that something that’s being looked at?

W. Rideout: Thank you for your question, MLA Davies.

Yes, it’s something that’s constantly being looked at and assessed. Now, when we look at the provincial force, the provincial force exists in many different variations. We have the front-line resources that you see in rural communities in the north, both in independent provincial detachments and/or shared detachments with municipal communities, as well as we have a lot of supporting infrastructure for policing in general. I talk about provincial major crimes sections. I talk about specialized areas in forensics and the Combined Forces Special Enforcement and OCABC. Those are [audio interrupted] and part of provincial funding.

To varying degrees, the provincial force has been supported over the last number of years. There have been some increases in the last year with respect to the front-line resources in rural communities. Again, the effort this year is to enhance some of those resources in rural communities.

You are correct that in UBCM, we consistently hear — and we hear from communities and local commanders — that there’s a feeling that in some locations, the provided municipal contingent helps supplement the provincial area. I think there are also examples where the provincial force will come into municipal areas and provide support. In particular, areas that we have seen are around some of the more complex provincial major crime investigations, homicide investigations, cases like that, where the province is….

There are varying degrees. I think it’s really important, as you heard us say last time, that we clarify that, we create transparency, and we make sure that communities know what they have available to them and there is equity between municipal detachments, provincial force and, frankly, the federal force that overlaps it all that exists in this province so that we have clarity.

There is disparity. I would not dispute that, but we do, on a constant basis, look at where the need is and do our best to provide the additional resources that are required. We’re not there, but I would want to make sure that it was clear that there has been sizable investment into the provincial force in a lot of really important areas that is often working on our gangs and guns issues and our opioid harm reduction issues and other areas. So it’s not absent investment. It’s just trying to prioritize the need — there’s great need across all areas — and looking as to how we more effectively do that.

D. Routley (Chair): Thank you.

Members, any more questions?

Seeing none, I’ll thank the presenters for coming back and also for the offer to come back again if we have more questions and more inquiry. If you have anything else that you’d like to bring to the committee’s attention, you know how to reach us. We’d certainly like to meet with you if you do. So thank you very much.

W. Rideout: Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.

D. Routley (Chair): All right. Thank you, Members. That was a really interesting presentation, and the questions were really good.

[11:55 a.m.]

Dan, as Deputy Chair, and myself will be speaking with Karan tomorrow after our meeting, and we will be able to discuss some of the time issues and some of the other things that confront the committee. Then next week we head back into it.

Yeah, thank you very much. It’s a difficult process — lots of commitment.

Thanks, Garry, for jumping in, chairing the other meeting and then coming over here.

Trevor has been trying his best to be here. Everybody is doing their best, and I really appreciate it from all of you, particularly from our staff.

Karan and Katey, I’d like to express, on behalf of all members, our appreciation for the organizational work that you’ve done. We recognize how difficult it is to keep us all in line.

With that, unless there’s other business, I entertain a motion to adjourn this committee.

I see Karin, and I see Harwinder.

Unless there are any opposed, I will consider this meeting adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 11:56 a.m.