The committee met at 12:04 p.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): Good afternoon, Members. My name is Artour Sogomonian. I have the honour and privilege of serving as Clerk to the Select Standing Committee on Health.

I would also like to introduce my colleagues Darryl Hol, senior research analyst, and Lisa Hill, committee research analyst. Darryl, Lisa and I, along with a wonderful team from the Parliamentary Committees Office and from Hansard Services who work primary behind the scenes, look forward to supporting the work of your committee in the months ahead.

As this is the first meeting of your committee in the current session, it is my duty as Clerk to oversee the election of a Chair.

Are there any nominations for Chair of your committee?

S. Chant: I nominate Niki Sharma.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): Niki, do you accept the nomination?

N. Sharma: I do.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): Any further nominations? Any further nominations? A third and final time, are there any further nominations?

The question is that Niki Sharma, MLA, take the role as Chair of your committee.

Motion approved.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): Congratulations, Niki.

[12:05 p.m.]

[N. Sharma in the chair.]

N. Sharma (Chair): Okay, thank you.

Moving on to the second item of business, which is the election of the Deputy Chair, are there any nominations from the floor?

S. Cadieux: I nominate Shirley Bond.

N. Sharma (Chair): Shirley, do you accept the nomination?

S. Bond: I do.

N. Sharma (Chair): Are there any other nominations from the floor?

Not seeing any, the question is that Shirley Bond, MLA, take the role of Deputy Chair.

Motion approved.

N. Sharma (Chair): Congratulations, Shirley.

Interjections.

N. Sharma (Chair): The level of organization that that takes we all appreciate.

I wanted to say a few words before we get into the next topic.

First, as Chair of this committee, and for all the members, I know this is a topic that we all care very passionately about and something that’s impacting a lot of British Columbians today. One of the best parts about cross-party committees is that we get to work together, across party lines, and come together and think about how we can make the situation better for the too many people that are dying everyday in our province, on this topic.

I want to appreciate everybody’s passion. I think I met with most people here — or some people, most of them. If not, you can always reach out to me, as your Chair, if there are some questions. I see my role as making sure this process is the best process that we can do. So please reach out to me in that regard at any time.

Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure

N. Sharma (Chair): Besides the formal aspect of today, which was the election of the Chair and the Deputy Chair, the next thing we wanted to just talk about a little bit, out in the open, is the discussions we’ve been having about the very first part of our work together, which is figuring out how we’re going to work together and what those processes would be.

The first thing is that I met with the Deputy Chair, Shirley, yesterday and also with Sonia. We talked about the process of how we’re going to do justice to this whole committee. One of the things that I think we all agreed upon was the idea that we would have a subcommittee.

The thought of that subcommittee was to have a way, outside of the formal work of the committee, to figure out who is going to come, how the witnesses are, what the agendas are and how we can move the work of the committee, together, along. It seems to be one that I think most people would agree to, so that’s the next item.

All right, we have a motion on the floor to appoint the members of that subcommittee.

Can I ask somebody to move that motion? We’ll give you the wording of the motion to read it out loud.

Go ahead, Trevor.

T. Halford: I move that a subcommittee on agenda and procedure be appointed, comprised of the Chair, Niki Sharma, MLA; the Deputy Chair, Shirley Bond, MLA; Pam Alexis, MLA; Doug Routley, MLA; and Sonia Furstenau, MLA.

Motion approved.

Committee Terms of Reference

N. Sharma (Chair): Great. At the next part, you’ll see on the agenda we wanted to talk about the terms of reference and how we want to, probably, give a little bit of direction and a discussion from the committee to the subcommittee on the next steps.

I wanted to inform everybody of the conversations we’ve been having just amongst the now formal members of the subcommittee, the first one being that I think we all agree that it’s important to have a process to get the right people before us, so we can do justice to the topic.

There are some ideas about how we do that and what the work’s going to look like. I did want to say that I think everybody is in agreement that this is going to be a very intense committee, in terms of time commitment and the urgency of the matter. That means we’re all going to work hard to make sure that we have the time and space to do this justice on the timeline we’ve been given.

That also means that we may be meeting up to twice a week, if not more. There’s also a thought of just blocking off time, so we can be taking testimony from witnesses all at the same time in different parts. We’ll work through the details of that, but I just wanted to have that conversation out in the open about what the subcommittee is going to be thinking about and if there’s any input on that part.

There’s also been discussion about the fact…. I’m new to being Chair, so I’m also going to be learning as I go. But one of the things that I heard is that we’ve had a practice before of having some of these meetings in Vancouver at the Wosk Centre.

[12:10 p.m.]

That’s a way to sit down, and it may be more convenient for people or witnesses that are closer to the subject matter around the province or different areas to do that. I wanted to make sure we talked about that a little bit.

Also, the other thing that I think is a little bit, from the discussions we’ve had…. I think there’s an agreement on it, but I’m open to the discussion here — the fact that the first phase of our process would really be about level setting, so understanding the baseline of what the issue is, what the ministries are doing, what the key players are working on. Then, from that, the second phase being we figure out who the other witnesses and the other processes that we need go through to actually make sure we’re receiving all the information that we have.

I guess, open to discussion from committee members about any of those things, but particularly if it’s okay that the first phase be this phase of making sure that we have the key people that are setting the stage of what’s happening in the province right now. Then the subcommittee can go back on, I think, early next week and figure out who those people would be and come to some kind of agreement on that. Then Artour’s team can start working on scheduling and inviting those people. I think that’s kind of the first phase. Does that sound like a good approach? I’m open to discussion if anybody has any thoughts on that.

S. Furstenau: I think that’s a good starting place. I think we do have a list of 23 individuals who are really key, in that they are the authors of the coroners death panel review report, and that the….

[Interruption.]

I’m used to that.

The recent publication of this report really provides us, as a committee, with a lot to work with. A really current appraisal of the situation around the drug poisoning crisis. I think that that’s an ideal place for us to start as a committee, with this report and with the authors of this report, who clearly demonstrate a great deal of knowledge and understanding of the situation.

N. Sharma (Chair): Thanks for those comments. I did note, when I was looking over the witness list, that there are quite a few people that would come, probably, in different capacities, because they had a health authority or they had a…. Definitely, figuring out how we bring them in, I think, is going to be….

S. Chant: I would also like to suggest that we get current state about what is out there, in terms of what’s going on around the opioid crisis, like what has been implemented, because I haven’t a clue about all the stuff. I’d like to know what current state is so that we’re not duplicating in our thinking or anything like that. So if we could do that, that would be great.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I would like to just build on what Sonia said. I think that time is of the essence. As we sit having this conversation, all of us are heartbroken to know that seven people a day are dying. I think that compels us to be urgent in our work, to do our homework, to be willing to come to this work with an open mind and look at what is needed to help mitigate and, most importantly, stop people from dying.

I think that in order to facilitate expediting the work that we do, a good starting point is the 23 experts that, to Susie’s point — if you don’t mind if I call you by your first…. I think we recognize that they would understand current state pretty well, and they have come with a series of fairly urgent requests to say: “We believe this will make a difference.”

I think it’s incumbent upon us to ask: “Why do you think it would make a difference? Why do you think these timelines are actually achievable?” If they’re not, then we should at least be working toward our best efforts to examine why those timelines were provided.

[12:15 p.m.]

They wouldn’t have given them to British Columbians if they didn’t think it was doable. So I think starting with the experts that provided the report is a good starting place, and I think they would be anxious to talk to us about why they think these steps are manageable.

That’s how I feel, Niki.

N. Sharma (Chair): Thanks for that. Yeah, I think this is a good discussion to take, for the subcommittee here, when we go to think about what that list is. I appreciate that.

Any other…?

M. Starchuk: I don’t disagree with anything that I’ve heard so far, but I want to make sure that we also have the ability to have some of the people that have got their feet on the ground come forward. The report that’s there is kind of the after-people, at the end of the line. We’re not talking to the people that are out there on a day-to-day basis that see everything in a non-clinical setup. Some of those people….

I mean, I could talk about one group of people until the cows come home, and you know who they are. They have a definite opinion and an understanding of what’s taking place. While the 23 experts that are there…. There are a couple of groups that can’t be forgotten that are out there — and whether or not that’s actually the recovery industry that’s out there as well. I think that they need to come to the table.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah. This is great.

One thing I forgot to say, which I’ll say now, is that I think there’s a general — at least when I talked to Shirley — agreement in that context, and we’ll have further discussion. At some point, we need to figure out how to bring the federal government into the preliminary conversation because of the role they have in some of the aspects of the response. I neglected to say that, but I’ll say that as well.

P. Alexis: About three years ago now — I think it was three years ago — I was a mayor, and I went to listen to Dr. Bonnie Henry on the opioid crisis and how impactful that was in providing an overview for all of us in the room. It was so impactful that I actually went to her afterwards and said: “Could you please come and speak to my council? We need to understand this.”

If I could, I think it would be prudent to have Bonnie Henry in, in the beginning, to set the course, and then we bring in the other experts. She’s the one that has her finger on the pulse of all of it. So if I could just recommend that.

D. Routley: The other committee on which I sit is the Police Act review committee. Trevor, my friend there, is a member of the committee.

We did something that committees don’t normally do. Because of the stigma attached to a lot of the issues and the pressure on people professionally not to, perhaps, have an open discussion about these issues, we offered a confidential option. We did a survey and then offered survey participants an opportunity to submit to us. We did get submissions from active police officers and that sort of thing, who might have felt inhibited from commenting.

I wonder. Given that the number of people who are using alone…. Clearly they’re using alone because of the stigma attached. The stigma will also be attached to their presentation. So if committee members want to consider that kind of an option for people, we might get more frank contributions.

N. Sharma (Chair): That’s a good suggestion.

T. Halford: I apologize. I have a meeting that I set for about a month ago.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah, no worries, Trevor. If you have any thoughts that you wanted to pass on, let me know. Or Shirley will.

H. Sandhu: I just want to add to what Mike said, in talking to people on the ground. Also, all of us can say that there are a lot of people — even their parents don’t even know that they’re doing drugs. They don’t want to admit. It’s a stigma, and so many factors are involved.

I wanted to echo what Doug said. When we had that option put out there on the police committee, we got many more presentations from both sides, police and victims, and people who didn’t feel comfortable. Then that really helped us to have wholesome background, the voices that perhaps we wouldn’t have had if we didn’t have that option available. So I really think it’s valuable.

[12:20 p.m.]

Again, involving the people who have their boots on the ground will be really valuable. How that will look will just be open to what committee members suggest. So I just wanted to echo those two points.

S. Cadieux: I think some of the suggestions are valid, legitimate and probably helpful to the committee. They are also things that will take longer, and this is urgent. I want to reiterate that I think we have a starting point, and that’s the panel, the 23 people on the panel. That’s where we should start, and we should start right away.

I think, beyond that, the decision around how to involve and when to schedule all of these other very valid contributors is great, but I think it’s almost like a two-step process. Get working on the first set. We know who they are, and then, that broader set that we might have to reach out to, in a way — reach out to the community for people to speak, etc., decide on which agency.

However we might want to break that down and in what format, I think, is a good piece of work for the subcommittee. But I think the decision to…. We don’t want the subcommittee to go away and have a conversation about setting meetings for July. Like, let’s go.

S. Furstenau: I really appreciate everybody’s input and comments. I think it puts us off to a really good start as a committee — that we are, essentially, on the same page that it is urgent, that we need to be oriented towards solutions and actions.

I really appreciate, Doug, your comment about finding ways to invite people to contribute in ways that provide them with a sense of safety and security. I think we also need to recognize the importance of the voices of people who use drugs as part of our work here. Shirley and I….

You’ve talked a lot about this. There is a component of our work that is about having this conversation, looking at this health emergency in the public and as a public exercise, and that it is elected representatives, really, maybe for the first time in this province, having this conversation in public, on the record — bringing in, yes, absolutely, the experts who put this report together and who laid out an action plan and, of course, the input and expertise of people who are most at risk from this poisonous drug supply and who are working on the front lines.

I just want to say that I’m really heartened by, already, what’s clearly been thought put in by the members and the commitment to moving this quickly but also with a view to how this is incredibly important work. This has been a six-year health emergency, and we are now, finally, getting to it as a legislature.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I was just going to say that I think that it isn’t either-or. As Steph pointed out, I think that lining up all these other people is important. It may be a little bit further down the road. I’m really interested in the way Doug described what we need to do, because we know that part of the challenge is people don’t tell anyone for a lot of very powerful reasons.

Sonia described it as they need a safe space, and I think that all of us would agree. I am a very strong believer that this conversation does need to take place on the public record, and I have a really compelling reason for that. We need to bring the public with us as we learn, as we explore and as we wrestle with these issues. We’re not always going to agree. I think that’s a healthy and important part of getting to a place to say this is what we think we should do.

To Mike’s point, I totally agree. I mean, I’m no expert, and I certainly haven’t experienced many things that people on the ground have. I don’t see it as either-or. I see it as a combination of looking at all of those things and the flexibility to find ways to make it safe for people to come and talk to us.

[12:25 p.m.]

On the other hand, all of us know that there is an urgency that we have to reflect in the way we do this work. I don’t know about you, but I can’t…. We’re going to get another set of numbers very shortly. They’re not going to be, likely, very positive.

For us to be worrying about more process…. We just need to roll up our sleeves and get at it. I think that the death review panel actually gives us a chance, at least. If the targets are not doable, have them tell us why they’re not. I think that’s a fair question.

Thank you, Niki. I appreciate that.

D. Routley: I appreciate that comment, and I agree with you. There’s no reason for us to wait for any of it. Everything that can be front-loaded to the process is a good thing.

Another concern that I have is that so much of what drives people into these circumstances is trauma related. How we speak to people can contribute to that and make it worse or encourage other people who are hearing us to seek help versus trigger people. It’s not the urgency. It’s not on the urgent side, but I think we could benefit, as our committee did, from a trauma-informed approach to it.

S. Chant: I think I’m saying the same thing that Shirley is, which is that I think we’ve got myriad of tracks we can follow. There’s a whole bunch of really talented people in this room, and we can do that.

The death report, absolutely, is a component, as are all these other things. It can all work in a forward momen­tum so that we’re meeting that urgency need, so that we’re not doing one and then the next and then the next. We’re doing what nurses do: everything at once.

Interjection.

S. Chant: Get it done.

As you said, as well, Stephanie. Let’s just move forward.

N. Sharma (Chair): I think that’s all the hands that were up. I guess, just to summarize, I hear from everybody a really strong need to not only address this issue appropriately but the passion to work together in a respectful way and respect the people that are before us in trauma-informed way. I’m just really looking forward to the journey that we’re going to take together, because I think it will have impact.

I heard specifically about the urgency, and also members of the death review panel, and how we process that. Also, Dr. Bonnie Henry, I think, was another name, and how we bring in people who are on the front lines and the timing of that. I think, appropriately, it sounds like the subcommittee is tasked to come up with that first level of lists of how we get started and who those people are.

Then, scheduling is going to be a thing, so we’ll work on clearing our schedules to make sure that we have the blocks in our calendars. I think that’s going to be important to do, knowing all of our schedules, as quickly as we can. Stay tuned for that kind of work. I think that’s going be a good way to set it up.

Otherwise, is there anything else anybody wants to talk about before we…?

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): In terms of the terms of reference, one thing that I do have a very substantive concern about is the impression that we’re going to do all of this work, and we will somehow get to November, and we’ll issue a report. We were assured that the committee’s life doesn’t necessarily…. The work will continue. We’ve been assured that it’s not like in November, you’re done.

I’m also concerned that we limit our thinking to one grand report in November. I think there are opportunities along the way. If there are things that need to be raised, if there are ways to report out in the meantime, I think that’s absolutely crucial. I think when people sit and think that we’re going to sit around a table, come up with a grand report by November…. Can you imagine what the numbers are going to be by the time we work our way through each month?

I think we just need, Niki, to consider the flexibility to say…. I don’t think that the terms of reference preclude us from having additional times of reporting. Maybe there is some sort of document in November, but I’m way less worried about than I am about every single day looking at ways that we can shift momentum and begin to take some specific action.

[12:30 p.m.]

I would hope that as we discuss this, we will also talk about…. What do we do between now and November to communicate, to recommend, to do something, rather than simply meet and start drafting in September? I’m, frankly, not interested in that. What I want to do is make sure that we are working aggressively, expediting the timelines and figuring out how we’re going to make some suggestions long before November.

N. Sharma (Chair): Artour just whispered in my ear here that there’s nothing in the terms of reference that precludes interim reports. That’s something that we, as a committee, can think about and decide on as we go. I think the first section of the level setting will really kind of help us figure out the next steps of that. That’s something to keep in mind.

P. Alexis: I want to say…. I think we will evolve into some sort of pattern, but I don’t know that we can predict today what that’s going to look like. I agree we will likely, I’m thinking, have themes, perhaps. Maybe there’s the first theme that we can report out on and the second theme and the third.

I’m thinking how we kind of divide this up into manageable pieces. Otherwise, you’re right. We will be November with the whole package. It would make sense, logically, to look at breaking it down into sections of sorts. That would help us set agendas and that kind of thing.

D. Routley: Not wanting to presume the outcome of the subcommittee’s work, but maybe we could put it on the table now to make an initial outreach to the authors of the report to speed up that process.

Then a lot of the issues that you’ve raised, Shirley, around immediacy and urgency of some recommendations might become very clear in that.

Members, can we sort of agree that…?

S. Chant: You’re saying reach out already, like today.

D. Routley: Yeah. We’ve got the committee to do the agenda and all of that, but if we want to answer the urgency…. Unless somebody objects to that.

N. Sharma (Chair): I think, basically, the subcommittee would take a look at the list of people that were part of that report. When I looked at that list…. There’s overlap. Some of them are the heads of health authorities. They’re also authors of that. I think there may be more that we might want to ask them about.

Also, I noticed that there was nobody from the Northern Health Authority or the northern health regions in that report, and there’s only one Indigenous, as far as I can tell…. Somebody can tell me. Just the thought process that I think we have to have when we look at who we’re inviting. And a mention of Dr. Bonnie Henry.

We’ll round it out and then figure out, I think, together how we’re going to approach that.

D. Routley: Can I follow up, then? How soon will we meet as a subcommittee? What’s the proposal there?

N. Sharma (Chair): We were thinking early next week or something quicker than that. I think as quickly as we can to figure that out. Artour’s team has been great about figuring out when we can get invitations and all that. I think we can move on that pretty quickly once we figure that out.

Stephanie and then Sonia.

S. Cadieux: I’m good. I think Doug and I are on the same page.

S. Furstenau: I know it’s her report, but she hasn’t been mentioned specifically. I think the coroner definitely needs to be on our list.

N. Sharma (Chair): Right. Yeah. Okay.

Great. I don’t know if there are any other hands up. I didn’t see any.

Go ahead, Shirley.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Can I just ask: is it our intention to attempt to at least meet during break weeks? Otherwise, we have a lot of chunks of time where…. To be honest, those are the days where you need to line up….

Sonia and I had a conversation which I thought was really interesting. Sonia’s ideas were around doing some grouping, Niki, of people and then setting aside half a day for a group of this and then half a day…. That’s how we’re gong to demonstrate, I think, that we are committed to making this work.

I just wanted to raise it. I know that people may need to have a break, but on the other hand, we have work to do.

[12:35 p.m.]

N. Sharma (Chair): We have to block off calendar time, for sure. That’s going to be one of our quicker things, like I said — to figure out what our blocks of time….

The same day that I talked to Sonia…. Artour mentioned the same thing, this idea of panels. We have a topic that we want to cover. We figure out who the people are and try to bring in different perspectives or different regions, geographically, or whatever we think the diverse views are, and then block off the time and have that panel present to us so we’re doing it. I think that’s a good idea. I think it would really help us absorb things.

I also think it’s a good idea to block off times out of our calendars that are not just evenings but a morning or an afternoon or a couple of days where we can do that so we get through it in a faster way. I see a lot of heads nodding on that. It sounds like there’s agreement on that approach. So we’ll have to get time blocked off, for sure.

S. Chant: Are we able to do some of it virtually, or is it all going to be in person?

N. Sharma (Chair): I’m open to virtual. I think that helps people participate. It’s a way we can move things faster, unless anybody objects. I think the preference is in person with a lot of the people, but if there are exceptions, I think that works. It’s better than having to reschedule based on one person’s inability to come in person.

H. Sandhu: Just as to scheduling, I never call it break week, because I haven’t had any breaks. I’m not a Monday-to-Friday person. That’s all we did all our lives. My upcoming break is already booked. I call it constituency week. So tours, announcements or other meetings with stakeholders or individuals.

If there is an option for virtual, we can fit that, squeeze that. Some of the meetings I can postpone; some I really…. My staff and I have been working for weeks, if not months, on a plan. If there is a virtual option…. I will, as we do with other committees, make every attempt to attend in person. With some of us travelling…. I really want to…. Let’s get it done. Then I won’t have to shift a lot of other things that we just finalized for those two weeks.

N. Sharma (Chair): We’ll definitely work with people, because there are a lot of different schedules at play right now. We’ll work offline to figure out where we block off time and make sure we get chunks of time as fast as possible.

Are there any objections to virtual participation, if that’s an option that keeps us going?

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): I think that the option should be hybrid so that wherever possible, people are in person. This is a very intense topic. It’s one thing when you’re sitting on the end of a camera, and you’re doing other things and who knows what all else. I think hybrid is fine, but I think that the emphasis should be on in person wherever possible.

Artour made it clear to us in our initial conversation, Niki, that there is a budget. So that’s not an issue for those of us who have to travel. Vancouver may well be an opportunity as well. I’m not opposed to virtual, but I would prefer to see a hybrid model that emphasizes being in person wherever possible.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah. I kind of agree with the point…. We don’t want to bring somebody in when we’re all on screens. If one person or one or two people have to be participating virtually, it feels different than if we’re all…. Yeah. Okay.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Yes. I agree with that.

D. Routley: I’m just acknowledging the different, disparate challenges in getting here for Harwinder, for Shirley. For me, it’s easy to come here, just a little bit more difficult to go to Vancouver. It seems to me that Vancouver would be the closest for most people during break weeks and would get most of us there, if the committee has large enough room in the budget to do that.

P. Alexis: This is a question. If we are gathering in Vancouver, could we do a full day? That way, we could make use of the time. I’d have to block my calendar off, even if I was doing a morning session. By the time I’d get back to my community — I’d be using the West Coast Express — I wouldn’t be able…. If you could do a big chunk so that we can get work done, that’s what I would hope.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah, that’s fair, and then you can organize around it. But you know that it’s blocked.

P. Alexis: Exactly.

S. Chant: Do it at the Fairmont at the airport.

N. Sharma (Chair): I actually don’t know how that process works. We’ve identified….

S. Chant: It’s a hub for everybody else. You can travel in, travel out in the same day. That’s how we did a lot of our inter–health authority work. Everybody came into the Fairmont in the airport then flew out again and didn’t have to try and get downtown and back from downtown.

[12:40 p.m.]

N. Sharma (Chair): I just was informed that one of the reasons they pick the location…. It has to be dependent on how Hansard can work or whether or not it’s set up, the ability to make it, so that’s probably at Wosk. I take your point, though. Let’s get a convenient location or the best we can.

S. Furstenau: I’m going to put in a word for the Wosk Centre. Coming in by Helijet or Harbour Air, it’s a walk to there. It precludes…. In fact, flying into airports is actually quite a bit more cumbersome, time-wise…

N. Sharma (Chair): Right. To get to the airport and to get…. It cuts into time.

S. Furstenau: …whereas the option to get to downtown Vancouver, especially from other areas, is easier.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): Just one last question. I’m assuming that everyone will receive some of the reading material. That would be helpful. Has everyone received it?

Interjection.

S. Bond (Deputy Chair): No. So I guess I don’t know if we want to wait to have that discussion at subcommittee, but there are a lot of important…. To Susie’s point about what the current state is, well, we also need to know what has been recommended in the past, what has made a difference. There are all kinds of….

Artour assured us that there is a crackerjack research team, so there you go. He was very complimentary; I want you to know that. I do think that reading and doing our homework also is really important. I think the sooner we get materials out to people, we can start to immerse ourselves in some of the terminology, the things we all need to learn. I know I have a lot of learning to do.

N. Sharma (Chair): That’s a good point. So Artour is on it. We’re good. We’ll get that.

D. Routley: I don’t mean to chime in so often. Do we have a large enough budget to seek best-practice advice from other jurisdictions and that sort of approach? I know that’s probably subcommittee work, but just if the budget is there….

N. Sharma (Chair): Yes. It’s a good question, Doug. It’s very clearly in our terms of reference to look at other jurisdictions and services and programs that might be working there. I think that’s going to be…. I don’t know if it’s part of the budget, but I think that’s going to be really interesting for us to dive into. We can figure out when and how we do that, but definitely, it’s part of it. I don’t know about the budget question.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): Committees aren’t actually empowered to travel outside of British Columbia. I don’t know if that’s what the suggestion is, but certainly we could ask experts to come and present before the committee.

D. Routley: In fact, that wasn’t the suggestion. I can see how you’d take that. We wanted to go to New Zealand as a police committee but…. A lot of our presentations were virtual, and we sought people from…. We had a police chief from Longueuil, Quebec.

A. Sogomonian (Clerk to the Committee): We can bring people in.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah, definitely.

P. Alexis: I just wanted to say that one of the beauties of a hybrid is that you can bring in people who normally wouldn’t be able to access us. Certainly, in Finance it has made a huge difference. I think we even met with a woman who had rowed to an island in her rowboat and found Wi-Fi in this little cabin, and she actually managed to present from way up north. We would never have been able to reach her otherwise. It’s a great thing to be able to offer that.

For some people, they might feel more comfortable behind a screen talking about things that they’re not really sharing with us face to face. I think we have to be mindful of that too.

N. Sharma (Chair): Yeah, good points. I think it’s going to be a very interesting way to connect with people we might not have been able to, and a good learning experience.

Okay, anything else? We’ve got some clear next…. Did I miss anything? I think we are good. We will go to scheduling some things as quickly as possible.

Any other business? I guess that’s the next thing to formally ask. No. Okay.

Then we’ll get a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:44 p.m.