Response to the provincial third-party review on supportive housing in Maple Ridge with comments, some recommendations, and opinion on the state of the social safety net in BC:
For reference linked below are background articles on why this investigation was initiated, and the expectations that were to be met from the local government perspective:
Link: Maple Ridge Mayor Mike Morden also voiced criticism, saying: “It is evident that currently there is inappropriate service provision based on assessed client needs. “Poor outcomes are avoidable which raises a lot of questions as to why many residents have not progressed, tragically with some passing away living in these facilities,” Morden added. “The city appreciates the prompt response by the minister, and supports the independent review of the service provision record and practices at Royal Crescent,” he said in a statement. “Our hope is that this review will provide an honest needs assessment to determine appropriate supports required at the new facility. This will ensure the best possible outcomes for the operator, the residents, as well the neighbourhood. “I know from my conversations with Minister Eby, that he is invested in finding solutions that seek best practices and outcomes to help people with complex care needs. Ordering this review reflects his commitment to obtain a better way to address these challenges.” MR News march 2022
Link: Royal Crescent residents’ concerns reproduced by Global
Link: to further very specific resident testimonies remain unaddressed by the third-party report
https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/woman-lists-people-dying-in-maple-ridge-supportive-housing/
Three months later, the government has determined what will be investigated, but has yet to choose the party to do the job linked here: “BC Housing has completed a scope of work to support the review of Royal Crescent operations and is in the process of selecting a third-party consultant,” said Tim Chamberlin, senior communications advisor for BC Housing. He said the review will include examining current practices, seeking input from residents, community members, the City of Maple Ridge, and Fraser Health Authority, and gathering recommendations for this site. A timeline for the review will be determined after a consultant is hired. Once the review is complete, a report with any recommendations will be released publicly. “We take any allegations or complaints regarding safety of residents very seriously,” he said. “The review is our commitment to due diligence in response to community concerns regarding the operation of the building. We want to ensure the operator, Coast Mental Health, is being provided with the support and resources.”
Link: Latest news article with comments from the current mayor and BC United critic
Link: Province announces in Nov 2021 they must use an executive order (statutory Immunity) to expedite Royal Crescent supportive housing to Fraser St with promised completion date of summer 2022. The project isn’t completing now till summer 2024, further the city had offered an alternative immediately available viable location, demonstrating once again the abuse of cabinet order provisions overriding local government https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021AG0172-002159 New continuum of housing coming for people in Maple Ridge | BC Gov News
Link to full PDF report: Coast Mental Health’s full report to BC Housing and the province of BC from Aug 2019-2020
Link to full PDF report: Mike Morden full report on supportive housing in Maple Ridge
Link to full PDF report: Ernst & Young first report into BC Housing
Link to City of Maple Ridge Community Social Safety Initiative concept
Link to City of Maple Ridge proof of concept under provincially approved CSSI demonstration project dashboard and reports
Link to submission by private sector developer on permanent sustainable affordable rental housing funding proposal in at the federal government since February 2022
____________________________________
Here are some key items identified in Coast Mental Health’s own report to BC Housing and the province of BC from Aug 2019-2020:
____________________________________
Recommendations & Key Points
- The third-party investigative report that was to investigate the deaths of more than a dozen people who died from medical complications failed to accurately identify causes of death, how they might have been prevented, to inform and improve the model, and therefore properly identify resources required to achieve better outcomes for those in government care.
- Supportive housing, by CMH’s own report, fails to deliver a safe or healthy environment for staff & clients, nor achieve positive outcomes for those with complex problems. A complete full service and outcomes review is required on the supportive housing model throughout BC.
- The Province’s commitment for 8 complex care beds for 152 units is clearly inadequate given the evidence furnished by the operator, who make it plain they cannot effectively manage clients with significant levels of complexity.
- The report omits an in depth review by public health given the death rate as well the challenges noted by the operator, their clients, and the reports made by concerned citizens that tripped the review in the first place. There are a host of various health problems systemic within supportive housing. In light of the evidence, reflected in the disturbing number of hospitalizations, causes of which remain unexplored with only a minor note on staph infection, fails to address why many died and continue to do so. The amount of communicable infections, the serious levels of MRSA infection alone should raise major alarm bells, along with other chronic health problems, it is abundantly clear that qualified health care professionals must be utilized to support individuals whose assessment calls for a higher level of care in order to facilitate improvement to better health. This is not only the case for many in supportive housing, but also is prevalent in other government housing provisions such as shelters, which requires greater review. Clinical assessments conducted by health professionals through client treatment plans would result in reduced risk of death and ideally the upward movement of clients through the health/housing continuum, best conducted in purpose built facilities.
- Professional health assessments would prevent the conflation of placing those who struggle with income capacity and/or accessibility from physical disability into supportive housing. They generally need little support of which can be accessed within the community, and should not be co-located within any facility that cares for those with complex concurrent mental health and substance misuse problems.
- Demand access to detox, treatment and long term recovery beds must be a top priority given the demand and lack of supply given the five month waiting lists, which clearly is reflected in death by overdose from illicit drugs.
- BC Housing mandate requires a more extensive forensic audit by an independent third party on spending, accountability, service lines, and outcomes attained. The terms of reference (ToR) given Ernst & Young were not broad enough for the proper review of BCH. The same applies to the ToR given the CMH third party reviewer. BCH did not ask them to directly address those who died in Maple Ridge supportive housing. Given the provincial government now has a dedicated housing minister, consider that either BCH’s mandate be rolled-back by the province to government ordered infrastructure building and development only, or that BCH be fully repatriated under the ministry responsible. Should greater accountability be required in the absence of an external independent third party (such as the ombudsmen’s office) that an independent public housing/health advocate office be established to ensure that better outcomes are attained.
- Given we are in a province and country wide housing crisis, it makes sense this most important fundamental need for all people comes under direct government ministry control, particularly given the exposure of so many problems within the BC Housing crown corporation with further findings as yet be ascertained, given this shallow review, and the lack of transparency on unreleased report(s). Direct control, along with the requisite accountability, will better serve government, the citizens of BC, to build the much-needed government mandate of social housing.
- Private sector needs far greater facilitation to build market housing by the respective authority having jurisdiction with a much faster approvals process. Time and borrowing costs are the greatest two factors that can be improved, save and except materials, which a better and more robust Canadian supply chain might also improve.
- That the Province of BC amend the governing legislation to provide significantly more rigour and transparency on the use of Executive Cabinet Orders, and resist the ongoing erosion of local government land use authority.
- That the Province of BC, to the proposition of issuing permits on certain land under the purview of local government, rather than override local land use authority once again under official community plans, hold municipal governments to account to do their share to meet the continuum of needs for the entire province. Set and monitor those targets, possibly provide incentives, informed by the provincially required housing assessments conducted by municipal governments, rather than the divisive approach of interfering with delegated responsibility of local government. There are hurdles at all levels of government to approve development; all levels need to be held to account for laboriously slow processing time, a significant factor in the cost of housing.
- The federal government must facilitate fixed low cost lending for social housing throughout the country, an updated national housing program, informed by provincially required housing assessment gap analyses undertaken by municipalities, and build thousands of a more simple form of homes (such as the private sector proposal facilitating a permanent sustainable affordable rental housing funding proposal in at the federal government that’s been floating through federal cabinet since early 2022 that will provide low cost borrowing with the creation of a sustained housing CMHC funding vehicle facilitated by the bank of Canada).
___________________________________
Comments for the Province on the Supportive Housing report:
The third-party investigative report was to determine why more than a dozen people died from medical complications at one government contracted facility, what happened and why, and to inform recommendations that would improve a model of care that is demonstrably failing to obtain better outcomes for their clients. The report fails to address what happened and why, nothing on causes of death, and no apparent input from the coroner’s office and their pertinent data. Where is the accountability? Where is the onus of responsibility on the province for their contracted service providers? Why didn’t the third-party reviewer objectively tackle these deaths? Those who passed away, their families and loved ones deserve better, as do all those reliant on the province for housing, as well the requisite care they need to journey to better lives. I’ve also been on this journey alongside many, with my own family, and the model is deeply broken and failing people and communities.
In an internal report issued by CMH to BC Housing and the Province back in 2019, CMH recommended that proper medical resources were needed and a proper facility. Fair enough, and as CMH’s own report clearly shows, evidenced by hospitalizations, workplace safety and violence events, the model is incapable of delivering positive outcomes for those with complex physical and mental problems, plus there’s next to no upward movement for their clients. CMH clearly identify their inability to attract and retain staff given workplace safety, most particularly the nurse support (which should also have been evaluated for actual services delivered), all indicative of their adequacy to properly support seriously complex clients.
The numbers of referrals into treatment once again calls upon the Province of BC to provide demand access to detox and treatment services, sorely lacking in BC with five months reported wait lists. Yet the Province is opening a new facility for the same clients with only eight complex care beds of additional service across all three CMH locations for 152 clients; three successive councils have called this service provision inadequate. All supportive housing around the province is supposed to be reviewed and reports provided to ensure needs are being met, lives are improving, improvements sought to the chosen model. Where are the reports? How is the model doing across all locations?
To the report on Royal Crescent, where is the qualitative data on client assessments on various individual needs? Should operations continue demonstrating these kind of results, a new building will change little other than impose a failed model onto a new neighbourhood, nor obtain improvement for clients, and the various secondary consequences will continue to negatively impact the community, such as crime and unsustainable demands on first responder resources. A proper qualitative assessment would have shown how many clients simply need a home they can afford, how many require a far higher level of professional support given their complexities, and therein lies the crux of the matter, the current model fails as those responsible won’t differentiate two significantly different resource requirements or fund them accordingly. In our community there hasn’t been any social housing built in Maple Ridge that people can actually afford, nor any additional substance misuse treatment bed capacity run by trained professionals.
I was pleased to see that specialization would be considered within buildings, just the same as the city had recommended when Burnett first came on line, and that this step should be taken across all three locations. The city had suggested to CMH to consider housing those with disabilities or income challenges (Alouette Heights), those with predominantly mental health problems at Burnett (an ideal location in that CMH had a $1M private grant for mental health service provision), and Royal Crescent for those with primarily addiction challenges coming from encampments or the street and typically the hardest to house, thereby permitting staff resources to be better appropriated for client needs. However, the former director at CMH advised us that BCH wouldn’t permit this. How is it that BCH is making determinations on health assessments? It makes far better sense these assessments be conducted by healthcare professionals.
How is this acceptable for the clients, the operator, the community and most importantly to those ultimately responsible at the Province of BC? It is blatantly obvious that this facility needs to be run by medically trained professionals in order to appropriately and sufficiently address clients’ assessed needs. Anything short of this level of service is the shameful warehousing of people. If health professionals were embedded into this facility (a new facility my council sought to provide) there is no way they would accept a facility operating with this level of persons with declining physical and mental health, communicable diseases, rampant MRSA infections, drug overdose levels, let alone not intervene on other as yet un-clarified medical causes of death, or put up with the workplace safety issues and lack of access to primary care.
The third-party report fails to identify the negative criminal activities that are permitted to occur on site, such as human and drug trafficking, theft, acts of violence, weapons, organized criminal gang control as CMH did back in 2019. Crime data from the jurisdictional police should have informed the report with request for comment and recommendations.
Additionally, the interviews with the residents were conducted in a highly inappropriate way given the client population, with clients reporting a manager standing at the door of the open meeting room where clients were invited to report on their experiences. The only meeting that took place outside CMH facilities was in a local community space, hardly conducive to a safe interview. These are grave ethics violations when undertaking confidential third-party reviews, ones that require ‘one-on-one’ privacy in a safe venue with guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. This should raise several questions for both the province and their operator.
For this site, and the others run by CMH in Maple Ridge, the city called for a review of the service provider, demanded a higher appropriate service level of client care, and input into those decisions but the report neglects to examine or document these important details.
It is clear the third-party independent investigation undertook a flawed process on several fronts, one where accountability is due.
Some Maple Ridge context on what the city did accomplish on community safety and efforts to help others, and facilitate senior government investments into housing, a serious problem that many communities in BC are trying to address:
In 2018, the City of Maple Ridge on its own volition built a community social safety plan with the genuine intent to help people and mitigate a community safety problem, not unlike what many communities are experiencing all around BC. We went to then Premier Horgan, requested and received support for demonstration project status in order to tackle some aspects of community safety slightly differently. This came about given the demands made of us by the public, ongoing since 2014 when Fentanyl hit our streets. The plan was designed and implemented over three years using a three-tiered public safety model, with a concurrent plan component to ensure those struggling with our broken social safety net in BC could be facilitated the help they need. The significant change to tackle public safety differently was the establishment of community safety officers as the second tier, to directly work with the small but very resource demanding sector of our population. They are purpose hired for their compassion, heart, along with related experience in public safety. They are mandated to take a more understanding approach through intervention, de-escalation, and to apply alternate justice tools our council facilitated, such as integrated courts, diversion restorative justice, and various local bylaws emulating provincial law. The intent was not to punish those struggling as a result of social circumstance, but facilitate various outcomes. Policing must evolve to be best situated to respond to these challenges, and not bear the sole responsibility for public safety response. The Community Social Safety Initiative’s (CSSI) last official published data from August 2022 demonstrated a large measure of success, despite the lack of cooperation and follow through of investments promised by BC Housing and the province, similarly sustained by many local governments. Communities desperately need social housing that people can afford, which is not a municipal responsibility. Despite the poor level of cooperation and lack of investments in treatment and housing, the city still posted a 10% reduction in overdose deaths, while the provincial average continues to exponentially climb. This I might add was without the provision of a safe injection site or safe drug supply. There is change now in the form of illicit drug decriminalization but, as Oregon proves resoundingly, the overdose death rate by dangerous drugs hasn’t abated. The trajectory in BC won’t change either until we adequately punish those that prey on society’s most vulnerable, and facilitate viable options for those struggling, who demand access to viable pathways out of the cycle.
Our CSSI proved out that with a city led coordinated approach, one with local collaboration, coordination and public endorsement, better outcomes for all could be and were achieved. The one major gap, aside from a desperate need for government provided social housing, is the woefully underfunded detox, treatment and long-term supported recovery. It seems largely forgotten as one of the four pillars to tackle substance misuse. The social safety net has broken down over two decades, there’s a lot of shared blame and continued finger pointing, but no real action being taken by the various orders of government from their respective domains. Everything from access to healthcare, approving qualified medical professionals, importing the talent that we need to build our country, providing housing people can afford, and more recently the severe income capacity gap for many to address cost of living in BC. There is now an exodus underway; some of our future is leaving the province to Alberta and Saskatchewan for one major reason, the unsustainable cost of living in BC. To provide one example, the average earnings of those around Edmonton is $104K with a take home of $91k after tax, they can buy a very decent home for around $400k, so who can fault young families from leaving when the cost to living is so high in BC. Rare is the case when BC with its immigration levels shows a population decline, but we are declining. Wonder why? Try booking a U-Haul moving truck out of this province headed east and you’ll get a sense of the seriousness of a bigger picture.
Comments from the Maple Ridge perspective on efforts to work with the province, particularly with the largely unaccountable crown corporation BC Housing:
As part of our commitment to build a complete housing continuum, the city provided land for a treatment centre, one with a ready operator under letter of intent, with an NDP commitment to fund treatment beds from the 2021 election, supported by Fraser Health, with BC Housing once again road blocking the project. It is my opinion that the Ernst and Young report failed to go anywhere near the depths it needed to on BC Housing, because the ToR for the E & Y review didn’t allow them to capture all the activities at BCH. Over many years their mandate has suffered from scope creep and lack of government accountability. As well, if one reviews BCH’s mandate as a crown of the province, what they should be doing is providing infrastructure for government funded housing. BCH is not able to, nor is qualified to tend to those with complex health problems. This role should fall to healthcare professionals, yet BCH procures and funds healthcare as part of their contracts. BC Housing’s mandate needs far greater review. They are hardly the right department of government to be delivering healthcare, particularly given their evidenced poor results.
There should also be a deeper review on how BC Housing has been spending public money. When BCH was able to access an 80% complete residential building through the courts for $11 million, why is it that the same building once complete was then purchased using BCH and CMHC money for $23 million? Why also was BCH able to assist with well over a million dollars in funding the purchase of a strip mall on five days’ notice by a non-profit? A Provincial Treasury Board approval in five days? Why was it that the Royal Crescent modular housing complex wasn’t moved to the alternative location when the city was asked to, and did provide, an immediately available option on a two-week demand notice by the province?
The reason given to the public was that the facility was past end of life. Indeed, it was, and we prompted this to be addressed on several occasions. BC Housing was apparently too busy around Maple Ridge, with cheque book in hand, along with an assessor team, trying to buy various other properties in our community rather than work with local government. We were a very motivated partner, desperately seeking government housing to be built, but in a way that respected our Community Plan, through proper process and public engagement, along with surety that the projects would meet their respective needs. For all the city’s efforts, we had complete support by all parties, except BCH. Community plans are required of municipalities but not necessarily honored when it comes to the current government and BC Housing. Two successive councils in Maple Ridge wanted better support for those struggling, and if one looks at the evidence, it is abundantly clear time and again that insufficient supports were being given. Funding commitments were made by the province and BCH for $60 million during 2014-2018 term, and $200 million during the 2018–2022 term. Two modular housing complexes were built without any proper public process, rezoning, imposed by three cabinet orders, including one for the new location of the Royal Crescent facility, citing that they couldn’t wait any longer. That was simply untrue, in fact the complete opposite. The city provided a far more viable alternative location for the immediately available modular units in storage from a cancelled project in Langley, with land contributions, $2 Million in non-profit funding, a project that also facilitated an additional highway lane needed for the Haney bypass, a plan that included the years overdue phased rebuild of the rotten Salvation Army building, that is in the same poor condition as the Royal Crescent modulars and frankly unfit housing for humans given its age and ongoing capacity demands. The city provided a viable plan to not only address Royal Crescent, but also the Burnett modulars (which is also on temporary building support foundation which are now well past their three-year end of life date), replacement of the Salvation Army building, the decommissioning of Royal Crescent for seniors housing (which my council approved), a provincial road problem fix, and the provision of a treatment facility run by trained professionals. None of the plan came to fruition thanks to BC Housing and the province. You have to wonder whether BCH really intended to solve these problems for people who desperately needed these investments to come about?
Cooperation in any form is simply not in BC Housing’s DNA. It is one of those public secrets in local government leadership circles that needs to be brought to bear. The Province and BC Housing made some very questionable decisions. We even took the trouble to review our plan with former BC Housing executive staff as viable and reasonable. This crown corporation needs a full forensic audit, not only on its finances but the ToR needs to head a whole lot deeper than those provided to Ernst & Young. An independent third-party review should not have its terms set by the very party under investigation, and BCH has been involved with setting these, the same was the case in the supportive housing review just released, all of which should raise serious questions for the province. Further, the province should carefully review the core service mandate of BCH, which ultimately is accountable for all undertakings of BCH and all crown corporations. Finally, all publicly funded operations, such as CMH, should be objectively and truly independently reviewed to ensure their deliverables are satisfactory, and report those findings to the public. In undertaking a review of all supportive housing in BC, my sense is the outcomes would arrive at a natural conclusion that an independent advocate office should be established to analyze and monitor these forms of government care. The province owes a public accounting on all its provincial supportive housing operations, particularly BC Housing, not only to those who have died, their families, but also to the taxpayers who pay for what is a model that is failing to deliver any positive outcomes for those who are truly challenged to find a way out of the cycle.
Comments and recommendations for all government on the very much related need within the overall housing continuum:
The federal government must facilitate fixed low-cost borrowing through the Bank of Canada to fund rental, social housing and possibly all public infrastructure. On social housing, the GST under certain criteria is now to be eliminated which is a start, please look at and implement any additional effective tax incentives we need to build the housing and possibly the much-needed community infrastructure all over our country.
The federal government must also fund Housing for First Nations, this is not a provincial responsibility, so why is BC funding this? Municipal governments have enough cost pressures, many unable to meet the rapid growth demands, build and maintain core local infrastructure, they shouldn’t be expected to be paying for any social housing, make land contributions, supply a percentage of units in various projects at below market rental rates, because in the end home buyers ultimately pick up the entire bill anyway. The downloading onto local ratepayers is bad enough from things like overdose response with most urban cities funding half the costs resulting from an inadequate ambulance service, having to beef up local public safety response given the demands of those on our streets who have no housing, access to treatment, access to government services they need etc. Simply put local government has enough on their own housing and infrastructure agenda to build for their market needs to be paying for services or infrastructure that until a couple of decades ago all fell to senior government.
Recently stated by provincial housing minister Kahlon, “non-market social housing should be built by the province, facilitated with public money and lands”, so please go do just that! To meet the extreme demands under the various domains, market housing should be built by the private sector, and government should build and fund social housing and not expect municipal governments to fund any part, or be compensated accordingly. The key is everyone working in tandem to meet local, regional, provincial and national targets, factor growth, identify and set targets within all of the various areas of the housing continuum, and hold each to account to deliver them. However the continued undermining of jurisdictional authority around land use must stop.
If this province and country is serious about building housing, it had best facilitate the necessary money at fixed low rates, and create a sustainable funding vehicle for the foreseeable future, such as the concept proposed that has been with the federal government for evaluation for 18 months. Material costs are already high enough which are likely harder than ever to obtain at lower cost, however savings might be obtained by allowing simpler forms like modular housing. Also consider a reduction in some of the unnecessary demands regulators place upon builders, and require that provinces and municipalities deliver approvals at far greater speeds than they do today. Today, all levels of government are gatekeepers with crippling process and regulations that log jam approvals. Additionally, the staff resources that deliver this work require a cultural transformation to their approach in order to expedite those approvals we need to build our communities. Much blame has been placed on municipal government for their approvals process, but other levels also own a share this problem.
Aside from the cost of borrowing, sourcing the necessary materials, finding an acceptable way to get faster approvals is the most significant cost driver to developing and building homes.
On the recent move by the province to issue building permits on qualifying land, once again overriding local official community plans; this will be a highly divisive move. The province isn’t going to build any huge number of additional homes by forcing municipal cooperation, even with the bypassing of municipal process. I can only imagine what single-family home neighbourhoods might come to look like with two bodies issuing building permits under different standards. Rest assured though market forces and speculation will continue, private sector will make pro-forma based choices, so government best walk through the secondary consequences on a dramatic decision such as this. Each needs to follow through with their obligations under their respective mandates, and absolutely the province should hold municipal government to account to do their part by requiring municipal governments to dramatically pick up the approvals pace, however senior government if your intent is on vastly increased home supply, one might want to take a look in the mirror on one’s own approvals processes, there’s plenty of room for improvement.
The way forward is for each to work in tandem within one’s own legislated mandates, set performance and outcome targets and expectations, plot progress on public dashboards and consider all possible incentives. Strongly recommended is to resist interfering with other orders and mandates, objectively focus on one’s own mandate, and best to work with private sector in true and meaningful collaboration in order to meet the needs of our whole county. Couple together some leadership and cooperation from the highest order all the way down, some change in approach, and we might get somewhere more like a first world country.
Comments for Maple Ridge Council:
To suggest, as your spokesperson stated in the local media, that some unpleasant things happened at Royal Crescent, is breathtaking. Many people died, the clients’ needs haven’t changed and health and conditions deteriorate each day given the inadequate support. People are dying in government care, and if one really understood what is taking place in supportive housing, had read all the reports, you’d know and understand what all the issues are and would be doing a lot more than saying eight complex care beds isn’t sufficient. Maple Ridge, like so many communities, is dealing with the fallout of failed senior government policy, and indeed it should not be a political game, but when more than six people are dying every day in BC, it is political. Ideally politics shouldn’t factor in the provision of core services like healthcare, social housing, education, let alone the tragedy of how clients have died in government care.
I too have confidence in the new CEO of CMH, the reason being his record with a different successful model, one that provides pathways to recovery and better situations for 80% of their clients, a model of longer-term detox, treatment & recovery, one that we tried to implement here with gifted land and letters of intent, yet was roadblocked by BC Housing. This is an option that must be provided in Maple Ridge and throughout the Province of BC. If status quo remains regarding the policies, model, and mandate, as evidenced, the fundamentally flawed model will continue to kill people and impact communities. People depend upon reliable accessible government services that work, and this one does not. Imagine if you will that you attended a hospital emergency with a critical problem and are told you’d have to wait for five months. That is the reality for those with addiction and concurrent complex mental challenges, which is unacceptable. When you consider the BC Housing five year wait lists, healthcare access demands pale when compared to social housing needs, neither of which are a municipal government mandate, and the state of both is unacceptable. I truly hope, given the suggested cooperation that now exists, that the current council can break the precedent of provincial failure to deliver on commitments made and actualize the $200 million funding commitment made by the province.
Further, to state that additional police and CSO service has been added is not true. Two police officers were added (as approved in your financial plan for 2023) for the sole purpose of de-integration with Pitt Meadows, a cost not due to Maple Ridge taxpayers, given this was a Pitt Meadows decision. The independent report that the previous council authorized to determine the Maple Ridge policing position still hasn’t been undertaken, Pitt Meadows did their work, the RCMP as well, so where does Maple Ridge sit in this costly decision? Are our local taxpayers going to continue to foot this bill? There have not been any CSOs added either. In fact, the service level set by the previous council was 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, which has been reduced to 10 hours a day for near on a year which is very evident around the community, an item that if your council were up on community safety, would have addressed in business planning. However, with almost one year in office now, there hasn’t been a single public meeting on the Maple Ridge model of public safety. One might think the minimum would have been to receive an update or two on the successful Community Social Safety Initiative, a plan that did improve public safety and did improve the lives of many struggling, with its documented supporting evidence and achievements that proved there is a better and more appropriate way to effectively tackle social safety. My suggestion, given for the second time, having provided a detailed briefing along with documentation and directed policy work, that if it is the intent to facilitate a great downtown core, not forgetting the entire community, public safety and assistance to those in need might have at least been reviewed, further addressed or amended as necessary, and reported to the public. The CSSI works, I encourage you to review the model and support it with the necessary resources and advocacy it needs to continue and further improve on it’s past demonstrated success.
In conclusion, even when there’s a genuine effort to cooperate for the greater good for all people in our communities, even when you seek and receive permission to find a better way through a demonstration project that was successfully implemented, and did deliver a better community safety model, that did improve help for people in need, yet the province hasn’t sought to learn from a better practice. Immensely frustrating was the roadblocking by BC Housing of various housing forms and healthcare investments we need to see people do better. When viable timely ways to achieve both community and government objectives are given, one would think there’s some obligation to evaluate and work together to implement those common goals. Overriding of community plans with cabinet orders, including taking legal and enforcement action, rather than genuinely working together to resolve challenges, needs to come to an end. Our city isn’t the only one, there have been many. Our city called for a moratorium on this abuse of legislation through the UBCM, calling for the province to stop overriding local government land use authority, the very plans that the province requires us to build our communities, a resolution that was endorsed by all local governments.
The use of executive orders overriding local government is a notable growing trend with this provincial government. This approach must desist and the legislation amended to require far more rigor when issuing cabinet orders to override the delegated authority of zoning and land use, the same one that requires municipalities to build official community plans, the very foundation upon which we plan and build communities that have the publics’ endorsement. The job of local government is already hampered enough by provincial legislation, making it tough enough to look after all the core needs of the municipality. Add to that all the spin and tactics crafted by communications teams, even when cooperation does exist, especially when one doesn’t agree with a senior policy of the day, to which our community was given latitude by the former premier, that the higher order will prevail anyway. The people through elections called the agenda, and if that directs taking a different approach than just providing housing first and harm reduction, specifically seeking fast access to treatment and healthcare support, housing that people can actually afford, having safe streets, just how disingenuous is it of the provincial government to just override local elected government. Senior government policies of today around addiction and mental health are not making communities safer, nor are they helping people get the help they need. Until there is a change in approach, the body count will sadly continue to escalate, to which senior government owns a big share. The supportive housing model is by evidence harming and facilitating death for people in their care, the purported wrap around supports that government assures us is are in place is refuted by the operators evidence, the statements issued by clients, which if the review were honest and objective, the service might be on its way to delivering better outcomes for all.
Call some of the above a harsh condemnation, try taking the statements from friends and family of those who died, the calls from people seeking help for themselves or loved ones, the calls from victims of crime where the perpetrators seem to have more rights than the victims, the countless calls from seniors who can’t make their rent and end up in shelters, supportive housing or homeless, the calls from people who can’t get access to healthcare, the list just goes on and on. These call volumes come from those who are frustrated with government services that just aren’t working and/or are just too difficult for people to navigate.
Harder however were taking the calls like from the mom whose child got turned away by the hospital ER in abject crisis who committed suicide the next day, or the grandparents who just didn’t know how to help their granddaughter who was being sold by the hour each day for drug debt, or the call from the friend of a kid that just couldn’t get the help they needed who ended the pain by walking into a train. If one doesn’t feel any guilt or shame yet, try going to a few funerals, because they are happening every day.
This should make for a lot of incentive to require government services that provide the social safety net for all citizens to deliver a lot better outcomes for all people in our communities throughout our fair land. The reality is that government, despite many good people, some mixed intentions, is suffering from crippled service delivery frameworks that are no longer meeting the core needs of the citizens of BC. The thousands that have died, and those who have recovered, do tell tales and local governments get to listen, hear and fight for them. This review never got close to the facts and evidence; many have and will continue to pay, some with the ultimate price, an unacceptable outcome. It is from this place that I call upon government to consider my recommendations and comments that will provide safer and healthier pathways forward for all people and their communities. A good start would be through honest reviews and learning from an evidenced better practice as was proved out with Maple Ridge’s CSSI program. Local governments are the closest to what is truly taking place in the community, they hear a lot from the public, they know things, they talk to each other and to other communities. What is brought to light in this document isn’t unique to just one community in BC either, which is the reason why all supportive housing, the shelter model, and related front line provisions need review to seek better models and practices.
A proper review would have included a comprehensive client and operator needs and capacity assessment, not one that obscures evidence, one that would have better informed recommendations as to the level and qualifications of support required to achieve better outcomes for everyone concerned. It is gravely concerning that the government chose to ignore the operator’s report that flags serious levels of work place violence for staff, aggressive and violent behaviour by tenants, significant health problems for clients clearly reflected by hospitalizations, heightened concerns over drug dealing and criminal gang activity, sustained high call demand for first responder attendances, continued neighbourhood impacts and complaints, all of which should be a loud call to those responsible that clients under government care were and still are far short of proper support. Concealing the operator’s listed concerns, failure to properly review why twelve, and as reported from other sources saying many more, died thereby further victimizing their families and many others, which is unconscionable. If this were a judicial process it would likely border on criminal.
