Premier David Eby’s scramble to react to the Lapu Lapu horror in Vancouver is leading the government into complicated territory.
One day after announcing a potential public inquiry into the mass killing if the criminal process doesn’t provide enough answers, he announced another major re-evaluation.
There will be a snap review of the Mental Health Act, conducted internally by the health ministry, aimed at “modernizing” it.
That comes just weeks after a special advisor to Eby — Dr. Daniel Vigo — conducted a more narrow review of the act and issued a 12-page guidance document to all 小蓝视频 doctors on using that law when treating people with substance use disorder.
The focus will be on sections dealing with secure care, also known as compelled care, or involuntary treatment. Public demands for more use of that power have increased markedly in recent years after random stranger attacks by obviously mentally-ill individuals left innocent people dead or injured.
The NDP government initially resisted those calls, then made an effort to legislate more use of the provisions, but dropped it for political reasons. The pressure for action prompted a new small-scale secure care project for specific cases, which opened last week in Metro Vancouver. More such units will open this year, aimed mostly at mentally-ill drug users.
The mass casualties in Vancouver after a man drove an SUV through a crowd at the Lapu Lapu festival have put the government’s attempts to grapple with mental health crises into overdrive.
But they are speeding into difficult terrain. The initial efforts to expand secure care are already being challenged in court on constitutional grounds by different advocates.
Eby said that is why the government initially held off on reviewing the act. Now, he said it is “critically important.”
It will ensure the act, last updated in the 1990s, is meeting the moment for people who need such care, he said.
“It’s a sensitive moment for the act. Other provinces have lost very similar challenges to the one that we face in 小蓝视频 around compelling people into treatment.
The case threatens the government’s ability to commit sick people to care, he said.
“We need to be able to force people into care.”
Sensitivities around civil rights and the effectiveness of such treatment delayed the modernization. “But I don’t think we can delay it anymore. There are some risks to it but we’re going to push it forward.”
The main legal risk is that the internal review could recommend changes in favour of secure care, only to find the courts objecting and siding with the plaintiffs who are already objecting to the current system.
“There’s a whole lot of politicians who are lining up to speculate about what happened in terms of this individual making the decision to drive into a crowd.”
The driver had dozens of police encounters and was under intensive supervision by a mental health team that saw no immediate cause for alarm.
“But before we throw the care team under the bus, before we say they did something wrong… let’s make sure that’s actually the case.”
One of the points he wants reviewed is whether the system should intervene sooner.
“If somebody’s feeling paranoid … or living with schizophrenia, not everyone is going to be just rounded up and put into an asylum. Those days are long gone.”
So the police investigation of eight murder charges to date, likely with more to come, will eventually lead to court proceedings. Whether the full story comes out there depends to some extent on the pleas.
The public inquiry also depends on the court process. Eby said he is inclined to call one regardless, but it will depend on the trial, which is likely some time away.
The review of the Mental Health Act will start soon internally and produce findings, but acting on them depends to some extent on whether the government wins the court case.
The overall response was panned in the legislature, where Conservative critics said the independent public inquiry could proceed immediately on all the other cases where mentally ill people attacked strangers, without involving the mass killings.
Questioning produced an odd disconnect, when Eby asked: “Do we really need an inquiry to tell us what we know we need to do… provide more care?”
After years of public and political attention to the falldowns in mental health care, the answer looks to be — no.
It’s going to be a long, uncertain wait to see if the inquiry is worthwhile.
