On February 20th, we held a half-day meeting with officials from federal government departments in Ottawa. At least 17 departments were represented, including: several branches and agencies of Health Canada; departments with direct service responsibilities such as the Department of National Defence and Corrections Canada; and departments whose mandates have a strong influence on mental health and mental illness, such as Human Resources and Development, Services Canada, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Justice Canada, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Overall , support for the goals was quite strong, with some reservations and concerns expressed.
Many participants expressed concern regarding the structure of the framework, in so far as it combines vision and goals and in so far as it doesn’t clearly articulate how its success could be measured. Many also expressed a keen interest in being part of the discussion of HOW to achieve the goal on research, outcome measurement, and appropriate evidence.
As has been the case elsewhere, some participants were strongly supportive of starting the framework with a recovery goal, and others felt that the framework should lead with promotion and prevention. The latter group also asked: could the goal on access and integration more clearly articulate that this includes promotion and prevention programs?
Cultural safety was new to many people, and those who were familiar with it asked, can more be done to link cultural safety with a recovery-orientation, since both focus on partnership and empowerment?
Questions emerging from the discussion regarding family included:
Can more emphasis be placed on “families of person’s choosing?”
While family caregivers need increased recognition and support, could this not entrench the reliance on families for services and supports that should be accessed through the mental health system?
Can the goal be rebalanced to include greater reference to the ways in which families can be both a bad and a good influence?
With regard to the goals on stigma and the social movement, suggestions were made to frame the goals more positively. Rather than not tolerating stigma, can we talk about empowerment and mental health literacy? Rather than keeping mental health issues out of the shadows forever, can we talk about mental well-being for all Canadians?
There was also discussion about the need to look more closely at the role of fear in perpetuating stigma, and to more clearly define the parameters of the MHCC’s ability to be an advocate for a social movement that will bring pressure on the federal government, given that it is federally-funded.
We also took the opportunity to explore with this group the opportunities and challenges presented by the draft framework for the federal government, and for “whole of government” approaches. Participants encouraged the MHCC to engage the top levels of government on this question, and to learn more about the initiatives happening in individual departments and also interdepartmentally.