Today in the legislature I rose to speak at second reading on Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. Bill 41 proposed amendments in four general areas:

1. Advanced Education
2. Children and Family Development
3. Energy and Mines
4. Justice amendments

I generally spoke in favour of the amendments with notable caveats that I will explore further tomorrow at Committee stage. Below are the text and video of my speech.

Text of my Speech

A. Weaver: I rise to speak to Bill 41, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2015. It’s another one of the miscellaneous statutes acts, this one with amendments in four different areas — the first, of course, being Advanced Education amendments that my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake discussed recently. Part 2 is Children and Family Development amendments; part 3, Energy and Mines amendments, specifically with respect to BCUC; and part 4, Justice amendments.

This bill actually covers a rather large number of bills within the four categories: the Child, Family and Community Service Act; the College and Institute Act; the University Act; the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act; and the Utilities Commission Act.

The amendments clarify a few definitions and generally expand regulatory and exemption powers for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or, in the case of the Utilities Commission Act, the minister assigned in the place of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment bill seems to follow a pattern of a rather large number of these bills we’ve seen this year where the legislation is made somewhat increasingly vague and left up, often, to the discretion of the appointed minister or regulator.

With respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments are said to enable the expansion of the agreements with young adults program, allowing the Ministry of Children and Family Development to extend the duration of agreements and raise the age limit. Now, this is important. This is an important piece of legislation that is dealing with the transition of youth from the ages of 18 to 19 who often fall between the cracks as they move from being a child to an adult. Being able to allow the…. The amendment will allow and enable agreements to be used for life skills programs, in addition to the current educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs, meaning that children will be able to transition better.

I was speaking this last Saturday with an RCMP officer from the Victoria region, out on the West Shore, who said that the single most common call they get are calls with respect to adolescent mental health issues. Now, part of the problem, of course, is that these adolescents who move into adulthood fall between the cracks after they age out. This legislation allows ministries to actually coordinate — extend the coverage — under Children and Family Development, and it’s a very fine piece of legislation that I’m very proud to support.

On the same note, the changes to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act add further amendments that I’m very pleased to support. In particular, the changes will allow for child and spousal support decisions from other provinces and territories and countries to be more efficiently processed. The administrative changes will allow support order decisions from jurisdictions that do not provide court-certified copies of decisions, such those reached by tribunal, to be registered with the B.C. court. In addition, instead of using the court sheriff services to serve applications for support from other jurisdictions, the director of maintenance enforcement will now use a private process server.

Out-of-province support orders are often hard to collect and said to account for about 11 percent of family maintenance enforcement program cases. So again, an important piece of legislation within the broader Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Then we move to the Utilities Commission Act changes. Now, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway — I believe it was Vancouver-Kingsway — gave a very eloquent and fine analysis of the changes to the Utilities Commission Act, in particular how it affects BCUC. The changes include…. They’re being told to implement recommendations from the BCUC — British Columbia Utilities Commission — Core Review Task Force. That task force was initiated by government in 2014 in responses to concerns raised by customer groups and utilities about BCUC’s capacity to deliver clear and timely decisions.

The proposed legislative amendments are said to increase the BCUC’s effectiveness and efficiency and reduce the cost of regulation for ratepayers, who pay for BCUC in their utility raise. It all sounds fine at face value, but in terms of the implementation, what’s being proposed is that the amendments really seem to focus on increasing power and exemption abilities of the minister.

Now, while some ratepayer groups consulted during the core review are said to support these changes, it’s a disturbing trend that we’re seeing more and more often within this government’s legislation: to put more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer and ask British Columbians to trust us. As we saw earlier today, there are times when “trust us” simply is not good enough.

The final component of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is with respect to changes to the College and Institute Act and the University Act. As I mentioned, my colleague from Vancouver–Swan Lake did a fine job outlining some of the…

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Did I say Vancouver–Swan Lake?

 With humble apologies to the member from Victoria-Quilchena, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake outlined some of the issues that some university student groups have felt concern on. The amendments here to both the University Act and the College and Institute Act make adjustments to how fees are collected, or can be collected, from people who leave student societies. The Minister of Advanced Education says he will consult with student societies to determine which program or service fees should be protected under legislation.

I understand why this legislation was brought in. With the recent passage of the Societies Act, we were left with a rather concerning gap in legislation, which led to questions as to what would happen to the fees if students pulled out of the student societies. I recognize that the minister, in consultation with a variety of student groups, put forward the amendments that we see before us today in both the order papers as well as in the original act.

There has been some concern that too much power will be granted to the minister to determine what is or is not considered a fee. It’s something that…. Rather than pass judgment on it at this particular junction, I will ask for some specific examples during committee stage, to get on record a certain number of these examples to see whether or not this is what the minister believes to be considered as student fees or student charges.

As the member for Victoria–Swan Lake…. The UVic Students Society has been quite vocal about their concerns with this specific piece of legislation. They knew that changes regarding fees levied against those who leave the student society were coming. They were concerned. They did not expect the format that the government used to bring these changes in to be the one we see today. In fairness to the minister who brought in the changes, it’s not clear to me, in the time frame that the minister had, that it was able to, under the same umbrella, bring all potential types and qualifiers and identify all those that would be viewed to be student fees now. The minister has committed to engaging student groups in the future to discuss this.

Nevertheless, it has left an element of uncertainty. When there’s uncertainty, there’s concern, because student groups — not only the University of Victoria and others — believe that they are being asked to trust us once again.

I will say that the student group at the University of British Columbia seemed to be more supportive of the changes as put in, although they, too, note the irony of almost a catch-22 being in place. I don’t think it’s fair, but a catch-22 is in place, where they say that the Societies Act seems to imply, quite logically, that only members of a society can cast votes on society business.

Yet there is an administrative problem, because students who resign their membership must continue to pay student fees. The bill specifies that these students must also continue to have voting rights. That seems to be in conflict with the Societies Act. But, as I will outline, there are ways around this, which brings me to a comment. I’m concerned that, in fact…. Ironically, in light of the amount of time we’ve spent during this session discussing red-tape reduction, it seems to me that one of the consequences of this amendment is a rather substantive increase in red tape to be applied to student organizations in British Columbia.

The bill separates the fees that students face into multiple, regulation-dependent categories, which may operate in different ways. There are a number of issues that I can think of that need to be addressed in the committee stage, as I mentioned, that I’ll cover later. But first, this bill creates the so-called red tape for student societies that I alluded to earlier as follows.

Previously, a simple annual vote took place. Annually, students would vote. That vote took place to elect a student board and was used to pass any new funding. The student board would be elected. New funding would be approved or not approved by a referendum, and it would be done with all students who are members of the student union or society voting.

However, the bill appears to morph this process into a far more convoluted red-tape process. I should have worn some red tape over my suit here today. Student societies must now account for a new category of students who will cast ballots on funding referendums and not on the student election.

This strikes me as odd — that you’ll have various groups of students voting on various things, in light of the fact that student turnout at the best of times is not as high as it could be. They already suffer from limited turnout in many universities around the province, let alone making this much more complicated and having different categories of students being able to vote for something or against something.

Secondly, the bill confers, I would argue, unnecessary powers to the minister to decide which fees apply in which ways. Now again, I recognize that this probably was left as a matter of regulation in light of the timeliness of trying to get something passed this session so that student groups collecting fees from students who secede from the union or society that represents them would be in place sooner than later. I recognize that.

However, there are questions that we can explore at committee stage, and they’ll follow along these lines. In general, there’s an issue with the increased reliance on regulation to set policy. However, in that case, there should be a simple remedy. Consult with student unions about the specific fees they levy and draft the legislation accordingly.

Again, we are told that the regulations will come in place through consultation with the student groups. Again, as I’ve argued earlier and pointed out, some of these student groups more so than others feel that they’re being asked to trust the government. Depending on the various student groups, some will trust them more than others.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The minister, of course, is suggesting that we should all trust government. Well, as I mentioned earlier, trusting government in many cases is simply not good enough. We don’t have to reiterate the example we heard today during question period and the resolution I brought forward for emergency debate on the Shawnigan Lake situation.

The change, as I mentioned, also appears to allow the government to decide which fees are appropriate. That, again, could potentially limit the union’s or society’s ability to challenge government decisions it doesn’t support.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the university of somewhere in B.C. decides to form…. Through referendum, the students decide that they want to put a group there, a union. Their union, through the fees, have decided a club is going to be formed. It’s going to be the “We have to get the Liberals out in 2017” club.

Now, that’s a fee that has been approved by referendum, and students then…. Maybe one or two in the university who don’t agree with that pull out of the student society. The decision as to whether or not that fee that was elected democratically…. Whether or not the students who pull out can actually take their payment of the fees with them is left up to the minister to decide.

Clearly, there is a potential conflict there. There’s a potential question as to whether or not the minister will or will not support. I gave a rather crass example. But we could actually move a little closer to where it’s not so clear.  Obviously, all of British Columbia has sincere trust in the present Minister of Advanced Education to do absolutely no wrong at any time. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that there were a minister who ideologically did not believe that men could be with other men and marry other men, and that therefore that minister…. I’m sure there are many of them in this government who feel that way strongly. Perhaps they are in a position of decision-making.

They, then, could decide: “You know what? These fees are not allowable.” Hence the concern of some student groups over others. Now, as I pointed out, this clearly would not happen in British Columbia with the esteemed leadership of the Minister of Advanced Education, also representing Vancouver-Quilchena. But there may be other ministers, at some point in the future, who will be less trustworthy.

Finally, I will say that much of this I’m going to try to deal with in committee stage, by providing specific examples of specific clubs that do exist already in some universities, and see whether or not the fees to these clubs were the types of fees that the minister was thinking are allowable to actually be passed on as a direct cost back to the students union if the students pull out of the union or the society that represented them.

With that, I thank you for your time.

Video of my Speech

I was pleased to co-host a recent workshop provided by the Alzheimer Society of B.C. at Berwick House Retirement Community in Gordon Head. The workshop was given by Rebecca Morris, Provincial Coordinator, Advocacy & Public Policy at the Alzheimer Society of B.C. This highly informative presentation provided valuable information about dementia and how we can create more supportive communities for people with dementia, their families and caregivers. The Alzheimer Society of B.C. is the leading source of education, support, services and information for people affected by dementia.

‘Help for Today. Hope for Tomorrow…®’ is the Society’s tagline and we know education is key to reducing the stigma and judgement of those 70,000 British Columbians who live with dementia – 10,000 of whom are under the age of 65. It is estimated that, in 30 years, more than 177,000 British Columbians will be living with the disease.

The goal of the Dementia-Friendly Communities campaign is to create heightened awareness about dementia and to support people with dementia to participate in their communities to the fullest extent possible.

We all have a role in creating dementia friendly communities, as we were told by Mr. Jim Mann, who was a speaker during the presentation. Jim, who was diagnosed with dementia at the age of 58, is part of the BC leadership Group with the Alzheimer Society of B.C. and he shared his story and personal experience with us. Jim spoke of his journey with humour, acceptance and openness. He told us he is willing to “talk to anyone” in his tireless quest to “advocate to educate”. Clearly, Jim is a rock star for the organization.

Five things to share about dementia:

1. It is not a natural part of aging.
2. It is not just about losing your memory – it can affect thinking, communicating and doing everyday activities.
3. It is possible to live well with dementia.
4. There is more to a person than a diagnosis of dementia.
5. The Alzheimer Society of B.C. is here to help.

Some useful myth-busting in the presentation taught us that dementia is not….

• Strictly a genetic disorder
• A disease that only affects older people
• Normal aging/memory loss
• Preventable
• Curable
• Caused by aluminum
• The end of a meaningful life
• That a person cannot understand what is going on around them
• That a person will become violent or aggressive

There is help and there are resources available! You can request a presentation from the Alzheimer Society by emailing dementiafriendlybc@alzheimerbc.org to find out more. You can help spread awareness by encouraging others to become Dementia Friends at www.dementiafriends.ca

The First Link Dementia Helpline is the first number to call for information. The Helpline is at: 1-800-936-6033 or (for the Lower Mainland) 604-681-6530.

The Alzheimer Society of B.C. provides much more valuable information and resources on their website.

I am very grateful to Rebecca and Jim for their excellent presentation and also want to extend my sincere thanks to Berwick House for welcoming us, providing refreshments and such a comfortable space for us to learn about the important work of the Alzheimer Society of B.C.

This is the final installment of a seven week series examining the topic of child and youth mental health in B.C. As this is a complex and multifaceted topic, I will be narrowing my focus to a few popular beliefs and areas of concern that I have witnessed in my role as MLA. The purpose of this series is to debunk these beliefs, increase awareness of these concerns, end the stigma of mental health in our society and provide opportunities for you to impact what is happening in your community.

“Considering that the well-being of our most vulnerable children and youth is at stake, I expect more from government and I think most British Columbians do as well” – Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth

Popular Belief Eight: The government is addressing the issue

Reality: While some progress has been made to promote and address issues relating to mental health, British Columbia has a long way to go. If we are to truly improve our child and youth mental health profile here in B.C. we need strong government leadership to guide us there. Something we are lacking in this province today.

A decade ago B.C. and the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) were seen as a Canadian leader in child and youth mental health services. This was thanks in large part to the 2003 Child and Youth Mental Health Plan – the first of its kind in Canada – which included strategies focused on providing treatment and support, reducing risk, building community capacity and improving performance. Even though the plan did not deliver as significantly as was hoped in all areas, a 2008 internal evaluation did find notable progress had been made in the area of preventative measures.

While the five-year plan arguably needed some tweaking, it was certainly a step in the right direction. Despite this, the plan was replaced in 2010 with the government’s new ten-year plan to address mental health and substance use in British Columbia, entitled Healthy Minds, Healthy People.

Though this new plan does respond to some of the concerns that have been raised around child and youth mental health services in B.C., it falls short of improving upon the 2003 plan. Not only is it not specific to children and youth – instead taking a lifespan approach with strategies for supporting children, youth, adults and seniors – it also does not contain any operational details of how the plan might be implemented. Nor does it specifically address any of the shortfalls found by the internal review of the 2003 plan. Thus leaving B.C. without a clear and measurable guide for providing substantive support to youth and their families.

Representative for Children and Youth

In 2006, B.C. appointed Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as its first Representative for Children and Youth. The Representative is an independent expert oversight body tasked with supporting children, youth and families who need help in dealing with the child-serving system.

Between the years of 2008 and 2013 the Representative’s office made a total of 148 recommendations to the provincial government to improve the lives of B.C’s most vulnerable children. While 72% of these recommendations have been acted upon, a number of the most important ones remain unfulfilled – including her recommendation for government to create a Minister of State of Youth Mental Health.

During this same five-year time period, MCFD’s budget was reduced by more than $37 million – this amounts to nearly $100 million when inflation is accounted for. While the current state of our mental health system is not solely a budget-shortage problem, it certainly plays a role. As the report points out “it is difficult to improve services on a shrinking budget.”

Furthermore, the fact that MCFD’s budget has shrunk despite the mounting evidence that our youth mental health system is in serious need of a redesign, shows just how misguided our approach thus far has been.

Where do we go from here?

Instead of cutting MCFD’s funding, we should be investing more in a Ministry that is mandated with providing crucial services to one of our most vulnerable populations. 

Instead of disregarding key recommendations made by an office dedicated to protecting children and youth in B.C., we should be working with the Representative for Children and Youth to ensure our mental health system is providing current, best-practice services for all levels of care.  

We need to understand that by investing in these services now, we lessen the need for more acute and expensive services in the future. And that by supporting the mental health of our children today, we are giving them the tools they need to support themselves tomorrow. 

It is time for the B.C. government to recommit to the mental health and well-being of our young people and to once again become a leader in child and youth mental health services. 

Weekly Action Item

I have always said that if you don’t like the way your government is addressing an issue – or not addressing one – then you need to get involved, you need to express your concerns and make your voice heard. In fact, that is precisely why I ran for office in the first place.

So this week, for our final action item, I am asking you to vote. I strongly believe that one of the most powerful tools we have at our disposal is our power to vote. With the Federal Election just around the corner and the next Provincial Election less than two years away now is the time to let your politicians know that issues surrounding Mental Health and Mental Illness are of top priority to you as a voter.

When you are contacted by campaigners, ask what their party is doing to address these concerns. Research your local candidates to find out their policies around child and youth mental health. Encourage your friends and relatives to do the same. And most importantly, when election day arrives get out and vote.

This is the sixth in a seven week series examining the topic of child and youth mental health in B.C. As this is a complex and multifaceted topic, I will be narrowing my focus to a few popular beliefs and areas of concern that I have witnessed in my role as MLA. The purpose of this series is to debunk these beliefs, increase awareness of these concerns, end the stigma of mental health in our society and provide opportunities for you to impact what is happening in your community.

“The cost of not mending our services to provide adequate support to vulnerable children is huge. The human cost of suffering and despair is immeasurable. The economic costs of preventable long-term use of public services, unfulfilled human resources and drain on productivity are very clear. There are many more reasons to act than not.” – Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Representative for Children and Youth

Popular Belief Seven: We can’t afford to put more money into the mental health care system

Reality: Mental health problems not only have devastating emotional, physical and social impacts on individuals and their families, they can also place an enormous burden on our economy. Conservative estimates find the direct costs (ie: health care, certain social services and income support) of mental health problems and illnesses to Canada to be at least $50 billion per year – with the total cost to the economy adding up to more than $2.5 trillion over the next 30 years.

However, the true economic cost is likely much higher as current estimates exclude expenses such as costs of caregiving and costs to the judicial system. In fact, if estimates in Ireland and Wales hold true for Canada, the current cost of mental illness is approximately $192 billion dollars.

In addition to these direct costs, there are also high indirect costs of mental illness. It is estimated that approximately 21.4% of the working population experienced a mental illness in 2011, resulting in the annual productivity impact of mental illness in the workplace to be over $6.4 billion. Similarly, a report out of the United States estimated the total lifetime economic cost of childhood mental health problems and illnesses to be $2.1 trillion. When translated to our smaller population, the cost in Canada would be roughly $200 billion.

And these expenses are not just felt by the public sector. With mental health problems and illnesses accounting for 79% of long-term disability claims and 75% of short-term disability claims, the costs for disability due to mental illness are the fastest-growing disability costs for Canadian employers. It is estimated that the private sector spends between $180 and $300 billion on short-term disability claims and $135 billion on long-term disability claims due to mental illness. With evidence suggesting that mental illness will be the leading cause of disability in high-income countries by 2030.

At this rate, the total cost of mental illness to society could soon be greater than the entire cost of the health care system in Canada.

Cost-savings of addressing the issue

While the economic costs of mental illness are evident, the savings that can be gleaned from improving services and supporting upstream initiatives can be harder to prove. For one, the benefits of reducing the rates of mental health problems are often not seen until the longer term. Because of this, the costs of mental health promotion and prevention are much easier to evaluate than the benefits. Similarly, cost-savings are not necessarily seen where the money was invested. For example, savings from investing in mental health education in schools are more likely to be seen down-the-line with reduced costs to the judicial and health care systems. As a result, it is hard to put an exact number on just how beneficial such programs can be.

That being said, there is a fair amount of evidence to show that the promotion of mental health and prevention of mental illness can go a long way in combating the rising costs of mental health problems and illnesses. A recent study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information suggests that there is a return on investment (ROI) for some mental health promotion and mental illness prevention interventions. The strongest ROI evidence can be seen for children and adolescents, where promotion and prevention programs have shown to provide huge and long-term impacts.

Although more detailed research and evidence within Canada is lacking, countries such as the U.K., U.S. and Australia have produced extensive economic evaluations of childhood and youth interventions. One study found cost-savings from $1.80 to $17.07 for every dollar spent on programming. While more research is needed to understand exactly how cost-beneficial such programs can be, it is clear that by investing in mental health we benefit both the economy, and society as a whole.

Weekly Action Item

As an MLA, I have witnessed first-hand the impact that public opinion and engagement can have on encouraging the BC government to focus on a specific issue. With this in mind, please consider taking time this week to communicate to decision-makers the importance of making child and youth mental health a priority. A good place to start might be to contact your local MLA and let them know that you would like British Columbia to take more action to address the mental health needs of our youth. Perhaps starting with the recommendations made to government by the Representative for Children and Youth.

Please also consider urging your friends and family to write letters or emails to local Mayors, Councilors, MLAs and MPs, and the offices of the Premier and the Prime Minister. It is time for us to take long-lasting, substantive steps to ensure the necessary supports and resources are in place to support the mental health and well-being of our young people. 

This is the fifth in a seven week series that will examine the topic of child and youth mental health in B.C. As this is a complex and multifaceted topic, I will be narrowing my focus to a few popular beliefs and areas of concern that I have witnessed in my role as MLA. The purpose of this series is to debunk these beliefs, increase awareness of these concerns, end the stigma of mental health in our society and provide opportunities for you to impact what is happening in your community.

“A growing body of international evidence demonstrates that promotion, prevention, and early intervention initiatives show positive returns on investment.”

Popular Belief Six: The current emphasis on illness treatment is the way to go

Reality: As is common across most of the world, the current mental health system in B.C. allocates the majority of its budget and resources towards downstream, or reactive, approaches to mental health care such as  illness treatment and acute services. While these services are important for helping those already struggling with mental health problems, they do not necessarily promote mental well-being or help to combat the shockingly high rates of youth mental illness throughout the province.

If we want to foster the mental well-being of our young people and reduce the number of youth experiencing mental health challenges, or at the very least identify and address these potential challenges before they get worse, we need to shift our focus from primarily ‘downstream’ approaches, to more ‘upstream’, or proactive, approaches – namely mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention.

Upstream approaches to mental health care not only help individuals identify the early stages of potential mental health challenges, thus lessening the dependency on reactive approaches and taking the strain off our current, over-worked, health care system. But they can also help to reduce the stigma associated with mental health challenges; something that can often deter youth from seeking the support that they need.

Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention

One of the key facets of effective mental health promotion and prevention is education. However, one of the overwhelming themes identified across all demographics is the general lack of education and public awareness around mental health; particularly among young people. Not only are many adults and young people unaware of available mental health resources and supports, they are also unaware of how to identify or address the early signs of mental illness. While school curricula incorporates units on physical and sexual health, there is often little to no mental health education provided in schools.

This lack of education also plays a strong role in the stigmatization of mental health issues. Many youth experiencing mental health problems feel shame and embarrassment over their illness and admit to not accessing services because of fear of stigmatization. This fear is not hard to understand when statistics show that 42% of Canadians are unsure whether they would socialize with a friend who has a mental illness and 27% say they would be fearful of being around someone who suffers from serious mental illness.

Stigma can also prove intergenerational, as parents and caregivers may not want to admit or accept that their child, or even they themselves, has an issue. In fact, studies have found that 46% of Canadians think people use the term mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour and only 50% of Canadians would tell friends or co-workers that they have a family member with a mental illness, compared to 72% who would discuss a diagnosis of cancer.

Similarly to mental health promotion and prevention, early identification and intervention play an important role in the ability of youth to overcome mental health challenges. Often, signs of mental ill-health in youth are not identified or acted upon early on. When such challenges are left untreated, or symptoms are ignored, they can escalate into more serious conditions in adolescence and adulthood making them harder to treat in the long term.

Mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention not only helps to build awareness and understanding around the topic of mental health and decrease the stigma associated with mental health issues, but research shows that investing more resources into these upstream approaches offers some of the greatest return on investment – especially when looking at children and youth programs.

Weekly Action Item

This week please consider combining aspects of the previous four action items and to use this knowledge and these advocacy skills to encourage the adoption of mental health promotion and prevention strategies in your local schools, your workplace and throughout your community. This can be done in a number of ways, below are just a few suggestions. If you have more, please share your ideas with us in the comment section.

• You may wish to find a local organization that especially resonates with you and that is already engaging in this type of work to find out how you can help their endeavors – volunteer, donate, fundraise, etc…
• You may want to get in touch with your child’s school to ask what initiatives or steps they are taking to improve mental health promotion and education in their school and ask how you can get involved.
• Or you may decide to promote mental well-being in your own workplace (check out the Not Myself Today campaign which is dedicated to reducing stigma and supporting mental health at work).