That the following motion be deferred to a future meeting: “That Council formally request Island Health to close the supervised drug consumption site at 250 Albert Street, and put future efforts toward drug free treatment facilities.”
Procedural vote
grateful for the deferral option put on the floor by councilor. Armstrong because. I think it's embarrassing that we're debating this at this point. Feels like we're jumping way ahead when we haven't even had recent discussions with Island Health about the degree of our concerns and jumping right to the idea of closing the ops. Is almost like we're doing our own referendum on the importance of harm reduction, and at the end of the day. This is ensuring that less harm is being done. They're doing this work to ensure that less people are being killed by the toxic drugs because we still don't. Have accessible access to safe supply or to treatment, timely treatment, or mental health or medical health supports and we need to be putting the pressure. On island health and the province to come through with those things before we jump right to let's close the ops. At the very least, we should be saying, let's open more ops. And this will really just put more pressure on police and ambulance for call outs to people overdosing and we've seen the medical aid calls there, through the roof. And I'm glad for councilor Armstrong correcting the narrative about people getting free drugs. At the ops. That's absolutely not what it is there to do. Fundamental misunderstanding of what the Ops actually does. I think it's really important that we have a more in depth discussion and bring the partners to the table so that we can get to the root of. The issues, which is the fact that we don't have enough supports at that particular site. And we need to have that conversation first before we jump into this. So I'm very much
is just for deferral only, councilor. Manley, please. Thank you. I support deferral as well. I think that we need to. Have an informed discussion around this issue. I think councilor Armstrong is right, that the people are dying from the drug overdose. Are people who are using the loan in their homes and there should be drug testing at pharmacies. Across the community so that people can go in and discreetly have drugs tested before they use. Them, and they should have the ability to have. Supervised consumption for those that are addicted to opioids. It's a very, very powerful addiction. It's very hard to get. Off of opioid addiction, and I've seen at the shelter. We had public health nurses come through and provide fentanyl patches to people who wanted to stabilize their lives. And there are many avenues to correcting this problem. What we have, though, is a failure of policy. The drug decriminalization policy. Was very poorly thought out. I mean, you just need to look at the idea. Two and a half grams of cocaine. That Wall street stockbroker. And an escort out for an evening. Two and a half grams of fentanyl is enough. They did not allow people to continue. To create alcohol in their bathtubs with antifreeze, with rubbing alcohol, with whatever else. That they could dump in there to get people. Buzzed on. And so what we have now. Is. A free for all for organized crime who blend up things in a coffee grinder. And pack it up for people to smoke, and it's full of all kinds of toxins. And. Things that will kill people. And it's not safe. It's extremely dangerous. If. We had. Of bylaw here. I would be asking him. Where would these people go? And I suspect that the answer would be they'd be sitting at the italian fountain using they'd be sitting in front of businesses using. They would be in other locations because. It's not the ops itself. It is the policy. Of drug decriminalization that did not come along with. Addiction services. Treatment facilities, housing for people who are addicted. So this problem is much bigger than just this ops and. I am extremely upset that our staff have to deal with what goes on at city hall. So I do want to see some changes, and I think we need to send some strong messages. To the province, and we can
Thank you, your worship. I want to start by saying that I really sincerely thank councilor Thorpe. For bringing this to this table. This is his third term. He's watched a lot of this. Over the years, we have spent millions of dollars to try and tackle this problem with, so. Little response. That's positive. And so I get where councilor Tharp is coming from, and to be honest with you. I thought the same myself. And I agree. However. We all know that drug abuse is, in fact, a disease. Drug addicts need desperately need help. I am going to go ahead and vote in favor of deferral. Because an ops like what we have right besides city hall and right in a community where there's businesses and people living. This needs to be near a hospital. We need to be able to have a place where drugs are provided, that are safe. For the addicts to take. And we need wraparound services for 24 hours a day when I see people standing outside just waiting to be able to use a washroom. I'm appalled that we put people with such a severe disease in this position. The only reason I will vote for deferral is because I want to see island health. Here. And I want to ask them, why do you not do this beside a hospital where people can get the care and attention that they need and deserve and take it out of our business. Community and away from our neighborhoods. And let's get these people the help that they deserved. And let me tell you, Almost many of. Many of us have had family members that we've lost due to this. Disease. I thank you, Councilor Thorpe, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilor
think. The degree of investment that we put into detox treatment, housing. Is a fraction of what is actually warranted, and we're not taking the seriousness of addiction and homelessness as serious in terms of what we're putting our pocketbooks for. Towards. So part of me feels that this motion is a distraction for the real issue, and I'd like to vote it down. The one benefit is that there
want to bring us back to the substance of this motion. It is not and will not be our decision whether the OPS site remains open or closes or continues or disappears or gets improved or better funded. The motion is asking island Health to close down. The supervised consumption site. I see this in my view. As a cry on behalf of the citizens of this community, many of whom have appeared before us. Numerous times about the whole issue of street disorder, as I have referred to it, a mental health addictions, trauma and brain injury crisis that has impacted the citizens of this community for a very long time. Whether we pass the motion. In its form. Assuming it is deferred or at some future date, it will not affect whether island health decides to keep it open in the provincial government, whatever their policy is, that it is an opportunity. for island health to come forward and others who Are proponents of an overdose prevention site and those who are opposed to it to state their views. And let us have this public discussion. It is the crisis of our times, it absorbing. An incredible amount of resources with, and I think that's one thing all of council can. Agree upon. No significant, obvious improvement. Mercifully, we have the potential of the sites at 1300 Island highway. And 1030 Victoria Road opening up and Travelers Lodge. Hopefully, maybe we'll see a change. There. But in the meantime, this is not the kind of topic generally, I think, that is suitable. For a GPC in the sense that we are not. Going to. We don't deliver the services. We don't provide the services. We don't have a legal jurisdiction or the responsibility, but in terms of an opportunity for people to come forward and defend the ops. Which is what councilor Thorpe is asking for, I think is a good thing. But I think. That everybody who needs to be heard or should be heard should have that opportunity. And I've seen folks here tonight who I know are strong proponents and some who I suspect are opposed. So let us have that opportunity. But referring it to a GPC when we don't have control over this, I think would be, frankly, a waste of council's. Time.
you very much for worship. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the comments. Of counsel. And I understand your thoughts. I think most of them. So, Councilor Arnold Strong. I do understand. The intent of deferring. I'm not going to support it. I heard councilor Manley reference a failure of government policy and the need to send a strong message to the province. Well, that is the intent of this motion because as I referenced in my earlier comments, I see the consumption site as a symbol of that failed government policy. So I'm not supporting deferral information from island health might be interesting, but it's not going to address my intent. And I'm not attacking island health. I'm not attacking the consumption site, per se. I'm certainly not attacking the operators. They just take direction from the province. What I'm attacking is the philosophy of our provincial government. And I'm very being very blunt about that we as a local government cannot solve the drug problem and the social. Disorder that it's causing, but we can stand up and urge the provincial government to have a second look at what it's doing to consider changing course to put money into treatment. And rehabilitation, not in enabling drug use. We need support that lead to rehabilitation, drug free, transitional housing and treatment centers. We need to argue for involuntary treatment and compassionate care for those that are a danger to themselves and to others. We need a change in philosophy, and this motion just takes a first step in getting the. Attention of the provincial government to consider that if we do nothing, the situation will just continue to get worse for the homeless people on the street and for the taxpayers in our neighborhoods and the sooner we get this message to the provincial government, the better. So I won't support the deferral. Thank you. Thank you very much.