19 Jan 2026 Council meeting Safety

Councillor Manly Motion re: Four Pillar Approach

Motion
That Council send a letter to the provincial and federal governments which: Reiterates that the ongoing impacts on communities of the addiction, mental health, toxic drug and homelessness crisis is unacceptable. That these senior levels of government must fully engage in a comprehensive four pillar approach of Harm Reduction, Prevention, Treatment, and Enforcement to tackle the illicit drug poisoning, mental health and addictions crisis in our community and communities across BC. That senior levels of government work towards effective long-term solutions that integrate the principles of these four pillars in a unified strategy.
Minutes, page 11
Sources
Agenda itemCity agenda
Put forward by Paul Manly Source

Paul Manly Yes

Motion reformer approach. Councilor. Manley. Thank you, your worship. I'd like to move the motion. The council sent a letter to the provincial and federal governments, which reiterates that the ongoing impact. On communities of the addiction, mental health, toxic drug and homelessness crisis is unacceptable. That these senior levels of government must fully engage in a comprehensive four pillar approach of harm reduction. Prevention, treatment and enforcement to tackle the illicit drug poisoning, mental health and addictions crisis in our communities. And communities across BC and that senior levels of government work towards effective long term solutions that integrate the principles of these four pillars in a unified strategy. And do we have a secondary. it? Yeah. The four pillars approach. Is. An old process. And it needs to be updated. And in the background document that I provided. It shows some of the things that need to be updated. When we talk about things like prevention, including addressing the social determinants of health and underlying risk factors. And education about lethal nature of the toxic drug supply of the harmful effects of addictive drugs. Including alcohol, but prevention also must include incorporating free mental health services under the count of the Health act to be provided through provincial health services to ensure that people experiencing mental health challenges can receive the services they need. And reduce the compulsion to self Medicaid with drugs and alcohol. The other parts of the pillar, like harm reduction. We know that harm reduction is important because. It saved people's lives. It reduces transmittable disease. It saves health care cost by reducing emergency department visits, and this approach needs to be accompanied. With healthcare and social service providers at overdose prevention sites. We need a housing first approach to ensure that people with mental health and addiction challenges who are experiencing homelessness are provided with appropriate support. Of housing as part of a harmony reduction strategy and harm red. Reduction strategy without a concerted focus on the other three pillars only prolongs the misery. That people afflicted with mental health, addiction, and homelessness face daily. So it doesn't alleviate or properly address the chaos and disruption for communities affected by the crisis without. These other processes, and that includes prevention, treatment and enforcement. And prevention I've already talked about. It's really important to educate people about this. And of course, we're dealing with. A whole different problem now than when the four pillar approach was originally proposed 25 years ago. The treatment propeller needs to be vastly expanded so that people with substance use disorders who are voluntarily seeking treatment are able to receive treatment upon request. That's not the case right now. People have to wait. That people who receive treatment and are experiencing homelessness are provided with appropriate support of dry housing. To reduce continue any cycles of harm. And that's not what we're seeing as well. We're seeing people that end up coming out of treatment and going back into shelter systems or into wet housing and the people that are unable to care for themselves or make informed decisions for themselves or taken into care. To protect themselves from additional harm and to protect the community. And this pillar must also include access to opioid Agnes therapy to divert people from substance. Use disorders with substance use disorders from using toxic speed drugs. And we know that there's a number of those kind of agonist therapies, suboxone, methadone et cetera that people could be accessing. And then, of course, the enforcement pillar needs to strengthen penalties for high level drug producers and traffickers. Of highly addictive illegal substances and toxic drugs and low level drug traffickers and people engage in crimes of survival. To deal with their addiction. Who are also affected by substance use disorders should be directed towards treatment and restorative justice. Programs and not criminalized. This is a health crisis that is being fed. By organized crime. So the original four pillars? Yes. It's outdated. And it needs to be updated, and we need to make sure that things like mental health are covered, especially after. The Covid crisis. We're seeing so many young people with mental health challenges and parents.
Thank you. Councillor manley. Thank you, your worship. Just a correction. To councilor Thorpe about his motion. It doesn't mention education. It doesn't mention. Treatment and it doesn't mention enforcement. I can read it for you. It says that council. Sent a letter to the provincial government asking to re examine its philosophy regarding the ongoing drug addiction. Crisis and resulting mental health. And street disorder issues. Stating that the current policy of decriminalization and enabling drug use at consumption sites is failing to provide effective, long term solutions for either those with addictions or for neighborhoods impacted by the problem. End quote. It does not. Mention any of the other key things that we need to focus on, whether you call it four. Pillars or not. We need to focus on education. We need to focus on prevention. And harm reduction is. A key aspect of just keeping people alive and closing, saying that it's a philosophy that doesn't work. And enabling. Consumption sites is failing. If consumption sites do not fail in their purpose, their purpose is to keep people alive. So it is not the same motion, it is not the same intent, and it is not the same wording. And so you should not be flattered at all, Mr. Thorpe. Thank you, councilor. Thank you.

Sheryl Armstrong No

I can't support this because. Even as council Manley said, the four pillars is sadly outdated. I was looking at this in the international journey of drug policy is strongly opposed to the four pillar approach, and they did studies in nine different countries that use this. It's not effective. It's not working. So to go back to something that we know is not working, to me. Doesn't make sense. I believed Councilor Thorpe's motion at the previous one, where they asked them to find. New ways forward made more sense because I can't support something where we know it doesn't. Work. And all the research says it doesn't work. Thank you. Thank you. And. Your worship.

Ian Thorpe No

That's fine. And I was done. Councilor Thorpe. Thank you, worship. I'll endeavor to be less than five minutes. I'm sorry. I'm not going to be able to support this, and I'm actually a little bit disappointed that councilor Manley would present this motion. Only weeks after he and four other counselors voted against my motion of December 1, when I asked for a letter requesting the provincial government change their approach to the opioid crisis by focusing on prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. And I said to, quote, shift the focus onto education and treatment for. Long term benefits. So in some respects, the motion in front of us, I think, is quite similar. To the intent of my motion. Oscar wild, I believe it was said that. The sincerest form of flattery is imitation. And I won't give the remainder of that quote. As I recall it, in the interests of being diplomatic, but I guess I should feel flattered, but. I'm also really not too impressed because I brought this intent to counsel and we debated. It and turned it down. Councilor Manley's motion, in my mind, I'm sorry to say, is derivative. But it's also prescriptive in that. It limits reference to the four pillar approach, which he admits. Needs updating an alteration. So for that reason as well, I'm not going to support it.
Thorpe. Thank you very much for worship. Yes, this is a hugely important issue. To our community. And I do appreciate the intent of Councilor Manley's motion, and I think the intent behind his motion was very similar to the intent behind my earlier motion. So even though I was not flattered by his words, I do applaud his intent. And I am quite willing to work together with councilor Manley and any other counselors. To craft a letter if council decides we want to proceed with a letter, or if there's. Another route that we want to follow because we all want to try and do something to bring about improvements. To this social crisis that we're faced with, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Janice Perrino No

And the reason why I supported councilor. Thorpe's motion. Back in early December was the fact that it was to look at new and comprehensive ways of dealing with this problem. What we have is a mess. And the four pillars, it's old. I appreciate the intent of this, and I know councilor Manaly is just trying to do something to make things right. But the problem is that we need new. Innovative ways of dealing with this problem because we're the ones at the city level that are dealing with it on a daily basis, and it's very disruptive to our neighborhood. And to our businesses. It's an awful situation, particularly for those who are actually living the problem on a day to day basis. This is a health crisis like we've never seen. Before while. I will not support the particular motion by Councilor Manley. I appreciate that. We need to.

Leonard Krog No

To the hub and the ongoing street disorder. And no disrespect to either councilors manly or Thorpe, but. I'm not absolutely satisfied that either of these motions reflect what we're trying to say to the provincial government. In terms of its need to fund. In terms of suggesting it's a four pillar approach or simply reexamine its philosophy. Et cetera. I'm not sure either of these motions are entirely effective. Nor do they. Necessarily reflect what I think is the common will of this community. So for what it's worth, In doing the count. I'm not going to support councilor manley's motion. For that reason, and I do so. In the hope that if this motion is defeated on a four four tie tonight, that some bright person around this council table, and I regard all of you as bright, will come up with a motion that I think we can all unanimously support. As opposed to. Sending a letter to the government which is the result of a three six or a four five. Whatever vote. I think it is incredibly important in these challenging times. We know that with respect to Councilor Thorpe's original motion, the government. Has already very much re examined its current policy of decriminalization. And it just seems to me that we might wish to consider a motion, and I'm. Not going to ask for it tonight. Please. That's not what I'm thinking about. That if it does go down to defeat on the basis of a tie, that we come back. With a motion that reflects both the current policy of the government. And with a throne speech and budget coming, we may have further guidance from what the province actually wants to do. Because surely we can all agree on the fact that. What we have in our street says Councilor Manley's motion says is unacceptable. It's not only unacceptable. It is unbecoming of a 21st century democracy.

Hilary Eastmure No

Ishmir. Then councilor Thorpe. Thank you, I think. What we actually need is a meeting. With the Minister of Health to talk about this. It's a very nuanced and complex issue. I think during the debate on Councilor Thorpe's motion, when I listened back to it, I really feel like. We were all almost. Saying the same thing. And. The wording and the finessing around that, that we weren't able to do that. Night. And I appreciate councilor Manley, bringing this motion forward, which I think really meant to capture all of the pieces that were mentioned by various counselors around that table, both for and against councilor Thorpe's motion because. It didn't really capture the health aspect and the prevention aspect. So to Councilor Brown's point. There are advocacy pieces where we really do all agree on it, and it's unfortunate that we can't figure out. The wording for a letter, but I don't even think a letter would be effective. At this point, we do need to sit down. With the minister to really figure out where they're at, because I don't really. Understand where the provincial government is really at in terms of addressing the opioid crisis, right? Now. Anyway, I think they've put us in a very dangerous and precarious place. At the moment with walking back decriminalization. Without any kind of. Clear path forward.