1 Dec 2025 Council meeting Safety

Councillor Thorpe Motion re: Request to Provincial Government - Amendment to Current Drug Decriminalization Policy

Motion
That Council send a letter to the provincial government asking it to reexamine 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 neighbourhoods impacted by the problem.
Minutes, page 12
Sources
Agenda itemCity agenda, whole meeting
Put forward by Ian Thorpe Source

Ian Thorpe Yes

All right. I would like to move. As I have indicated the following. That council sent a letter to the provincial government asking it 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. Sorry, it's a bit wordy. Is there a secondary second I may. First of all, thank you to the delegations. I appreciate your coming and expressing your viewpoint. And. I think. I don't agree with some of the statements that you made, but we're not here to argue with delegations. I do think we can agree that drug addiction is bad. And I think. Oh, you're shaking your head no. Okay, well, I guess we don't. Agree on that. I think it's bad, and I wish the government would focus more on prevention and education. And treatment rather than. Simply continuing. To accept. Drug addiction as a norm and enabling, and I do see it as enabling. So first, if I may, your worship, I want to explain. I withdrew my original motion regarding closure. Of the supervision, the supervised consumption site, because on reflection, I felt that it was being misunderstood and that my intent was unclear, so I'll try to keep this clear. This is not directly about the consumption site. To me, that is just a symbol of the government. Policy which after I believe twelve years now of the opioid crisis, needs to be reexamined the root of the problem in my mind is substance abuse and drug addiction causing mental illness and resulting social disorder. And I think. It does. This is a headline. I have that, says city leaders. Police say BC drug policy is failing. Street disorder worsened. I agree with that statement. The policy, I think, is failing. And that policy included a three year pilot project on drug decriminalization. And a focus on supervised consumption sites. I acknowledge that there is some attempt at treatment and recovery in the government policy. But there is very little, and it's moving at a snail's pace. Mainly, we are currently just assisting users to continue addiction and continue their lives of resulting misery on our streets. This is not a long term solution to the opioid crisis. So in my opinion, your worship. And what? I would like us through a letter. To point out to the government is please consider. A different approach. Put money and effort into priorities of education and treatment facilities. More detox, dry recovery spaces, speed up compassionate compulsory care for those that can't look after themselves. and a number of politicians including several from our council heard julian daley recently ceo of victoria's hourplace society when he presented at ubcm and said we need a health first policy which means addressing addiction and mental illness decriminalization was well intended but Ended up feeding the problem. It lessens protection for the most vulnerable. So I am asking council. Support to send a letter simply asking the government to re examine how are they dealing with this? Addiction crisis. Consider, please, taking a different approach, because what we're doing now is not.
We have. Sorry, your worship, but I do appreciate the comments of council, whether I agree with them or not. And thank you for allowing the discussion. I think it's an important one. I am not asking in this motion for the government to close down the supervised consumption site and we seem to keep coming back to that. I'm simply asking that we write a letter. Requesting that the government look at its priorities and how it's dealing with this opioid. Crisis. And councilor Manley referenced failure of policies, and I thought. He was actually arguing my case for me, and you referenced councilor Manly, the four pillars and. What are those pillars? Well, three of them are education and treatment and enforcement, and I will argue that right now. Our provincial policy. Does not accommodate any of those three pillars. Education. There was a recent bill proposed in the legislature. Just a couple of weeks ago that suggested a drug use prevention curriculum in BC schools and with help from another party. The government defeated that bill. To me, that's madness. Long term solutions require education. They require treatment. Let's put the emphasis on treatment. Getting people healthy health first. That should be the answer. And enforcement. Yes, let's allow the police to go after the drug dealers more easily. That are preying upon. Victims that are struggling with abuse. So I don't think what we have now is working as effectively as the government hoped. It would, and I'm simply asking them to have a look at their priorities and see. If there's a different focus that they can take, not. Cancel anything outright or totally change course, but just see where they're spending their money. Most effectively. We certainly, as a local government council of the opioid crisis, we know that and we're frustrated we can't solve the social disorder that goes along with it, but I think at least we can urge the provincial government to reexamine its approach and to take into account the harmful long term effects that the current policy is having on those. With addictions. Consumption sites, I'm sure do short term good by saving people's lives, but in the long term, is it giving them the treatment they need to get off their addiction? No. So that's what I'm asking for, your worship, and I appreciate the conversation. And I'm quite happy to go ahead with the vote.

Ben Geselbracht No

I can't support this motion. I think the reasoning is flawed. I still think, regardless of not asking for the immediate dismantling, it's throwing the overdose prevention site unnecessarily under the bus, the motion asserts. Overdose prevention sites are failing to provide effective, long term solutions for those with addictions or for neighborhoods. But the overall prevention sites were never designed to be long term addiction treatment solutions, and their purpose is simple and urgent to prevent death. I agree that we're not doing enough to reduce addiction, expand treatment, or improve neighborhood safety. And. Those are fair grounds for holding the province accountable, and I support that. But blaming overdose prevention sites for the province's failure to invest adequately in treatment, recovery and community safety mixes up the causes. People will continue to use the drugs with or without the overdose prevention site. Without these sites. They'll be used and the drugs will be used in more dangerous environments without medical care. And in ways that create greater risks for both users and the community. If. We want better long term outcomes, then the answer is to expand access to medical treatment, mental health.
It just doesn't make any sense. Like, why have the statement? That the overdose the current approach for the overdose prevention site is a failure to provide long term treatment when it wasn't the whole purpose. Why don't we just exclude that and. Say, hey, provincial government. We still have a lot of people that are in addiction in the streets. There's still a lot of social disorder. We need to be doing things that. is actually addressing this in a long term way and we are feeling that You haven't been doing that. And leave the overdose prevention site out of it. It'd be a much simpler solution because I think the issue that a lot of people have is that it is just a stop gap. To stop people from dying in a crisis because of the fact that we haven't put the resources in what we need, and I think we're just kind of conflating. The issue by having it in there, and that's why I can't support it. At a later date. We want to change things. Probably could have something that, with more support from this council, that could be sending a clear message. To the provincial government that we need to address the situation with a lot more urgency.

Janice Perrino Yes

And I just. Want to call your attention to the line that talks about. Failing to provide effective, long term solutions for either those with addictions or for neighborhoods impacted by the problem. I want to thank Ms. Lovegrove and Ms. Plains for speaking. One of the concerns that I have, Ms. Plains, was that you talked about. They just need a little more compassion. And I understand where you're coming from. From that statement, however. For those of us. And I have lost a family member, so this hits very close to home. I can tell you. This is not a disgrace. This is a disease. Drug addiction is a disease. It is not a disgrace and consumption sites do keep people alive. I agree with you. My struggle is that sending people back out to the cold, to the wet, without shelter, without food, without. Any way of trying. To. Any ability to recover is simply wrong and inhumane. And if you go to city hall and sit there for a few hours, you will see people. That are. These are. These are our sons, our daughters, our parents. Our sisters, brothers. This is absolutely. Horrible what we're doing to people. And having buried someone in my own family, I can. Tell you that this is just wrong. So while this motion isn't perfect, The very fact that we would write to the problems to say, you need to do more because we are failing to provide effective long term solutions for those with addictions is enough for me. To vote in favor of it until the government provides care for those who need. This. Is not to be stigmatized. This is not a disgrace. It's a disease. And we need to treat it that way. And that's what we're asking for. Thank you. Thank you.

Tyler Brown No

I will not be supporting this. Listening to Councilor Thorpe speak. There was things in there I absolutely agreed with, and I think I probably found more in there. That I agreed with than what I actually literally read in the motion. But I am voting on the motion. I think Councilor Gussel Brock highlighted. What supervised consumption sites are supposed to be, what their purposes are. And it is one very small thing. In what's supposed to be a continuum of care. And I think the big target for me is all the other absent pieces in that continuum, care. That don't exist. And so. In your introductory remarks, Councilor Thorpe, I heard lots of those components about those missing pieces and I would absolutely support letters that are speaking to those gaps. But when it comes to this, just they'll be very quick. One week of my experience in downtown, in Iowa was at the Port theater for an event. Outside. a whole bunch of drug paraphernalia which was fires everything like that Clearly an unsupervised consumption site. The McDonald's on Nichols street. Go into the washroom there. It's overflowing. The needle box. It's unbelievable. I feel very sorry for the people that have to clean. That facility. That's clearly an unsupervised consumption site. I had one more example, but it's now escaping me. But it doesn't matter. I think you understand. My point is that there's tons of unsupervised consumption sites and simply singling out. The supervised consumption site, I don't think. Will do anything to. Combat the greater problem. And I think the concerns of folks, both those. That are tired of this issue on the streets, but also those that are tired. Of losing loved ones and seeing the visible marks of the tragedy. So I can't support this? Because I simply think it's identifying the wrong items. And I hope this is defeated, but I would happily support. Lots of the gaps that exist. If that's what we were writing. Thanks.

Paul Manly No

Manning. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you to Ms. Lovegrove and Ms. Plains for your presentation and for Ms. Plans for. Really sharing your story. It's really important for people to hear that. There is another. Side through the window. And I went to Guy Falicello's presentations before to you, and he tells. A very powerful story about. Addiction and living on the street and getting through the other side. Not everybody that's using these consumption sites is homeless. There are people that are going there to consume. That have homes that do hang around on our streets. I agree with councilor Brown and councilor Gustelbrock. They're without safe consumption sites. People are using in unsafe sites. Consumption sites are part of a four pillar approach. Harm reduction. It's to keep people alive. And I, too, have a family member that I lost to this crisis, and I've had friends that have died as well. And I have people on the street that I know, that I've known for decades. That. I see. Who have kids who. Had jobs and family lives. And now. That's all been undone. But the last thing I want is for them to die. Of a toxic drug overdose the way my cousin did. And. We needed. Larry Campbell talked about a four pillar approach decades ago, and I think right now we're standing. On a pogo stick where we focused on harm reduction. But the other parts of that four pillar approach. Our education. Treatment and enforcement. We need to be dealing with the people that are putting this toxic drug supply on the street. And. If the. I two hear what you're saying. Councilor Thorpe, I agree with many things that you're saying, but at the same time. The focus of the motion. Doesn't spell that out. What we really need to be doing. Is compelling the government to go back to that four pillar approach. This is a health crisis. We need a housing first approach for people. Who are facing homelessness and addiction. We need mental health services as part of. Our canada health act. That our Canada health accord should have mental health services free for anybody that needs mental health services. We're failing in so many ways. compulsory compassionate care we don't have voluntary care available for those that need it when they need it that is a failure that's a failure of Our healthcare system. It's a failure of our policies, and I've seen it all. Too often when people are reaching out for help that. The waitlists are too long. It's not there. When they're ready to make the turn in their lives. So I can't support this as worded. Yeah, I would consider some other kind of messaging to the provincial government. About how we do better. Around this crisis because. They need to do better.

Hilary Eastmure No

A lot has been said already that I agree with by councilors Gusselbrick. And man Lee and the delegations, I think, shared. Some really important truths with us today. As far as. The importance. Of these safe consumption sites. I don't need studies to tell me that these harm reduction. Interventions are important. I can look around and see people who would not be here with us today if these services didn't exist. And that's all the proof that I need. And I can also pull a random headline as evidence. Harm reduction in housing facilities and public places. Can save lives, experts say. And as far as the need to provide additional health care, And supports. Yes, absolutely. Councilor Perino. I agree that we do need to do that, but that's not what this motion says at all. so i just can't support this today And I really appreciate the people on the front lines doing the really important harm reduction work and I'll just say I also stopped by Avion and Imo's 30th anniversary. Celebration today. Huge credit to the work that they've been doing in our community.
The stigma expressed tonight around drug use. I just find appalling. We enable people to use alcohol. Constantly. It has serious health effects and also kills people. And yet we have all kinds of supervised consumption sites for alcohol called bars. And so the continued stigma around drug use. Is what is killing people. I find it appalling, the statement around. We're allowing people to use drugs, and we're bringing them back with naloxone. To what end? To what end? To save their lives and. Those people deserve, deserve treatment, and they deserve to be able. To have access to the supports and services we need. Not just harm reduction, but also access to timely treatment and housing. Housing is healthcare. And I think that is a big thing that all of this discussion is coming down to, and it's just not reflected in this motion. And so. I look forward to voting this down tonight.

Erin Hemmens No

I think what I would have said has been said. I don't want to prolong it. I'm not going to support. I think I understand the frustration with which this motion comes forward in. But I don't think it's quite hitting the mark of what this council wants. To communicate to the provincial government about their policies. I do want to note, I can't leave this conversation without noting. That these services, despite research that neighborhoods actually benefit from superfied consumption services, That has not been the experience. Of the south end. And I just want to read something. This is from the South End Community association, so this is. The alliance of residents who are. Saying? The implementation. Of services such as this if they don't include a realistic assessment of the capacity of the neighborhood in which a service or housing is operated to successfully integrate that activity. The resulting negative impact on the neighborhood is all too predictable, costly, stressful and undermitigated. There are important truths on the other side of this conversation. And those truths belong to children in the neighborhood. Those truths belong to seniors and elderly in the neighborhood. And so I fully support what happens in the supervised consumption site because as councilor Esmere said lives are being saved, and that is critical. However, if we don't take in the context of the surrounding neighborhood and what happens when people. Leave those services. We're not actually looking at the full picture, and I think it's. Actually a bit naive. I'm not going to support. But not because I believe that the policy is a great one, but just, it's just.

Leonard Krog Yes

Thorpe's motion and for one central reason. This is. A cry from a community. That. Has seen incredible levels of misery and death and sadness. And to some extent, it has been the policy results of well meaning people who suggested that somehow if you decriminalize the use of all drugs that may be dangerous and addictive, that somehow will all be safer. Or that if we just go after the drug dealers and eliminate the supply will all be safer. All of the various solutions. If we just provide safe supply, the community will be safer. You'll prevent this. Several hundred years ago, if you committed suicide, that was the ultimate sin. Against God and you wouldn't be buried in consecrated grounds. Now, I'm not with that philosophy. But the end result of very well meaning. Dedicated, passionate people around this issue. Has resulted in what I see as an appalling approach by many people who, in my view should know better, who somehow think that the agency. We're all supposed to enjoy allows you. And we know that this happens. We know that. People who work for us as firefighters have seen it. You overdose two or three times in a day you get saved by somebody so that you can do it again another day, and we will. Ensure that you are left in the streets. We will ensure that you do not. Face compulsory care or supervision or treatment so that you can eventually die in the streets and that is what has happened. We have stepped back from this. I am with Julian Daley on this. This is a serious health matter. It has resulted in a significant level, as I indicated earlier. Around not just addiction, but mental health, which is often the precursor to the addiction, then followed with significant brain injury. I am not prepared to continue. To keep asking. As an individual, as a mayor, over and over again. This isn't perfect wording might not suit me entirely, but sometimes when you just want somebody's attention, you have to get. Their attention. So I'm going to support this motion because what we have done in my view. Is not only in human it is not in keeping with the value of any civilized society to allow someone, the agency, to continue to take substances that will kill them, that we know, a supply. We're never going to control or fix is going to continue to kill them and pretend somehow that services at one end where we are seeing people in the last stages of their life. And. We are. And we have seen those individuals in the streets, and some of them know we know who they are. The staff at city hall know who they are. I'm not prepared to. Allow that to become a norm when it is a norm that thousands of your citizens live in. The streets and the conditions they do. Not getting any effective treatment. Ms. Lovegrove and Ms. Plains are right. You know what? It does save lives. But saving those lives for what purpose is what I'm really asking. If there is no treatment available, if we are not putting money at the other end, if we are not providing housing and supports. And if we are not prepared as a society to stop pussyfooting around and put people. In secure, involuntary care in far greater numbers than have been suggested. The vote in the last election indicated were British Columbians stand in this. In my respectful opinion, it's why the government doesn't have a majority. I've said it over and over again. That's my entitlement to my express my opinion. I will support councilor Thorpe's motion. It may not be perfect. But it's times the folks in Victoria started to wake up to the reality of what is happening in our streets before more people die, particularly when we know that, according to statistics and there's always statistics that the majority of people who die from the toxic drug supply are doing it in their own homes. In any event, they're not going down to the overdose. Pre. Prevention site. A small percentage of people who use drugs, we're not allowed to use terms like addicts anymore because that would be stigmatizing. People who use drugs are dying in their homes. Sorry, but it's time we started to take what I will call the most. Compassionative approaches and do some things that may be unappealing to a certain segment. Of the community who remain advocates, as if somehow using drugs that will eventually kill you, that are addictive is a norm. I'm sorry, it's not a norm and it's. Not going to be a norm for very long because something awful will happen, you will see.

Questions and answers

Mayor Leonard Krog
Speaker identificationConfident
Yes

asked
Wrap up. Thank you very. Much. Any questions for the delegation? I do have a question. people refer to various studies et cetera and we know that our csos and others in the community have brought many back with naloxon And you can argue that every time that happens, that's a preventable death. But has there been any, have there been any studies that looked at the long term impact in other words, people who end up deceased because of a toxic drug that they took, et cetera. Have they been, in fact, saved previously, and if so, how many times? And is there any discussion around that or studies. The reason I'm asking. Quite simply, is. The general public, I think it's fair to say. Doesn't regard these programs as a success. All right? And I'm talking about the general public. I'm not talking about myself or any member of council, please. But I want you to understand what I'm trying to say. Are there studies that indicate that it's worthwhile? And the reason I say that is because it contrasts with a lack of detox beds, particularly for young people who are starting down that long, sad road that ends in the death that you've talked about. I'm
A guest answered
not sure, but I would like to point out one thing that's kind of unsaid in the midst of this toxic drug crisis is that addiction. Is technically a disability. And so what we are doing is we are putting our most vulnerable members of society. and telling them that they're expendable i just would like to point that out
Mayor Leonard Krog followed up
Do you support the concept of. Well, what I've been told by my friend mayor Diaz. In Kelowna is compulsory, compassionate care. And I'm not talking about people with I won't call it. I hate to say it, but a simple drug issue. Because I think it's fair to say that. And I'm not exaggerating. A substantial portion of the people with a serious drug issue, also have a mental health issue, and very sadly, as a result of the toxic drug supply, being brought back in Lockson a significant level of brain injury. Now, do you? Support, compassionate, compulsory care, or what I call secure and voluntary care for
A guest answered
Those folks. I think that's a very narrow solution for the wide range of people that we have out there. I think that for a certain group of people, there definitely is. That is definitely the solution for them. I've known a few personally that definitely need involuntary care. But I think that people need to come to that decision on their own, and. With the complexity of the addiction to being addicted to fentanyl and benzos and all. The really strong analogues that we have coming out now. It's really hard for them. To make that decision. So I don't believe in involuntary care. I think people need to. Get to that point where they can make that decision. But. It doesn't take too much. It just takes a little bit of compassion and understanding and. The way that things are now. It's very stigmatized. It's not okay to be a drug user. So in order for us to get to that spot, I think we need. To be at a space of honesty. Between people who use drugs and the people that are there to support them. And