Special Council
August 14, 2026 · 08:50 am
Summary
- Mayor Ken Sim called a special council meeting to introduce a plebiscite bylaw placing two public safety questions on the October 2026 municipal ballot: whether Vancouver should strengthen bylaws to ban open-air hard drug use in public spaces, and whether the city should formally ask the province to convert the old St. Paul's Hospital site (or similar) into a secure medical facility with voluntary and involuntary care beds.
- Councillor Lucy Maloney moved a strike-and-replace amendment that would instead direct staff to develop plans around peer support, crisis response, restorative justice, and a housing-first framework; the amendment was defeated.
- The main plebiscite bylaw carried, with Councillors Maloney opposed and Councillors Pete Fry, Rebecca Bligh, and Sean Orr absent from the vote after stating they would not participate.
Motions
Public Safety Plebiscite By-law
Carried Details
- Proposes adding two non-binding plebiscite questions to the October 2026 municipal ballot asking Vancouver voters: (1) whether the city should strengthen bylaws to ban open-air hard drug use in public spaces; and (2) whether the city should formally request the province convert the old St. Paul's Hospital or a similar site into a secure medical facility with voluntary and involuntary care beds (100+ beds).
- Supporters argued the city has spent four years and an estimated $100 million above normal municipal costs absorbing the effects of failed provincial drug and health policy, and that repeated direct appeals to the Premier have produced no new involuntary care beds in Vancouver.
- Supporters said a plebiscite provides a clear, statistically representative democratic signal to the province in a way that surveys or further letters cannot, and that decriminalization previously prevented bylaw changes that would now be legally permissible.
- Opponents called it an election-year political stunt, noting open-air drug use is already illegal, the questions lack specificity on enforcement or cost, and that the emergency meeting gave no time for public participation or staff analysis.
- Opponents also argued the motion distracts from the council majority's record on housing and harm reduction, and that the province and federal government have been withholding investments from Vancouver partly due to the city's uncooperative posture toward senior governments.
- City election staff confirmed multilingual outreach (11 languages, WeChat/Weibo advertising, translated voter pamphlets) would apply to the plebiscite the same as the general election.
Public Safety Plebiscite Amendment
Defeated Details
- Proposed replacing the plebiscite bylaw entirely with a set of staff directives to develop concrete action plans in areas including peer support and community intervention, crisis response systems, restorative justice (modelled on the 2023 Hastings Sunrise pilot and Victoria/New Westminster approaches), a housing-first framework, and engagement with relevant organisations.
- Mover argued the city already has unmet election commitments from 2022 in these areas and that real action, not a ballot question, is what residents need after four years of inaction.
- ABC councillors responded that many elements of the amendment duplicate programs already funded and operating, including the $8-million Vancouver Coastal Health partnership, expanded CAR 87/88, mobile de-escalation teams, and an Indigenous crisis response team; they said the amendment does not address the core goal of pressuring the province to provide treatment beds.
Agenda documents (2)
ROLL CALL
1. Public Safety Plebiscite
Vote matrix
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ken Sim🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Lenny Zhou🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Rebecca Bligh🥜 | Y | A | |
| Lisa Dominato🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Pete Fry🥜 | Y | A | |
| Sarah Kirby-Yung🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Mike Klassen🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Lucy Maloney🥜 | N | Y | Y |
| Peter Meiszner🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Brian Montague🥜 | Y | N | Y |
| Sean Orr🥜 | Y | A | |
| Adriane Carr🥜 | |||
| Christine Boyle🥜 |