City of Vancouver. This is the number one issue for the public and it is my number one priority. Vancouverites deserve to have their voice heard on this issue, and the province needs to hear directly from them. That's why I called today's special council meeting. My motion today would enact a bylaw submitting two love aside questions to the voters of Vancouver for their opinion in the upcoming October municipal election. The questions asked whether the questions asked whether Vancouver voters are in favor of the city strengthening its laws to forbid open air, hard drug use in public spaces. And should the city formally ask the province to convert portions of the old St. Paul's Hospital or similar site into a secure medical facility that provides acute voluntary plus 100 plus involuntary care beds? Now I think it's important to note that people forget that decriminalization only ended this year and we've been dealing with it for the vast majority of our term and that meant that any bylaw changes would have contravened federal law. This bylaw change that we're proposing would not contravene federal law anymore. It's not kind, compassionate or caring to leave people suffering on our streets while asking every neighborhoods to live with the consequences. The province needs to hear loud and clear how our city feels about the issue. And this plebiscite creates that opportunity. And I do hope that my fellow council members both to support this motion and put these questions on the ballot for the voters. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor.

Seconded by Councillor Kirby. Okay, so there's no ready speaker for this item, but before I go into the next section, so can we check Councillor Montague's online? I think there's some technical issues with Councillor Montague.

Okay, so Councillor Montague, can you hear us?

yeah um i'd like to put myself on those speakers cue okay let me just use the manual check here okay and it's working yeah yeah okay perfect okay so uh clerk can we put councillor uh bligh on the councillor maloney on you and council maloney first OK, so council member is there any discussion? I saw council classroom.

Well, there's a queue already there.

Thanks very much clock has to start over.

So a question through you, Chair, to the mover of the motion, Mayor Kassim. You know, we've heard repeatedly that health care and involuntary treatment are provincial responsibilities. Why do you think having a mandate from the public for Vancouver voters would help in the city's desire to try and improve the situation for that?

Thank you for the question. I think there's three things there. First of all, I always think it's great to give the residents voters of Vancouver a voice. And to send this strong message not only to the future Council of the City of Vancouver come this October, but to Victoria as well as to what the residents truly think and feel. I can tell you through my. journeys throughout all the different neighborhoods in the city a lot of people have brought up the fact that you know it's all very compassionate people you know that we're dealing with humanitarian crisis they also feel uh intimidated and fearful of actually talking about this issue

controlled on social media or being labeled as a bad person. That's not compassionate. And so I think allowing the residents to have their voice heard in a very safe manner where there's no intimidation or coordination origin, they can have these conversations and send that strong message to Vancouver and Victoria. On top of that, we're dealing with the humanitarian crisis and we've been dealing with it way before our administration or since i've been mayor and we've reached out to the premier and uh you know senior levels of government uh countless times and it feels like we're you know we're at a loss when it comes to senior levels of effort to their responsibilities on this issue i don't know what my time is at right now possibly it's two minutes

so just a quick follow-up to that Mary you know to the point that this is simply a case of where you can pick up the phone versus having the voters of Vancouver why do you think it's important for us to have the voice of the general public the Vancouver voter being heard on a decision, on an initiative, is as important as this one. Well, because we have picked up the phone and we've met in person.

And, you know, so, you know, my first letter to the premier and prime minister calling for voluntary care was in September of 2024. We stood with mayors across the province outside Seahall and called for involuntary care to address the crisis in cities across BC. We stood next to the Premier later that month when he did introduce involuntary care. We sent a letter to the Health Minister in May regarding the proposed OPS site at 900 Helmock Hunt. And we sent a letter to Premier Eby last week calling for the urgent and immediate aid 100 involuntary care beds in Vancouver. We've written tons of op-eds about this issue to speak directly to the public. We've had multiple conversations, as I mentioned, with the province and multiple requests. I would estimate that we've reached out over 50 times to the Premier's Office over the last three years on this issue and other issues. We've even advocated in Ottawa this year and last year, including We've met, we've had multiple meetings with the Minister of Public Safety in Ottawa and Vancouver on this topic, and we also met with the federal government fentanyls are in Ottawa, Vancouver. So.

We still have had zero movement on involuntary care bids in the City of Vancouver. And so this I committed to using every tool that we have at the city. And this is another tool to get the message across. This is not replacing or.

Having this plebiscite is not something we're just doing for the sake of doing. This is a continuation of a whole series of things that we have done to get the attention.

there's 15 seconds that's okay please go ahead counselor okay i think so thanks very much just want to check uh counselors still have time to do the closing remarks right yeah i'm your question period it's not in the script we're just doing questions in the questions we were in debate already so there's no topic this is debate okay no question yeah yeah that's my understanding as well You have 15 seconds left.

Yeah, I'll save my 15 seconds for later.

Okay, this technical difficulty is just giving a lot of challenge to this meeting anyway. All right. Okay. So the next one is Councillor Carbio.

Yeah, so since we're speaking to a motion, I'm going to provide my comments and perspective. And there have been a couple of good questions asked, and I think it's important to work the public through it. Sorry, can we just I know the audio is not great in this room. So we just talk about the time. So some of the questions people have asked why, why publicize not a survey? A survey I think has challenges because oftentimes people will question who commissioned it, they will question the scale of it, they will question if it's representative statistically of the city. We actually have an unprecedented opportunity with people going to the polls who are going to be fully engaged in the democratic process in October for the municipal election. And it will send a resounding clear unequivocal signal of the scale and sentiment of the residents of Vancouver in terms of how they feel about this issue. Why is that important? Because as the mayor said, we have advocated continuously over several years to no avail and have not seen the action to address this crisis and things are continuing to get worse. We saw from the recent Ipsos poll that was released, which does provide a bit of a sentiment indicator that people feel the addiction crisis is worsening, visible public drug use is worsening, the amount of crime of street disorder is worsening, and so is the level of community safety. We are losing the social license and the compassion in our neighborhood, and that concerns me greatly when we need to get people to better. The second question has been asked is why not advocate for solutions? Well, the question on the ballot actually provides a solution, whether it's St. Paul's or another alternative site and offers it up to the province. We have also offered up their solutions previously, and those have not yet been accepted. So it concerns me incredibly that we're having a debate about something that is so pervasive in our city. And not taking a step back to say fundamentally putting politics and partisanship aside, is there a more significant crisis in our city? And I don't think so. And is what we are doing now actually getting people to better? And no, I do not think it is. And sometimes leadership means that you actually just need to take a step on doing things differently. Ontario has made some news, for example, of moving away from LPSs to treatment recovery sites. The public appetite is clearly saying, let's not just get into crisis intervention and sustain people, let's actually get them to a better and a healthier place. And we have some individuals that are in such dire need that it is... Shockingly sad to leave them in that situation, and I think that. At this point in time, having sat on Council and for two terms and trying to advocate for. A more balanced approach that doesn't only focus on harm reduction and now sitting with the Council that has actually tried to really provide some specific solutions there and not having the process step up and partner with us with the same level of. urgency that we feel is deeply dismaying and disappointing and so for me we need our those people to be healthier we need our neighborhoods to be healthier we need our city to be healthier and if this is what it takes to get the province to listen with a resounding voice which we might get and i suspect we will get in the public site but that's democracy people will get to vote and they will get to weigh in and they will get to decide But it would take away, I think, a lot of the politicization from different scenarios where people say, no, that's not what people want or there's different factions. Let's let the people give an unequivocal mandate for us to go and continually knock down those doors to say, help, our city is dying and our neighborhoods are dying and people are. and that is just not okay and i think whether whoever sits on the next council will be informed and have the benefit of hearing from a significant number of vancouver rights at a skid in a way that we never usually have the opportunity to do outside of a national election and for those reasons i support moving forward with this um and i will turn it over to the next person thank you okay thanks counselor kirby uh the national council of five

Yeah, thanks, and I'll just qualify this, but I think most most anybody, if you asked a bank for genocide or otherwise, would agree the extent of open drug uses is not good for people who are using drugs. It's not good for our city. It's not good for our streets. But I think that what's lost in this nuance is that we're also talking about.

questions if I made it through to the motion. First of all, what is what is the cost of this site? Even this emergency meeting? And why was this not introduced as regular council business?

So the size of the investment on this website question, which is about four to 6% of the overall election budget, but And to give you context. We calculated that we spend as a city approximately $100 million a year in additional costs that a regular city dealing with regular issues wouldn't have to spend. But for the fact that, you know, there have been failed provincial policies on these issues, and then we end up absorbing those costs.

I think it's incredibly prudent to ask this question of the public, but also I also think that you can never go wrong when you put a question out to the voters and the residents of Vancouver.

give them an opportunity to voice you know their thoughts right but this this motion has presented it's pretty lean on details so again why was this not introduced as regular council business where we could have a more full debate more close some sort of evidence presented and and well what are the specific laws that you're hoping to see strengthened

reality is we're here right now um i think it's uh you know it's incumbent on council if things come up uh we deal with them so we're here we're debating it right now we're having the conversation so It is what it is. I'll give you an example of a loss that you're hoping to. Yeah, no, I'm going to answer that question, Councillor. So, you know, I think, you know, and to sort of level set here, I think part of this is also about the staff reestablishing social expectations. So I'll give you an example on health. You already. know regulate certain things in our city through bylaws for example smoking by an uh an entryway to a building you cannot smoke within six meters of an entryway it's a public health so the valid question asks well should we be updating our bylaws um to address uh the you know open use uh in public spaces of hard drugs like fentanyl crack

Yeah, which is already covered, but OK, OK, so but not again, it lacks the specificity. I'm going to move on to another question that I have about last month, Councillor Zhou, press conference on the steps that you've all here to launch a petition, stopharddrugs.ca. The petition seems to be identical to this plebiscite question, so I guess was the petition and website for stopharddrugs.ca funded through the political party, through the constituency budget for the City of Vancouver? and uh and will the petition website be used to drive participation in this plebiscite is that a question

Yeah, I can't answer this question. The website is paid by my own pocket. I can't even show you the receipt.

Your personal.

That's right. It's my personal petition. Nothing to do with anything. And is the intention of this petition to drive folks to vote in this plebiscite? No, not at all. So because I heard concern from my community, I just want to give them a voice on the platform.

Okay, so if I was signed up to that petition, I wouldn't be getting emails directing me to vote?

Not emails at all.

um i will uh jump off i'm not sure what time i'm at but i'm going to jump off to some closing comments okay so the nice one says mayor sim but i think that's me andrew so i'll just otherwise myself so i'll provide some uh remark oh i need to see the chair to counselor kirby yeah thanks so a quick question to the the city clerk so how do we reach out to the our cultural community who do not speak english for this website

Yeah, OK, thanks. So I'll just provide some closing remarks in support of this motion. So I think for too long, people across our city have told us they no longer feel comfortable in public space that belongs to everyone. Families are avoiding certain parks. Seniors are changing their walking rules. Parents with kids see hard drug use near playground, library, and community center. And as a father, this issue is really deeply personal to me. My young son saw someone using drugs in the park and asked me, what are they doing there, dad? I don't know how to answer. Think about that. How do you answer this question to a child who is not even a five year old of drug use? Is this really a new normal that parents must accept in Vancouver? No parents have to normalize open drug use for their child. No child should grow up believing this is simply unavoidable in our city. That's why I actually started this public petition calling for strict enforcement to prevent open air drug use for public spaces. In less than two weeks, as of yesterday, I had received more than 7,000 signatures right here.

This is more than 7,000 people, more than 7,000 families, from different neighborhoods, backgrounds, professions, and political perspective, including families, seniors, parents, small business owners, nurses, doctors, and frontline workers. They signed because compassion for people experiencing addiction must not abandon others' human rights to feel safe. They signed because they know the status quo is not working. Among all the people I met, one mother's story really stayed with me forever. Ms. Yan Lin came to my office. Her beautiful daughter, Emily, was only 14 years old when she died from fentanyl in 25 January. As Ms. Lin thinks, Emily received fentanyl on the street in public space. Ms. Lin spoke about Emily. She broke down into tears. She even told me that immigrating to Canada is the worst decision she ever made. No parents should ever have to bury a 14-year-old child. Ms. Lin sent me a letter to support this petition. She wrote me something every one of us should always remember. She says, my daughter should still be alive. Think about that. Think about that. Nothing can bring Emily back, but we can listen to her mother and do everything in our power to prevent another family from experiencing the same unimaginable pain. This is why I think this plebiscite matters. Hard drugs should not be openly consumed in parks, playgrounds, sidewalks, libraries, community centers, public transit, and other shared public spaces. Enforcement cannot stand alone. We need immediate medical stabilization. We need voluntary treatment for those ready to accept it. We also need to secure involuntary care delivered with medical oversight, dignity and compassion in most serious situations. It's not a choice between public safety and compassion. Real compassion means protecting person in crisis instead of leaving them to deteriorate in public. It means supporting. Yeah, so for Emily and for for other people, so I'm going to support Trump.

you thanks okay the next line is consular war thanks uh i do believe this is an election stunt i believe this is political theater uh as we just witnessed i believe this is a i believe this is a 500 000 get out the vote strategy i believe it's ultra vires which means is out of our jurisdiction it means at any point someone can bring forth an injunction to halt this process Consumption of open-air drugs is already illegal. I don't know what else do we want to put on the ballot to make other things that are currently illegal, illegal. How about drunk driving? I think it's no different than Colorado putting gay marriage on the ballots to drive people to the polls. This is intended to divide. It is intended to distract from your own failures as council. You said that city of Vancouver is dying. You've had four years to fix it and you're distracting from your own failures. And I'm not going to participate in this sham process.

Thanks. Thanks. The next speaker is Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. I'd like to be taken to an amendment queue, please.

So clerk, please take us to the amendment queue.

I'm following the queue on my computer because I do not have access to this right now.

It's I don't think we started. Yeah, it's just.

Yeah, it's all gone.

Yeah, this one's right, I think, and then we move to the amendment queue. Councillor Maloney, please go ahead.

Thank you. I've distributed a strike and replace amendment. The City of Vancouver has tools to reduce street disorder and increase public safety in ways that improve conditions for residents, businesses and vulnerable people while supporting dignified pathways to treatment and recovery. Other jurisdictions like Victoria and New Westminster have tackled this problem and can be used as models for the city's approach. We don't need to wait for a ballot question to begin this work or advocate to senior levels of government for solutions. The City of Vancouver has had several successful pilot programs over the previous decade, including the Better Together Collective Action pilot. Vancouver has also a number of crisis response services and intervention programs that can be enhanced by investing in coordination and connection services. Crisis response community led or circle programs have already been successfully used in other jurisdictions like Victoria and New West. restorative justice pilots and programs such as the restorative city model programs 2023 Vancouver pilot in Hastings Sunrise have been adopted and seen success in Vancouver but lack of sufficient funding to implement in that with any long-term certainty housing first has been shown by ubc sfu and global research to be fundamental to the success of a four pillars approach the public health policy framework adopted by the city into um says 2001 but i think i've done a typo there to address substance use and addiction which treats addiction as a health issue rather than a crime this amendment outlines how to proceed today on building out the four pillars in a real material way in proven programs that have already worked in vancouver in direct staff to provide a plan for peer support and community intervention directing staff to provide a plan for a crisis response systems review, directing staff to provide a plan for adopting the restorative city framework, directing staff to provide a plan on how to build a true housing first framework integrated with community safety and recovery, and direct staff to engage and consult relevant organisations and agencies.

Thanks, we need a seconder for this amendment. Second by Council apply. OK, I saw the nice ones. Council of the amount of this advanced concept of another.

Thanks, Chair, and I appreciate if clerks can help me with time just in responding to the amendment. I think it's important to remind Council that at the outset of this term we supported and I think it was unanimous motion at Council to address both public health and public safety concerns and. and what it was was to build off of some existing programs but to in fact expand them and I thought it would be helpful if I elaborated on that because I think much of it is duplicated in this motion is we invested eight million dollars annually to Vancouver Coastal Health through a partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health Vancouver Police, Vancouver Fire, and that included adding psychiatric nurses to VPD to do triage calls so that when there's calls coming in and it does not warrant a police response, it warrants a health response, we have psychiatric nurses there to assist with that. We expanded CAR 8788, which has been a very successful partnership between police and Vancouver Coastal Health with mental health nurses and a number of you I think have participated in ride-alongs. We added mobile de-escalation teams which are non-police outreach and they're community-based as well as Indigenous crisis response team. I highlight these because they work together And in fact, they've been independently evaluated. And just last year, roughly 2500 people were assisted and diverted from police services to health services through this initiative. And this was a made in Vancouver approach to dealing with fundamentally a gap in service and response from the provincial government. We heard in the last election people's concerns and we came forward with a plan to respond, even though um arguably we're not responsible for health care we're not responsible for treatment and recovery but we recognize there were concerns from the public and so we partnered in a very creative manner with vancouver coastal health to provide a range of services that are holistic they're complementary to other programs they're part of the continuum but i think it's important to remind members of council that in fact we have a program in place that is underway and it's working and and so it this is duplicating not this amendment so it won't be supporting it okay so nice nice counselor curvy huh

Yeah, I'll just say briefly and I will repeat the very good statistics and information from Councillor Dominato, but I will say that this motion is I've seen it multiple times during my time on Council and it's I would characterize it has been there, done it, doing it, including things like neighborhood cleanups, investing in that, supporting restorative justice programs, exploring those funding and so on, etc. I think. If we get out of the proverbial forest for the trees, this is not about the city responding to the down end of the crisis and doing things like restorative justice. This is about fundamentally a paradigm shift and a vociferous request to the provincial government to be bolstered to shift to treatment and recovery to get people to better. That's really what it is. It's about getting the city out of triaging and it's about getting people to better. Thanks.

Okay, thanks. Councillor Clausen. Yeah, thanks very much. I just sort of go back to, first of all, much of the work that we're seeing here, as Councillor Domenato indicated, with the work that we did with Vancouver Coastal Health, the $8 million that we are funding with, providing up to 50 positions, I think 82% of had been hired or recruited by according to a report from last year that include the expansion of car 8786 the first ever indigenous crisis resource team and uh community command center liaison there are so so many other things that cities have really not done before our council implemented that and again that was a program that was designed to Vancouver coastal health at the end of the day though we are talking about giving the public a choice. And this amendment merely takes that choice away from Vancouver voters and allows them to not be a part of a discussion that has had a huge impact on all neighborhoods and families in this community. So for that reason, I will not be supported.

Thanks, Councillor Meisler.

Yeah, thanks. I'm not going to support this. Better Together neighborhood table has existed in previous years, including in Yaletown and downtown south, and I would say was a failure. I don't want to double down on that approach. Residents did not feel represented at that neighborhood table. They did not feel that the concerns were. addressed particularly around the two previous OPS sites in the neighborhood I was involved in many of those discussions with residents who were raising legitimate concerns around things like street disorder things like open drug use things like violence on the sidewalk encampments etc The neighborhood tables that I saw on that issue were not an effective avenue for residents to raise those concerns and have them addressed. So doubling down on that approach, I don't think is the right way forward. So I can't support this. What I do support is our support of CAR 87 and CAR 88. and the additional funding that council allocated to Vancouver Coastal Health to ensure that people in mental health crisis and severe addiction crisis are receiving the response that's appropriate. We've seen a lot of early success there, and that's something that I will continue to support.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney.

Thank you. We've just heard that this council is doing enough, that the city is doing enough, but we're getting mixed messages here because if we look at the wording of, the suggested wording of the public safety website that we're voting on this morning, it says, Vancouver has experienced unprecedented levels of street disorder. open air hard drug use and disruption to community safety and individual health this council has been in power for four years we are weeks out from an election and i've just heard straight faces people saying we're doing enough right um and So it sounds as though the majority on council are going to reject my amendment so that you don't support my amendment, but you do support asking a question on election day, asking two questions on election day. So I think that I would rather vote in favour of real action and do real work, which should have been done. And a lot of these items were actually... uh election commitments um in the lead up to the 2022 um election by the majority on council so to to throw them in the bin now um i'm not surprised but i think it's a real shame because i think the people of vancouver want to see real action rather than to be asked a question in 10 weeks time

OK, thanks. I put myself on the queue so just quickly. I think the motion. Oh sorry, I have to see the chair to counselor could be on place. Yeah, thanks. So the agenda on this on this table is public safety public side. I think we're talking about the public side, not about overall. drug strategy and how can we deal with this crisis in the in in city of Vancouver so I won't call this one this amendment out of order but I think it it does so and I also think that giving people some platforms so they can express their opinion and direct voice from the public safety club side I think is the way to go and really that people want to express their opinion and it's not uncommon to to prophesize uh in the during the civic election we do that almost every year so i think it's a very good uh way to get people engaged and hear their opinion listen to them directly so i will not support this uh much thanks okay i'll take the chair back from council corbin and council meisner

Yeah, I'll be quick. I just want to respond to Councillor Maloney's, I think, mischaracterization of of comments from ABC colleagues here at the council table table. I didn't hear a single one of us say that we think that we're doing enough as a council to address this issue. That's why personally, I support the plebiscite because we need to push the provincial government to do more. And I don't. nobody here thinks we're doing enough. So I take issue with that misinformation from my colleague. Thanks, Councillor Marston.

Councillor Maloney?

We're not doing enough, and that's true. We're not funding restorative justice. We've moved further away from a housing-first approach during this Council's term. For example, the calls on net new supportive housing approvals and voting down the social housing initiative. And we are deliberately and quite... openly worsening our relationships with senior levels of government who provide the funding to really tackle the problems and challenges we face as a city. So we're not talking about overall drug strategy, but I think that we should be.

Thanks, Councillor Maloney. Seeing nobody else on the queue, I'm going to call the vote for the amendment. So council please register your vote on the voting panel and we are voting on the Councillor Maloney's I think the voting panel is working now.

Voting panel working?

No, no. OK, so I'll just do a manual. OK, so I'll start with Mayor Sim. OK, Councillor Meissner, Councillor Klaassen. Opposed. Opposed. Councillor Meissner. I'm opposed. I'm also opposed. Councillor Domenado. Opposed. Councillor Ker-Piao. I'm opposed. Councillor Waugh. I'm abstained. I'm abstained. Councillor Frye.

Abstained.

Councillor Bligh? Councillor Maloney? Okay, so the motion was defeated.

Councillor Montague? For some reason, I can't turn my camera on. I guess it's part of this whole glitch. I'll try transferring to my phone and get it on, but I'd like to vote opposed.

So does Councillor Montague need to have the video on? Thank you.

And especially given the technical issue, can we? You go to school. Yes, I know.

Yes, we have. We have seen him online.

OK, that's good. Alright, so the amendment was divided with Councillor Orr, Councillor Frye and Councillor Blighth abstaining and Councillor Klasenmeister, myself, Councillor Domonado and Councillor Kerbion and also Councillor Montague in opposition. And Mearsen. And Mearsen, sorry. Yeah, with other screens, just yeah, Mearsen in opposition. Can we project that? OK, you can see that on the screen now. Everyone please check, make sure that that is correct.

Yes, it looks like right. OK, thanks everyone. OK, I'll go back to the main queue. Please take us to the main queue. We're just using the questions you have everyone there.

Councillor Maloney?

I'll hop off for a moment and come back on.

Yeah, thanks. So I think that it needs to be said that people who are struggling in our city who have complex challenges related to houselessness, mental health, substance use disorder, These folks have little to no choice other than living out on the streets and using in alleys and in sidewalks. And what they need are people like us who have the privilege of being elected and being in these rooms advocating for pathways to health, pathways to treatment, pathways to getting the supports that they need. what i see in front of us today is a campaign in an election that is being framed around pushing down on the city's most vulnerable and making them the problem and i think it's shameful that those of us in here that have the most amount of power and influence to advocate for real help and real supports who clearly in a majority uh of the mayor and abc are at a loss for what to do um are deciding to pick on the people the very people that will never have the opportunity to be in this room and actually make the difference that these few made in their lives that is shameful it's a shame i don't know if this needs to be said um but i just feel like someone needs to remind the mayor and abc that you're not running against premier evie and the ndp you're not running in this election against the provincial government. And I this is my time and I can say what I need to say. So I think that.

Yeah, well, point of order calls.

What is the number of the section?

Come down, come down.

8.7. And I think that it's Councillors are supposed to speak, make comments that are germane to the matter on the table. This is absolutely the map on the table and I'm going to continue.

We have another call. So I guess as a chair, I have to rule that. Is that right? Go ahead. Okay. So let's take five minutes recess. I'll do this.

You don't need complication.

I mean, I'm the chair.

You've been a chair for four years.

Respect the chair, please. Out of line.

This is actually by ABC.

Calm down. We're taking a recess.

This is the perfect example where there's a lack of...

This is the wild west of...

I'm not going to go out.

I don't care how much.

There's a sense that it's hiding the fact that after four years. The mayor majority of counselors really don't have a plan and what it speaks to on the subject of public safety is that there are no relationships with helpful partners at the federal and provincial level for Vancouver to call upon. And when it comes to public safety, as is part of this motion. Federal and provincial governments. are announcing investments in housing, affordable housing, mental health beds, urgent homelessness response. They're announcing these investments all over the province and all over the country, but not in Vancouver.

People are frustrated. I am frustrated. I have been at this table for eight years. We have been working to build relationships with the provincial and federal governments so that Vancouver gets the supports that they need.

So I asked the question on the topic of this public safety website, why is Vancouver being iced out from getting supports to the complex challenges we face?

And I cannot think of anything else other than the fact that what I've seen is uncooperation the mayor on the topic of public safety that has inspired this public site by the mayor i've seen uncooperation and what we know is uncooperation in society does not get rewarded with helpful investment all we have seen from the mayor and abc are news conferences and press releases throwing the very people under the bus that we need to help us deal with our biggest challenges And as a way to cover how ineffective they are, they bring forward a public safety plebiscite.

Shame on all of you for getting sucked into this low-level politics that belongs on X and not in these public meetings. So on the topic of this public safety plebiscite, this is my call to the public who are tuning in, who are watching this proceeding, and to anyone that watches it after, The people have a voice. It's called an election. ABC wants you to believe that you don't have a voice. You do have a voice. It's called an election. And 36% of voters turned out. If this is about democracy, like ABC says, let's make sure to.

And the council of your time. Actually, I did give you actual seconds because we didn't start the clock on time. And that's your time. Yeah. Councillor Meiszner.

Yeah, thank you. For four years, our Council has been advocating and frankly begging the provincial government to do more to help Vancouver residents suffering with severe addiction and mental health issues. Despite the seriousness and the human toll of this crisis, their response has been incredibly slow and ineffective. It lacks urgency. It has left our most vulnerable residents continuing to struggle while conditions for them get worse. Whether that's the toxic drug supply, predatory drug dealers and exploitation, a lack of treatment beds, substandard housing, and the list goes on. Vancouver residents have had enough of the humanitarian crisis playing out on our streets and the people caught up in it. There are a few cities in the world where you see people struggling on the streets at the extent that you do in Vancouver. People openly using hard drugs, which is a shock to residents, to families visiting from out of town and to Vancouverites every day. Residents, particularly those of us who live in the heart of the city, have become desensitized. Desensitized to seeing people outside our homes, in our alleyways and on our streets in the depths of unimaginable misery and despair. In the morning, I regularly see parents walking their kids to Crosstown Elementary in downtown Vancouver and just feet away from them there's someone in a doorway or in a park smoking fentanyl or another hard drug. I see the employees of the small businesses on my street struggling to open their doors for the day with someone passed out in their doorway and the employees having to deal with that situation. I have a lot of empathy for these people. They are caught in a revolving door where it's easier for them to get hard drugs than it is to get treatment. And this has to change for the future of our city and for the future of our province. So I will continue to use my voice here at City Council, which is privileged to support policy and initiatives that I believe will drive change in provincial and federal levels. We have been advocating, standing up, passing policies to support people. Funding initiatives such as CAR 87 and CAR 88 and the mental health workers, as mentioned by my colleagues earlier during the debate.

We, as a city, are using all the tools in our toolbox to try to get the province's attention to do more, to take this crisis seriously, to act with urgency, to help the thousands of people in our city that are struggling every single day. And not much has changed in the past four years. So I strongly believe that this motion of plebiscite will exert more pressure on the province and the feds who have the levers to deal with what is a health care issue. And it will also allow Vancouverites to express their perspective and make it clear to the province that they need to act now. I know that we live in a city of compassionate people who want to see people get the help they need to break the cycle of addiction and ensure we have a safe, vibrant and healthy city. The policies of this provincial government around mental health and addiction are a failure, and I would be shocked if anyone at this table would stand up and defend them. It's a failure. So I'm strongly supportive of anything we can do here at City Council to drive the changes we need to see at the provincial level. And I'm supporting this plebiscite motion.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. I'd like to offer some comments to the main motion, the resolution table this morning regarding the site and also the question around advocating for further supports leveraging the St. Paul site. I think it is important at the outset just to set the record straight as there were some comments made and suggested that and maybe it was following my comments that implied that we're saying everything is in order and that there's no challenges and everything has been dealt with. but that is certainly not what I was saying. I was reflecting that we did take significant steps to put in place measures to respond to significant issues of individuals struggling with mental health, severe mental illness, severe addictions on our streets, and that was undertaken at the beginning of the term. I also think it's important to remind the public and council that the conversation we're having here is a conversation happening across the province. Last year at UBCM, mayors stood united in their call to action to the province around a number of issues, but one of them was around health care as a first response, recognizing that municipalities are not responsible for health care, but they are often in a position of having to respond to their residents and uh and so that was a song and you just saw it um the the mayor of Nanaimo has been very outspoken on this topic uh the mayor of merit on a different matter but is actually now calling on the federal government to take care of health care because of concerns in his uh community over ers but i speaking to the pleb site specifically uh this really is about giving the public a voice and a say on an issue that matters to them. I firmly believe and I think it's played out in information that we've seen in the public is that there is a silent majority that are frustrated by provincial inaction, particularly in terms of impacts on small businesses and neighborhoods and ongoing street disorder. And I believe that silent majority is also a silent majority that is caring and compassionate and want to see our most vulnerable residents get the help that they need. And I think you've heard that already around the table, that this is about addressing one public concerns over inaction provincially, but also about bringing forward solutions by leveraging the St. Paul site for treatment recovery options. But I thought it would also be helpful to go down memory lane on this subject, particularly because the City of Vancouver has a very long history of tempting intervention and action. And I thought the Council might be interested in this story from 1972. This is around concerns over Pigeon Park. They were dealing with drunkenness and they said Council also approved a recommendation urging provincial municipal agencies to expedite the implementation of treatment services to deal with alcoholics. That's 1972. And then if you go into the late 90s and early 2000s, we had the four pillars. We had the Vancouver Agreement. And then more recently, we've had measures to deal with, as I spoke to earlier, introducing expanded programs of CAR 87, 88, introducing more mental health nurses. de-escalation teams so the city has stepped up but we've also heard it's not enough and it is outside of our jurisdiction and we need a whole continuum of services but we know from talking to experts that there is a gap in the continuum when i was the chair of the kettle society we knew we had people going in uh to ers as a revolving door then they're back out on the streets uh and so we need a continuum of support but particularly we need to put more emphasis on treatment and recovery pathways for people because there are many people out there who want the help but often will say they can't can't get it. So this plebiscite gives voice to that and if it is supported, it will send a very clear message to the province that they need to take further action as well as options to deliver services here in the City of Vancouver.

Okay, thanks, Councillor. Okay, Councillor Maloney.

Thanks. There are people in this city who are scared, parents who do not want their kids walking to school past someone openly using drugs, small business owners who have cleaned up human waste, dealt with broken windows, called 911, called 311, called everyone they've been told to call and feel like nobody is coming. And there are also people living with addiction who are desperately sick. There are families who've watched someone they love become someone they barely recognise, consumed by mental illness, addiction and homelessness only to discover that our health care system can offer almost nothing until crisis becomes a catastrophe and there are people dying. They deserve better than political theatre because after four years in office, the mayor has decided that the appropriate way of dealing with this serious challenge is a survey, not a bylaw, not a new service, not funding, not even a plan. And what will this accomplish? If we need to strengthen our laws, we should have done it sometime in the last four years. tells what bylaw a bylaw should prohibit how it will be enforced what it will cost whether it's constitutional whether the vancouver police department can actually enforce it then let's debate it let's hear from residents let's hear from experts and let's make a decision instead we are being asked whether vancouverites like open drug use Mayor, I could save us the trouble, not to mention the cost of this political stunt. They don't. And people using drugs on the street without help close by don't either. This is not some great mystery. The question is not whether Vancouverites want safer streets. The question is what this council is going to do about it. Question two of the plebiscite asks whether Vancouver should ask the province for secure treatment and more than 100 involuntary care beds. That is such an election year number, isn't it? There are families in this city who would give anything for an effective treatment system. Parents have begged for help for adult children who are profoundly ill and incapable of recognising it. People cycled from street to emergency room to a jail cell and back onto the street. That failure is real, truly heartbreaking and demands action, not a plebiscite. Call the Premier, call the Minister for Health. Call a meeting, bring a resolution to this council saying Vancouver needs more treatment beds, but do not tell families in crisis that checking a box in October is going to create a hospital bed. We have a serious and complex set of problems in this city. Residents are tired of watching people deteriorate in front of them, while every level of government explains why it's someone else's jurisdiction. They might have been told, but the passion replies accepting the unacceptable. It doesn't. We can say two things at once. Nobody should have to accept serious public disorder as normal and people who are profoundly ill deserve treatment, dignity and involvement interested in helping them. This is what governing this crisis requires. It requires difficult choices. It requires us to distinguish between poverty, addiction, mental illness, crime and violence instead of throwing every frightened person and every suffering person into the same political bucket. It requires enforcement where enforcement is necessary, treatment where treatment is necessary, housing where housing is necessary.

and above all it requires leadership and this motion is evidence of the complete absence of that leadership over the last four years under this man and this majority on council all right thanks councilman maloney council fry yeah thanks chair so with the less than half a minute i have to speak i want to categorically reject this process after four years to address these issues the mobile now knows emergency meeting with less than 24 hours with no options for public participation or even informed consent of council This is the frustration of democratic process. And in my opinion, holding a plebiscite that by design is picking a fight with the province, whitewashing ABC counselors on abysmal record for opposing supportive housing and overdose prevention sites, galvanizing a get out the vote strategy and electioneering by punching down on folks in health crisis is a misguided frustration of the democratic process. And fundamentally, I believe that's your time.

I'm really sorry about that, but you're over.

Thank you.

Well, I mean, the past 24 hours we've heard that these questions are too complicated to ask Vancouverites and somehow that these answers are too obvious to bother asking. We hear that taking the fight to the provincial government, whose literal job it is to address health care, is wrong. I disagree with these arguments, notwithstanding the significant investment investments of the city upwards of $100 million. It is not enough to address this crisis. We don't have to choose between compassion for people in crisis and public safe public spaces. Vancouverites deserve both. I trust Vancouver voters to make that choice. So let me clear about one more choice voters will have. If Vancouver votes yes, ABC Vancouver is committed to implementing that mandate. Let's ask the people and let's get it done.

Thank you very much everyone and I do appreciate the comments from all of my colleagues here today. Vancouver's continued to experience unprecedented levels of street disorder, opening our hard drug use and disruption to community safety and individual health. We've spent the last four years investing in and working to improve public safety to address the mental health and substance use addiction crisis that's impacting our city and address street disorder. So we fully funded every single mental health worker that Vancouver Coastal Health has asked for. When others weren't willing to do it, we invested in the public realm, extending the Granville Street pedestrian zone to bring people downtown to keep things vibrant. There were comments about how we don't have relationships with senior levels of government. Well, our administration was lobbying for hard during our entire term with the federal government as well. And I'm proud to say that we have great relationships with the federal government. the public safety minister and our administration met here and in Ottawa. I've even sat down with the prime minister on multiple occasions, and we're proud to say that through our efforts together, we have made a lot of progress, especially when it comes to bail reform with Bill C-14. These are hard things that take hard work and great relationships. And we have we have those great relationships. And so needless to say, we have used every single tool in our toolbox as a municipal government. Yet with all of this, we still spend approximately $100 million above and beyond what is what normal cities do to address the failed provincial policies.

Sorry. and their downloaded costs and so for two years we have called on the provincial government to implement involuntary care for individuals with significant mental health and or substance use disorders and for two years despite dozens of public and private appeals we have yet to see action from premier eby not a single new involuntary care bed has been placed in vancouver instead the province has only given vancouver more drug injection sites and i ask you does that really seem fair and so just so um you know we remember this we all went through three long years of decriminalization we would have never been able to change city laws on open air hard drug use during that time as it would have contravened federal law We've reached a tipping point and today is a new day, a day of hope where Vancouverites will have to have their voices heard on these critical issues. And that's what this is all about. What we're seeing on our streets, what residents and visitors are seeing is not compassionate. A compassionate city does not leave people suffering on our streets while neighborhoods are forced to live with consequences. That's not a solution. These two questions potentially represent the most significant policy and culture shifts this city has considered in decades and a fundamental change in how Vancouver responds to the crisis on our streets. Are you in favor of the city of Vancouver strengthening its laws to forbid open air, hard drug use in public spaces, or are you not? A favorable vote will provide the future city council with a clear democratic mandate to strengthen our municipal bylaws where authority exists. We need to put pressure on Premier Evie to provide what Vancouver actually needs more acute voluntary and at least 100 involuntary care beds for individuals holding a serious risk to themselves or others due to severe substance use and or mental health disorders. Frankly, this is about holding the province accountable. to what they should be doing and what they said they're going to do. So I encourage all Vancouverites to listen carefully to those who are against this. They don't want to have they don't want you to have a voice. And as far as I'm concerned, it's never wrong to give people a voice when we're dealing with an issue as critical as the one that we're talking about, the one that's affecting our streets and the people and vulnerable relationships in the city of Vancouver. Thank you.

Thanks, Mayor. So seeing no one else on the queue, so I'm going to call the vote for the main motion. Okay, so we're going to do the verbal vote. Mayor Sim? Aye. In favour. Councillor Clausen? In favour. Councillor Meissner? In favour. I'm also in favour. Councillor Damanato?

In favour.

Councillor Ker-Beyond?

In favour.

And Councillor Maloney?

I am opposed and don't get Councillor Montague.

Councillor Montague. I'm in favour, Chair. Thank you. The motion passed with Councillor Maloney in opposition. And our Councillor Fry, Councillor Bligh and Councillor Orr absent. OK, so that complete.

Sure. Ask a question of procedure. Yes, please.

Are they absent because they did make a statement that they were not going to participate in this conversation. So is that a vote of no or is there another? I just I'm just curious.

I don't know what that actually means. Yes.

All right, so that complete agenda. So I'm going to go return the chair back to the mayor. So to deal with the adjournment, but you go ahead.

Thank you, Councillor. We have a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Councillor Dominato. All those in favour, say yes. All those opposed, say nay. Great motion carries unanimously. This special meeting. Thank you, everyone.