Richmond drug consumption site motion causes confusion, commotion

A motion by two Richmond, B.C., councillors to push for a supervised drug consumption site in their municipality has sparked backlash from the community and confusion from the provincial government.

"My understanding is [Vancouver Coastal Health] are trying to get a better handle on why Richmond is bringing forward this proposal at this time, [and] whether what's proposed actually meets the needs in Richmond," said Premier David Ebyat an unrelated news conference Tuesday.

"Because from their perspective, this is not what's immediately needed in that city."

Despite Eby's comment, the city hadn't in fact brought forward a specific proposal put together by staff. Rather, two Richmond councillors, Laura Gillanders and Kash Heed, asked council to explore the issue.

Council approved the motion by a 7-2 vote late Tuesday, with councillors Alexa Loo and Chak Au voting in opposition.

WATCH | Furious backlash to Richmond councillors' motion:

Proposed drug consumption site in Richmond draws backlash

7 months ago

Duration 2:57

A motion by two Richmond councillors to push for a drug consumption site created controversy in the community and confusion from the provincial government. Justin McElroy explains why.

But the way the debate played out over Monday and Tuesday in council chambers revealed frustrations of both members of the public and elected officials, albeit for slightly different reasons.

Motion expansive in nature

The motion by Gillanders and Heed had six separate parts:asking staff to analyze the benefits and challenges of implementing a consumption site;collaboratingwith Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) to create it;establishing a task force, an awareness campaign and a monitoring system;and developing a consultation process.

Multiple councillors told CBC News they were concerned by the wording of the motion because of its expansive nature, but a majority decided it was worth asking VCH to study the concept and begin exploring what a consumption site might end up looking like.

But many councillors also pointed out it was far from a guarantee that a consumption site would be created, citing the fact that just last yearVCH toldcouncil that Richmond did not have a density of drug users that justified having one.

"We're only sharing an expression of support for VCH, and we will let them decide because they are the medical professionals. To be honest, I don't think it will be feasible," said Coun. Carol Day, who ultimately voted in favour.

"This is not happening overnight. Nothing's being built, no decision is being made," said Coun.Andy Hobbs, who predicted it would take years for a final outcome.

"All of you in this room will have the opportunity to engage in that process, and have your voices heard. It's a long process."

Thousands sign petition against motion

Against that backdrop, hundreds of people descended on City Hall on Monday and Tuesday, with more than 20,000 people signing a petition against "the proposed construction of a safe drug consumption site."

Outside council chambers there were multiple shouting matches between opponents and advocates of the motion, with police on scene monitoring. Inside the chambers, more than 20 of the speakers called for more consultation, sometimes confusingGillanders and Heed's motion for a plan that had already been endorsed by staff or council.

Multiple times, Mayor Malcolm Brodie admonished the crowd for applauding or chanting within the council chamber.

"This is not some kind of theatre or a carnival. This is a very solemn occasion where we are making important discussions," he said.

"I've been doing this since the mid-90s, and this is the first time I've had that kind of reaction here in city council."

The yells and chants from the crowd continued after the motion passed around 11:20 p.m. PT.

Brodie and council then had to carry on regular business despite the frequent interruptions.

On Wednesday, 13 hours after the debate wrapped up, VCH indicated that despite the voteit saw no immediate need to move forward on council's request.

"Based on the latest public health data, a standalone supervised consumption site is not the most appropriate service for those at risk of overdose in Richmond," the health authority told CBC News in a statement.

"The toxic drug crisis looks different in different communities, and VCH works closely with municipal staff, service providers and other relevant health-care partners to identify overdose prevention services that are appropriate for the local contexts."

What that means for Richmond's next moves remains to be seen.

But itwas a reflection of how the debates regarding the safe consumption site, and toxic drugs more broadly, are likely to continue well beyond the walls of a noisy Richmond City Hall.