Williams Lake City Councillors addressed over 200 emails in community correspondence on the controversial Safe Consumption Site (SCS) in last night’s [Nov. 5] Council Meeting.
In addressing the emails, Councillors debunked misinformation in some emails, primarily that the decision made by the council on October 8 was to approve and start work on an SCS when “it was only to open a discussion” of a site with Interior Health.
“That’s what we agreed to at the Council of the Whole, and is what we agreed on at the regular Council Meeting,” said Councillor Angie Delainey. “It by no way means that we are asking for a Safe Consumption Site, or going to build a Safe Consumption Site. It is just to have a discussion, and I am still interested in having a discussion.”
Councillors Jazmyn Lyons and Joan Flaspohler addressed myths in the emails about how SCSs function and their use. Debunking the myth that the sites supply drugs to addicts, when they do not. Another myth that Councillor Flaspohler addressed and corrected is that SCSs cost taxpayers more money and add more pressure to Emergency Rooms. Flaspohler said that the reality is the opposite. The research shows that taxpayers in communities with strategically placed SCSs are spending less on medical taxes, and that the ERs are less crowded.
Both councillors were in support of opening discussions with Interior Health.
“I will support one of these [SCS], managed by a health authority, in a professional building,” Councillor Flaspohler said. “So one doesn’t go get thrown into an area where we don’t want it because we have been neglecting the issue as a community.”
“Interior Health already has one in 100 Mile’s hospital, for many years,” Councillor Flasopher continued. “Show me one article that says 100 Mile is destroyed. It’s not. I want to support these conversations because I want to be ahead of the game and put in the right building, in the right place, and listen to this community so we are ahead of the game, not behind.”
Councillor Scott Nelson, who while Acting Mayor filed the Notice of Motion on Oct. 22 to bring the topic of discussing a Safe Consumption Site with Interior Health back to council last night, remained adamant that the decision to discuss an SCS site with Interior Health is first brought to the community.
“The reason I brought this back for consideration was because I think you’ve got it backwards,” Councillor Scott Nelson says. “You don’t go and discuss with Interior Health, I think you discuss with the community first of all. This is a dramatic policy change, and a direction that I think the community should have input into… I can hear within the voices and words that my colleagues are saying. Their minds are made up. They want to see a Safe Injection Site in the community.”
Councillor Nelson stated that he is support of recovery and treatment centres in the community, and that council needs to communicate better to the community.
“Before we go and talk to Interior Health, that we engage the community and see the community’s support…I don’t think you go and start talking to Interior Health and leave the impression that this is a done deal. Frankly, that’s what you [Council] have done.”
The motion to discuss an SCS with Interior Health was carried with only Councillor Nelson and Mayor Rathor voting against the motion.
Something going on in the Cariboo you think people should know about?
Send us a news tip by emailing [email protected].
