Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on behalf of Chief Constable Jim Chu and the Vancouver Police Department.
My name is Inspector Scott Thompson. I'm in my 28th year of combined police service as a current member of the Vancouver Police Department and a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In 2003 I was part of the Vancouver Coastal Health project team for the supervised injection site, or SIS. In 2003 I was the author of the Vancouver Police Department's policing and operational plans for the SIS. I also developed and delivered the SIS orientation packages to both VPD members and Vancouver Coastal Health staff.
I was then on the ground in the downtown eastside for the first year of the supervised injection site's operation. I am currently in charge of the VPD's youth services section, as well as the drug policy and mental health portfolios.
For the VPD, the story of the SIS began in early 2002. Philip Owen was the mayor and chair of the Vancouver police board at that time. The VPD examined the question of an SIS during a facilitated managerial and executive process and came to two conclusions: one, that our expertise is in policing and public safety, not in health and health research, and therefore we should always be cautious when and if we choose to support or criticize public health initiatives and/or research, given that our expertise lies elsewhere; two, that regardless of whether we agreed with the concept of an SIS or not, we needed to be at the table.
As you likely know, in late 2002 a civic election in Vancouver resulted in Larry Campbell, now Senator Campbell, becoming mayor. The primary election issue was the SIS, and Mayor Campbell and others subsequently drove the process to make this concept become a reality.
As part of the application process for an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for medical research at the SIS, Health Canada asked the VPD what its position was. We replied that if a drug user is not engaged in disorderly, unlawful, threatening, and/or violent behaviour on the street or is wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant, it is unlikely they would be prevented or impeded by the Vancouver police from accessing the supervised injection site.
Just before the SIS opened, the VPD operations plan stated the following to Vancouver police officers:
Police members have a broad range of discretion when dealing with drug use and drug possession in the City of Vancouver. This discretion includes options such as seizure of the drug, and/or arrest and charging of the person(s). This discretion lies solely with the police officer on the street.
When dealing with an intravenous drug user found using drugs within a four block radius of the SIS...it is recommended that our members direct the drug user to attend the SIS to avoid a future contact with the police.
Our orientation package for SIS staff, and later our VPD drug policy, stated that “on a fundamental level, all health initiatives must be lawful”.
I submit that during the past five years members of the Vancouver Police Department have performed their duties in an exemplary manner in relation to the supervised injection site and that this performance represents the best traditions of a neutral, apolitical, and professional police service in a free and democratic society.
This brings me to the position of the Vancouver Police Department and the key messages I have been asked to deliver to you today. These key messages are the following.
One, the VPD agrees with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police position that illicit drugs are harmful. The high incidence of addiction to illicit drugs in Vancouver contributes to an inordinately high property crime rate.
Two, when the supervised injection site opened, the VPD position was that we were in favour of any legal measure that might have a chance of reducing the drug problem in Vancouver's downtown eastside. We're on record as supporting the SIS as a research project.
Three, the VPD's primary interest and mandate around the SIS has always been and remains public safety, not public health.
Four, our position is that as a police agency focused on public safety, it would be inappropriate for the Vancouver Police Department to comment on the medical merits of the SIS.
Five, we are reviewing the various studies on the SIS and the linkages to crime and disorder. We believe that further research needs to be focused first on whether the SIS and other services potentially facilitate and perpetuate the cycle of addiction and whether this has a negative impact on addicted individuals seeking treatment.
Secondly, it needs to be focused on determining the degree to which locating the SIS amid a concentration of other services hinders the neighbourhood's reputation, capacity, and ability to recover and flourish.
Third, it needs to focus on whether the SIS and this concentration of services facilitates the easier entry to, development of, and maintenance of a cycle of addiction.
Fourth, it should focus on whether the SIS, access to services, and/or the ready access to drugs in the neighbourhood draw vulnerable people from elsewhere in the region and country.
Finally, further research should be focused on determining whether the SIS and the concentration of services increases the geographical concentration of addicts into a small area, which may or may not increase the likelihood of communicable disease transmission.
In closing, the Vancouver Police Department is not going to be an active participant in the debate about the medical merits of the supervised injection site. We do urge further research into the areas we have identified.
Thank you.