 Good morning. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that today we're gathering on the traditional ancestral lands of the Musqueam, Squamish and Slewa-toothed people. I am grateful for their stewardship of these lands and their continued hospitality. Vancouver Police Department officers no longer confiscate drugs weighing less than 2.5 grams in circumstances covered by the decriminalization exemption. In the nine months following the implementation of the exemption, which began on January 31st, 2023, our officers had 100% compliance with the terms of the exemption. In that same period, total drug possession seizures in Vancouver dropped by 76% compared to the previous four-year average. Before decriminalization came into effect, our officers rarely made arrests or recommended criminal charges against persons found with small amounts of illegal substances unless aggravating factors were present. We appreciate that there were still circumstances when VPD officers were required under law to seize and destroy small amounts of drugs. We recognized that this often led to unintended harms for people who use drugs. As such, we supported the Health Canada exemption and its provisions for people who possess small amounts of illicit drugs to keep their substances. I am aware of reports claiming that VPD drug seizures have actually increased since decriminalization took effect. Let me be clear, such reports are patently false and are wholly incorrect. These claims are based on data that was obtained via a Freedom of Information request. Drug seizure data was released for a one-year period surrounding the implementation of the exemption, specifically the six-month period before and the six-month period after January 31st, 2023. The drug seizure data was contained on a spreadsheet with just under 3,200 rows of data. Importantly, along with the spreadsheet, the Vancouver Police Department provided a covering memorandum that explicitly highlighted nine different limitations of the drug seizure data. One of the key limitations listed was, and I quote, the total quantity held by the individual is not reflected in this dataset as each packaged item is recorded on a separate line. End quote. In brief, a row on the spreadsheet corresponds to a physical item, but many items are typically from the same seizure. In reality, the average seizure involved more than six different items or rows in the spreadsheet. Review of VPD data confirmed that all seizures following decriminalization coming into effect were fully compliant with the Health Canada exemption. In fact, the average weight of drugs seized in each incident was more than 80 grams. This is an amount that is more than 30 times the 2.5 gram threshold. Claims that VPD officers are seizing more drugs at or below the 2.5 gram threshold are clearly false. Such conclusions are the result of recklessly ignoring clear warnings that accompanied the data. A main goal of decriminalization is to break down real or perceived barriers between the police and people who use drugs. We heard from people who use drugs and community organizations that a consistent application of the decriminalization exemption was a key desired outcome. The data clearly shows that our officers are committed to supporting the implementation of decriminalization and its overarching goal to take a health-led approach to substance use as opposed to a criminal justice one. Reversing the deadly harms of the ongoing drug toxicity crisis takes a willingness to change historical practices and approaches to substance use. We are committed to working with health, government and community partners to achieve better public safety and health outcomes in the community we proudly serve. We continue to work collaboratively to break down barriers in support of taking a health-led approach to substance use. Our data shows that our officers have fully complied with the decriminalization exemption. I believe that this result is a testament to their commitment, compassion and professionalism. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Vector, I heard in nine months which period was that? So there's an last year a year. No, so February 1st through the end of October. Why only that? Why? Oh, we've continued to continually reassess the data. That was the nine-month period that has been reported on to our partners both at government, ministry of mental health and addiction, other policing partners in terms of studying the decriminalization and its implementation. But we're committed to ongoing assessments and review of all of our data. But just so I'm clear, if someone breaks into a car to matching and you ask that person and they have 2.5 or less on them, what do you do with that? It becomes part of your property. And even, you know, depending on the circumstances, you know, the officers, if they're going to recommend a charge, they might release you at the scene with paperwork where you promise to appear before the courts. In the case that you aren't suitable for release and end up in our jail, you still keep your substances. It ends up in your effects. Obviously, you know, in custody, you aren't able to access things like your cell phone, a knife, but drugs become simply under the threshold become property. Just like your cell phone or any other thing, you wouldn't have access to it while in custody, but it remains your property and upon your release from jail, it would be returned to you. And just so I'm fair, I think that the figure you have 78% for just 76% of all drug seizures, like a decrease. So that's will burn a buck to point on it. Yes. So those are all drug seizures specifically, you know, including ones that are not covered by the exemption. So what that shows to me, it's a great question, is that officers are still exercising their discretion. And you'll see in some of the infographics we put out, there's specific focus on potential seizures just above the threshold, specifically two and a half to four and a half grams. So these are things that wouldn't be covered by the exemption. But obviously, officers have discretion in all these circumstances. And so we expect that officers will exercise discretion in such cases. And we have seen a significant decrease there. But obviously, discretion is inversely correlated to the amount present. Obviously, when you get to higher levels, 100 grams, half kilogram, a kilogram, we wouldn't expect discretion in higher order cases. So what did you do with 76% drop to best free up resources to focus on other things? Great question. I mean, I think historically, you know, there is a small time savings. I think historically, people often over emphasize or over predict the amount of officer time that was spent investigating simple drug possession. Before deprimalization came into effect, we typically only had about five charges recommended per year. And they were typically very special circumstances. You know, your sexual offender that's part of their offending cycle is substance use, a repeat violent offender whose offending cycle is surrounding substance use. So, you know, the reduction of those cases is small. Is there some, you know, efficiency? Absolutely. But I think it's often, you know, overstated. Have you seen what's happening in Oregon? And what does the baby they think about then choosing to reverse spinach? You know, we definitely look at drug policies throughout the world. Definitely organs one that gets a lot of headlines as well as Portugal. So we're always mindful of experiences in other jurisdictions and what's going on trying to study what works. It is also some challenges. So, you know, definitely have reached out to partners in Oregon to try to understand their experience with the crime. They obviously went live with their measure 110, almost two years before Vancouver, British Columbia did. So we're committed to, you know, whether it's Oregon, Portugal, Norway, looking at, you know, drug policy throughout the world. Have you identified some of the key differences on why they grew up here? I think definitely here, theirs obviously was brought in by a referendum, measure 110, which was a public referendum. I think here, obviously the topic can become political. But in the decriminalization discussions that I've seen here, I think it was a much more pragmatic health led approach, whether it was, you know, government partners, police, health, trying to keep potentially politics or opinions or bias out of the out of the equation. I think the ongoing crisis is so serious. I think the public, as organizations in charge in terms of working with the government representing the public, I think people expect us to take a very evidence based pragmatic approach as opposed to something that's political or opinion based. Based on the public, let's bring it back, but we can because you remember that people were against this, a lot of people were against this, but he was supported. But in your opinion, we're going to petition here, but your opinion, how is it worked out? Come on, says she overall, as a minute, good things, successful words. I think it's, I think it's been a successful thing. I think there was a lot of concern in terms of, you know, how would this change? It definitely seemed I think to a lot of people that were involved in policing, potentially that this was a major change. And this was a significant departure we know for us for our officers, we weren't recommending charges, we weren't typically seizing substances. So really, this wasn't a massive shift. There was already overarching changes that are occurring federally. You know, the charging guidelines for actually laying charges by the public prosecution service of Canada have changed, officers are required to consider mean short of charging people. As well, there's legal reform in terms of the laws that came into effect, where basically, you know, other measures, including health diversion is now part of the law. And so I think, you know, it's for people that aren't familiar with the drug laws, it probably seems like a wholesale change, but I think it was a much smaller change than people perhaps realized. Always challenges that changes, what will come? I think definitely, you know, things around public use complaints from, you know, community, from businesses, you know, absolutely not going to say for a second that we haven't heard complaints, we haven't had challenges. And I think in all these things, all the partners are committed to trying to get things right and trying to balance the needs of people who use drugs, you know, the horrible toxicity that exists with the drug supply, but also meeting the needs of all of the community that we serve mentioned complaints. What do you mean by that? Just just calls just in terms of calls of people saying that, you know, there's someone openly using or consuming drugs. I don't think for a second, most people that use drugs want to use in front of children or want to use in a manner that disturbs somebody else. But like everything in our society are the actions of some individuals, sometimes a source of a complaint for another person in society. Absolutely. What do you think that concerns people have that someone can say use drugs on a beach, they can't open a drink in certain areas. That's a crime. Yeah, using hard drugs is not. What do you say to people that we post that I get that I mean, in terms of it being like a very simplistic argument at the same time, you know, as someone who likes to probably, you know, have a drink himself, I get that, you know, the logic of that that argument for the average person in our society. But I think we have to be respectful of the danger and the risk that is posed by the opioid crisis. It's it's hard to overstate and it's hard really for a lot of people to, you know, wrap their head around. It's the leading cause of death for everyone in BC from age 10 to 59. It's, you know, when we look at things like homicides, suicides, car accidents, all those things combine. Our drugs are twice as likely to kill people. So, you know, I think, you know, does the logic potentially just on its face as you express look like it's somehow non congruent? I can appreciate that. But I think, you know, we have to recognize the harms and the need for change, given the risk that's out there with the opioid crisis. And so I think, you know, it does deserve special consideration. For the seizures that that were made in the same time, not to be a great, you know, how how many arrests were involved during that period? And like, who were the people having to have if you describe the people that were having those drug seeds, right? Like, were they bona fide, like traffickers that were working in an organized way? Were they people that just use, use drugs for their, for donates, right? Like, I would have to get back to you specifically on some of those questions. But what I can say is, you know, even before decriminalization, but even more so now that it's an effect, our enforcement efforts are really focused on those people doing the most harm, the people importing, manufacturing, high level trafficking. You know, I think it's a oftentimes people appreciate they look at decrim and they think is this going soft on drugs? Is this a soft approach? Is this, you know, left versus right? And it's an oversimplification. Really, what we see in our society is there's a big distinction between people that are looking to profit from making drugs, traffic drugs, all the violence that associates organized crime. That is a huge danger to our society. But you can still have compassion for those that are at the most risk. Those are the most vulnerable in our society. People who use drugs. And so I think being compassionate, but also targeting organized crime, aren't inconsistent at all. But it's definitely, you know, oftentimes we oversimplify things and think, you know, is this going soft on drugs? Or is this, you know, taking an approach that legalizes other things like trafficking that we don't want to see? And it's not. Himer, for those who, you know, for those doing will see it's kind of trapped in them, right? Since resources were extensively pulled away, I mean, those who had smaller amounts of drugs, like how much more affected the police get in tackling those two or serious traffic? I think it ties into the earlier comment. I think it's definitely, you know, oftentimes it's overstated how much work was being done, investigating simple possession. It is an efficiency. But I think it's a relatively small one. Is there any need to support a prescribed safer supply? Yes. So currently we've come out publicly in one of our previous, I can get you a copy of it, our previous papers on our response to the overdose crisis. And we were actually one of the first police agencies in North America to come out in support of prescribed safe supply. In terms of the impact on people who use drugs, some advocates have been saying, like, some of the larger quantities above 2.5 might be you know, multi-day supply, so people can kind of go about their business and not have to keep going back to their dealer or what have you. The VPD, it's been reported advocated for a smaller threshold of drugs for the personal supply exemption. What's the stance now on where that they might be at? So like you talked about targeting the higher like the worst of the worst, the higher level offenders, is 2.5 still from what you're seeing kind of the appropriate threshold? I think so. I you know, I was part of some of those conversations where definitely people brought circumstances in terms of rural communities, work camps where logically you could see people looking to buy a higher volume. And it's not that in creating the policy, there was an appetite to exclude or disenfranchise some people. It's making a public policy and it's trying to make it for a broad base and cover the entire population. So you know, much like things with speed limits. Are there people that probably realistically could drive, you know, faster than I could drive safely? There probably are people that are, you know, experienced professional drivers. But that said, you still need to make a speed limit that fits for all of society. And so a lot of those considerations went into it. I do think 2.5 grams as a threshold, it became, you know, arguably one of the biggest items and aspects of decriminalization that was discussed, thankfully, in decriminalization coming into effect. I don't think it's, you know, turn it's still discussed in those conversations are fair. I would like to see a data led approach. I know a lot of the work that was done even in Vancouver amongst, you know, groups that represent people who who use drugs found that most of their members were actually buying at the half gram level. So basically one fifth of what the threshold was. So open minded in terms of further research. And that's something we've committed to in terms of the three year pilot project looking at all aspects of the exemption and ensuring that, you know, they serve the public as best as possible. And obviously this issue has become highly politicized, especially, you know, basically since it began. So, you know, there's these depictions of Vancouver is kind of being more unsafe. And this is part of what's making an unsafe in terms of a public safety concern. How big or how high up does personal possession rank for you? I don't think it's fair to equate, you know, concerns about safety with personal drug use. I mean, anyone that has experience with people who use drugs, especially, you know, full blown substance use disorder, people are not going to use or not use because of the threat of a personal possession charge that is not driving people's behavior. It's not driving the substance use disorder that they're struggling with. And so to say now that decriminalization is playing into that, I think is is not accurate in terms of reality. In terms of, you know, you're saying that it's basically like the small seat years down 100% they're not happening anymore. How it will be very easy for say someone kind of conspiracy minded, or to just ask the question, how do you know that? And, you know, it would be very easy to just say get them down a sewer or something like that and stop or whatever. Oh, fair question. We're fully transparent around our data or even, you know, circumstances that you describe would be something that would be covered by our professional code of conduct by our police act. I know that we've had no complaints from the public in terms of any kind of professional misconduct or officers not complying with the exemption. So absolutely, you know, we have a, you know, a host of oversight, regimes in place to make sure that our officers comply with the law in their in their conduct. So, you know, you know, fully transparent and accountable, whether it's around the data, whether it's around our officers actions in a given situation. Just to clarify around public complaints, have you seen an increase in public complaints and can you draw a straight line between the criminalization and an increase in public drug use? And how do you how do you measure recent public drug use? No, great question. We have looked at our data. We're mindful of complaints that come in from the public and we haven't seen an increase. We've actually seen a decrease in public complaints around public consumption. But that doesn't mean that, you know, circumstances don't arise where, you know, people rightfully have concerns around public drug use. And we're still responsive to that. But in terms of strictly, you know, have the numbers gone up, they have not. Frank, what's the conversation like that with that with that officer and somebody who uses drugs? I understand them supposed to be who's aren't a few formation shoe or something that was passed on at our VPD officers doing that. Maybe you can just elaborate on what is on that sheet. Yep, so that absolutely. So there was as part of the exception in terms of ensuring that there's actual off ramps pathways to health care. There are provincially approved cards that are resource cards that get people information, phone numbers, websites they can visit in terms of community based health care. And those are given out by our officers when upon their discretion, we're not going to we don't ever want we respect that we don't want to be, you know, forcing health care on people. That was definitely something we heard from community from people who use drugs. So like anything, if we deal with that individual and they ask our officers about where they can get a meal, where the nearest shelter is absolutely will supply that information. Same thing with the criminalization in terms of the health cards. If people are looking for community based support, we're happy to provide them the card and refer them. An overdose prevention site on Seymour Street. At least it's supposed to expire at the end of this month. Bad Cooper Coastal Health has not said publicly if it's found a replacement site. There's some data showing aside from the downtown, beside the fire department, it's a type of the most overdose calls in that neighborhood. Does the VPD have a decision on whether there should be more overdose prevention sites in that neighborhood? You know, I don't I don't have any information specifically on that overdose prevention site. I can say in terms of overdoses, we actually stopped attending overdose calls back in 2006. We're the first Canadian police agency to do so. We typically only attend about two to three overdoses a week, and that's only when paramedics or fire professionals based on the information that they're given call for police to attend. So your circumstances where someone was potentially you know, violent before becoming unconscious or their bystanders or a crowd that's causing a potential safety issue for first responders will attend. So, you know, in terms of overdose response, I would definitely, you know, defer to to fire and paramedics in terms of what they're seeing. But you know, in terms of overdose prevention sites broadly, we obviously support them. There's 12 currently, as well as a mobile 13th overdose prevention site in the city of Vancouver, you know, very topical. Last week, the auditor general of BC's report came out on overdose prevention sites. It was one of the aspects it covered and discussed the need to have those services accessible to people throughout BC. So, you know, as police, we support that. Just last month, a couple of city counselors on the business license review power rejected a staff recommendation to reject business license for a mushroom dispensary just up the street care. So, if we were allowed to continue operating and they have operated, this was one of the dispensaries that they've been opinionated as the right connection between decriminalization and what happened there. Well, I think, you know, it raises a couple of very good points. With decriminalization, it specifically covers four substances, opioids, methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA or ecstasy. It doesn't cover hallucinogens. In addition, the decriminalization exemption is around personal possession. So, trafficking of any substance in any amount remains illegal. And so, I think a lot of times, you know, are there people or is there an intention sometimes for people to try to make the exemption confusing or great, absolutely for their own purposes, but the exemption is very clear. Can you update us on whether there are going to be any charges against? I don't have an update on that file. Well, from what we're sorry, I grant your question, Ed, you know, when it comes to the dabbing at an each day on on seizures, dropping, I mean, in full, it's certain stint as to both significance of carrying it to a four-year outbreak. So, in terms of we have the infographics available linked into our release. But in terms of, you know, out or below 2.5 grams, 100 percent reduction, specifically in the two and a half to four and a half gram range, which is, I think, something that became very topical in terms of the implementation of decriminalization. Would there be a shift potentially to these areas or would officers be exercising discretion there? We've seen an 84 percent reduction. And lastly, in terms of, you know, seizures at any weight, a 76 percent reduction. So again, to my earlier comment, what you're seeing there is as the weights increase, naturally, you're going to see less discretion when you deal with higher volumes, higher weights. So the data that was released under the FOI and then a point to VPD is actually doing this. Is this in direct response to what you say is being misrepresented, perhaps publicly? That's the message we want to get out. I mean, to me, the overdose crisis is much too serious to make inaccurate or misleading statements about. It's something that I think, you know, the public expects us to be fully transparent and impartial about and following the evidence in terms of how the exemptions being implemented. And, you know, it's definitely, to me, reprehensible to see people suggesting that officers are seizing more drugs and telling that to the public, including people who use drugs. Well, that's completely untrue. It's not a little bit off. It's 100 percent off. Before the election, we also heard that, you know, public violence was skyrocketing and only, you know, only the right political candidate could save us all from this. And that came out that that those those crimes were actually decreasing, too, in the lead up to that. So, like, if we're to kind of. Look at this data and say, OK, well, it's actually going down. Like, how are we supposed to to believe anything where it's like a new stat can be pointed to to suit anyone's purposes, whether it's claiming there's chaos and crime. No, you know, catastrophe looming on the fries. No, I think it's a matter of, you know, good question. I think it's a matter of integrity, like under oath of office for any of our police officers, myself included, we took an oath, you know, to faithfully, honestly and impartially serve and to perform our duties. And I think that's what's required here in terms of decriminalization is to be, you know, respectful of the magnitude of the problem, approach it with great deference and be transparent about what the data actually shows, given the severity of the problem. You know, and we're committed to doing that. I know you've got a text here from someone who works for the Canadian Direct Policy Coalition. You've probably answered one of these questions. They they ask of how did they decide seize? How did they track last formal interactions? Were all your exegers reported? How did they determine once considered a possession from the trafficking? Does there have been a switch for seizing small amounts under a possession of purpose and trafficking? And so is actually so. I think you've got to tell my lens around. I think so. And I mean, to the point of, you know, this concern about, you know, our officers now going to focus more on trafficking. It is definitely a metric we're watching in terms of the number of trafficking cases and essentially what we've seen is no change before or after decriminalization, which is what we want because decriminalization, as we discussed, did not does not cover trafficking. At the same time, we're mindful we don't want to see a potential increase in small trafficking investigations. And so we're we watch our monthly trafficking investigation numbers. And what we've seen is that they're completely consistent before and after decriminalization, which I think is a good outcome. Have you tried to get corrections or verification or even in touch with the researchers who published that that article online? Because I think we're all talking about, we're all thinking about, say, one year. So have you been in touch with them or if they responded to you? Absolutely. No, I haven't reached out. You know, I definitely read the article. And I think, you know, in the article, everyone is free to read it. I think, you know, the individuals clearly state in there that they understood that there was warnings provided with the data. And the approach was that those flaws in the data must have existed before and after decrim. Therefore, you know, their analysis was going to go ahead and it's completely flawed. It's completely flawed. If you if you see in the spreadsheet, if you see, you know, two grams, two grams, these, you see two grams five times in a row, you can't tell if that's potentially in the extreme is this five cases of the exemption not being followed or as an individual that has five different amounts of two grams and the exemption doesn't apply and it's a legal seizure. So it's definitely, you know, reckless just to take the data, analyze it and, you know, come to misleading conclusions. I guess I'm just wondering, like, you know, as as a journalist, like we take, you know, requests for clarification and corrections pretty seriously, generally speaking, why not go that way? But it seems like there's just kind of this one group or two pair of researchers who put that out there. I will say, like, my concern is more that not only with, you know, an individual article, but more that we saw in the last few weeks, more references to, you know, it has been reported. Analysis has shown, you know, that kind of language creeping into other reputable reports. And so we just want to come out on the record and be clear about what the data actually does show and what is happening. The seizures that happened, right? Maybe you can just kind of reiterate, like, the average number of, because I know in that data that was can't really distinguish it, like, every single line that was associated with one person this week in arrests either, right? Maybe you could just describe, like, again, like the average grams. So the average so the average seizure was 80 grams over 80 grams. So, you know, in terms of these discussions about, you know, is it the police shifting? Is it the police, you know, now looking at two and a half to four and a half grams? Absolutely not. What we're talking about here is 80 grams, 30 times what the threshold is. So, you know, these are clearly circumstances that are much larger in scale. You could jump one more in. That's sick. I'll just sorry, guys, just from what Daryl was saying earlier. We talked about the data structs. No. Is there any data anywhere that's just things about better or worse, says this about? I think that to me the one we work with all of our partners, we'd look at drug checking data, whether it's from overdose prevention sites, community based groups. For me, always one of the most compelling data sources, the BC Coroner Service and their dashboard that they put out monthly statistics on, you know, in terms of, you know, the things that we look at, what percentages of deaths involved, what drugs that has remained relatively constant. It's usually about 85 to 86 percent of fentanyl being found in overdose deaths. The actual toxicity or potency of the fentanyl, these are all things that we're looking at. And to your point, really, we haven't seen any statistical changes in those variables since decriminalization took effect. All right. Thank you.