Deep Dive Substance Use - Barry Dorval for City Council

Deep Dive: Substance Use, Homelessness and Community Safety

Point Form Summary

Substance use affects more people than we see on our streets. Many remain housed, employed and connected to family.
Different people need different kinds of help. Some can recover with support at home. Others need intensive treatment or complex care.
Harm reduction, treatment, recovery, housing and public safety all have a place. No single approach can do the whole job.
Supportive housing works for many people, but it cannot meet every level of mental-health, addiction, cognitive and behavioural need.
The City can improve coordination, care for public spaces, support appropriate housing and help connect people with services.
Paid, voluntary community-care work can give people with lived experience income, useful work and a stronger sense of connection while helping care for public spaces.
Health care, addiction treatment and complex-care housing are mainly provincial responsibilities.
We should not treat poverty, homelessness or illness as offences. But we must respond consistently to violence, threats, trafficking and behaviour that harms others.
Downtown businesses need a clear and timely response to open drug use, blocked entrances, threatening behaviour, discarded needles and other recurring problems.
Vernon will need to invest some municipal resources, but we cannot ask local property taxpayers to take over responsibilities that belong to other governments.

Few issues facing our community are more complex and emotionally charged than substance addiction.

We see people dying because of poisoned drugs. We see families trying desperately to help someone they love. We also see public drug use, homelessness and disruptive behaviour affecting neighbourhoods, businesses, parks and other shared spaces.

These realities are often presented as a choice between compassion and public safety. I don’t believe we should have to choose.

We need to keep people alive and make it easier to find treatment and a path toward recovery. We also need housing that matches people’s needs. Finally, we must enforce reasonable expectations for public behaviour in spaces we all share.

We will not get this right if we consider only one group or one kind of harm.

Different people need different kinds of help

The most visible face of addiction is often someone using drugs in public or living without shelter. That is real, but it is only one part of a much larger picture.

Many people struggling with substance use remain housed and employed. They may be working in the trades, raising a family and participating in community life while their difficulties remain largely hidden.

Some can recover while continuing to live at home and work. They may need medication, counselling, family support or outpatient treatment. They may never need medical detoxification or residential treatment.

Others require much more intensive help. A smaller group may be living with addiction alongside homelessness, serious mental illness, trauma, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or an acquired brain injury. Sometimes violent or highly disruptive behaviour is also part of the picture.

If we build our whole response around the people most visible on our streets, we will miss opportunities to help others before they reach a crisis. But if we assume everyone can manage with a home and a little support, we will fail those whose needs are much more complex and the businesses and neighbours who bear the brunt of social dysfunction.

Housing and treatment need to fit the person

Residential treatment can be life-changing for some people, but it’s not the right or necessary response for everyone.

Treatment might include medication, outpatient counselling, day programs, family and peer support, residential care or some combination of these. Recovery also depends on what happens afterward. A person returning to an unsafe home, no income and little continuing support may quickly lose whatever progress was made.

The same principle applies to housing.

Supportive housing works well for many people. It can provide a stable home, meals, life-skills assistance and connections to health and community services.

But supportive housing is not usually a hospital, psychiatric facility, treatment centre or acquired-brain-injury program. Staff may not have the training, resources or authority to manage someone who is repeatedly violent, experiences psychosis, brings dangerous people into the building or can’t follow basic safety expectations.

That can place staff and other residents who may also be vulnerable at risk. It’s also unfair to someone to place them in housing that isn’t equipped to meet their needs.

Some people require complex-care housing with much more intensive health and behavioural support. When a regular supportive-housing placement is clearly not working, we also need somewhere appropriate for that person to go. Simply leaving everyone in an unsafe situation isn’t acceptable. And evicting the person back into homelessness is not much of a solution either.

Our systems do not always work together

Housing, health care, policing and social services operate under different rules and answer to different organizations.

A housing provider may know that someone needs urgent mental-health or addiction care but be unable to get a timely response. A hospital may help someone through an immediate crisis and then discharge them back to the same conditions. Police may respond to an incident but cannot provide continuing care. Front-line nonprofit staff can be left trying to manage all of it.

Each organization may be doing what falls within its own mandate, while the person continues to cycle through housing, shelters, emergency rooms and police contact.

We often hear the phrase “wraparound care.” But sometimes many agencies are wrapped around a person and no one is responsible for making sure all the pieces actually connect.

Responding to that lack of coordination is one of the clearest areas where local leadership could make a difference.

What is happening downtown?

Many downtown businesses say open drug use, theft, property damage, threatening behaviour and people blocking entrances are affecting their staff, customers and costs. We should take those experiences seriously.

At the same time, the available numbers do not show a simple, steady worsening of the problem. Downtown bylaw calls fell from 1,006 in 2023 to 895 in 2024 and 763 in 2025. Files involving unhoused people also declined in 2025, and the Greater Vernon homelessness count fell from 279 people in 2023 to 199 in 2025. But property crime increased in parts of 2025 and a 2026 Downtown Vernon Association survey found continuing concerns about staff safety, financial losses and the public’s perception of downtown.

These statistics are not necessarily contradictory. A relatively small number of people with highly disruptive or sometimes violent behaviour can have a large effect on an area like the downtown, even while overall homelessness and bylaw calls decline. People may also stop reporting incidents if they don’t expect a useful response.

Open drug use needs to be discussed honestly, but it should not be treated as another word for homelessness. Many people who are unhoused do not use drugs in public, and many people with addictions remain housed and employed. Still, people should not have to walk around open drug use at a business entrance, playground or other shared space.

The appropriate response depends on what is happening. An overdose is a medical emergency. Threats, violence, trafficking, stolen property and other criminal activity require police. Bylaw can address related municipal issues such as blocked access, garbage and temporary shelters. Outreach workers may be able to connect someone with health care, shelter or other support. The system should sort that out rather than expecting a business owner or resident to figure out who to call during an incident.

Compassion and community safety belong together

Services such as naloxone and overdose prevention keep people alive. They must remain available and we need to do a better job of connecting people who are ready with primary care, treatment, housing and recovery support.

At the same time, residents and businesses should be able to speak honestly about threatening behaviour, theft, trafficking and the loss of shared spaces without being accused of not having compassion.

Being homeless, poor, addicted or mentally ill should not itself be treated as an offence. But violence, threats, weapons, drug trafficking and behaviour that prevents others from safely using public places require a response.

Enforcement alone will not resolve addiction or homelessness. Moving people from one location to another without offering meaningful help has only limited value.

But refusing to intervene also causes harm. It affects surrounding residents and businesses. It affects other vulnerable people who may feel unsafe in shelters or supportive housing. And the person at the centre of the crisis continues to suffer.

We need to do a better job of connecting people with housing, health care and treatment. We also need to be clear about the behaviour we can accept in shared spaces and respond firmly when someone threatens, harms or takes advantage of others.

What Vernon can do directly

Municipal government does not control the health-care system, addiction treatment, income assistance or most supportive-housing funding. Council needs to be honest about those limits.

Vernon still has some important responsibilities and useful tools.

1. Build on the coordination already happening

Vernon already has a Situation Table, a regular meeting of trained front-line workers from different agencies who work together to help people facing an immediate risk of overdose, eviction, victimization or criminal involvement.

Of course it’s not appropriate for council to receive personal case information from this group. But if the Table keeps running into the same problem—perhaps treatment isn’t available, someone needs a different kind of housing, or it isn’t clear which agency should respond—that broader pattern needs to reach the people who can do something about it. Council needs to have regular reports from the Situation Table about trends, gaps, challenges and promising developments so it can support this vital work.

Through its networks and relationships,the City can help bring decision-makers together. Then, it can also use what we learn to make a stronger, more specific case to the Province for the services Vernon needs.

2. Care for public spaces

The City is responsible for many of our parks, sidewalks, facilities and other shared spaces.

It can:

set clear expectations around violence, threats, weapons, trafficking and blocked access;
coordinate police, bylaw and outreach responses;
improve lighting and visibility;
provide prompt garbage and needle removal;
maintain suitable public washrooms;
repair and reactivate spaces affected by persistent disorder;
and focus police attention on dealers and people who exploit vulnerable residents.

The response should be based on behaviour, not on someone’s appearance or whether they have stable housing.

Wherever possible, enforcement should be accompanied by an offer of shelter, health care or other support. However, police and bylaw officers must still respond to immediate threats or dangerous behaviour, even when appropriate services are unavailable or the person involved says no to the help offered.

Vernon already has many of the pieces needed for a better downtown response. Bylaw and RCMP conduct some joint patrols. The Community Safety Office provides seasonal ambassadors and crime-prevention advice. Folks on Spokes removes needles and garbage, reports safety concerns and connects with people on the street. The City and Downtown Vernon Association have also supported security-camera grants.

The challenge is that these services have different hours, authority and contact points. A business dealing with open drug use, someone blocking an entrance or threatening behaviour may not know whether to call police, bylaw, outreach or cleanup services.

Council could ask staff, the RCMP, Downtown Vernon Association, local service providers and potential participants to design a focused one-year downtown pilot. It could include:

one well-publicized contact point that directs reports to the right service;
expanded ambassador and cleanup coverage during the blocks and hours with the greatest demand, including paid opportunities for people who face barriers to regular employment;
selected patrols pairing bylaw with an outreach worker;
prompt police attention to violence, threats, theft, trafficking and repeat offending;
free safety reviews for businesses and matching grants for lighting, cameras, locks, improved sightlines or other practical changes;
and clear procedures for responding to open drug use, overdoses, blocked entrances and discarded equipment.

This could build on Folks on Spokes rather than create something entirely new. Kelowna and Vancouver both pay people who face barriers to regular employment to help with litter collection, sharps disposal and other care of public spaces. Participants can gain income, routine, work experience and a greater say in how they contribute to their community, while the community receives a useful service.

We shouldn’t overstate our hopes for this pilot. It won’t replace housing, treatment or health care, and it shouldn’t be used as cheap labour or made a condition of receiving support. The work should be voluntary, paid, properly supervised and shaped with input from the people doing it. But a modest expansion of Folks on Spokes could give more people a meaningful role in caring for their community.

Kelowna’s Downtown On Call and Clean Team provide one nearby model. They give businesses a seven-day contact for lower-level safety and cleanliness problems and work closely with police, bylaw and outreach. Kelowna reported a 22% decline in downtown calls for service during the first eight months of 2023, although we cannot assume the program alone caused that change. Kamloops offers another useful model by pairing a community services officer with an outreach worker.

Vernon previously spent about $120,000 over three summers on an overnight security patrol that generated only 32 reports and had no enforcement authority. It was discontinued. That experience suggests we should not simply hire another security vehicle. Any new pilot program needs a clear role, direct connections to the agencies that can act and measures that tell us whether it is accomplishing anything.

3. Make careful decisions about housing

Council makes important decisions about zoning and development approvals. It can help suitable housing move forward while asking important questions before projects are approved.

As a part of that process, Council should also consider the effect of placing several supportive-housing buildings, shelters and other high-demand services in the same area. Central locations provide access to transit and services, and supportive housing reduces the harms associated with homelessness. But repeatedly concentrating housing and services for people with the most complex needs within a few downtown blocks can place an unfair burden on businesses, residents, public spaces and the people living in those buildings.

The City should work with BC Housing and Interior Health to identify suitable locations throughout Vernon while keeping residents connected to transportation, health care and everyday community life.

For any new supportive-housing proposal, we should understand:

who the housing will serve and what help residents will receive;
how safety, guests and serious incidents will be managed;
what will happen when a resident needs more care than the building can provide;
what similar housing and services already exist nearby;
whether other suitable locations were considered;
how neighbourhood concerns and added pressure on public spaces and City services will be addressed;
and what BC Housing and Interior Health will contribute.

This isn’t about creating obstacles or allowing neighbourhood opposition to block every project. Vernon needs more supportive housing. It’s about making sure we don’t place people in buildings that lack the staff and services they need to succeed or place too much pressure on one part of the community.

The City might sometimes contribute land, infrastructure or other assistance. If it does, the agreement should clearly set out what BC Housing, Interior Health and the operator will provide, not only when the building opens, but also over the long term.

4. Help reach people earlier

We should not wait until someone loses their job, family connections and home before offering help.

The City can help bring together employers, unions, construction associations and health providers. Existing programs can provide workplace education, confidential referrals, supervisor training and peer support.

This is particularly relevant to the trades, where substance use can remain hidden and workers may fear that asking for help will cost them their employment.

The City does not need to create its own treatment program. It can help local employers and workers connect with programs that already exist and identify what may be missing in the North Okanagan.

5. Find out whether we are making progress

Beyond the work of the Situation Table, we need to understand whether our overall community response is making a difference.

Council could ask City staff to work with the RCMP, Interior Health, BC Housing and local service providers to prepare a once or twice per year community update using information they already collect. It could include a small number of measures, such as:

overdose deaths and emergency responses;
access to treatment and waiting times;
housing placements, transfers and evictions;
police, fire and bylaw calls;
serious incidents in supportive housing;
the work completed through paid peer programs and, through voluntary and anonymous feedback, whether participants gained income, useful experience or a stronger sense of community connection;
recurring concerns identified by residents, businesses, service users and front-line workers available through existing surveys and reports.

No single number will tell us whether things are getting better.

More arrests do not automatically mean a safer community. More referrals do not mean that people received care. Removing an encampment does not resolve homelessness if it simply shows up somewhere else.

We should be looking for fewer deaths, more stable housing, better access to treatment, safer shared spaces and less repeated use of emergency services.Conservation is essential, but it is unlikely to be enough on its own. We also need to make better use of other water sources.

What we need from other governments

Some of the most important changes Vernon needs are outside the City’s control.

Council’s role isn’t simply to ask broadly for “more resources.” We need to identify the gaps, gather the evidence and make specific requests of the governments responsible.

1. Better access to treatment and continuing care

Interior Health and the Province are responsible for most addiction and mental-health treatment.

People need to be able to enter the system in a variety of ways. That includes assessment, counselling, day treatment, medication, withdrawal management where needed, residential treatment and mental-health care.

We also need to pay more attention to what happens afterward. Treatment is much less likely to succeed if someone returns to homelessness, an unsafe environment or no continuing support.

Council cannot build this health-care system through property taxes. It can ask where people are waiting, being turned away or losing contact—and use that information to press Interior Health and the Province for specific improvements.

2. Complex-care housing in Vernon

We need a much clearer picture of how many people in Vernon require complex care and what kinds of housing and support would actually meet their needs.

Some may need nurses, mental-health clinicians, addiction care, help with everyday living and staff available around the clock. Those services cost considerably more than ordinary supportive housing.

They are provincial health and housing responsibilities. Vernon property taxpayers cannot sustainably fund them.

With the facts in hand, council can make a strong, specific case to BC Housing, Interior Health and the Province for properly funded complex-care spaces in our community.

3. A better response when housing placements fail

The Province must continue working to balance the rights of supportive-housing tenants with the safety of staff and other residents.

People should not lose their homes simply because they relapse, experience symptoms of a disability or are difficult to support.

At the same time, housing providers need to respond quickly to threats, weapons, trafficking and dangerous guests.

When a placement is no longer safe or suitable, the best response may be a move to housing with more support. That requires an appropriate place to move the person to. Changing eviction rules without creating those alternatives will not solve the underlying problem. Again, with specific data, we can be more focused in lobbying for support.

4. Income, housing and federal responsibilities

Provincial income support, disability services, health care and tenant law all affect whether people can remain safely housed.

The federal government also has responsibilities related to criminal law, drug regulation, border enforcement, Indigenous services and housing funding.

Council should work with both levels of government. But we will be more effective if we arrive with clear local evidence and a specific request rather than another general statement about the seriousness of the problem.

What will this cost?

A thoughtful response will require some municipal spending.

Coordination takes staff time; so does gathering the data. Public washrooms, sanitation, outreach partnerships, park maintenance, policing and bylaw responses all cost money.

At the same time, we need to be clear about which costs properly belong to Vernon taxpayers and which belong to other governments.

What the City should expect to pay for

The City should expect to fund the reasonable costs of caring for public spaces, sanitation, bylaw services, its share of policing, municipal planning, local coordination and public reporting.

These are municipal responsibilities. That does not mean every idea that is proposed should be approved. We still need to ask what it will accomplish, how much it will cost and whether there is a more effective way to do it.

Some of the proposed downtown improvements could be made by coordinating existing staff differently. A dedicated service with extended hours would require new operating money. As a rough planning estimate, a focused one-year pilot could cost between $200,000 and $400,000, depending on its hours, staffing and how much existing service can be redirected without creating gaps elsewhere. A permanent seven-day operation with longer hours and additional officers could cost more than $500,000 each year.

An expanded Folks on Spokes component could be included in that pilot or considered separately. Kelowna spends about $148,000 annually on a Community Cares cleanup program. A smaller Vernon initiative could likely be tested for less, depending on the number of workers and hours. The cost would need to include fair wages, supervision, insurance, safety training, equipment and administration—not just the hours worked by participants.

Those figures would need to be tested through a staff proposal and competitive pricing. Council should set a ceiling on the City’s contribution before a pilot begins rather than approve an open-ended commitment. We should also pursue outside funding.

Where costs should be shared

Some projects may make sense as partnerships.

Downtown-specific services should not necessarily be funded entirely through general property taxes. The Downtown Vernon Association, participating businesses and property owners could help fund an ambassador service or matching grants for private security improvements. The City and DVA could each contribute, while individual businesses pay a share of improvements to their own properties.

Provincial grants could help launch the program, as they have with Folks on Spokes in the past. The Downtown Vernon Association could also contribute to work that directly benefits downtown. But if the service proves useful, we would need an honest plan for its ongoing cost rather than assume temporary grants will continue.

Provincial crime-prevention and mental-health grants may help launch parts of the work. Vernon has previously received provincial support for Folks on Spokes. But grants are temporary and competitive. They should help us test a service, not become the planned source for paying on-going costs.

Interior Health should fund the health or crisis component of paired outreach. BC Housing and the Province should fund shelter, housing navigation and the more intensive supports needed by people with complex needs. The City can bring the partners together and may contribute to a pilot, but it should not gradually assume these ongoing provincial responsibilities.

Before the City funds a pilot project, we should know:

what problem it is meant to solve;
how we will know whether it worked;
who will operate it;
what it will cost to continue;
and who will pay after the initial grant ends.

One-time funding can help us test an idea. It should not quietly create a new, permanent municipal expense.

What other governments should pay for

Health care, addiction treatment, income support and the clinical side of complex-care housing are not municipal responsibilities.

The City may occasionally contribute land, fast-track approvals or provide limited project support when that creates a clear benefit for Vernon. But the Province and its agencies need to fund the ongoing health and support services.

Better coordination may eventually reduce some costs. Stable, appropriate housing and earlier help can mean fewer first responder calls, hospital visits and repeated police responses.

But we shouldn’t promise savings before we can demonstrate them. Some savings may appear in the provincial health or justice system rather than in the City’s budget. We need to be honest about both the costs and who receives the financial benefit.

The balance I would seek

We will not resolve substance addiction through one program or political slogan.

Different people need different responses.

Someone who is working and living with family may need confidential outpatient help. Someone with an opioid addiction may need medication and continuing care. Someone leaving treatment may need stable housing and help reconnecting with work and community. Someone living with addiction, brain injury, psychosis and violent behaviour may need intensive complex care. Someone trafficking drugs or preying on vulnerable people requires firm law enforcement.

The City can’t provide these services.

Council can bring the right people together, care for shared spaces, support appropriate housing, track whether conditions are improving and make a strong case to other governments for the services Vernon needs.

If elected, I would support an approach that helps people early when their needs are more manageable, provides intensive care when their needs are complex, and responds firmly when behaviour harms others.

I would also be careful with municipal tax dollars. Vernon should do its part, but it should not quietly take over responsibilities that belong to the Province or federal government.

Compassion, safety, accountability and financial responsibility do not have to compete. We need all four.