All boxed in

Monday’s Board of Health meeting featured a big win for facts and evidence.

Council dealt with a symbolic motion from Ward 7 councillor Esther Pauls and Ward 8 councillor J.P. Danko regarding “unsupervised distribution of illegal drug paraphernalia including needles and crack pipes”. That motion - aimed at the Healthbox initiative first discussed at the end of September - constituted the culmination of a month-and-a-bit-long effort that was heavy on emotion and light on facts. But, in the debate that occurred, we learned a little bit more about both councillors and about the body as a whole.

The whole debate was fascinating and is worth examining in more detail, so let’s jump in.

Notice my motion

At the end of September, council’s Board of Health heard an update from the Greater Hamilton Health Network (GHHN) which included a brief reference to a new program - Our Healthboxes (or just Healthboxes…it’s been presented both ways and I’ll use the latter) - that is rolling out thanks to provincial funding. These are automated vending machines that offer harm reduction, hygiene, and health supplies for free in an effort to ensure people who use drugs have access to safe and clean supplies, reducing the risk of someone contracting blood-borne viruses like HIV or Hepatitis C, and helping reduce the chances that someone will develop an infection. The boxes will include other products, but the harm reduction supplies were the point of contention for people like Pauls, Danko, and Ward 9 councillor Brad Clark. I wrote about the initial backlash in my October 11 edition, which you can check out here.

The same day the meeting was held, Danko posted a “notice of motion” to X/Twitter which included a screenshot of a motion and the text: “[at]SylviaJonesMPP [the Minister of Health] is funding the unsupervised distribution of drug paraphernalia in #HamOnt - it is time for residents to be heard - we need addictions treatment programs, not enabling use.”

The motion, which finally came up for a vote on Monday, November 4, focuses on “discarded illegal drug use paraphernalia”, emphasizing that such material “is a direct public health risk to families and children utilizing City parks”. The motion had 5 requests:

• that the City write to the Minister of Health asking them to not fund safe supplies;

• the the City “not support” distribution of supplies without the supervision of “a qualified healthcare professional” or other person working in harm reduction;

• that the City not allow “unsupervised distribution” of safe supplies on City property;

• that the City review “taxpayer funding to any organizations engaged in the unsupervised distribution of drug paraphernalia”; and

• that the City “continue to promote substance use supply distribution best practices” like educating people on drugs.

It’s worth breaking this motion (and the posturing around it) down a little, because it is like emotional catnip. It is short, simple, and hits a few big right-wing populist talking points. This motion was not drafted to succeed; it was drafted to (reclaiming a phrase from the right) “virtue signal” to a specific voting block.

The response to the motion signaled something different, though, but we’ll get into that in a minute.

***

First, Danko’s initial post about the motion serves some pretty basic partisan aims. We all know Danko is aligned with the Ontario Liberal Party. It’s less an “open secret” and more a blisteringly obvious reality, in no small part because he 👏 keeps 👏 bringing 👏 it 👏 up 👏.

His tack to the right on social issues and flirtation with populism might have confused some people, but he’s being politically strategic. There is a theory that mountain voters might be more socially conservative, as evidenced by their returning a reliable small-c conservative block to council (and the school board) in the four mountain wards, the general shift in older and working class voters toward more extreme right-wing policy positions, and the relative loudness of a small group of upper city homeowners on the encampments and homelessness front.

By blaming the Progressive Conservatives for “the unsupervised distribution of drug paraphernalia in #HamOnt”, Danko is staking out the moral high ground in an effort to peel off right-leaning voters who might otherwise fall in line behind the Tories. That’s a benefit for either his future provincial political plans or for fending off another challenge by a PC-aligned challenger during the 2026 municipal campaign. He either gets to position himself as tougher on drugs than the Tories or shames them into making a policy change that works to his advantage. It’s a win-win, if you don’t think about the people impacted by all this.

Second, the framing of this motion actually changed slightly from his initial post. The first post just referred to “drug paraphernalia”. The motion that came to the Board of Health was updated to read “illegal drug paraphernalia” and specifically references needles and crack pipes. “Drug paraphernalia” is a little vague, but “illegal drug paraphernalia” makes it seem like the city is enabling law breakers. And by throwing in explicit references to needles and crack pipes, it heightens the emotions around this issue. Those are tangible, real, and easy to visualize. It’s visceral, it’s gritty, it gives people a more realistic paper dragon to fear. Certainly changes what Pauls would call the “messaging”.

That leads into the third thing about this motion, namely the specific reference to “families and children”. That exact part of the motion reads like this:

Families and children. Families and children. Families. Children.

What does that wording bring to mind? And who might be left out? One could make the case that “everyone” is part of a family, but let’s be clear: it’s serving Leave It To Beaver. She’s gone full nuclear over there.

The motion is not subtle with this reference, implying that families and children are the ones worth protecting. Everyone else, on the other hand, is left out of the conversation (we queer folks know all-too-well that how the idea of “protecting families” can be weaponized against people). Indeed, it dehumanizes people who use drugs, once again positioning them as an invading, outside force, littering our playgrounds with used needles and endangering the real people on whom we should be focusing.

This all brings us to the fourth point: the Healthboxes are intended to provide people with harm reduction supplies because of the very real public health risk that is unchecked transmission of viruses and general poor quality of health throughout a vulnerable population. This program is the real-world manifestation of the fact that drug users are people who deserve healthcare. But this motion turns the whole thing around, instead focusing on the exaggerated public health risk that is discarded needles scattered everywhere.

But fine, let’s jump into the data again. Somebody has to stick up for the facts, I guess.

Let’s look at three studies relating to what one paper termed “community-acquired needle stick injuries” (CANSIs) among children. An article from the year 2000 analyzed five years worth of data across Canada and found that “CANSIs accounted for 0.02% of all injuries to patients younger than age 20 years”. From 1991 to 1996, there were only 116 cases reported, of which 78 were due to a child picking up a needle, some of which happened in private residences or at doctor’s offices. None of the children in that timeframe who had a CANSI contracted HIV or Hep C.1 Another study from 2008 had the same findings: no transmission and a small number of cases.

A study from this year found, again, no transmission of HIV among children from CANSIs. The extremely rare cases of Hep B or C transmission were all treated. The study - which comes in the form of a “Position Statement” from the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) - explicitly notes: “Although the actual risk of infection from such an injury is extremely low, the perception of risk by parents results in much anxiety.”2

To address said anxiety, each paper recommends making children aware of the risks associated with discarded needles and encouraging them to tell an adult when they find one. None of the papers recommend restricting access to harm reduction supplies. In fact, the 2024 CPS study actually has as a recommendation: “Programs should be in place for the treatment and control of injection drug addiction…and harm reduction programs that distribute safer drug use equipment for injection drug users.”3 Yes, that means that the Healthboxes are an important tool to help protect children against CANSIs.

I think we need to be very, very clear about this: needle-stick injuries among children are extremely rare and the chance of a child contracting a virus from a used needle is very low. Reminding children that they should, in the very rare cases they might find a needle on the street or in a park, let an adult know about it is a better policy than imposing restrictions on what healthcare providers can do, especially when experts say providing harm reduction supplies can reduce risks for everyone.

And, finally, the fifth point: defunding harm reduction. Point D on Danko’s motion would have forced “taxpayer funding to any organizations engaged in the unsupervised distribution of drug paraphernalia be referred to the 2025 budget for consideration.” That means council could strategically chip away at the funding for any organization that supported the Healthbox program or any similar harm reduction initiative. This was intended to have a chilling effect. Better think twice before supporting harm reduction efforts, otherwise your already meagre funding might get cut.

This is the outright politicization of public health. Damn the experts, damn the studies, let’s fund things based on common sense!

What if we do the war on drugs?

Before the motion came up for a vote, the Board of Health heard from some experts who implored councillors to think about the facts.

Dr. Robin Lennox, one of the Healthbox organizers and a doctor specializing in addictions, provided some important context on why harm reduction is important. This included letting council know that harm reduction supplies make the workplace safer for medical professionals (Lennox indicated that around 40% of drug users continue to use while in hospital), that 24/7 access to services through a vending machine is more cost effective that hiring staff to do the same, and “that not one patient has started using drugs because of the availability of harm-reduction supplies, nor have they continued using drugs because of the availability of the supplies.”

Dr. Sean Rourke, a lead on the Healthbox initiative, also presented, trying to provide council with specifics about the project. Importantly, Rourke gave councillors two very crucial pieces of information. The first is that these boxes include things like HIV rapid test kits, COVID-19 tests, hygiene kits, socks, underwear, and hats. These aren’t “illegal drug paraphernalia” distribution boxes; they are a lifeline for people who may not have access to life-saving resources.

Second, Rourke noted that this is all part of a larger research project that also collects important data on addictions and who is using the services. One of the requirements for use is that a person must be at least 16 years of age, which addresses some of the concerns raised about young children accessing harm reduction supplies raised by some councillors in September. But it keeps records on people who access services, allowing health care providers to contact them more easily.

This isn’t some dumpy vending machine filled with stale Twix bars and expired bags of chips. This is a high-tech piece of healthcare and community wellness equipment that opens up one more avenue to get people help.

As this was a delegation, councillors were allowed to ask questions of the presenters. On Rourke’s presentation, most councillors asked about other services, the intended scope of the project, who might be served where.

Pauls and Danko took a different approach.

***

The Ward 7 councillor initiated a rapid-fire barrage of questions and every response was met with Pauls smirking, shaking her head, and looking incredulously in the direction of the mayor. Throughout her time, Pauls interrupted Rourke to provide her own commentary and battled him through his answers.

Pauls’ first question was “how much does one of these boxes cost?” ($125,000 for three years) and, as Rourke was trying to answer, the camera lingered on Pauls who nodded sarcastically as though she had successfully trapped him with a gotcha question.

After trying to tell council “the thing that bothers me” (which was cut off by the mayor), Pauls offered a pointed question (again presented without alteration - ellipses are not pauses, but represent quick shifts in thought):

“Why do you say…you use words like “we want no barrier”, “improve their health”…I want to see what message we are sending to the young people…I have grandchildren…what message? Improve your health!”

The mayor asks “is that a question?” Pauls confirmed that it was and Rourke provides a rather blunt, if not confused “Yes?” in response.

Pauls continued: “Leaving nobody behind. Wellness supply. All these words…what happened, in your opinion, what happened if we focus more on messaging. DRUGS KILL! What happened to that message? Why don’t we…what happened to that?”

Rourke responded, noting that what Pauls is speaking about are “contextual factors”, not the boxes themselves. But he threw her a lifeline, saying that she’s made good points and that we should talk about stigma and testing and sexual health more in Canada. It was a strong political answer. He used her own words to advocate for his position, which was smart.

But it was hard to get Pauls to focus. She tried to tell stories but was redirected by the mayor toward questions. She recalibrated and peppered Rourke with pointed questions, denying him a chance to respond, and always coming back to “the children” and “the messaging”. He tried to get her back on track, but it was fruitless. Pauls had her agenda, she made up her mind, and she was not willing to listen to the expert standing right in front of her.

At one point, Rourke needed to calmly reiterate the project’s goal. “These machines don’t promote drug use,” Rourke says, “they promote things that help to support people to take care of themselves, to reduce harm, and keep them safe.”

But Pauls did not relent, instead firing back with: “How many lives we could save when we take a stance against using drug instead of how we can keep safe from using…while you use drugs. I wonder if there’s…if we do the war on drugs how many more lives could we save instead of the other way? Use the drugs and then we’ll enable you to stay safe.” [Emphasis added by author].

The mayor was having none of this, declared that Pauls is off topic, and shut that question down.

But then it was on to Danko.

“I don’t understand why you’re here before us today and why you’re travelling across the country doing the same thing,” Danko mused.

Rourke was confused, and the beat between Danko’s question and the doctor’s response was noticeable and awkward. Rourke was forced to restate his CV, clearly baffled as to the councillor’s intent. “You frame it as if it’s somewhat of a…of a complicated…why would I be doing this? Because it actually helps to improve people’s lives and communities and families across the country,” Rourke stated.

He was professional about it, but the meaning behind Danko’s question was clear: who are you, where do you come from, and who put you up to this? The Ward 8 councillor was throwing a little conspiracy shade on the project.

Time spent, time wasted

The presentation ended shortly thereafter and there were a few more delegations and pieces of business before the Board of Health got to the Danko/Pauls motion.

In his opening remarks, Danko called the Healthboxes an “admission of failure”, again repeating that the project is “unacceptable to the residents of Hamilton”.

“We are no longer advocating for supports, we are no longer advocating for funding for supports, we’re not advocating for treatment, we’re just enabling and giving out these kinds of supplies without any opportunity for those people stuck in a cycle of addiction to access the supports they need.” He rattled off stats about referrals and supports, but did not connect the dots.

Danko’s motion and commentary presents the Healthboxes in isolation from all context. In his conceptualization, we have boxes full of drug supplies on one side, and in-person support on the other. But the presentations council heard and the evidence out there has one important step that connects the two.

It’s more like: harm reduction supplies → people staying alive → people accessing in-person supports.

After Danko’s initial statement, Ward 3 councillor Nrinder Nann spoke, summarizing the whole debate with one simple sentence: “We’re in an era where opinion is being couched as knowledge and it’s critical to push back against this with facts and evidence.”

Councillor after councillor reiterated the same thing. They reminded their colleagues that experts say this will save lives, the need is there, and the facts clearly state that the fears of a small number of people around the horseshoe are overblown.

Pauls, of course, pushed back against the facts and evidence, rhetorically asking “why are more people now hooked on drugs, why are we getting more overdose, why all over…I see people, you know, using drugs. So is it helping? There is facts that proves it’s the other way. B.C. is not working. Let’s look at the real facts,” before again talking about the messaging and the young people and then shouting, again, that “we need to do the war on drug[s]!”

That was not the end of it. She picked up on a comment from Brad Clark about the motion being outside council’s scope and a comment from Ward 13’s Alex Wilson, who noted that it was “telling this is how we chose to spend a Board of Health meeting”. Pauls angrily asked no one in particular “why we spent the morning” discussing the issue, talking over a visibly frustrated mayor.

The Ward 7 councillor threw all decorum to the wind and, in the final moments of her second round of comments, became increasingly animated. In an uncomfortable crescendo, Pauls accused other councillors laughing at her and then said, on the verge of tears, that “this is so important to me. More than anything the city does.”

Clark, whose position changed from opposition in September to jurisdictional deference on Monday, chimed in with a succinct summary: “I’m struck by the question ‘why are we talking about this today?’ It was a seconded motion by the individual who asked the question [Pauls]. We are talking about this today because the motion was seconded.”

That’s an important point. Pauls’ opposition to the boxes and Danko’s strategically-drafted motion were the reason that the Board of Health spent hours debating officially sending a demand to the Ministry of Health to defund the Healthbox program - a program that the Ministry of Health told the CBC that it does not even fund.4 Had Pauls and Danko not attacked the Healthboxes with such intensity in September, had Danko not submitted the motion, and had Pauls not seconded the motion, there would have been no need for hours of presentation and debate over an entirely symbolic motion.

Clark’s comment wrapped up the debate, and council proceeded to a vote. Only four of fifteen members present voted in favour: Danko and Pauls, as well as Ward 6’s Tom Jackson and Ward 5’s Matt Francis, neither of whom contributed to the discussion.

The head and the heart

The Healthbox debate made two things very clear: Danko is playing a different political game than most others around the table and Pauls’ response to these issues is rooted in a deeply rigid morality that is made all the more concerning given her position of power.

***

Danko’s motion was, as I noted earlier, designed to be emotional catnip. “Illegal” paraphernalia, crack pipes, needles threatening children…it’s all heavy stuff. It paints a picture of a city not only in decline, but facilitating decline. It checks a couple of important boxes, like taking swipes at the Tories, presenting Danko as the champion of “common sense”, and responding to what is almost certainly a high-priority topic for those constituents who bother contacting his office.

It doesn’t matter if the motion was jurisdictionally dubious. It doesn’t matter if there was little effort made to get other councillors on board. It doesn’t matter that expert after expert delegated to challenge the core concept of the motion. What matters is that it was moved, debated, and voted on. It’s a feather in his cap and something he can bring back to the residents of the west/central mountain.

And it’s honestly a very different kind of politics than we usually see around the council horseshoe. The notion is that councillors will try to work together to achieve certain aims. Councillors tend to try and collaborate to ensure a motion succeeds because you want real results that help make your vision of the city a reality.

Danko’s motion was never going to gain much traction and he didn’t work to bring many others on board. In that respect, it was kind of like something you’d see at Queen’s Park or on Parliament Hill, where a vastly outnumbered opposition will put motions forward in an effort to get the government and other opposition parties on the record regarding one of their policy positions.

A good example of this was the provincial NDP’s motion regarding housing that failed at Queen’s Park on the same day the Healthbox debate was happening at city hall. The ONDP developed a plan to build millions of units of new housing and presented it to the legislature for a vote. The PCs voted against it, the Greens for it, and the Liberals abstained because they oppose government intervention in the housing sector. They knew it wasn’t going to pass, but now they can tie the PC and Liberal plans together and say they tried.

Danko’s motion shows he’s already playing provincial-level politics. This motion was a way to single out the progressive caucus and make the moderates pick sides. Where it failed in this was when he lost other right-leaning councillors because of the possible jurisdictional jumbling he baked into the motion. Council was going to request the Ministry of Health not fund something they don’t fund? Confusing. Had this been a policy that came from the city and explicitly used municipal funds, the vote breakdown would have been different, but it still had the effect of demonstrating where Danko’s political thinking is at.

***

This differs dramatically from how Pauls approached the debate.

The councillor’s emotion near the end of the debate was telling, as was her comment that the issue was “More [important] than anything the city does.”

Being a city councillor means needing to focus on municipal basics. Local infrastructure, emergency services, parks, planning, economic development, waste collection, urban animal management, etc. That’s what councillors should focus on. That doesn’t mean they can’t take positions on important issues, especially when more and more responsibilities are directly or indirectly being heaped on the shoulders of local authorities.

But overall drug policy is set by the federal government. Educational policies around drugs are more a provincial matter. The municipality, as is almost always the case, usually deals with drugs in a very peripheral way. Licencing of weed stores, harm reduction strategies, some public health initiatives (though each of those also require provincial buy-in), that sort of thing.

Public health is, honestly, the most connected municipal service to drugs. Providing public health services to residents is done to ensure a high quality of life for everyone who lives in a municipality. That means recognizing that persistent drug use is harmful and may diminish someone’s quality of life, especially if they cannot use safely. To that end, pubic health should ensure anyone who uses drugs has access to adequate healthcare while doing so until such time as they feel they can stop using.

Pauls seemed to recognize that when she shouted “DRUGS KILL! What happened to that message?” during her questioning of Rourke.

Yes, they can cause serious harm. Overdoses are a reality now that the drug supply is so tainted. That’s why the Healthboxes will have Naloxone kits and safe use strategies.

Yes, people can contract HIV or Hep or any number of viruses from using unclean needles and inhalation devices. That’s why the Healthboxes include those, as well as HIV rapid test kits.

Yes, people might be harmed because they persistently use without coming into contact with a healthcare professional. That’s why the Healthboxes collect personal information before dispensing anything.

The Healthboxes do not glorify drug use. They recognize a need and try to address it in a meaningful way, rather than only preaching about the dangers of drug use.

***

Pauls kept coming back to the “message” we’re sending “our young people”. What is the message behind the Healthboxes? What is the message behind harm reduction? What is the message sent when we don’t “do the war on drugs”?

What Pauls means here is: “what kind of moral position are we taking?”

That, I would argue, veers into dangerous territory. The municipality should not be mandating morality. It should be developing policies that provide a healthy and safe urban environment for residents. No one is made more safe by a campaign that simply reads: “Just Say No To Drugs”. Those kinds of “messages” make drug use an entirely personal moral failing. Someone decided to do drugs “because it was cool” and now they’re an addict. But we know the reality is far, far more complex than that. Pauls’ approach strips the nuance out of the debate and places it back in the realm of Sunday School simplicity - drugs are evil and you shouldn’t do them.

Rather than pour all our resources into moralizing about drugs - which will do nothing but shame users, funnel healthcare dollars into advertising, and make people feel good without accomplishing anything - we have decided to pursue an evidence-based approach that will collect data, provide vulnerable people with supplies they need, and work to ensure they have support when they are ready for it.

I understand Pauls’ perspective. Her emotion and persistence on the matter have made that clear, and made clear that she cares deeply about the issue. But caring deeply about the issue means she should listen to experts and put herself in the shoes of someone who uses drugs. Ask why they might use. Ask what they might need to stop using. Ask if she would be okay with a municipal policy that shames her for using despite a striking lack of addictions treatment supports.

If this issue is “More [important] than anything the city does” to Pauls, I suggest she start listening to medical professionals, people who work in addictions, and folks with lived experience. And, maybe, find a more suitable venue from which she could pursue her passions.

4 (so far) for 4

We are just over two weeks away from the close of nominations for the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) Ward 4 trustee by-election and the candidate list has grown to four.

In addition to former Ward 3 trustee Larry Pattison Jr., the new candidates in the race are:

• Alison Bailey - Not much information on this candidate yet. The name is quite common and there are a number of local Alison Baileys who could be the candidate but, until there’s more information, we’ll just have to wait.

• Jordan Williams - there isn’t much info online, but this is likely the same Jordan Williams who, in 2014, was one of the Parkview High School students who actively protested the HWDSB’s decision to close the school which was geared toward students with special needs. That was one of the high-profile school closures that dominated the 2014 school board race (I met with some Parkview students to discuss their concerns during my campaign). I’ll update with more info as it comes in.

• Abby Zaitley - Zaitley is a local author and one of the co-chairs of the A.M. Cunningham School Council. Zaitley’s website is still in development, but she has been updating her Instagram consistently with nomination announcements, community events, and a post about how she joined one of Hamilton Centre Independent MPP Sarah Jama’s canvasses recently. Also included on Zaitley’s Insta is a campaign slogan: *Transparency, Inclusion, Progress*.

The rate of candidate registration has been slow and it is unlikely we’ll see a dozen or more candidates sign up. But, still, if you live in Ward 4 and think the school board is the place for you, think about signing up! You have 15 days to go!

Cool facts for cool people

• Grimsby’s town council put on its best impression of a high school student council on November 4. The issue that started all the drama? One councillor kicking another councillor out of a local Facebook group. Ward 3 councillor Veronica Charrois (who was previously docked pay for violating the city’s code of conduct) booted Ward 1 councillor Reg Freake from a Facebook group called “Grimsby Community Talk” this past April. At first, Charrois denied this, but then Ward 2 councillor Lianne Vardy told the chamber she too had been removed from the Facebook group. ¡Escándalo! Charrois tried to raise the costs of an Integrity Commissioner review, blamed Freake for making code of conduct complaints, and challenged Mayor Jeff Jordan when he tried to maintain order. All that led Ward 4 councillor Nick DiFlavio to lament being “part of a council where we’re having this discussion and we’re having repeated points of order regarding somebody’s involvement in a Facebook group.” Grimsby’s council voted 6-to-1 in favour of issuing a reprimand.

• There are more weird right-wing populist groups popping up in Regina. Back in July, I wrote about “Advance Regina”, a right-wing populist dark money group with better branding and more transparency than our own “Concerned Hamiltonians”. Now there’s a second group called “Common Sense Regina” that blames the current city council out there for “waste, crime, and dysfunction”. When the CBC looked into it, they found out that the group is being run by a right-libertarian front group out of Alberta and that their Regina efforts are being run by a half-dozen people operating in secret. When someone posted about “Common Sense Regina” in the r/Regina subreddit, people immediately dismissed it as another weird little group of angry right-wingers. People in that forum were particularly annoyed that the group was hiding its membership and funding source. Let’s hope it backfires!