You are on page 1of 199

YOF CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT

VANCOUVER Access to Information

File No.: 04-1000-20-2017-049

May 23, 2017

Attention:
By Email:

Dear :

Re: Request for Access to Records under the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (the "Act")

I am responding to your request of February 2, 2017 for:

Copies of any documents, including memos, e-mails, etc., regarding proposals to


make Vancouver a "sanctuary city"
(http://www. vancouversun.com/news/vancouver+looks+becoming+sanctuary+city/
11821402/story.html), from January 1, 2016 to February 2, 2017.

All responsive records are attached. Some information in the records has been severed,
(blacked out), under s.13(1), s.15(1)(l), and s.22(1) of the Act. You can read or download this
section here:
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws new/document/lD/freeside/96165 00

Under section 52 of the Act you may ask the Information & Privacy Commissioner to review
any matter related to the City's response to your request. The Act allows you 30 business
days from the date you receive this notice to request a review by writing to: Office of the
Information & Privacy Commissioner, info@oipc.bc.ca or by phoning 250-387-5629.

If you request a review, please provide the Commissioner's office with: 1) the request
number assigned to your request (#04-1000-20-2017-049); 2) a copy of this letter; 3) a copy
of your original request for information sent to the City of Vancouver; and 4) detailed
reasons or grounds on which you are seeking the review.

Please do not hesitate to contact the Freedom of Information Office at foi@vancouver.ca if


you have any questions.

City Hall 453 West 12th Avenue Vancouver BC V5Y 1V4 vancouver.ca
City Clerk's Department tel: 604.873.7276 fax: 604.873.7419
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 10 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 17 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 19 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 21 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 24 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 26 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 31 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 35 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 40 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 42 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 43 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 45 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 47 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 48 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 50 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 52 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 63 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 65 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 66 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 67 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 69 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 70 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 73 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 77 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 78 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 79 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 80 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 81 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 82 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 83 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 84 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 85 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 86 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 87 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 88 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 89 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 90 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 91 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 92 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 93 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 100 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 101 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 104 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 113 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 114 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 115 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 116 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 123 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 124 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 125 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 127 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 128 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 137 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 140 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 141 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 142 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 143 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 144 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 147 of 197
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 163 of 197
The chairs update from early January below. I will send you whatever else I find out today and work on a 6 start time.
They were planning 5:45 for this item so should be close even if I'm unsuccessful. Their thought was that it would take
most of the meeting

CHairs update follows

4. VPD Access without Fear

In order to being closing the loop on this item, Im doing a few things. I went to a Stakeholders Meeting today and VPD
Superintendent Eely has asked that we send any feedback that we have within the next 2-3 weeks. Im asking
organizations who have participated in the process, including the VPD, if theyd like to come and present so that we
can have a fulsome discussion. Presentations will potentially happen at our Working Meeting and at our Regular
Meeting depending on schedules. Access without Fear will be an item on our Regular Meeting agenda. We should
probably have a response to the Guidelines before our term ends. There isnt a timeline for when the Guidelines will
head to the VPD Board. Ive attached the proposed VPD policy to this email.

Councillor Andrea Reimer


Chair | Policy and Strategic Priorities
City of Vancouver
p: 604-873-7241<tel:604-873-7241>
e: andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca<mailto:andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca>
a: 453 W 12 Ave Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4
t: @andreareimer<https://twitter.com/andreareimer>
f: www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer<http://www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer>

On Jan 19, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Meggs, Geoff <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca<mailto:Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca>>


wrote:
Thanks for the heads up, Andrea.
This is pretty frustrating and a little shocking. There is no VPD policy at the moment.
I suspect this is on the agenda because a Sanctuary Health activist is on your committee. A number of committees,
including Cultural Communities, are also interested, but read on . . .
The process has been very difficult, in part because of where the VPD started and in part because Sanctuary Health
has effectively withdrawn from the process. The first draft was withdrawn at Gregor's request and consultation began.
Sanctuary Health objected to the draft revisions and decided not to attend the first VPD discussion, which went ahead
with good representation from women's groups working with sex workers as well as BCCLA. They made great
suggestions and engaged directly with the VPD lawyer, who was a big part of the problem in my view. The next draft
was significantly different and another meeting was set for December. Sanctuary Health again declined to attend and, I
suspect, encouraged others to stay away. It is being rescheduled. I reached out to Laura Best for advice, but have not
heard back.
As it stands, Sanctuary Health is consulting in the community and has sent a very strong rejection to VPD, suggesting
that it would be better to have no policy than the policy proposed. The sticking point is VPD's refusal to break off all
relations with CRA -- they note that at least one of the agreements covers enforcement against sex traffickers and
drug smugglers.
I am asking VPD to brief the Mayor's Working Group on Immigration in the next month to get their reaction. VPD has
offered a designated liaison officer to provide direct liaison with community activists. They may move ahead unilaterally
and try that approach, but might be quite prepared to have no policy if that's what the activists want.
I suspect the discussion at CYA is part of an effort to put additional pressure on us, via advisory committees, to order
the VPD to do various things.
So: I can drop in, but I think my approach would be to urge them to get briefed by VPD or even join the very wide group
invited by VPD to join the consultations. I doubt VPD is briefing them and I don't know how they can form an opinion on
such a fraught process.
Could you steer them to hold for me until 6 or after? Cultural Communities is having a working meeting I wanted to look

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 173 of 197


in on and I was hoping to do an event in Burnaby at 6, but Burnaby is optional.

Geoff
________________________________
From: Reimer, Andrea
Sent: January 18, 2017 11:46 PM
To: Meggs, Geoff
Subject: Meeting Thursday night
Hi Geoff,

The Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee is meeting tomorrow night at 530 to talk about the VPD's Access
Without Fear policy. I was suggesting to them that you may have an interest in being there and they were fine with me
extending an invitation.

Can you let me know if you're interested in going? I can send you the outlook invite.

Apologies for the late notice. I just got the agenda today

Councillor Andrea Reimer | City of Vancouver


Chair, Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities
p: 604-873-7241
e: andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca<mailto:andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca>
a: 453 W 12 Ave Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4
t: @andreareimer<https://twitter.com/andreareimer>
f: www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer<http://www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer>

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 174 of 197


From: "EELY, Steve" <steve.eely@vpd.ca>
To: "Meggs, Geoff" <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca>
Date: 1/21/2017 10:10:10 AM
Subject: RE: Access without fear

No problem.

Safe travels...

Steve Eely
Superintendent - South Command
Operations Division
Vancouver Police Department
s.15(1)(l)

-----Original Message-----
From: Meggs, Geoff [mailto:Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 10:10 AM
To: EELY, Steve
Subject: Re: Access without fear

Thanks, Steve, I may try tomorrow afternoon, if not, then Monday. Travelling today.

Geoff

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 21, 2017, at 10:08 AM, EELY, Steve <steve.eely@vpd.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Geoff,
>
> You can call my cell anytime: s.15(1)(l) happy to chat.
>
> If there is a specific time that works for you, please advise.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve.
>
>
> Steve Eely
> Superintendent - South Command
> Operations Division
> Vancouver Police Department
> s.15(1)(l)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meggs, Geoff [mailto:Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca]
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 2:06 PM
> To: EELY, Steve
> Cc: Quinlan, Kevin
> Subject: Access without fear
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Is there time we could connect by phone to chat about Access Without Fear?
>
> Geoff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 175 of 197


p: 604-873-7241
e: andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca<mailto:andrea.reimer@vancouver.ca>
a: 453 W 12 Ave Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4
t: @andreareimer<https://twitter.com/andreareimer>
f: www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer<http://www.facebook.com/CouncillorAndreaReimer>

________________________________
From: Meggs, Geoff
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:51 PM
To: Aaron Leung
Cc: Reimer, Andrea
Subject: RE: Access without Fear: Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee

Thanks, Aaron,

Ive asked Sanctuary Health for a meeting and Im looking for an update from VPD to see how best to proceed. Ill keep
you posted.

Geoff

Geoff Meggs
Councillor
City of Vancouver
453 W 12th Ave
P: 604.873.7249
E: geoff.meggs@vancouver.ca<mailto:geoff.meggs@vancouver.ca>

From: Aaron Leung s.22(1)


Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 4:17 PM
To: Meggs, Geoff
Cc: Reimer, Andrea
Subject: Access without Fear: Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee

Hi Councillor Meggs,

Thanks for agreeing to meet with us tonight on such short notice. I really appreciate it. I'm writing to pass along some
background information.

The Committee carried a motion in the summer to support the concept of Access without Fear and wrote to the Mayor
and the Police Board. We were subsequently invited to the stakeholder meetings.

Last week, the Committee met with Drazen Manojlovic to discuss some concerns and ask some questions. Some key
points from that discussion include (not a complete list as my recall is a bit spotty):

* The perception (real or perceived) that certain individuals from the VPD profiles individuals based on their race and
potential for uncertain immigration status
* if random spot checks occur (the answer was none have been reported, but there were conflicting opinions
between the vpd and Committee Members experiences)
* Questions surrounding additional/stricter limitations on the relationship between the CBSA and the VPD
* Questions around how far the guidelines should go (interests of citizens v.s. people with uncertain immigration
status)
One theme that was woven through the discussion surrounded the ability to provide more assurance to residents with
uncertain immigration status that the CBSA would not be contacted as the concequences of contact are high and the
threat (again, real or perceived) of the VPD contacting their CBSA counterparts is potentially high depending on the
outcomes of the guidelines.

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 177 of 197


Looking forward to seeing you tonight.

Best regards,

Aaron Leung
Vice-Chair, City of Vancouver Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee
Cell: s.22(1) <tel s.22(1) >

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 178 of 197


From: "Quinlan, Kevin" <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>
To: "Meggs, Geoff" <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca>
Date: 1/28/2017 9:53:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: For approval - statement on welcoming refugees

FYI - a number of mayors and politicians wading in after trumps refugee ban

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Robb, Katie" <Katie.Robb@vancouver.ca>


Date: January 28, 2017 at 7:28:52 PM PST
To: "Robertson, G" <G.Robertson@vancouver.ca>
Cc: "Quinlan, Kevin" <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>, "Zaharia, Sarah" <Sarah.Zaharia@vancouver.ca>,
"Girn, Naveen" <Naveen.Girn@vancouver.ca>
Subject: For approval - statement on welcoming refugees

Hey G -

Here is the statement we put together in response to trump's immigration changes. We'll pop it out first thing
tomorrow (8am) once you've signed off.

Any questions, let me know!

s.13(1)

Katie Robb
Director of Communications
Office of the Mayor l City of Vancouver
Office: 604.873.7490 l Cell: 778.918.7973
Mayorofvancouver.ca
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 179 of 197
From: "Girn, Naveen" <Naveen.Girn@vancouver.ca>
To: "Meggs, Geoff" <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca>
Date: 2/1/2017 5:13:13 PM
Subject: FW: Sanctuary Health Meeting

Hi Geoff,

Here are my notes from the meeting.

If you could send me the latest VPD guidelines that would be helpful. The most recent doc I have is from November 29.

Sanctuary Health Meeting

SH felt no policy is better than the policy that is currently put forward by VPD. Geoff highlighted that unless meaningful
cooperation occurs, SH will be stuck with a policy they cant use. Everyone understood from the beginning that getting
the VPD on board would be the most difficult task. This process needs to be a longer one.

1. Going back to the beginning. More discussion on engagement and what shared goals are rather than
policy discussion. Suspend the policy discussion process.
2. Need to have an agreement on a framework that is rooted in Citys AWF policy. Request public
statements from the Mayor and Chief Palmer to support that. Shared end goal: That people of
indeterminate or precarious immigration status can feel trusting and safe that they will be protected
by VPD according to Canadian law.
a. In this vein: no policy should be presented until it has majority support from people at the
table.
b. The risk is not that people are here illegally, the threat is the crime and that should be the
focus of police encounters.
3. Liaison discussion: having a police liaison who could act as a buffer between police and CBSA and
determine if individual cases require escalation. For example, Fraser Health has a 4 stage process
before escalation
a. Creation of a community liaison (perhaps a lawyer- Laura Best was mentioned) who could be
the point person for police liaison. Eg. Alberta has a lawyer as the point person for temporary
foreign workers issues.
4. Perspective teaching : Sanctuary Health need to know the clear guidelines and situations where
police would ask a persons immigration status. Its not VPDs job to enforce federal immigration law.
Police officers need to show some discretion on case by case basis (eg. Bicycle theft is not the same
as a drug ring). VPD needs to hear these stories to build empathy, perspective and understanding
(similar to Sex Workers Strategy). Geoff restated that this can only happen if SH comes back to the
process
a. Note: Is this an issue that could be addressed in the VPDs upcoming street check strategy (ie.
Dont ask a persons immigration status randomly. What are the criteria for this to occur?)
5. SH feels that victims and witness with indeterminate and precarious immigration status are not
protected when they come forward to testify in criminal cases. How will the VPD address this? They
have stories to reaffirm this point
6. Provide resources for Sanctuary Health to produce a video that shares stories of people helped by the
Access Without Fear Policy. This could be done in lead up to the first anniversary in April and
showcase the work done by VPL and VPB, as well.

Naveen Girn
Director of Community Relations, Office of the Mayor
City of Vancouver
Office: 604.873.7410
Cell: 604.417.2171

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 180 of 197


From: "Quinlan, Kevin" <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>
To: "Meggs, Geoff" <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca>
"Girn, Naveen" <Naveen.Girn@vancouver.ca>
Date: 2/2/2017 11:27:42 AM
Subject: FW: AWF

See below. dont worry Geoff, she wasnt ignoring you!

From: Woodward, Jon [mailto:Jon.Woodward@bellmedia.ca]


Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Quinlan, Kevin
Subject: Re: AWF

s.22(1)

She's a good sport.

My email doppelgnger is a s.22(1)

Her actual email is s.22(1)

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Quinlan, Kevin <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Oops

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Laura Best s.22(1)


Date: February 2, 2017 at 11:07:03 AM PST
To: "Quinlan, Kevin" <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>
Subject: Re: AWF

Hi Kevin, while Id love to chat (and I also am a huge fan of Vancouver and Whistler Mountain::) I think you may have the wrong Laura. I seem
to get quite a few emails from Canada for another Laura Best, so I think this might be the same:)

I am Laura Best, but live in s.22(1)

Cheers,

Laura Best
s.22(1)

On Feb 2, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Quinlan, Kevin <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Happy February! Would you be around to grab a coffee in the next few weeks and talk access without fear? Could use your advice.

KQ

Kevin Quinlan
Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor
City of Vancouver
Office: 604.87 3.7 232
Cell: 7 7 8.995.2264

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 181 of 197


Cc: Geoff Meggs; Quinlan, Kevin; Kevin Quinlan; Robertson, Gregor; s.22(1)
Subject: Re: Sanctuary Health meeting request

Dear Geoff,

Thank you for your follow up email.

Steve Eely postponed today's meeting because there was no participation from community organizations. We met with the
organizations that attended the second meeting (SWAN, BWSS, BCCLA and PIVOT) as well as Rainbow Refugee, Fresh
Voices Vancouver Foundation, BC Health Coalition, West Coast Leaf and Laura Best- they decided to postpone their
participation in the second meeting as well as today's meeting, because we all agreed that the latest VPD draft is in no way
"guidelines", but rather just a statement that does not reflect any limits to the discretion of the officers, or their commitment to
access without fear for witnesses, victims and complainants- never mind for the community with precarious status at large.

The community organizations involved in this conversation with VPD were invited because we
included them in the process. Without our relationships and partnership with these organizations
VPD would have had no community representation or would have had organizations or
representatives of organizations that do not work with communities with precarious status.

The community organizations didn't feel comfortable attending the meeting today not only because this draft doesn't protect
the communities that they work with but because they think it is important that all other community organizations' voices
experiences and concerns for the communities they work with, particularly Sanctuary Health, are heard. We work directly
with more than 50 families with no status and more than 100 people with precarious status and are working not only with
VPD but with the health authorities, the school districts (http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/12/12/canadian-
kids-booted-from-school-parents-mexican-citizenship.html), with unions, with employment standards, with shelters, with
other service providers, with Parks Board and the libraries.

We not only find it reasonable to expect the VPD to end their collaboration with CBSA but have this expectation within
Canadian society. It happens in LA, NY, Seattle, San Francisco, along with their mayors' (even after the last electoral
results) strong public advocacy for their Sanctuary Cities (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13604P)

BCCLA, SWAN and PIVOT shared with us this Tuesday that they do not see any functioning or actual guidelines on the
most recent draft, and that they will continue to advise victims, complainants and witnesses NOT to reach out to the VPD if
this statement is passed. What is the use of having a statement at all if it increases the risk for our communities?

The day that City Council approved the access without fear policy we expressed our concerns about the VPD not being on
board. Mayor Gregor Robertson was present and he publicly stated his commitment to work with us in his position as the
Chair of the VPD Board, and to push for access without fear.

We would like to meet with you and the mayor to further discuss his commitment to access without fear and figure out some
next steps to request VPD to address the following concerns:

- The VPD has no legal or other obligation to enforce the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
unless to carry out a specific warrant. And yet the proposed guidelines reflect the opposite of this
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 183 of 197
notion.

- There must be a process in place that provides some direction to police officers with regard to the
bona fide reasons to ask for a persons immigration status, and a prescribed and specific procedure
for circumstances in which they would contact CBSA. Anything short of this is meaningless on paper
and in practice.
- The VPD draft does not acknowledge the random street checks we know exist within the racialized
communities we support, whereby CBSA is called to assist the VPD when police encounter a person
who is believed to be without status.
- they also do not protect people who happen to be stopped for some administrative violation, only to
be put into detention after a phone call to CBSA.
- Ending the joint patrols and raids of the VPD and CBSA has also not been acknowledged or
discussed in your proposed guidelines,
- Training of officers to prevent racial profiling in collaboration with community organizations
- Communication campaign
- There needs to be a complaint mechanism for community members that have negative interactions
with the VPD and collaboration with CBSA.

Our concerns are rooted in the experiences of community members. We received a report from a
refugee wearing construction gear in the Downtown Eastside, who was randomly stopped by a VPD
officer and asked for his immigration papers. Is there anything in the guidelines that would prevent this?
When the VPD was called to a jobsite to investigate a case of missing tools, they proceeded to ask
everybody on the worksite for their immigration status. Under the guidelines as they are currently
written, would this be excused as a bona fide reason? These are clear examples, and the proposed
guidelines failure to even attempt to address them are why we do not currently feel able to participate in
the process.

We would like to meet with you and the Mayor, because as demonstrated in the example above (and countless other
stories where communities are facing extreme violations and violence due to VPD partnership and cooperation with CBSA)
there NEEDS to be a meaningful change, starting with meaningful consulation, and we cannot be part of a process that so
far holds no intergrity or intention to ACTUALLY protect these vulnerable communities.

What are some dates that we can meet with you and Mayor Robertson?

Best,
Alejandra on Behalf of Sanctuary health

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Meggs, Geoff <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Hi Alejandra,

I am away from the office from tomorrow to mid-January. I received a note from Steve Eely
indicating a number of people couldn't make it today, myself included. I felt the last meeting was
helpful, despite your absence. I would be be prepared to convene some kind of discussion in my
office in January to discuss next steps but I don't feel I can get VPD to engage further if you folks
won't engage either. One of the questions I think we have to ask is whether it is reasonable to
expect VPD to have no relationship whatsoever with CBSA. This is not the Transit Police. A
second issue for me is whether a liaison position at VPD would be of assistance. The offer of
guidelines came in response to strong representations from the people at the last meeting. Are
they of any value? They are in other areas of policing. These issues could all be discussed.

Geoff

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 184 of 197


On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Meggs, Geoff <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Hi Alejandra,

I am away from the office from tomorrow to mid-January. I received a note from Steve Eely
indicating a number of people couldn't make it today, myself included. I felt the last meeting was
helpful, despite your absence. I would be be prepared to convene some kind of discussion in my
office in January to discuss next steps but I don't feel I can get VPD to engage further if you folks
won't engage either. One of the questions I think we have to ask is whether it is reasonable to
expect VPD to have no relationship whatsoever with CBSA. This is not the Transit Police. A
second issue for me is whether a liaison position at VPD would be of assistance. The offer of
guidelines came in response to strong representations from the people at the last meeting. Are
they of any value? They are in other areas of policing. These issues could all be discussed.

Geoff

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 14, 2016, at 5:26 PM, Alejandra Lopez Bravo <mariposa.lopez@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mayor Gregor Robertson and Counselor Geoff Meggs,

I hope you are well. We are writing to you with regards to the VPDs proposed access
without fear policy/guidelines, with the hope that we can have a discussion about where to
go from here.

As you are aware, several community organizations have been engaged in consultations
with the VPD with regard to their development of an Access without Fear policy, the first of
which only happened because of your commitment to ensuring meaningful community input
into this process. We appreciate these efforts. The VPD has now hosted two meetings, and
it was scheduled to host its third this Thursday, December 15 but they postponed it because
of lack of community participation.

As we wrote to you before, Sanctuary Health declined participation in the second


consultation meeting due to a clear indication that the VPD was not committed to
developing a policy that reflects the spirit of the City of Vancouvers access without fear
policy. We expressed our concern that a policy that simply reiterates collaboration with the
CBSA under the title access without fear is much more dangerous to the community
members that we work with than simply passing no policy at all.

The VPD has now circulated guidelines as opposed to a policy that continue to reflect their
commitment to collaboration with the CBSA, and that do nothing to limit police discretion.

We are feeling a little bit at a loss at the moment, and are requesting a meeting with you to
discuss potential next steps in how to approach this issue with the VPD since they
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 185 of 197
postponed the meeting of tomorrow but they intend to bring this draft to their board
meeting in January. As you are well aware, the Citys Access without Fear policy has little
impact without the participation of the VPD, and we are hoping that we can meet to discuss
best ways to approach this issue with the VPD in line with the Citys policy.

We understand it is a busy time of year, but we hope we can meet as soon as possible to
talk about how to move the principles of access without fear forward. We are concerned
that the VPD will proceed to pass guidelines or a policy that are not reflective of the Citys
policy, despite lack of community support.

Could you please send us some available dates?

Thank you again for your continued commitment, and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Alejandra on behalf of Sanctuary Health

Please see below the detailed concerns with regard to the latest policy or guidelines being
proposed by the VPD

As we have previously noted, what is being proposed cannot be called access without fear. Nothing
that has been sent so far reflects the principles or spirit of the City of Vancouvers Access without Fear
policy, and we are disappointed that it seems the VPD is unwilling to approach this issue from the
perspective of making a more inclusive and safe city for all residents. As we stated at the first meeting,
it is our belief that passing this policy will make the communities with whom we work less safe given
the prescribed wide discretion provided to police officers and continued lack of commitment to non-
collaboration with CBSA.

It is clear that the VPD continues to see its role as one in the same as CBSA - as evidenced through
the language of your circulated guidelines, including the supposed expectation within Canadian
society that law enforcement agencies, such as the VPD, cooperate with CBSA.
The VPD has no legal or other obligation to enforce the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
unless to carry out a specific warrant. And yet the proposed guidelines reflect the opposite of this
notion. Until the VPD approaches the issue of policing from this perspective, we do not see any point
in engaging in this process.

There are also many practical issues to consider that have not been acknowledged in this process or
these guidelines, and that must be in order to uphold the spirit of access without fear. For example, the
fact that the VPD has a CBSA Liaison Officer with whom you continue to work is completely counter to
the notion of access without fear and non-collaboration.

The guidelines leave too much discretion to police officers, and in doing so, reiterate the status quo.
We have already raised this concern, and believe there must be a process in place that provides some
direction to police officers with regard to the bona fide reasons to ask for a persons immigration
status, and a prescribed and specific procedure for circumstances in which they would contact CBSA.
Anything short of this is meaningless on paper and in practice.

The proposed guidelines speak only of victims, witnesses and complainants, and leave out the
broader community of people living in Vancouver with precarious immigration status. In doing so, the
guidelines do not acknowledge the random street checks we know exist within the racialized
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 186 of 197
communities we support, whereby CBSA is called to assist the VPD when police encounter a person
who is believed to be without status. They also do not protect people who happen to be stopped for
some administrative violation, only to be put into detention after a phone call to CBSA. Ending the joint
patrols and raids of the VPD and CBSA has also not been acknowledged or discussed in your
proposed guidelines, nor has any complaint mechanism for community members that have negative
interactions with the VPD and collaboration with CBSA.

Our concerns are rooted in the experiences of community members. We received a report from a
refugee wearing construction gear in the Downtown Eastside, who was randomly stopped by a VPD
officer and asked for his immigration papers. Is there anything in the guidelines that would prevent
this? When the VPD was called to a jobsite to investigate a case of missing tools, they proceeded to
ask everybody on the worksite for their immigration status. Under the guidelines as they are currently
written, would this be excused as a bona fide reason? These are clear examples, and the proposed
guidelines failure to even attempt to address them are why we do not currently feel able to participate
in the process.

We sincerely hope that the VPD takes these issues into consideration. Until there is agreement that
the framework from which the VPD should be approaching these discussions be rooted in the
principles found in the City of Vancouvers Access without Fear policy, and until the issues we have
identified above form part of that framework, we regretfully decline further participation in these
meetings. We strongly hope that the VPD consider not passing anything purporting to be access
without fear in the meantime.

Our primary concern is ensuring the safety of the vulnerable populations with whom we work. At this
point, we will continue to caution community members with precarious immigration status with regard
to their interactions with the VPD, and will continue to do so if these guidelines are put in place.

In summary, we again reiterate the following outstanding issues:

You continue to emphasize the importance of your relationship with CBSA despite your
lack of obligation to enforce IRPA. Canadian Society does not expect police to work with
CBSA as demonstrated by the outrage over the transit police contacting CBSA in the case of
Lucia Vega Jimenez.

You have not been forthcoming about your existing practices and how they will change.
For example, these guidelines do not address whether you will continue to work with the
CBSA liaison officer and if you will continue to do random checks on the street (experienced
by community members particularly in the DTES).

Your policy is limited to witnesses and victims, and does not address your approach in
dealing with individuals who do not meet this criteria, including the construction worker that
happens to be on site when an investigation is happening around them.

Your policy does not sufficiently outline specific direction and procedure for how officers
will use their discretion to determine if a bona fide reason exists.

We have again attached our briefing note that we have previously circulated which details
recommendations to create a meaningful access without fear policy.

We remain open to a sincere and genuinely collaborative process to create an access without fear
policy for the VPD and the community members who we support, however, cannot now participate
when the principles from which these guidelines are being developed are nowhere close to supporting
true access without fear.

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 187 of 197


Sincerely,

Sanctuary Health

<Sanctuary Health Brief to VPD 25-07-2016.pdf>

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 188 of 197


it is mutual, respectful and when there is a willingness to listen and address our concerns
and recommendations.

Today more than ever the access without fear "Sanctuary City" movement is relevant and
needed to support undocumented communities in the US and Canada, Mayors across
different cities in the US are standing strong to protect their sanctuary cities and migrant
rights.

We would also want to invite you to one of our Sanctuary Health meetings (it happens on
Tuesday evenings) so that we can sit and have a meal together and spend enough time
discussing next steps and how to move forward with the access without fear movement.

warmly,
Alejandra

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Meggs, Geoff <Geoff.Meggs@vancouver.ca> wrote:
Hi Alejandra,
I just asked my secretary to set up the same meeting. I have been frustrated by the lack of
progress and spotty participation on the community side. I propose we meet as quickly as
possible - I'm sure the Mayor's Office will be represented but do not think we need to have
him in person.

Geoff

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 20, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Alejandra Lopez Bravo <mariposa.lopez@gmail.com>


wrote:

Dear all,

I hope you had a nice winter break and I send you best wishes for 2017.

I want to follow up with you to schedule a meeting and talk about how to move the principles of access
without fear forward.

I look forward to hearing from you and to meeting soon.

warmly,

Alejandra on behalf of Sanctuary Health.

Alejandra Lpez Bravo

Graduation Strategy

s.22(1)

www.raycam.com

Ray-Cam Co-operative Centre | 920 East Hastings Street | Vancouver, Unceded Coast Salish Territories | V6A 3T1 | Canada

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 190 of 197


Sanctuary City Access without fear
http://www.sanctuarycityvan.com/

On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Quinlan, Kevin <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>


wrote:
Hi Alejandra, thanks for following up. Weve been slammed dealing with the overdose crisis so
apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Happy to arrange a meeting in the new year Im back
Jan 9th but will get a time set up later that month. Ive spoken to the VPD around the timeline and
should have more info soon were not looking to rush anything through. While we may not be able to
get 100% agreement on all issues Im confident we can make significant progress on a new policy that
addresses many of your and others concerns.

Talk soon

Kevin

From: Alejandra Lopez Bravo [mailto:mariposa.lopez@gmail.com]


Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:54 AM
To: Geoff Meggs; Meggs, Geoff; Quinlan, Kevin; Kevin Quinlan; Robertson, Gregor
Subject: Re: Sanctuary Health meeting request

Dear all,

I hope you are well. I just left a message on Kevin's voicemail to follow up with our
meeting request. I would really appreciate if you can follow up with us to discuss
VPD proposal of "access without fear". We are very concerned with VPD's response
to Alison from SWAN email and with the idea of VPD bringing their current statement
of "access to without fear" to their board in January for approval.

I look forward to hearing from you.

warmly,

Alejandra

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Alejandra Lopez Bravo


<mariposa.lopez@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor Gregor Robertson and Counselor Geoff Meggs,

I hope you are well. We are writing to you with regards to the VPDs proposed
access without fear policy/guidelines, with the hope that we can have a discussion
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 191 of 197
about where to go from here.

As you are aware, several community organizations have been engaged in


consultations with the VPD with regard to their development of an Access without
Fear policy, the first of which only happened because of your commitment to
ensuring meaningful community input into this process. We appreciate these efforts.
The VPD has now hosted two meetings, and it was scheduled to host its third this
Thursday, December 15 but they postponed it because of lack of community
participation.

As we wrote to you before, Sanctuary Health declined participation in the second


consultation meeting due to a clear indication that the VPD was not committed to
developing a policy that reflects the spirit of the City of Vancouvers access without
fear policy. We expressed our concern that a policy that simply reiterates
collaboration with the CBSA under the title access without fear is much more
dangerous to the community members that we work with than simply passing no
policy at all.

The VPD has now circulated guidelines as opposed to a policy that continue to
reflect their commitment to collaboration with the CBSA, and that do nothing to
limit police discretion.

We are feeling a little bit at a loss at the moment, and are requesting a meeting
with you to discuss potential next steps in how to approach this issue with the VPD
since they postponed the meeting of tomorrow but they intend to bring this draft to
their board meeting in January. As you are well aware, the Citys Access without
Fear policy has little impact without the participation of the VPD, and we are hoping
that we can meet to discuss best ways to approach this issue with the VPD in line
with the Citys policy.

We understand it is a busy time of year, but we hope we can meet as soon as


possible to talk about how to move the principles of access without fear forward.
We are concerned that the VPD will proceed to pass guidelines or a policy that are
not reflective of the Citys policy, despite lack of community support.

Could you please send us some available dates?

Thank you again for your continued commitment, and we look forward to hearing
from you.

Sincerely,

Alejandra on behalf of Sanctuary Health

Please see below the detailed concerns with regard to the latest policy or guidelines
being proposed by the VPD

As we have previously noted, what is being proposed cannot be called access without fear.
Nothing that has been sent so far reflects the principles or spirit of the City of Vancouvers
City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 192 of 197
Access without Fear policy, and we are disappointed that it seems the VPD is unwilling to
approach this issue from the perspective of making a more inclusive and safe city for all
residents. As we stated at the first meeting, it is our belief that passing this policy will make
the communities with whom we work less safe given the prescribed wide discretion provided
to police officers and continued lack of commitment to non-collaboration with CBSA.

It is clear that the VPD continues to see its role as one in the same as CBSA - as evidenced
through the language of your circulated guidelines, including the supposed expectation within
Canadian society that law enforcement agencies, such as the VPD, cooperate with CBSA.
The VPD has no legal or other obligation to enforce the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, unless to carry out a specific warrant. And yet the proposed guidelines reflect the
opposite of this notion. Until the VPD approaches the issue of policing from this perspective,
we do not see any point in engaging in this process.

There are also many practical issues to consider that have not been acknowledged in this
process or these guidelines, and that must be in order to uphold the spirit of access without
fear. For example, the fact that the VPD has a CBSA Liaison Officer with whom you continue
to work is completely counter to the notion of access without fear and non-collaboration.

The guidelines leave too much discretion to police officers, and in doing so, reiterate the
status quo. We have already raised this concern, and believe there must be a process in
place that provides some direction to police officers with regard to the bona fide reasons to
ask for a persons immigration status, and a prescribed and specific procedure for
circumstances in which they would contact CBSA. Anything short of this is meaningless on
paper and in practice.

The proposed guidelines speak only of victims, witnesses and complainants, and leave out
the broader community of people living in Vancouver with precarious immigration status. In
doing so, the guidelines do not acknowledge the random street checks we know exist within
the racialized communities we support, whereby CBSA is called to assist the VPD when
police encounter a person who is believed to be without status. They also do not protect
people who happen to be stopped for some administrative violation, only to be put into
detention after a phone call to CBSA. Ending the joint patrols and raids of the VPD and CBSA
has also not been acknowledged or discussed in your proposed guidelines, nor has any
complaint mechanism for community members that have negative interactions with the VPD
and collaboration with CBSA.

Our concerns are rooted in the experiences of community members. We received a report
from a refugee wearing construction gear in the Downtown Eastside, who was randomly
stopped by a VPD officer and asked for his immigration papers. Is there anything in the
guidelines that would prevent this? When the VPD was called to a jobsite to investigate a
case of missing tools, they proceeded to ask everybody on the worksite for their immigration
status. Under the guidelines as they are currently written, would this be excused as a bona
fide reason? These are clear examples, and the proposed guidelines failure to even attempt
to address them are why we do not currently feel able to participate in the process.

We sincerely hope that the VPD takes these issues into consideration. Until there is
agreement that the framework from which the VPD should be approaching these discussions
be rooted in the principles found in the City of Vancouvers Access without Fear policy, and
until the issues we have identified above form part of that framework, we regretfully decline
further participation in these meetings. We strongly hope that the VPD consider not passing
anything purporting to be access without fear in the meantime.

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 193 of 197


Our primary concern is ensuring the safety of the vulnerable populations with whom we work.
At this point, we will continue to caution community members with precarious immigration
status with regard to their interactions with the VPD, and will continue to do so if these
guidelines are put in place.

In summary, we again reiterate the following outstanding issues:

You continue to emphasize the importance of your relationship with CBSA despite
your lack of obligation to enforce IRPA. Canadian Society does not expect police to
work with CBSA as demonstrated by the outrage over the transit police contacting
CBSA in the case of Lucia Vega Jimenez.

You have not been forthcoming about your existing practices and how they will
change. For example, these guidelines do not address whether you will continue to
work with the CBSA liaison officer and if you will continue to do random checks on
the street (experienced by community members particularly in the DTES).

Your policy is limited to witnesses and victims, and does not address your
approach in dealing with individuals who do not meet this criteria, including the
construction worker that happens to be on site when an investigation is happening
around them.

Your policy does not sufficiently outline specific direction and procedure for how
officers will use their discretion to determine if a bona fide reason exists.

We have again attached our briefing note that we have previously circulated which details
recommendations to create a meaningful access without fear policy.

We remain open to a sincere and genuinely collaborative process to create an access without
fear policy for the VPD and the community members who we support, however, cannot now
participate when the principles from which these guidelines are being developed are nowhere
close to supporting true access without fear.

Sincerely,

Sanctuary Health

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 194 of 197


From: "Robertson, G" <G.Robertson@vancouver.ca>
To: "Quinlan, Kevin" <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca>
Date: 1/29/2017 9:11:00 AM
Subject: Re: For approval - statement on welcoming refugees

Makes sense, that works!


G

Gregor Robertson
MayorofVancouver.ca
604.873.7621
@mayorgregor

On Jan 29, 2017, at 9:09 AM, Quinlan, Kevin <Kevin.Quinlan@vancouver.ca> wrote:

s.13(1)

Let's change to:

s.13(1)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 29, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Robb, Katie <Katie.Robb@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Thanks g! Are you able to squeeze in a video version before the parade starts this morning
we can use for social?

Katie Robb
Director of Communications
Office of the Mayor l City of Vancouver
Office: 604.873.7490 l Cell: 778.918.7973
Mayorofvancouver.ca

On Jan 29, 2017, at 08:45, Robertson, G <G.Robertson@vancouver.ca> wrote:

Looks great, nice work! Tweaked fora few minor bits and typos.
Thanks, G

s.13(1)

City of Vanco
s.13(1)

City of Vancouver - FOI 2017-049 Page 197 of 197