Poilievre’s plan to shut down drug consumption sites: Does data back it?
By Vee Vandeliwala, December 6 2024—
As the 2025 Canadian federal elections approach, politicians are busy making promises to convince not only their voter base but also undecided voters that their party is the best choice to lead the country. One such candidate is Pierre Poilievre, the new Leader of the Opposition, who took over after Erin O’Toole was ousted from the Conservative Party in 2022.
Poilievre has been a vocal critic of the Trudeau government, frequently demanding a “carbon tax election” during parliamentary sessions. One of his criticisms targets safe consumption sites, which he controversially refers to as “drug dens,” claiming they endanger the public and take lives. He has promised to shut them down, insisting that “radical bureaucrats do not have the right to open drug dens wherever they want.”
Currently, the Conservatives have not provided a detailed plan on how they would ban supervised drug consumption sites, though they argue these sites encourage drug use. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that closing such sites violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Laila Goodridge, an MP from Fort McMurray, previously stated on X that the Conservatives would end Trudeau’s “safe supply policies” but did not clarify their stance on supervised injection sites. According to the Globe and Mail, Poilievre intends to revive the war on drugs.
Conservatives at the provincial level have also opposed drug consumption sites. For instance, in the lead-up to the British Columbia Provincial Elections in 2024, the newly formed Conservative Party promised to ban drug consumption sites. Leader John Rustad echoed Poilievre’s depiction of these sites as ‘drug dens.‘ Harm reduction advocates, like Guy Felicella, criticized Rustad’s statements, accusing him of dehumanizing drug users.
In Alberta, a supervised consumption site that opened in Calgary in 2017 was closed by the province in 2021. They have yet to construct the two new sites they promised. Calgary’s mayor, Jyoti Gondek, acknowledged issues surrounding the site but warned that closing it without proper guidance from the provincial government would create problems. She addressed these concerns in a letter to Alberta’s Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, Dan Williams.
In Ontario, Doug Ford’s administration banned safe injection sites within 200 meters of schools and daycare centers. This resulted in the closure of nine such sites, a decision criticized by the The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO).
In Quebec, the Social Services Minister Lionel Carmant allocated $1.4 million to tackle the opioid crisis in Montreal. Quebec has had significantly fewer opioid-related deaths compared to Ontario and Alberta, highlighting the effectiveness of harm reduction when taken seriously. Poilievre criticized Montreal’s mayor for her response to the opioid crisis, falsely claiming the city encouraged Ottawa to legalize drugs.
Addiction treatment professionals, like Adam McInnis, have criticized Poilievre’s plan to close safe injection sites. McInnis argues, “I think it’s easier said than done to shift all resources to other areas.”
The federal government claims that safe injection sites reduce the risk of accidental overdose, connect those struggling with addiction to welfare services, reduce public drug use, curb the spread of infectious diseases and provide a sense of community for drug users.
The City of Vancouver supports these claims, as stated on their website regarding safe injection sites and needle exchange programs. The RNAO has called on the Government to fund supervised consumption sites.
Poilievre’s statements on supervised consumption sites, though appealing to some Canadians concerned about the opioid crisis, have been debunked by harm reduction advocates, such as Prairie Harm Reduction, and medical experts, like the American Academy of Family Physicians.
Further, Poilievre should move away from using slogans to rally Canadians and instead adopt evidence-based policies, such as harm reduction, which align with the “common sense” approach he claims to support. His current rhetoric is unlikely to reduce the drug problem and may exacerbate it.
This article is a part of our Opinions section and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Gauntlet editorial board.