Concerns raised over Poilievre’s promise to close supervised consumption sites

Concerns are being raised about federal Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre’s promise to close supervised consumption sites should the party win the next election. 

Last week, Poilievre told reporters that a future Conservative government would shutter supervised consumption sites “next to schools, playgrounds, anywhere else that they endanger the public and take lives.”

He also characterized the sites as “drug dens.”

“These are not drug dens,” said Helen Jennens, who lost both her sons to overdoses in 2011 and 2016. “It’s actually more of a medical facility than a drug den.”

Supervised consumption sites are intended to prevent overdoses by allowing people to bring their drugs to use under the observation of trained staff. They also provide access to clean supplies to reduce rates of HIV and other diseases, as well as offer referrals to users seeking treatment options. 

“It’s frightening for me to think that his leadership will actually close these sites and make our vulnerable population even more vulnerable,” Jennens said. 

Health Canada says more than 40,000 people have died from using toxic drugs since 2016. More than 14,000 of those have been in B.C., according to provincial data. 

More money for treatment: MP

In an interview on CBC’s Daybreak South, Conservative MP Dan Albas, who represents the Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola riding, said that if the Conservatives win the next federal election, Poilievre would put money that is being used for those sites toward treatment programs. 

Albas said constituents are asking why the government is giving people drugs. Supervised consumption sites do not provide drugs to drug users. Those kinds of concerns would fall under the safe supply program.  

“Everyone understands that people that have deep addictions need help. Giving them more drugs, taxpayer-funded drugs, does not make sense to the people that I spoke with,” Albas told CBC’s Chris Walker. 

“It’s not compassionate to say to someone who’s looking for a way out … here are more drugs or here is a waiting list. It’s more compassionate to give them the ability to get off drugs.”

While Jennens agrees that more accessible treatment would be beneficial, she doubts it will ever come to fruition.

“All governments have been talking about ramping [addiction treatment] up for years, and it never happens,” she said. 

“If we cannot create treatment and recovery for these people, they stand no hope.”

Jennens also questions where the staff for treatment facilities would come from, given the nationwide shortage of healthcare professionals.  

Closure could mean more deaths: advocates

Jennens said she would support moving supervised consumption sites away from schools or playgrounds but suggested that closing them would result in more toxic drug deaths. 

“You’re not to use in public. Where do these people go to use? They don’t have homes. Where do they go to use this?” Jennens said.

“Getting rid of safe consumption sites will increase the deaths.”

It’s a concern raised by other advocates, including Garth Mullins and Guy Felicella, who shared their thoughts on X.

Jane Philpott, the former Liberal health minister who ushered in the current government’s amendments to the law, has also weighed in on Poilievre’s plan.

“[Supervised consumption sites] save lives,” she wrote on social media, adding thousands are alive because of access to such facilities. 

Gord Johns, the NDP’s critic in Parliament on the issue, suggests shutting down supervised consumption sites would only lead to people using drugs elsewhere. 

“It becomes an absolute disaster in the bathrooms of small businesses, in our parks, in our school yards, in the back alleys, in the backyards of people in the community,” he said. 

Source