The epidemic of opioid addiction is a real problem. And there is a real difference of opinion between Liberals and Conservatives about how the federal government should be responding to that crisis.
But there is also a lot of noise. With drug addiction already a hard issue to solve, partisan politics tends to make it even harder.
At the moment, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is claiming the government has a “secret plan” to “legalize” hard drugs across the country. But what he’s referring to doesn’t seem to be “secret” and isn’t really a “plan.” (Nor, for that matter, does it involve legalizing hard drugs — as there is a significant difference between decriminalization and legalization.)
The basis for Poilievre’s claim is a story published by Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa media outlet. According to that report, published on Monday, a federal document used the phrase “national decriminalization” and said the government was prepared to “use all tools at our disposal” to combat the opioid epidemic.
Three hours after Blacklock’s promoted its story on social media, Poilievre pointed his own followers to it.
“BREAKING: Secret documents show that the NDP-Liberal government has a hidden plan for ‘national decriminalization,” Poilievre wrote.
In the days since, Poilievre has repeated similar claims in five more posts on X (formerly known as Twitter) and four posts on his Instagram account. Prominent Conservative MPs Andrew Scheer and Melissa Lantsman made similar posts to X, while the Conservative party sent out a fundraising message to supporters on Tuesday that claimed a “secret memo” had been revealed.
“Chip in and help common sense Conservatives ensure Canada doesn’t turn into one massive drug den,” the email read.
At a news conference in London, Ont., on Thursday, Poilievre said the government had a “secret document planning national decriminalization.”
“They tried to keep it under wraps until after the next election, hoping Canadians would not find out,” he said.
The origins of the ‘secret plan’ story
According to the office of Ya’ara Saks, the minister of mental health and addictions, the basis for the Blacklock’s Reporter story is a package of briefing materials that was prepared for the minister’s appearance before a House committee in June.
The package was then posted to the federal government’s open government portal on July 19.
(Blacklock’s did not respond to a request to confirm which document was the basis of their reporting, but a section on “national decriminalization” in the briefing document matches an excerpt posted by Poilievre.)
The 134-page document includes a summary of “key lines” and “key stats” on a few dozen topics relevant to Saks’s portfolio — the sort of information and messages a minister might want to know or have on hand when appearing before a parliamentary committee.
There are sections marked “decriminalization” and “support for decriminalization in B.C.” and then there is a section entitled “national decriminalization.” Under that heading there are four sentences.
“We are committed to saving lives and making sure people who use drugs don’t die alone,” the document says. “Our government is committed to working, in partnership, with any jurisdictions that have a comprehensive plan for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of substances for personal use.
“Their plan would have to include close oversight and evaluation and ensure enhanced health and social supports, public engagement, and law enforcement training,” it continues. “We continue to work with willing jurisdictions to use all tools at our disposal to address this crisis, including approaches to decriminalization.”
One can agree or disagree with the principles outlined there. But the reference to “willing jurisdictions” would seem to complicate the idea of a national plan. And there’s not really anything in those four sentences that wasn’t already apparent in the government’s public words and actions.
The real decriminalization debate
In 2022, the federal government granted British Columbia’s request for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that decriminalized the personal possession of some hard drugs as part of a three-year “pilot project.” That exemption took effect in January 2023.
The City of Toronto subsequently made its own request for an exemption, but the federal government rejected that request in May — in part, Saks said at the time, because the Ontario provincial government did not support it.
Asked by Poilievre in May whether the Liberal government would expand decriminalization, Justin Trudeau said that “the only way we move forward on any proposals across this country, around decriminalization or other methods to fight toxic drug overdoses, is when provinces step up and actually ask for them.”
Later that month, Trudeau said his government would “continue to be there responsibly with a science-based, evidence-based approach that works with jurisdictions on the tools they need to counter the growing opioid and toxic drug epidemic.”
In sum, the Liberal government’s stated position is that it’s willing to allow for decriminalization, but only if a provincial government wants to do so.
The Conservatives disagree with the Liberal government’s openness, rather vehemently. But if the Liberal position was a secret before this week, it was not particularly well kept.
It’s fair to debate the merits of decriminalization and the details of how it has been implemented in British Columbia. Though ideally that debate would be grounded in facts — while Conservatives tend to point to the number of deaths in British Columbia as evidence that policies like decriminalization and safer supply have either failed or made things worse, increased death tolls in other provinces suggest the answer is not so simple.
The Conservatives say they would put a greater emphasis on treatment and recovery. Ironically, some of the Liberal government’s “key lines” on treatment can be found on the next page of the minister’s briefing package.
According to that document, nearly $2.6 billion in federal funding has so far been earmarked for “mental health and substance use initiatives” through bilateral agreements with provinces.
The minister was also encouraged to mention the $150-million emergency treatment fund that was created in 2018.
So should the federal government be providing more funding? Are provinces — who have primary responsibility for health-care delivery — using that money effectively? Exactly how much more funding would a Poilievre government provide? If safer supply programs were halted tomorrow, what would the impact be on those people who access such programs? If personal drug possession was recriminalized in British Columbia, would more people struggling with substance abuse end up in prison?
Those questions show there’s more than enough to debate and discuss without worrying about secret plans.