Addictions
B.C. mayors voice discontent over province’s response to drug crisis
The street outside the Harbour Supervised Consumption Service in Victoria, B.C., on Sept. 6, 2024. (Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler)
By Alexandra Keeler
A number of B.C. mayors say the province’s drug decriminalization project has been a failure — and they are not confident involuntary care will address the problem
Many B.C. mayors are unhappy with the province’s handling of the drug crisis, saying it is failing their communities.
“I don’t think [the province’s] approach was very well thought out,” said Mayor Brad West of Port Coquitlam, a city of 61,000 that is a half-hour’s drive east of Vancouver.
“They announced, seemingly pretty quickly, that the province was going to pursue decriminalization, and there didn’t seem to be a lot of public discourse or consultation in the lead up to it,” he said.
“It was just kind of like, ‘Bam! Here it is.’”
West’s comments were echoed by other municipal leaders, who also say the province’s harm-reduction and treatment services are under-resourced, leaving them ill-equipped to help community members who are struggling.
‘Can’t do anything’
West says he and Port Coquitlam’s constituents observed an immediate increase in public drug use after the province launched a three-year, trial decriminalization project in January 2023.
The project initially enabled residents to use otherwise illicit drugs — such as fentanyl, heroin and cocaine — in most parts of the province, although it prohibited drug use on school premises or near child-care facilities.
Yet, West says drug use in parks and playgrounds was a major issue in his community.
“What [decriminalization] meant in a place like Port Coquitlam is that when you did have an incident that required a police response, none was forthcoming anymore,” he said. “[Police] would tell you, ‘Well, we can’t do anything. We’re not allowed to.’”
In June 2023, Port Coquitlam responded by passing a bylaw, introduced by West, that banned drug use in public spaces. Other B.C. municipalities — including Nelson, Kamloops and Campbell River — soon followed suit.
In December, B.C. tried to pass a law enabling police to remove people from public spaces if they were using drugs. But a B.C. court temporarily blocked it, citing risks to drug users.
The province then sought approval from Ottawa to re-criminalize public drug use, which it obtained this spring. Now, hard drug use is only permitted in private residences, legal shelters or harm-reduction clinics.
Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.
Wait times
West says he has also been frustrated with the province’s harm-reduction facilities, which he describes as “poorly staffed” and “under-resourced.” These facilities often fail to connect individuals to necessary resources or recovery programs, he says.
West has witnessed some of these problems up close. His stepbrother battled addiction and homelessness before finding recovery.
“The biggest barrier that I think he encountered — and most people encounter in terms of recovery — is the wait times,” he said.
The wait time to get into B.C.’s private addiction rehab centres is about three to seven days. But the cost — ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 a month — is out of reach for many.
By contrast, the wait time to get into government-funded programs is about three to six months.
In addition to advocating for more accessible recovery services, West emphasizes the need for stronger enforcement at docks, ports and borders to combat drug trafficking.
“Our ports of entry, our border, the port itself, are completely porous,” he said. “We have no dedicated port police — one of the few jurisdictions that doesn’t. And as a result, Metro Vancouver has become an epicentre for drug trafficking.”
In May 2023, he was the sole Canadian mayor invited by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to discuss the issue with other mayors. “We have weak [drug] laws … This is why I think we’ve become a global hub for [drug trafficking],” he said.
Brain damage
The BC NDP and BC Conservatives have both recently pledged to introduce involuntary care, which would enable the province to admit people with addiction challenges, brain injuries and mental-health issues into treatment facilities without their consent.
Mayor Leonard Krog of Nanaimo, a coastal city of about 100,000 on the east side of Vancouver Island, has long advocated for involuntary care.
Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog sits in his office at Nanaimo City Hall on Sept. 4, 2024. (Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler)
Krog notes that a significant segment of the homeless population has suffered brain damage, which can exacerbate efforts to help them. A 2020 report by Brain Injury Canada says about 50 per cent of people experiencing homelessness have some form of brain injury.
Krog does not believe people with brain injuries and addiction issues are likely to seek treatment on their own. “Those folks should be in secure, involuntary care,” he said.
But he is not optimistic that NDP’s involuntary care proposal will address the full scope of the issue.
“[I]n terms of numbers, my strong view is that it will not address the significant population who are currently in the streets.”
Stay alive
Victoria Mayor Marianne Alto believes in providing support to keep people alive until they seek recovery.
“My view of harm reduction is … I’ll give you anything you need to stay alive until you have that epiphany moment,” she said.
But she is concerned that the province has not adopted a comprehensive approach to tackling the drug crisis. The recent proposals to introduce involuntary care have not eased her concerns.
“Involuntary care can be a necessary tool in a complex system,” she said. “But its effectiveness hinges on clear standards. We must ensure that individuals receive not just initial intervention but also ongoing support to prevent their return to the circumstances that led them there.”
“The devil is in the details,” she said.
Victoria Mayor Marianne Alto leans against a railing in downtown Victoria, B.C. , in May 2022. (Marianne Alto’s Facebook)
The B.C. capital has been pursuing additional strategies to tackle the city’s homelessness, addiction and mental health challenges.
For example, a local nonprofit has been working with individuals living in parks to connect them with housing and support. “It’s also very slow, because to be very successful, you have to do it one person at a time, one-on-one. But it’s working,” she said.
But other efforts have met resistance.
City council rejected a motion introduced by Alto that had proposed rewarding churches and cultural centres that offered overnight parking to vehicle-dwelling homeless people. Five council members opposed it, Alto says, citing fears about crime and concerns that the program overstepped their duties.
“There is a genuine fatigue in the public, which is being reflected in municipal councils, saying, ‘How much further, how much longer, how much more?’”
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
You’re currently a free subscriber to Break The Needle. Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.
Addictions
Ontario to restrict Canadian government’s supervised drug sites, shift focus to helping addicts
From LifeSiteNews
Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative government tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford is making good on a promise to close so-called drug “supervision” sites in his province and says his government will focus on helping addicts get better instead of giving them free drugs.
Ford’s Progressive Conservative government on Monday tabled the Safer Streets, Stronger Communities Act that will place into law specific bans on where such drug consumption sites are located.
Specifically, the new bill will ban “supervised” drug consumption sites from being close to schools or childcare centers. Ten sites will close for now, including five in Toronto.
The new law would prohibit the “establishment and operation of a supervised consumption site at a location that is less than 200 meters from certain types of schools, private schools, childcare centers, Early child and family centers and such other premises as may be prescribed by the regulations.”
It would also in effect ban municipalities and local boards from applying for an “exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) for the purpose of decriminalizing the personal possession of a controlled substance or precursor.”
Lastly, the new law would put strict “limits” on the power municipalities and local boards have concerning “applications respecting supervised consumption sites and safer supply services.”
“Municipalities and local boards may only make such applications or support such applications if they have obtained the approval of the provincial Minister of Health,” the bill reads.
The new bill is part of a larger omnibus bill that makes changes relating to sex offenders as well as auto theft, which has exploded in the province in recent months.
In September, Ford had called the federal government’s lax drug policies tantamount to being the “biggest drug dealer in the entire country” and had vowed to act.
‘No’ new drug sites in Ontario, vows Health Minister
In speaking about the new bill, Ontario Minister of Health Sylvia Jones said the Ford government does not plan to allow municipal requests to the government regarding supervised consumption sites.
“Municipalities and organizations like public health units have to first come to the province because we don’t want them bypassing and getting any federal approval for something that we vehemently disagree with,” Jones told the media on Monday.
She also clarified that “there will be no further safe injection sites in the province of Ontario under our government.”
Ontario will instead create 19 new intensive addiction recovery to help those addicted to deadly drugs.
Alberta and other provinces have had success helping addicts instead of giving them free drugs.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, deaths related to opioid and other drug overdoses in Alberta fell to their lowest levels in years after the Conservative government began to focus on helping addicts via a recovery-based approach instead of the Liberal-minded, so-called “safe-supply” method.
Despite public backlash with respect to supervised drug consumption sites, Health Canada recently approved 16 more drug consumption sites in Ontario. Ford mentioned in the press conference that each day he gets “endless phone calls about needles being in the parks, needles being by the schools and the daycares,” calling the situation “unacceptable.”
The Liberals claim their “safer supply” program is good because it is “providing prescribed medications as a safer alternative to the toxic illegal drug supply to people who are at high risk of overdose.”
However, studies have shown that these programs often lead an excess of deaths from overdose in areas where they are allowed.
While many of the government’s lax drug policies continue, they have been forced to backpedal on some of their most extreme actions.
After the federal government allowed British Columbia to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth and MDMA beginning January 1, 2023, reports of overdoses and chaos began skyrocketing, leading the province to request that Trudeau re-criminalize drugs in public spaces.
A week later, the federal government relented and accepted British Columbia’s request.
Addictions
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
By Liam Hunt
Canada’s safer supply programs are “selling people down the river,” says a leading medical expert in British Columbia. Dr. Julian Somers, director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University, says that despite the thin evidence in support of these experimental programs, the BC government has aggressively expanded them—and retaliated against dissenting researchers.
Somers also, controversially, raises questions about doctors and former health officials who appear to have gravitated toward businesses involved in these programs. He notes that these connections warrant closer scrutiny to ensure public policies remain free from undue industry influence.
Safer supply programs claim to reduce overdoses and deaths by distributing free addictive drugs—typically 8-milligram tablets of hydromorphone, an opioid as potent as heroin—to dissuade addicts from accessing riskier street substances. Yet, a growing number of doctors say these programs are deeply misguided—and widely defrauded.
Ultimately, Somers argues, safer supply is exacerbating the country’s addiction crisis.
Somers opposed safer supply at its inception and openly criticized its nationwide expansion in 2020. He believes these programs perpetuate drug use and societal disconnection and fail to encourage users to make the mental and social changes needed to beat addiction. Worse yet, the safer supply movement seems rife with double standards that devalue the lives of poorer drug users. While working professionals are provided generous supports that prioritize recovery, disadvantaged Canadians are given “ineffective yet profitable” interventions, such as safer supply, that “convey no expectation that stopping substance use or overcoming addiction is a desirable or important goal.”
To better understand addiction, Somers created the Inter-Ministry Evaluation Database (IMED) in 2004, which, for the first time in BC’s history, connected disparate information—i.e. hospitalizations, incarceration rates—about vulnerable populations.
Throughout its existence, health experts used IMED’s data to create dozens of research projects and papers. It allowed Somers to conduct a multi-million-dollar randomized control trial (the “Vancouver at Home” study) that showed that scattering vulnerable people into regular apartments throughout the city, rather than warehousing them in a few buildings, leads to better outcomes at no additional cost.
In early 2021, Somers presented recommendations drawn from his analysis of the IMED to several leading officials in the B.C. government. He says that these officials gave a frosty reception to his ideas, which prioritized employment, rehabilitation, and social integration over easy access to drugs. Shortly afterwards, the government ordered him to immediately and permanently delete the IMED’s ministerial data.
Somers describes the order as a “devastating act of retaliation” and says that losing access to the IMED effectively ended his career as a researcher. “My lab can no longer do the research we were doing,” he noted, adding that public funding now goes exclusively toward projects sympathetic to safer supply. The B.C. government has since denied that its order was politically motivated.
In early 2022, the government of Alberta commissioned a team of researchers, led by Somers, to investigate the evidence base behind safer supply. They found that there was no empirical proof that the experiment works, and that harm reduction researchers often advocated for safer supply within their studies even if their data did not support such recommendations.
Somers says that, after these findings were published, his team was subjected to a smear campaign that was partially organized by the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU), a powerful pro-safer supply research organization with close ties to the B.C. government. The BCCSU has been instrumental in the expansion of safer supply and has produced studies and protocols in support of it, sometimes at the behest of the provincial government.
Somers is also concerned about the connections between some of safer supply’s key proponents and for-profit drug companies.
He notes that the BCCSU’s founding executive director, Dr. Evan Wood, became Chief Medical Officer at Numinus Wellness, a publicly traded psychedelic company, in 2020. Similarly, Dr. Perry Kendall, who also served as a BCCSU executive director, went on to found Fair Price Pharma, a now-defunct for-profit company that specializes in providing pharmaceutical heroin to high-risk drug users, the following year.
While these connections are not necessarily unethical, they do raise important questions about whether there is enough industry regulation to minimize potential conflicts of interest, whether they be real or perceived.
The BCCSU was also recently criticized in an editorial by Canadian Affairs, which noted that the organization had received funding from companies such as Shoppers Drug Mart and Tilray (a cannabis company). The editorial argued that influential addiction research organizations should not receive drug industry funding and reported that Alberta founded its own counterpart to the BCCSU in August, known as the Canadian Centre of Recovery Excellence, which is legally prohibited from accepting such sponsorships.
Already, private interests are betting on the likely expansion of safer supply programs. For instance, Safe Supply Streaming Co., a publicly traded venture capital firm, has advertised to potential investors that B.C.’s safer supply system could create a multi-billion-dollar annual market.
Somers believes that Canada needs more transparency regarding how for-profit companies may be directly or indirectly influencing policy makers: “We need to know exactly, to the dollar, how much of [harm reduction researchers’] operating budget is flowing from industry sources.”
Editor’s note: This story is published in syndication with Break The Needle and Western Standard.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Dr. Julian M. Somers is director of the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at Simon Fraser University. He was Director of the UBC Psychology Clinic, and past president of the BC Psychological Association. Liam Hunt is a contributing author to the Centre For Responsible Drug Policy in partnership with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
-
conflict1 day ago
US and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
John Stossel2 days ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta1 day ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
Business16 hours ago
CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place
-
Addictions2 days ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
conflict2 days ago
Putin Launches Mass-Production of Nuclear Shelters for his People
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square