Think twice before rejecting Disraeli proposal for safe consumption site

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/01/2025 (227 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If not 200 Disraeli Fwy., then where?

The NDP government has come under tremendous criticism when it announced in December its decision to locate a supervised drug consumption site in a building at the southern tip of the Disraeli Freeway.

Critics immediately lambasted Premier Wab Kinew and various ministers involved in the project for not adequately consulting with area residents, and picking a location within a short walk of a school and daycare. Some business owners have mused openly about class-action lawsuits.

Why all the fuss? The failure to do a more thorough consultation in advance of the announcement is a big issue, and the Kinew government is going to have to work quickly and diligently to repair trust with the people who live in the area.

When you drill a bit deeper past the headlines of this story, you can see both the strength of the province’s rationale and the questionable nature of the opposition.

Although the location might be inconvenient for people who don’t personally need a place to test their drugs, it is a good location for many of the people who need this kind of facility to survive.

The building in question — east of Main Street and north of the freeway proper — is located within a part of the city that is functioning as the downtown hub of social services for the homeless and those suffering from mental health issues and addictions.

Main Street Project operates various locations in the area, along with Lighthouse Mission, the Salvation Army and a host of other shelters, detox and treatment centres, health clinics and meal kitchens.

Not so long ago, the building functioned as the primary downtown shelter during the worst months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and is currently partly occupied by Our Relatives’ Place, a 24-7 Indigenous-led homeless shelter and support centre.

This is an area where a lot of people need supervised drug consumption to survive.

Not less important is the fact that the neighbourhood immediately south of the proposed site suffers from a lot of street crime, homelessness and open drug use.

The NDP government’s recent effort to move people out of homeless encampments, several of which are a stone’s throw from the proposed site, may help reduce these problems. But clearly, something else needs to be done.

And that brings us to the heart of the matter.

Opponents will argue until they are blue in the face that supervised consumption sites are magnets for all the worst that society can muster. They will imagine that all of the problems they already live with will get worse.

Unfortunately for the naysayers, those concerns are unfounded when you look at the experience of other cities.

Data from the Toronto Police Service showed that between 2018 and 2023, the rate of crimes like robberies, bike thefts, break and enters, thefts from motor vehicles, shootings and homicides went down in the 14 Toronto neighbourhoods with supervised consumption sites. Even in instances where there was a citywide drop in certain kinds of crime, the magnitude was greatest in areas hosting supervised consumption facilities.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, an avowed opponent of supervised consumption, has nonetheless waged a campaign to shutter the sites. Ford offered his own data showing crime was spiking in neighbourhoods with sites but when police data showed the opposite trend, his government refused to explain its methodology.

Ford also tried to link supervised consumption with the death of Karolina Huebner-Makurat, who was killed by a stray bullet near a supervised consumption site in Toronto’s Parkdale neighbourhood. Ford used this tragedy to justify a decision last summer to shutter up to 10 of the sites.

Police eventually arrested three men in connection with the shooting, which was the end result of a botched robbery in which two of the men drew guns and fired on each other.

Where does that leave us with the proposal for 200 Disraeli Fwy.?

There might be a better site somewhere that combines ease of access for the people who need it the most, with less eyesore for the people who don’t plan on using it. But it’s going to be hard.

There is a critical mass of social and medical services already located in this neighbourhood. And despite the aggressive gentrification unfolding, none of those other facilities and the people who rely on them are going anywhere.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

So, before any of the locals who are now being consulted by the Kinew government make up their minds, they should consider the following unimpeachable facts: supervised consumption not only saves lives and funnels people to things like shelter and addictions treatment, it also reduces crime in the immediate vicinity.

It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

If you take the homeless population in this neighbourhood and provide them with a place where they can get help, it’s not going to make the immediate vicinity less safe. It improves public safety.

Oh, and did I mention it saves lives?

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.