An inconvenient truth: saving lives takes backseat to ideological stridency, weak-kneed caution on campaign trail

Opinion

You would think that pledging to save lives would be a winner for any political leader or party.

Think again.

As we approach the midway point of one of the most compelling and unusual federal elections in Canadian history, it’s quite clear that harm reduction for people battling drug addictions, otherwise known as supervised consumption, has lost nearly all of its political allies.

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, who has spent the last several years demonizing supervised consumption sites as “drug dens,” has pledged $1 billion in new funding for addictions treatment.

Poilievre also promised to stop the opening of new supervised consumption sites in Canada — which requires federal regulatory approval — while setting new, stringent rules for how and where they can operate, which critics fear would lead to the closure of all existing sites.

While the Tories want to create the conditions to rid the country of supervised consumption sites, the Liberals are doing what they do best.

Waffling.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney has said his party still supports “evidence-based” harm-reduction and treatment options but promised that if elected, his government would conduct a thorough review to assess the “effectiveness” of supervised consumption sites.

Carney’s response to Poilievre’s lusty attacks on supervised consumption is such a Liberal strategy.

The Grits no doubt understand the public can be skittish about supervised consumption. They also know that a sizable portion of core Liberal support supports these sites as a progressive approach to dealing with the opioid crisis.

Solution? Kick the issue down the road until after the election by expressing skepticism about supervised consumption without abandoning the policy altogether.

That is classic Liberal electioneering. Stow controversial issues by giving both proponents and opponents some evidence that you’re on their side.

With the Liberals trying to tap dance around the issue, that leaves the NDP and its leader Jagmeet Singh to express full-throated support for supervised consumption. Unfortunately, a bad case of strategic voting intentions has swept through the electorate, and Singh’s NDP has become an afterthought in this campaign. Singh can only hope now the NDP wins enough seats to hold the balance of power in a tight minority Parliament.

Carney is clearly hoping that supervised consumption does not become an issue in the campaign. The Tories, meanwhile, are doing all they can — including twisting or ignoring evidence — to make supervised consumption an anvil around the neck of the new Liberal leader.

The fallacy in Poilievre’s attack is not hard to spot. He claims that escalating overdose deaths are evidence that Liberal drug policies have failed, and that supervised consumption sites perpetuate and aggravate the opioid problem.

The unambiguous reality is that supervised consumption saves lives by helping those with addictions avoid overdoses. These sites do not perpetuate addiction; they create safe havens for the people Poilievre claims to be helping by giving them access to primary health care and treatment.

In other words, if you’re concerned about the number of opioid overdoses, the last thing in the world you would do is close supervised consumption sites. Unless, of course, you had your ideological blinders on.

Ideology aside, there is no real debate on whether supervised consumption works. Social science research has shown the sites save lives while helping channel people to health care and addictions treatment. The research also proves the facilities — which are located in areas with high drug-using populations — make communities safer.

So, what happens if you take away a key service that saves lives? More people will die, fewer people will access treatment and safety concerns will increase in communities where drug use is concentrated.

Poilievre is wagering that enhanced treatment will save more lives than the ones lost with no access to supervised consumption. That wager demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about the nature of addictions and the state of treatment now.

Imagine a government ending funding for cancer chemotherapy in favor of increased funding for lifestyle counselling to help people avoid choices that lead to cancer.

That leaves Poilievre — and voters, for that matter — in a weird place: the Tories are both desperately wrong and absolutely, positively right on this issue.

A sizable new investment in treatment is not only welcome, it is woefully overdue. Poilievre should be applauded for finding a number that seems to be connected to the magnitude of the drug crisis. Tories

However, he is wrong to suggest that this is an “either-or” proposition. What people with addictions need is more treatment opportunities and access to harm-reduction sites.

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.

As it stands now, supervised consumption sites are arguably the first and best place for those seeking help to be channelled into treatment. It’s certainly a better option than walk-in clinics, which many of them are reluctant to visit, or overcrowded emergency rooms.

On the other hand, to help harm-reduction sites produce the best outcomes, we desperately need more treatment opportunities.

Just once, it would be nice if a service that been proven to save lives and make communities safer was worthy of tri-partisan political support.

Unfortunately, in this election, the champion of harm reduction is more or less out of the game. And the two parties with the best chance of forming government have decided to use the corpses of overdose victims as political footballs.

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.