(Ottawa) Although the Liberal government’s drug policies have been the subject of numerous debates in the House of Commons, the Conservatives offer little insight into the strategy they intend to implement if they form the next government.
Would a Pierre Poilievre-led government consider changing the application process for an injection site? The party’s drug critic, Laila Goodrige, says she can’t speculate on the future.
“But I think this issue has been politicized in a way that pits different perspectives against each other. That’s not very helpful,” she says.
At an injection site, users can consume drugs under the supervision of a team who can intervene in the event of an overdose. These centers often provide screening tests, clean equipment to prevent the spread of disease and refer patients to detoxification centers.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has already expressed his opposition to any form of harm reduction strategy aimed at limiting the opioid overdose crisis, including decriminalization which aims to prevent users from ending up in prison or programs offering pharmaceutical products as an alternative to drugs sold on the streets.
What about injection sites?
Ms. Goodridge points out that the Supreme Court has already ruled.
“I recommend that you read his judgment,” she says.
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the closure of the first injection site had violated consumer rights guaranteed by the Charter.
Mr. Poilievre’s office declined to say whether supervised injection sites would feature in his strategy to address the hard drugs crisis.
He did not respond to a question about an alleged statement Mr. Poilievre made at a rally in northern Ontario in January. According to the Sault Star, the Conservative leader said he was not ready to subsidize supervised injection sites.
It is also not known whether Mr. Poilievre would order a review of the activities or operating conditions of the injection sites.
“It’s as if the Conservatives were trying to please everyone, which is impossible,” says a former advisor to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Benjamin Perrin, now a law professor at the University of British Columbia. “We either support the sites or we don’t support them. »
Four years after the Supreme Court decision, the Harper government adopted the Respect for Communities Act. This notably required applicants for authorization for a supervised site to consult the local population and the police as well as to provide information on the rate of minor offenses near the location.
Earlier this year, Mr. Poilievre asked his supporters to oppose the upcoming opening of a “new drug site” in Richmond, British Columbia. He then accused the Liberals and New Democrats of “forcing the hand” of the Chinese community, some members of which opposed the proposed location.
Critics of the Conservatives accuse them of sending mixed messages about supervised sites.
In April, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, Alta., MP Glen Motz told the House of Commons that supervised consumption sites were utopian. Meanwhile, his colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, Todd Doherty, suggested the party had yet to take a firm position on the issue.
“Not a single conservative, whether it was our leader or us – none of us – talked about supervised consumption sites. In any policy, in any conversation, the toolbox includes many tools,” he said at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health in early June.
Mr. Perrin believes that a future government could circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling by using the Charter’s notwithstanding clause.
Mr. Poilievre has already said he is ready to use it to pass his reform of the judicial system. His office has already attempted to clarify that the notwithstanding clause would only be used for criminal law.
“It’s a criminal law issue,” says Mr. Perrin about supervised sites.
The firm declined to say whether it agreed.
