Tory law stands in the way of smart drug policy
Supervised injection sites have the potential “to save countless lives.” This is what Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott told the CBC last week, echoing what she said this year when she visited Insite, a supervised injection site in Vancouver. This clear support is a welcome change at the federal level, and was reflected in Canada’s unprecedented statement last week at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna.
At its first international outing on drug policy, the federal government expressed its strong support for evidence-based harm reduction, including measures such as needle and syringe programs, supervised injection sites and the distribution of naloxone, a proven and effective treatment to counter opioid overdoses. This is a radical shift from recent years, during which Canada joined countries such as Russia in speaking out against harm-reduction programs.
Canada’s clear statement offers a new vision of drug policy, rooted in scientific evidence, public health principles and human rights. These values were reflected in a landmark ruling in 2011, in which the Supreme Court of Canada declared, as a matter of constitutional rights, that Canada’s criminal prohibition on drugs could not be allowed to impede the operation of Vancouver’s Insite facility.
But in 2015, in flagrant disregard of this ruling and despite widespread condemnation by public health and human rights experts, the previous federal government passed Bill C-2, the misleadingly named Respect for Communities Act, making it harder than ever to establish much-needed supervised injection sites.
Currently, several proposals to implement supervised injection sites are being considered across Canada (most recently in Toronto). But instead of enhancing access to these critical health services, as the Supreme Court of Canada suggested, the Respect for Communities Act makes it exceedingly difficult for public health and community agencies to apply for an exemption. Not only are the legislated hurdles unnecessary and unjustifiable, but also in some places, they will be nearly impossible to overcome, even as the preventable toll of death and disease mounts.
The current law requires applicants to engage in excessive consultations and submit an onerous amount of information to the health minister — some of it likely to be simply unobtainable — before the minister can even consider an application for an exemption. And the law further directs that exemptions may only be granted “in exceptional circumstances,” even though the Supreme Court had ruled that, where there is evidence that a supervised injection site could reduce the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence of detriment to public safety, “the minister should generally grant an exemption.”
No other health service is subjected to such scrutiny. The law blatantly flouts the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is driven by stigma and prejudice against those the former government regularly denigrated and dehumanized as “junkies.”
As the Supreme Court declared, “Insite saves lives.” Indeed, supervised consumption services have been proven to reduce risks of transmission of blood-borne infections, such as HIV and Hepatitis C, reduce deaths from overdose and connect people who use drugs to other vital health services. While the health minister’s support for supervised injection sites is welcome, their establishment or continued operation cannot be subject to the unreasonable and burdensome requirements of an unconstitutional law.
The law has to change. Canada’s commitment to harm reduction before the UN community was a momentous step — and we encourage Ottawa to continue to take strong leadership in advocating for harm reduction policies, practices and programs both at home and abroad. This means repealing the Respect for Communities Act. Lives depend on it.
Not only are the legislative hurdles to safe injection sites unnecessary and unjustifiable, but also in some places, they will be nearly impossible to overcome