Randall Denley: Decision to close supervised drug injection sites in Ontario based on faulty logic

Superficially, the Ontario government’s plan to close supervised drug consumption sites that are close to schools or day care centres makes sense. So does its proposal to spend $378 million more over three years on addiction treatment and homelessness support.

Unfortunately, the plan’s logic is perplexing. The provincial government will close 10 of 17 supervised consumption sites ostensibly because of their locations. If that’s the issue, why not move them to less controversial spots? The government won’t allow that. If the problem is that the sites are ineffective, why keep any of them open?

Premier Doug Ford gave a pretty good clue as to the government’s real thinking when he spoke to reporters the day after the official announcement.

“As far as I’m concerned the federal government is the biggest drug dealer in the entire country,” Ford said, referring to the Health Canada approved drug consumption sites. “It’s unacceptable, it needs to stop. We need to get rid of safe supply and put money into treatment and detox beds. That’s what we need to do, not continue to give people free drugs.”

It’s a point with which one can instinctively agree. Giving addicts free drugs seems to make little more sense than giving alcoholics free booze. For those sympathetic to the plight of people plagued by addiction, offering drug treatment is much more constructive.

It shouldn’t be an either-or proposition, though. The key benefit of supervised drug sites is preventing fatal overdoses. Federal government statistics suggest they are doing a pretty good job. Between March 2020 and May 2024, supervised consumption sites across the country dealt with 41,722 overdoses, none of which were fatal. Of those overdoses, 17,201 required the use of naloxone, a drug that reverses opioid overdoses.

The new Ford government plan will sharply reduce the availability of that kind of service. Critics of the plan have been derided for saying that people will die as a result of the change, but it seems inevitable.

In July, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) brought out a balanced and thoughtful report on what should be done to tackle the opioid crisis. The report said, “Supervised consumption sites are an important component of Ontario’s harm reduction approach.” The report concludes, “The evidence shows that these sites help save lives. They should be approved and funded based on demonstrated local need and community engagement.”

The municipal group gave the Ford government good advice, but it chose not to follow it. In fact, the government announced its new policy at AMO’s annual meeting. Nevertheless, some mayors praised the parts of the provincial plan that they liked.

Supervised consumption is certainly not a flawless approach and Ford hit on a key issue when he said drug users “Get to go up there (safer supply sites) and get endless, endless amounts of drugs and guess what they do? They go out and they sell it and get other people addicted and then they go out and get stronger drugs.”

Consumption sites offer replacement drugs that are meant to meet the addicts’ needs. The problem is the drugs are insufficient to stop the craving for fentanyl, the most common opioid. Addicts sometimes sell the weaker, government-supplied drugs so they can buy the stronger stuff available on the street.

However, of the 10 sites the province is closing, only one, Toronto’s Kensington Market Overdose Prevention Service, is a safe supply site, funded by the federal government.

The other nine are provincially funded and allow people to bring their own drugs, supplied by criminal drug dealers. In a sense, the government sites validate the criminality and support the street drug business. It’s arguably a worse approach than safe supply, but it’s one that will continue at seven provincially funded sites.

Safe consumption sites are certainly not a solution to Ontario’s drug problem. They are a tool to help keep people alive until they decide to seek treatment or treatment becomes available.

It’s uncertain how much additional treatment will be provided by Ontario’s new plan. The government will create 19 new “homelessness and addiction recovery treatment hubs” to connect people to services. The government promises 375 supportive housing units and an unspecified number of addiction recovery and treatment beds.

The additional help will be welcome, but will people with drug addictions make the rational decision to seek it out? Supervised consumption provides an incentive to connect with people who might help. The new hubs will not have that.

The Ford government’s decision to back away from supervised consumption sites is politically understandable. It’s a difficult approach to defend, especially to PC supporters. Unfortunately, it will leave Ontario with a diminished capacity to prolong the lives of those with drug addiction.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist. Contact him at [email protected]

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.