Alberta appeal court chooses government policy over the lives of people

Our Statement on the Court of Appeal decision to reject our emergency appeal to stop the Alberta consumption site regulations

(Moms Stop the Harm Society v Alberta, 2022 ABCA 35)

The Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society (LOPS) and Moms Stop The Harm (MSTH) are horrified and appalled at the appeal court decision, and their reasoning. 

In this decision, the court has put regulations above lives with an argument that the amount of harm can not be determined. Harm in the context of using toxic substances too often means death, as most of our member families know. Our position, as stated throughout our oral submissions, was that even one death is too many. 

Here is a key paragraph in the decision that is interesting on the factual record before the Court: 

In summary, interlocutory judicial intervention is not warranted unless the decisions made by the government are so obviously unreasonable that the Charter is engaged, and the challenged policy cannot be justified. The appellants point out that there may be a risk for some potential users who will be deterred by having to provide their Personal Health Numbers. As noted by the chambers judge, the exact extent of that risk is difficult to ascertain and will have to be explored at trial. However, whatever that risk may be, it has to be balanced against the advantages that will accrue to all of those who do provide Personal Health Numbers and are therefore successfully directed to other supports. (Moms Stop the Harm Society v Alberta, 2022 ABCA 35, [Emphasis added]).

In essence, the court is saying our family members, friends, and neighbours can die, and their death is justified in the circumstances as long as there are no temporary restraints put on Alberta’s policy.  

We disagree and strongly assert that this court ruling violates the constitutional rights of the people we love. 

I am extremely dismayed at a justice system making decisions that appear to be taken from the UCP playbook, a book full of moralistic, cruel and misinformed judgements. I try not to add to the polarization happening in the world right now and this is something I take responsibility to work on. For the most part, from the questions and comments made by two of the three judges, it was obvious their preconceived notions involving people who use drugs, who have been stripped of their voice by our condescending society, were not in favour of this appeal nor of the value of a safe life for some people. This ruling leaves blood on their hands. They are now accountable for the loss of life because of this decision. This is not a decision based on what is in the public’s best interest but a decision that keeps them in a position of power with the ability to celebrate with an expensive bottle of champagne. Personally, I was disgusted with their egotistical pandering. This decision uses people's lives to gain votes for their friends in political places. It does nothing to advance our direction as a society. We should be ashamed and embarrassed and angry. I know I am. We do, however, need to remain hopeful for without hope, there is no meaning. Kym Porter, Moms Stop They Harm.

I am extremely disappointed in the decision made this week by the Alberta Court of Appeal. I firmly believe no reasonable person, when weighing the value of lives with the convenience of regulation, would find it acceptable to sacrifice the collective sons, daughters, parents and children of our province in service to a policy scheme that has only seen the drug poisoning crisis spiral ever further out of control. The Government of Alberta has repeatedly stated in the media that they do not intend to deny service to anyone who does not show ID - a claim the court has chosen to take at face value - without explaining why the simple matter of amending the regulations to clarify and guarantee this promise could not be followed through with. By placing such important decisions in the realm of discretion, the government forces providers to weigh the right of Albertans to accessing medical care without undue barriers in direct conflict with nebulous, unwritten standards of what constitutes adherence to PHN collection requirements - standards which determine who has their licensing renewed and who does not. In Lethbridge, where the government has been trialling a “soft practice” of enforcing these regulations, we have seen client volumes fall by 75% compared to the average for the independently operated SCS that did not enforce these ID requirements. This shocking failure to connect with people who use drugs has resulted in the deadliest year on record for overdose in Lethbridge, with no hope for improvement on the horizon unless a dramatic course correction takes place. I call on the federal government to exercise its authority to amend exemption letters to guarantee access to life-saving harm reduction services to all Albertans. Timothy Slaney, Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society

For us, this is not the end of the road. This was the decision on the injunction we were seeking while we wait for the case of our human right to go before the court. As this may take 12 to 24 months, we were seeking the injunction to prevent loss of life in the interim. We will also be exploring an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and we will continue to pressure the federal government to intervene. Federal intervention in this matter is crucial, not only to address the impact of the new regulations in Alberta but also to preempt other provinces from implementing similar measures. We wrote to the Honourable Ministers Lametti (Justice) and Bennett (Mental Health and Addictions) with the following request:  

"A potential solution to this matter is Canada revising the framework for section 56.1 exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. As part of any approval, the federal government should mandate that the delivery of any supervised consumption services must occur in an anonymous and confidential manner, with exceptions provided to in-patient supervised consumption sites or in other circumstances where it is assured that identity verification measures at a site will not deter substance users from accessing these services." (Letter to Minister Bennett dated January 22, 2022, presented January 24, 2022, see attached). 

We will continue to fight for the rights and the lives of the people we love with every political and legal avenue available and how we feel is summarized in this quote by  Wallace Stevens: ”After the final no, there comes a yes. And on that yes, the future world depends. No was the night. Yes is this present sun.”

For more information on our legal action and supporting documents go to the Nanda Law Blog Post. 

Our legal action goes to the Alberta appeal court

Our legal action to seek an injunction against the implementation of harmful regulations for consumption services goes to the appeal court on January 27.

We are thankful to the Honourable Carolyn Bennett, the Federal Minister for Mental Health and Addiction, for the meeting with our legal team today. We had requested this meeting in an Open Letter on January 13, 2022.

Today we explained our case and why we are seeking an injunction to stop the implementation of harmful new provincial regulations for consumption services until our human rights case on this matter is heard by the court. We further highlighted the importance of keeping consumption services as low-barrier as possible for everyone who needs them.

Minster Bennett, her staff and senior Health Canada staff joined us for this meeting, where we presented a letter explaining our case and asking for federal assistance.

In this letter, our lawyer Avnish Nanda, on our behalf, suggested that the federal government

“revise the framework for section 56.1 exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19. As part of any approval, the federal government should mandate that the delivery of any supervised consumption services must occur in an anonymous and confidential manner, with exceptions provided to in-patient supervised consumption sites or in other circumstances where it is assured that identity verification measures at a site will not deter substance users from accessing these services.”

Our legal team was represented by Timothy Slaney from the Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society (LOPS), Kym Porter and Petra Schulz from Moms Stop The Harm and Devyn Ens from Nanda Law. We were joined by Heather McPherson, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona.

We look forward to hearing back from Minister Bennett to follow up on our request. We are confident that the Minister understands the importance of low barrier delivery of life-saving consumption services and thank her for making time for us on such short notice.

Open Letter to Minister Carolyn Bennett

Open letter in response to the Court of Queens Bench’s decision to reject our request for an injunction on the Alberta regulation for consumption services.

Dear Honourable Minister Bennett

As co-litigants in the above-noted case, the Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society (LOPS) and Moms Stop the Harm (MSTH), together with our allied co-signatories, ask that you urgently intervene in this matter. Doing so is critical to upholding your responsibilities as Canada’s Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, particularly at a time where multiple crises put people who use drugs at ever-mounting risk of overdose and death. Specifically, we ask that you: 

1. Write to your Alberta counterpart to assert federal jurisdiction over the regulation of supervised consumptions services in Canada, which are legislated and governed by the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA) and amend class- and individual site-exemption letters issued to service providers to clarify that the mandatory collection of personally-identifying information is prohibited within federally exempted supervised consumption services.

2. Issue an immediate nationwide exemption under section 56(1) of the CDSA to protect all people in Canada against criminalization for simple drug possession.

In addition, we ask that you meet with us and our legal team to discuss this matter. The lives of the people we love are at risk and while the Province of Alberta is experiencing unprecedented drug poisoning deaths (over 1400 in 2021), every life-saving measure needs to be supported. This includes SCS and other harm reduction services.

As you know, MSTH is a network of Canadian families impacted by substance-use related harms and deaths, and LOPS is a volunteer-run harm reduction organization based in Lethbridge, AB. Taking our province to court was not an easy decision, and was the last resort to save lives. 

Our and our allies response to the Court of Queens Bench ruling

Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about this incredulous decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. We are angry, we are confused, we are beyond dismayed and most importantly, we fear for the lives of the people who will now no longer have the low barrier access to supervised consumption services that are so essential to saving lives. We need to meet people where they are at as well as establish trusting relationships. Substance use is highly stigmatized and considered a crime in Canada, and people who use have had negative experiences with the health system. Asking for identification is driving people away from the services that save their lives. This, in turn, removes the opportunity to make necessary connections to saving lives.  This decision further confirms the lack of understanding and compassion for people who wisely make use of consumption services in our province. This ruling bluntly says “this government’s right to drug making policies supersedes life”. If the policies were effective, we would not need this court case! Petra Schulz and Kym Porter, Moms Stop The Harm

As veteran front liners, the volunteers with LOPS understand well how fragile the trust is between people who use drugs and the government. After enduring years of demonizing rhetoric and watching their friends and loved ones die of preventable causes, people who rely on harm reduction to survive are understandably suspicious of giving the Alberta government any more information which can be used to identify them. This decision, which acknowledges the loss of life sure to follow but considers it of secondary importance to the government's agenda, only reinforces the belief that to those in power in Alberta, some lives are only worth saving if they adhere to a limited, paternalistic, and above all moralizing ideal of recovery. LOPS was founded after the closure of the busiest SCS in Canada with the full knowledge that the Government of Alberta had chosen to abandon people who use drugs to die in their streets and homes rather than reckon with the realities of the drug poisoning crisis. This decision only affirms to us that our mission and tactics are necessary, and we stand with the growing number of Canadians who recognize our right to provide care for our neighbours when our elected leaders refuse their obligations. Timothy Slaney, Co-founder – Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society

This decision is yet another reminder that the lives of people who use drugs are not a priority of those who hold power in our society. It is devastating but entirely unsurprising that a deadly status quo has prevailed over the health, safety, and liberty of our community. Alberta’s actions are a war on people who use drugs. Caitlin Shane, Lawyer, Pivot Legal Society

With record overdose deaths in Alberta, the government can’t afford to erect more barriers to supervised consumption services. But in the court’s view, Alberta’s ability to make drug policy decisions outweighs the irreparable harm that will occur when people lose access to lifesaving health care – exemplifying tragic disregard for the lives of people who use drugs, especially in the context of the province’s miserable track record.  Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director, HIV Legal Network

There are no words to adequately relay the sadness we feel with regard to this decision, as in the real world this day, in Alberta several human lives will be lost to drug toxicity within the illegal drug market.  In our view, the granting of the injunction would in no way impede the Alberta Government from implementing a comprehensive evidence-informed response to addiction and would actually enhance that opportunity based on the significant body of evidence of the importance of barrier-free access to supervised consumption services for those at risk of drug poisoning.  Donald MacPherson, Director, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition 

Our court challenge: An overview 

ABQB decision Moms Stop the Harm Society vs. Her Majesty The Queen, Alberta, 2103 11484

Our understanding of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (“ABQB”) January 10, 2022 dismissal of our request for an Interlocutory Injunction to suspend portions of the Alberta Government’s recommendations (“Regulations”) regarding supervised consumption sites (“SCS”). 

A successful Interlocutory Injunction application requires that the party bringing the application satisfy a three-part test:

1. Is there is a serious issue to be tried?;

2. Will the applicants (individuals who use SCS) suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted?; and,

3. Which party will suffer the greater harm from granting or refusing the Injunction (often called a “balance of convenience”)? 

The Government of Alberta conceded that this was a serious issue to be tried, and we met the burden of establishing that individuals who use SCS would experience irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. It was the third stage of the test where the application was dismissed on grounds that, on a balance of convenience, the Government of Alberta would suffer the greater harm with the outcome of the motion. 

Determining the balance of convenience requires weighing the rights that the Regulations would infringe, against the alleged public interest benefits advanced by the Regulations. The Court determined that we had not met the burden of illustrating that the suspension of the challenged Regulations would provide a public benefit greater than the public interest granted by the Regulations. 

Despite acknowledging that implementing the Regulations will lead to irreparable harm to people, for instance, increased risk of overdose and death, the Court has ruled that this outcome matters less than allowing Alberta to develop drug policies without constraint. This ruling shows that unregulated state action provides a greater public interest than the prevention of death and harm to Albertans. We decry this logic, which prioritizes government autonomy over the lives of our loved ones. 

In Conclusion

In conclusion, we ask that you, Minister Bennett, heed our requests and urgently meet with us to discuss this case. 

Signed,

Co-Litigants 

Petra Schulz for Moms Stop The Harm and Timothy Slaney for Lethbridge Overdose Prevention Society

And our allies:

• Alberta Alliance Who Educate and Advocate Responsibly (AAWEAR)

• Boots on Ground Harm Reduction

• Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

• EACH+EVERY Business for Harm Reduction

• Friends of Medicare

• HIV Legal Network | Réseau juridique VIH

• Pivot Legal Society

• Mainline Needle Exchange

• Prairie Harm Reduction

• Harm Reduction Nurses Association (HRNA)

In August 2021 LOPS and MSTH commenced legal action against the Government of Alberta to ensure that no additional barriers to access and provision of life-saving supervised consumption services are introduced.

Video courtesy of Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. More information on the launch of of our legal action is on the CDPC website.

Decriminalization - What It Is and What Is Isn't

Simply put decriminalization in the context of drug policy is this:

Allowing people, with no risk of criminal intervention by police, to carry enough illicit drugs for their own personal use. They cannot be arrested or relieved of their drugs by police or anyone else. They cannot be charged with the crime of possessing an illegal substance.

What decriminalization is not is legalizing drugs. Decriminalization refers only to the people who are possessing drugs for their own use. The drugs they carry may still be illegal (illicit).

It only makes sense that people who need drugs because they are addicted (or have substance use disorder, SUD) need drugs! If they don’t have the drugs they need, they will go into withdrawal and become sick and in pain. They do not need to be thrown into the criminal justice system!

Of course we wish that no one was addicted, that there were enough and good recovery options, that people need not carry illicit drugs or use toxic substances, that no one must put themselves in danger by purchasing drugs under dangerous circumstances.

Unfortunately that is not the world we live in today.

What different municipalities, and now the Province of British Columbia are doing is applying to the Federal Government for an exemption (Exemption 56) to be able to pass a law that institutes the decriminalizing of people who possess controlled (illicit) substances for personal use such as heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamines, and others. To see B.C.’s decriminalization submission to the federal government, click here.

Check out this link to learn more about the Canadian Controlled and Substances Act (CDSA)

This gives some insight to the process and the complexities of implementing decriminalization and safe supply, for which Moms Stop the Harm strongly advocates.

(One stumbling block which we can discuss in more detail at a later date, is the amounts that a person may carry without criminal charges. This is still under discussion and with some disagreements to be worked out. The submission from the BC government to the Federal Government is not supported by MSTH or people who use drugs in terms of amounts, also known as thresholds.)

Progress is being made in this area in BC and federally, but not fast enough to save lives. Please write to your local and federal politicians to express your support for Decriminalization!

Leslie McBain, MSTH Co-Founder

#CanadaVotes2021 - The Questions to Ask Regarding the Drug Poisoning Crisis

The overdose and drug poisoning crisis continues to be one of the most devastating public health emergencies of our lifetime, with 21,174 opioid-related deaths in the last five years alone. Most of these deaths were preventable and they all resulted in immeasurable devastation for families and communities.

When deciding who to vote for consider party positions on the much-ignored drug poisoning crisis that has taken so many of our loved ones.

---

Our Report Card

Our report card is based on party platforms, statements and media articles. Based on the magnitude of the crisis and the lack of an adequate and evidence-based response, we see low grades across the board, as well as one fail.

We are updating report cards as new information becomes available and as parties reply to the letter we sent to them.

---

Important questions to ask party leaders and local candidates:

These questions were sent to all party leaders. All questions, except question 5 added later, were sent to party leaders before and at the start of the election campaign. To date, we have not received any replies.

1. Decriminalization: Would your party decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs? Also, would your party legislate this change rather than relying on informal, incremental, and discretionary measures that fall short of real decriminalization?

2. Safe Supply: Would your party ensure that there is a safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs? And, if so, what measures would you implement to ensure this is widely available?

3. Harm Reduction: Would your party create a legal and policy environment that funds and champions evidence-based programs in order to facilitate the development and scaling up of harm reduction services Canada-wide, including in remote and rural areas and prisons?

4. Legal Regulation: Would your party move to legally regulate currently illegal drugs based on the best available evidence regarding harms and benefits, and as a step towards treating problematic drug use as a health issue?

5. Treatment: Would your party support full access to all evidence-based models of treatment, including opioid agonist treatment and other substitution approaches? How would you support long-term wellness, including access to housing, mental health supports and trauma care?

6. Emergency Declaration: Would your party declare the overdose crisis as a national public health emergency so that it is taken seriously and funded appropriately? Also, would you ensure that emergency measures are provided in all provinces and territories and guided by the people most affected?

7. Funding: What funding would your party provide to scale up prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services?

---

Our position:

1. Decriminalization: The criminalization of people who possess now-illegal substances for personal use is a government policy stance that directly contributes to people using and dying alone. It prevents people who feel that they want help with problematic drug use from seeking it and it perpetuates deadly stigma. These Canadian drug laws are rooted in racism and continue to disproportionately impact racialized Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. As such, the criminalization of people who use drugs is a barrier to reconciliation.

2. Safe supply: Thousands of people are dying from toxic drugs, more so than ever before, particularly since measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 have isolated people from services and supports. The pandemic has also disrupted supply routes of illegal substances, resulting in a more concentrated and contaminated supply.

3. Harm reduction: Harm Reduction is grounded in a comprehensive scientific, trauma-informed and human rights-based approach. The evidence is clear that harm reduction programs such as safe consumption sites, drug checking, overdose prevention and reversal services all work to prevent deaths and connect people who use substances to public health and social programs. These approaches are cost-effective and have a positive impact on individual and community health.

4. Legal regulation: Alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis are currently legally regulated in Canada, using controls to manage the vendor, the supply outlet, the product, and the purchaser, as appropriate. Drug regulation with a public health focus could provide safer access while protecting individuals and populations. Depending on the substance and potential harms and benefits, regulation could range from prescriptions to regulated outlets to licensed premises, with the aim of providing safer access for adults, while protecting children and youth. The status quo and prohibition have never worked. The catastrophic death rates we are currently seeing tell us that prohibition, as was the case with alcohol prohibition, adds to rather than prevents harms. Even the London School of Economics has declared the war on drugs a global failure.

5. Treatment: We support a range of evidence-based treatment options that best meets the needs and desires of each individual. For opioid dependence, various forms of Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT, including iOAT) are recommended by scientists and health professionals in the CRISM Canada guidelines. For stimulants and other substances, where effective substitution treatment is not currently available, recommended approaches include psychosocial supports, therapy and counselling.

   In all cases, we support increased access to publicly funded mental health and trauma supports. Residential treatment is required for a minority of people who use problematically, most often for individuals who are deprived of a stable home or can’t be at their home. All residential treatment should include access to all forms of OAT.

   Lastly, it is important to note that most people who use substances do not have a problem with their use (live with an “addiction”) and therefore do not need treatment.

6. Emergency Declaration: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how public health measures and investments can prevent serious harms and loss of life, and yet, we have not seen the same evidence-based approach or investment in Canada’s other public health emergency, the overdose and drug poisoning crisis. To avoid past policy failures, any effective response must be guided by the people who are most affected and know best, that is, the people who use drugs and their families.

7. Budget: Our recent experience with COVID-19 has shown us that public health measures, while costly, are effective in saving not only lives but also tax dollars in the long run, as hospitalizations are avoided, economies are protected and life spans are not cut short.iv

We firmly believe that any newly elected government should legislate change to failed drug policies and provide adequate funding to end the overdose and drug poisoning crisis. During the last federal election in 2019, such measures seemed largely out of reach given the positions of most parties. Fortunately, a great deal has changed in the interim and we know that the Liberal Party can afford to be bolder this time around. As you may know, many public health officers have spoken out in favour of decriminalization. Moreover, a recent Angus Reid opinion poll shows that a majority of Canadians support this move.v Also, to date, close to 40 communities have passed MSTH’s resolution calling on the federal government to develop a pan-Canadian overdose action plan that includes full consideration of decriminalization and legal regulation. vi Other municipalities, such as Vancouver and Montreal, have passed their own related resolutions.

We urge all parties leaders and candidates to address head-on the ongoing toxic drug poisonings with policy reforms that are based on evidence, so loved ones do not continue to die.

---

Party Responses

Where possible we will be including the responses received from parties and otherwise include links to statements and links to media articles on the issue.

A MACLEANS article summarizes the party platforms in various categories. Under “Health” both the NDP and GPC made statements regarding the overdose crisis (NDP) and the opioid crisis (GPC). Both these statements are noted below. No other party mentioned drug poisoning or overdose in documents reviewed in the article. This article, and our site, will be updated as more information comes available. Stay tuned!

Liberal Party - Justin Trudeau

Liberal Party response to our questions does not address the questions directly but summarizes the party platform.

From their Party Platform (pp. 25-26):

Addressing Problematic Substance Use

The opioid overdose epidemic has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tragically, in 2020, there were 6,214 opioid overdose deaths in Canada. To save lives, we need a whole-of-society approach to the opioid epidemic that addresses the main causes and supports people who use drugs with the respect and dignity they deserve. We will continue to take an evidence-based approach to problematic substance use and work with all orders of government to support innovative approaches so that Canadians have access to the care and support they need. A re-elected Liberal government will:

• Introduce a comprehensive strategy to address problematic substance use to end the opioids crisis.

• Invest $25 million for public education to reduce the stigma associated with problematic substance use.

• Invest $500 million to support the provinces and territories in providing access to a full-range of evidence-based treatment, recognizing that successful treatment is not determined by long-term abstinence.

• Support provinces and territories in creating standards for substance use treatment programs so that Canadians can access quality and evidence-based support when they need it most.

• Support the many lower-risk and first-time offenders by reforming the Criminal Code to repeal relevant mandatory minimum penalties and requiring police and Crown prosecutors to consider diverting individuals out of the criminal justice system.

---

Canada’s NDP (New Democrats) - Jagmeet Singh

From “.Ready for Better: New Democrats’ Commitments to You” (2021, p. 60):

Confronting the opioid public health emergency New Democrats believe that there is much more we can do to save lives and support those struggling with opioids. In government, we will declare a public health emergency and commit to working with all levels of government, health experts and Canadians to end the criminalization and stigma of drug addiction, so that people struggling with addiction can get the help they need without fear of arrest, while getting tough on the real criminals - those who traffic in and profit from illegal drugs. We’ll work with the provinces and health professionals to create a safe supply of medically regulated alternatives to toxic street drugs, support overdose prevention sites and expand access to treatment on demand for people struggling with addiction. We will also launch an investigation into the role drug companies may have played in fueling the opioid crisis, and seek meaningful financial compensation from them for the public costs of this crisis.

In reply to a letter containing our questions, the NDP provided the following letter to MSTH:

• Upon taking office, we plan to make such a declaration without delay. We will address this crisis with the urgency and dedication it deserves.

• A New Democratic government will introduce legislation to decriminalize substance use in Canada and expunge criminal records for possession. We believe that the trauma and stigma caused by the criminalization of people who use drugs cannot be meaningfully addressed with half-measures.

• We will work with the provinces and territories to extend low-barrier access to a safe supply of regulated substances to every region of the country. This is essential to save lives.

• A New Democratic government will also put in place a national strategy to ensure that harm reduction, treatment, and recovery services are available to all those who seek access. We will back up this plan with new and significant investments.

• Finally, a New Democratic government will adopt a wholly health-based approach to substance use in Canada. That means moving towards a consistent framework for regulating substances through evidence-based assessments of their potential harms. This would align with the advice of Canada’s leading public health experts, including the federal government’s Expert Task Force on Substance Use.

A statement on the party website reads:

Jagmeet Singh would immediately declare the overdose crisis a national public health emergency and commit to launching an investigation into the role drug companies may have played in fuelling the overdose crisis, and seek meaningful financial compensation from them for the public costs of this crisis.

---

Conservative Party - Erin O’Toole

The Conservative Party did not respond to our letter. This section is from the party platform under the heading “Supporting Canadians Suffering from Addiction”

Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the health issue that it is. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers. The last thing that those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should focus on keeping them safe and helping them recover. To help more Canadians recover from addiction, Canada’s Conservatives will revise the federal government’s substance abuse policy framework to make recovery its overarching goal. We will reorient the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy towards ensuring that everyone suffering from addiction has the opportunity to recover and to lead a drug-free life and that all policies that fall under the strategy have the reduction of harm and promotion of recovery as their objectives.

To realize this goal, we will:

• Invest $325 million over the next three years to create 1,000 residential drug treatment beds and build 50 recovery community centres across the country. ° This will give spaces to those who suffer from addiction, their families, and those who have recovered where they can get the help they need and support each other.

• Support innovative approaches to address the crises of mental health challenges and addiction, such as land-based treatment programs developed and managed by Indigenous communities as part of a plan to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions treatment and prevention services in First Nations communities with high needs.

• Partner with the provinces to ensure that Naloxone kits are available for free across Canada.

The CPC response to our questions:

Decriminalization

Would your party decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs? Also, would your party legislate this change rather than relying on informal, incremental, and discretionary measures that fall short of real decriminalization?

Canada’s Conservatives would like to see more compassion in the approach to opioid addiction and treatment. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers. The last thing that those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should focus on keeping them safe and helping them recover.

Safe Supply

Would your party ensure that there is a safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs? And, if so, what measures would you implement to ensure this is widely available?

To help more Canadians recover from addiction, Canada’s Conservatives will revise the federal government’s substance abuse policy framework and make recovery its overarching goal. We will reorient the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy towards ensuring that everyone suffering from addiction has the opportunity to recover and lead a drug-free life and that all policies that fall under the Strategy have the reduction of harm and promotion of recovery as their objectives.

Harm Reduction

Would your party create a legal and policy environment that funds and champions evidence-based programs in order to facilitate the development and scaling up of harm reduction services Canada-wide, including in remote and rural areas and prisons?

Canada’s Conservatives would not block safe injection sites. Our focus is on recovery. To realize this goal, we will:

• Invest $325 million over the next three years to create 1,000 residential drug treatment beds and build 50 recovery community centres across the country.

• Support innovative approaches to address the crises of mental health challenges and addiction, such as land-based treatment programs developed and managed by Indigenous communities as part of a plan to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate addictions treatment and prevention services in First Nations communities with high needs.

• Partner with the provinces to ensure that Naloxone kits are available for free across Canada.

Legal Regulation

Would your party move to legally regulate currently illegal drugs based on the best available evidence regarding harms and benefits, and as a step towards treating problematic drug use as a health issue?

Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the health issue it is. That means that our focus will be on helping people with addictions get the help they need to recover. We believe that law enforcement should focus on dealers and traffickers. The last thing that those suffering from addiction should have to worry about is being arrested. Any interaction the government has with them should focus on keeping them safe and helping them recover.

Declaration of a National Public Health Emergency

Would your party declare the overdose crisis as a national public health emergency so that it is taken seriously and funded appropriately? And, would you ensure that emergency measures are provided in all provinces and territories and guided by the people most affected?

Canada’s Conservatives will treat the opioid epidemic as the health issue it is. We are committed to investing $325 million over the next three years to create 1,000 residential drug treatment beds for those struggling with addiction. Our plan also includes providing $1 billion over five years to boost funding for Indigenous mental health and drug treatment programs.

We’ve also committed to meeting with the Premiers within the first 100 days of forming government to propose a new health agreement with the provinces and territories that boosts the annual growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer to at least 6%. This will inject nearly $60 billion into our health care system over the next ten years and allow provinces to use the extra funding in areas they deem necessary, which could include investment in plans to combat the opioid epidemic.

Proposed Budget Relating to Overdose Crisis

What funding would your party provide to scale-up prevention, harm reduction and treatment services?

Canada’s Conservatives have committed to investing $325 million over the next three years to create 1,000 residential drug treatment beds for those struggling with addiction. We will provide $1 billion over five years to boost funding for Indigenous mental health and drug treatment programs. We’ve also committed to boosting the annual growth rate of the Canada Health Transfer to at least 6%, which will allow the provinces and territories to invest additional money into treating the opioid epidemic if they choose

---

Bloc Québécois - Yves-François Blanchet

The Bloc Québécois sees health as a provincial matter and does not address the drug poisoning crisis in its platform.

In reply to a letter containing our questions, the BQ provided the following statement (translated from French by MSTH - see French blog for the original text.

1) Decriminalization: We supported the recommendations of the Public Safety Committee Report 6 that sought to decriminalize simple possession of all illegal drugs. We would be willing to support such a bill at a second parliamentary reading in order to allow an exhaustive study in committee.

2) Safe Supply: We believe that the federal government has an important role to play in the approval of drugs and to review prices. Provinces and municipalities have the responsibility for ensuring accessibility through their own programs. Bloc Québécois has always supported the initiatives of supervised injection sites.

3) Harm Reduction: Bloc Québécois is in favor of harm reduction policies. BQ is particularly in favor of supervised injection sites. The Québec’s approach on drugs, addiction and harm reduction has already proven its worth and the Bloc Québécois is in favor of community groups receiving the support needed to do the fieldwork that greatly contributes to fight drug addiction and reduce related harms. We believe the federal government should grant a class exemption to protect supervised consumption services (SCS) clients and staff, including volunteers, against possible prosecution for drug possession or for activities likely to be considered as "trafficking" according to the current law, provided that a certain number of minimal conditions are met. In addition, as you mentioned, such an exemption would automatically protect SCS against prosecution, as long as certain conditions are met, which would relieve a significant administrative burden for SCS providers, as they would no longer have to request a case-by-case exemption from Health Canada. In addition, if the federal government wants to fund SCS, it would only have to unconditionally transfer the money to Quebec. We believe that mandatory minimum sentences - among other things - interfere with rehabilitation. The federal government must also do much better for the rehabilitation of inmates: the correctional investigator of Canada published a devastating report in which he considered that Canada's efforts for the rehabilitation of inmates were not sufficient, which in fact so that inmates come out without having acquired new skills. The federal government must follow the recommendations of the Correctional Investigator by providing constructive training in penitentiaries.

4) Legal regulation: Yes

5) Public Health Emergency: The provinces have the power in this area and we have full confidence in them to make the appropriate decisions. However, the health care system of the provinces is overloaded and they are under-resourced because of Ottawa's chronic underfunding. This is why the Bloc Québécois wants to immediately increase health transfers to the provinces by $ 28 billion, as they are asking, in order to cover 35% of the costs.

6) Funding: We want to give the provinces $ 28 billion in health transfers immediately so that they can tackle the many public health challenges.

---

Green Party of Canada (GPC) - Annamie Paul

In their platform the Green Party makes the following commitments (p. 49-50):

A Green government will:

1. Declare the drug poisoning crisis a national public health emergency

2. Decriminalize possession of illicit drugs for personal use

   • Remove criminal penalties for the personal possession and use of all drugs under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

   • Legislate this change rather than relying on informal, incremental, and discretionary measures that fall short of real decriminalization.

3. Create a national safe supply of drugs of choice

   • Create a programme through the federal government so people can access pharmaceutical alternatives of drugs of choice safely.

4. Invest in an integrated system of decriminalization and access to meaningful services for those persons who are seeking treatment ●

   • Increase funding to community-based organizations to test drugs and support those who use drugs.

   • Implement a national education and distribution program for Naloxone, so Naloxone kits are widely available to treat overdoses and every Canadian knows what it is and how to use it.

   • Create a legal and policy environment that funds and advances evidence-based programs, in order to facilitate the development and scaling up of harm reduction services across all of Canada, including in rural communities and prisons.

   • Expand support for mental health services and addiction services for those who are seeking these services.

5. Amnesty for those convicted of simple possession of cannabis

   • Provide automatic pardons to anyone convicted in the past of simple possession of cannabis and ensure that any records of such offences and circumstances are expunged from police records.

6. Move to legally regulate currently illegal drugs based on the best available evidence regarding harms and benefits as a step towards treating problematic drug use as a health issue.

   • Drug regulation with a public health focus, as is the case with alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis in Canada currently, could provide safer access while protecting individuals and populations.

   • Depending on the substance and potential harms and benefits, regulation could range from prescriptions to regulated outlets to licensed premises, with the aim of providing safer access for adults, while protecting children and youth. EXPANDED AN

Here is the GPC response to our questions:

1. Decriminalization - Would your party decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs? Also, would your party legislate this change rather than relying on informal, incremental, and discretionary measures that fall short of real decriminalization?

The Green Party of Canada was the first federal political party to call for the decriminalization of the personal possession of illicit drugs. We continue to advocate for drug decriminalization as Canada faces a drug poisoning epidemic. Decriminalization is one of the steps we must take in re-framing drug use as a criminal justice issue to a public health one, and the GPC would legislate this change to ensure real decriminalization.

2. Safe Supply - Would your party ensure that there is a safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs? And, if so, what measures would you implement to ensure this is widely available?

Yes, the Green Party of Canada would ensure that there is a safe supply of pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs. Our national safe supply program would be created with the advice and cooperation of impacted communities and public health officials. The GPC would increase funding to community-based organizations to test drugs and support those who use drugs to ensure this is accessible to all.

3. Harm Reduction - Would your party create a legal and policy environment that funds and champions evidence-based programs in order to facilitate the development and scaling up of harm reduction services Canada-wide, including in remote and rural areas and prisons?

Yes, the Green Party of Canada follows an evidence-based approach to creating drug policy. We would champion innovative policies while listening to people who have been impacted by drug use. The Green Party of Canada would work to ensure that a harm reduction approach would fit the specific needs of different communities including rural areas and prisons.

4. Legal Regulation - Would your party move to legally regulate currently illegal drugs based on the best available evidence regarding harms and benefits, and as a step towards treating problematic drug use as a health issue?

Yes, the Green Party of Canada would work to legally regulate current illegal drugs.

5. Declaration of a National Public Health Emergency - Would your party declare the overdose crisis as a national public health emergency so that it is taken seriously and funded appropriately? Also, would you ensure that emergency measures are provided in all provinces and territories and guided by the people most affected?

Yes, the Green Party of Canada would declare the overdose crisis as a national public health emergency. We know that along with the decriminalization of illicit drugs and the creation of a safe supply, the declaration of a national health emergency would save more lives and allow drug users to get the help they need.

6. Proposed Budget Relating to Overdose Crisis - What funding would your party provide to scale-up prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services  

Funding from the declaration of a national health emergency would be allocated towards scaling up prevention, harm reduction, and treatment services, as would the necessary funding allocation to ensure this crisis is meaningfully addressed.

---