The Conservatives have vowed to ‘defund federal drug dens.’ Here’s what they mean.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised to shut down overdose consumption sites during a campaign stop over the weekend.

Plans announced by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to shutter what he called “drug dens” would almost certainly increase Canada’s death toll from preventable overdoses, according to a researcher who helped evaluate North America’s first supervised consumption site.

During a recent campaign stop in B.C., Poilievre vowed to defund all manner of harm-reduction programs – calling them “harm-production programs” – but the party’s platform takes particular aim at temporary overdose prevention sites (OPS).

“Make no mistake, we will be shutting down drug dens,” Poilievre told a crowd in New Westminster on April 6. “These drug consumption sites do not work.”

The sites are operated legally under a blanket Health Canada exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that allows provinces and territories to open them, at the discretion of their own health ministries, in communities where they believe they’re needed.

A Conservative government would not renew that exemption when it expires in September, which could result in the rapid closure of many OPS locations across the country.

For Dr. M-J Milloy, of the B.C. Centre on Substance Use, the plan is baffling given the extreme risks associated with modern synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl.

“I can’t fathom why any politician who would want to lead this country would close one of the few effective interventions we have, in the midst of one of the worst public health crises of our generation,” said Milloy.

He pointed to peer-reviewed research that has found OPS services lead to more addictions treatment, less public drug use, and less syringe-sharing – which advocates consider an important metric when trying to limit the spread of HIV and other bloodborne illnesses.

Supervised consumption sites also under fire

Overdose prevention sites have been targeted by critics because they’re less regulated than their permanent counterparts, supervised consumption sites (SCS), which require individual federal approval and neighbourhood consultations before opening.

The primary purpose of both is to provide a safe space where drug users can take illicit substances in the presence of trained staff who will provide emergency overdose treatment, if needed, but SCS locations offer a broader array of services, such as addictions counsellors.

A Conservative spokesperson said OPS locations could potentially avoid closure by applying to become supervised consumption sites before September – but the party also plans stricter new regulations on those.

They includes mandatory registration for drug users, and a ban that would prevent them from operating within 500 metres of daycares, schools, seniors’ homes, playgrounds or parks.

That could be a high bar to meet, Milloy said. A similar policy enacted by Ontario’s Conservative government, barring SCS locations within 200 metres of schools or daycares, resulted in a swath of closures – and a constitutional challenge.

The right to operate supervised consumption sites has been protected by Supreme Court of Canada precedent since 2011. B.C. Health Minister Josie Osborne said she expects any federal effort to close harm-reduction facilities after the 2025 election would likely end in another court battle.

“We have to continue to do everything that we can to fight this toxic drug crisis,” Osborne said. “Overdose prevention sites, right now, continue to be a part of that.”

The Conservatives’ public platform also vows to “defund federal drug dens,” though it’s unclear which types of facilities that refers to, or what specific funding would be withdrawn. Health Canada told CTV News it does not provide funding for either supervised consumption sites or overdose prevention sites.

A Conservative spokesperson did not directly answer a request for clarification from CTV News, but did note that OPS locations “can” apply for Health Canada grants.

No deaths on record

Milloy was among the scientists who studied the community impacts of Insite, Canada’s first supervised consumption site, after it opened in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside in 2003.

The results were overwhelmingly positive, he said.

“We found that after the facility opened, rates of fatal overdose around the facility dropped by about 35 per cent, compared to only nine per cent in the rest of the City of Vancouver,” Milloy told CTV News.

“This finding was published in the Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, and is consistent with what we have observed in safe injection sites across the world.”

Similar to the research on overdose prevention sites, the studies found drug users who accessed Insite were more likely to enter treatment than those who did not, and were less likely to contract HIV and other illnesses, since they were provided with sterile syringes.

The researchers also sought out evidence the availability of Insite was leading to increased drug use, and found none.

“These findings have really never been seriously challenged by other empiric research,” Milloy added.

More than 20 years later, there have still been no deaths recorded at Insite or any other supervised consumption site in Canada, the researcher said.

What are the Conservative criticisms?

Poilievre has spoken out against SCS facilities for years, claiming they create public disorder in their neighbourhoods and are ineffective tools in the drug crisis.

“We know that the drug consumption sites have been a total disaster here in British Columbia,” Poilievre said during his recent campaign stop. “The research shows that they do not save lives or protect the community.”

The former claim contradicts the work touted by the B.C. Centre for Substance Use and others. Asked for clarification, a Conservative spokesperson pointed to a U.S. analysis that found there is “no evidence” that accessing a supervised consumption site lowers an individual’s overdose risk over time.

Milloy called that wording misleading, suggesting it refers only to the “gold-standard of medical evidence” – a controlled trial – which the Insite researchers decided was not ethically justifiable for studies involving hard drug use.

“Science is about probabilities,” Milloy said. “The best available medical evidence suggests that these sites keep people alive.”

There are currently 39 supervised consumption sites operating across the country. According to Health Canada data, more than 62,000 overdoses have been reversed at those facilities since January 2017.

But Poilievre pointed to the staggering death toll the country has racked up over approximately the same period as a reason to move away from harm reduction and put the government’s sole focus on addictions treatment, with a $1 billion recovery fund for detox, treatment centres, job training and transitional housing.

“We’ve lost 50,000 people to overdoses,” he said. “The least we can do now is, in their honour, save 50,000 more.”

The Conservatives have since boasted that a number of experts have endorsed their approach, including Julian Somers, an addictions specialist with Simon Fraser University, and Michael Gendron of the Canadian Police Association.

The latter wrote on social media that the “key is to ensure those investments are made in evidence-based treatment programs with proven track records.”

“But Canada does have a shortage of accessible rehabilitation spaces, and this will help,” Gendron wrote.

While Milloy believes more funding is needed for on-demand treatment beds, in facilities that offer science-based addictions therapies, he fears the Conservative plans would mean more people would die before they get their chance to get clean.