A case for supervised consumption sites in N.L.

On the federal election campaign trail, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre announced that a Conservative government would stop any new supervised consumption sites from being opened and place new restrictions on existing sites. 

While often contentious, safe consumption sites—also known as SCS—are a health intervention with a strong evidence-base in the medical and public health literature. The last time the federal Conservatives were in power, they attempted to close Insite, which at the time was Canada’s only SCS. This led to a years-long legal battle the Stephen Harper Conservatives lost at the Supreme Court of Canada. So why is Poilievre trying to undo years of progress on harm-reduction initiatives?  

Claiming the lives of 21 Canadians every day, accidental drug overdose has become a pressing issue in Canada, including here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Starting in 2016 in Western Canada, a massive shift in the illicit drug market has led to a range of highly potent opioids in the drug supply, ranging from unregulated fentanyl and other sedatives. While this change has been slower in Atlantic Canada than the rest of the country, the RNC and RCMP have issued numerous warnings about fentanyl-laced substances, including cocaine, circulating in the province.

In 2023, the province saw a sharp rise in drug-related deaths, with 73 deaths reported—almost twice the number of cases reported in 2022, reflecting an alarming 97 per cent increase. According to the province’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, this number jumped to 83 deaths in 2024. This is a major public health emergency, and the provincial government must act now before more lives are unnecessarily lost.

Drug use doesn’t discriminate, it penetrates all corners of society. Framing drug use as a moral failing prevents us from viewing it as a health issue. Our current policies continue to stigmatize and criminalize people who use drugs and those struggling with substance use disorder rather than offering them the support they need. 

People from all walks of life are at risk of overdose, but certain populations face heightened vulnerability. Individuals experiencing homelessness, those with untreated mental health conditions, Indigenous people, and first-time drug users are at significantly greater risk of fatal overdose.

In an overdose situation, a single moment can mean the difference between life and death. Imagine someone overdosing alone, with no one there to call for help and no access to naloxone – a medication that can quickly reverse an opioid overdose. Instead of forcing individuals to use in unsafe environments, we need to provide them with evidence-based harm reduction strategies, including SCS.

What are supervised consumption sites?

SCS are legally-sanctioned facilities where people who use drugs can use their own drugs under the supervision of trained staff. The sites provide sterile equipment, naloxone kits, and access to addiction treatment and social services. Unlike using drugs in unsafe, isolated, or public settings, individuals at SCS are monitored in a controlled environment, where medical intervention is available if needed.

The evidence supporting SCS is indisputable. Not a single fatal overdose was reported at any SCS between March 2020 and November 2024 — a testament to their effectiveness in preventing unnecessary deaths. Moreover, statistics from the Government of Canada show that 45,471 non-fatal overdoses have been successfully reversed at SCS across the country, with naloxone used in 18,356 cases. 

By intervening quickly in overdoses, SCS also alleviate pressure on emergency medical services, reducing the demand for ambulances, emergency rooms, and first responders who are already stretched thin.

Addressing the opposition

Poilievre isn’t the only critic of SCS. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has also taken a hard stance against harm reduction efforts, stating he is “dead against” SCS. Ford’s government recently passed legislation to close 10 sites across the province of Ontario (out of 23 that were in operation before April 1), despite the body of evidence supporting harm reduction benefits. Ford claims these closures will protect residents in the community, but research published in Lancet Public Health found that rates of fatal overdose were significantly lower in neighbourhoods in Toronto that opened sites compared to neighbourhoods that didn’t open them. 

Claims by Poilievre and others that SCS drive crime rates within neighbourhoods is unjustified and there’s a large body of evidence supporting the opposite. Aside from the individual-level benefits of SCS, a 2022 scoping review revealed that there was no association between SCS and criminal activity or police presence. It also highlights that there is actually less discarded drug-use equipment in neighbourhoods where sites are established. Overall, the evidence supports that harm-reduction strategies promote a safer and healthier community, not just for people who use drugs, but for the broader public as well. 

On an individual level, these sites ensure that those who use substances do so in a safe environment, significantly reducing the risk of overdose deaths, disease transmission from reusing needles, and public drug use. Closing SCS in these areas will lead to more public drug use, more overdose deaths, and more strain on emergency services. SCS connect people who use drugs with critical healthcare and social services, increasing the likelihood of recovery.

The overdose crisis is a public health crisis that affects our communities, our families, and our loved ones. Decades of an oversimplified “war on drugs, tough on crime” approach has been a failure, and we need to ask how we can care for people at risk of overdose, and recognize them as individuals in need of compassion and support.

The legal and policy landscape

Despite the clear need for harm-reduction services in Newfoundland and Labrador, the province has yet to establish an SCS or an OPS. The reluctance often stems from political resistance, public misconceptions, and a historically punitive approach to drug policy. But jurisdictions that have embraced SCS have demonstrated significant public health benefits, including reductions in overdose fatalities, infectious disease transmission, and strain on emergency services.

To legally operate an SCS in Canada, operators must first go through a rigorous application process to obtain an exemption from Health Canada. The Conservatives want to revert to attempts to close SCS that led to years of legal challenges, when ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the federal government could not force sites to close. This is a dangerous distraction from the fact that SCS have been instrumental in reducing overdose deaths in regions that have implemented them. The current Conservative proposal will waste more time in legal battles rather than supporting people who use drugs amidst a deadly overdose crisis. 

Unfortunately, politicians are playing with people’s lives. It’s time to make this issue apolitical. The evidence is in. This should be reflected in all parties’ social policy platforms.

The government must take immediate steps to establish SCS, ensuring harm-reduction strategies are at the forefront of its response to the overdose crisis. 

This isn’t just a government issue — it’s a community responsibility. Contact your local representatives and demand immediate action on SCS. Most importantly, recognize that stigma kills. Changing the conversation around addiction is just as crucial as changing policies.

The Independent’s federal election coverage is supported by the Covering Canada: Election 2025 Fund.