Over the past generation, under successive Liberal governments, Canadians have been subjected to many woke policies. Perhaps the most “off-the-wall” policies concern the use of illicit drugs. No other country can match Canada’s bizarre drug policies. They are based on the concept of “harm reduction”. The latter concept asserts that drug addicts cannot be rehabilitated and therefore, society must assist them in their use of illicit drugs by eliminating some of the harms that these drugs are causing them. In other words, society must adapt itself to the addict’s lifestyle of drug addiction. Advocates of harm reduction believe that by removing the criminal effect of illicit drugs, addiction will then be a “healthcare” problem, and this will encourage the addict to seek treatment without concerns about criminal charges. Unfortunately, drug addiction is much more complex than that. Although harm reduction advocates do not publicly admit it, their true objective is to eventually decriminalize the use of all drugs.
The Origins of “Harm Reduction”
The concept of harm reduction was initially the brainchild of Hungarian born, U.S. philanthropist, George Soros. He established his “Open Society” organization in April 1993 to promote the open use of all drugs. Soros later expanded his idea to promote the decriminalization of other offenses such as prostitution, abortion, pedophilia, etc., and a leniency for all criminal acts. In other words, Soros sought a utopia of individual freedom with no restraints on behaviour. It was a wild and hazardous concept that did not lead to a civilized and orderly society. Soros and other progressive philanthropists have poured billions of dollars into the promotion of harm reduction policies worldwide. This concept particularly caught fire under successive Liberal governments. Canada is now in the throes of dealing with the collateral damage caused by the Liberals’ harm reduction policies on drugs.
Drug Consumption Sites
Bizarre drug policies began quietly in Vancouver in 2003, when four extremist advocates of harm reduction at the UBC Center for Excellence, together with a radical B.C. Medical Health Officer, began lobbying the federal government to establish a drug injection site in Vancouver’s east end. The drug injection sites, now renamed “drug consumption” sites to make them more palatable to the public, were purportedly a “safe” place for addicts to inject, smoke or ingest illegal drugs since healthcare employees would be present to save their lives should they overdose. The advocates of this policy claimed that the site would lead to increased treatment for addicts, improve their health and reduce crime in the area. The government bought into this illusion and in 2003 agreed to establish a “pilot” project for drug injection sites in Vancouver’s east end. What actually occurred as a result of this site in no way achieved any of the objectives claimed by the lobbyists. These lobbyists, however, were undeterred by the facts and determined to write another narrative about the site. They obtained $18 million from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in order to produce evidence that these sites were a great move forward in healing addicts. Their “research” was conducted by advocates with a conflict of interest, and in fact was in contradiction of the true situation. Further, their research was peer-reviewed only by like-minded advocates of drug injection sites. Significantly, despite numerous requests, these researchers refused to release the data to other scientists in order to allow them to replicate the results. Refusal to release data in scientific research is shocking and unacceptable in scientific circles and is a clear red flag that someone is pursuing an agenda that has nothing to do with legitimate scientific inquiry.
Consequently, it was no surprise that all the research conducted by these advocates concluded that the sites made a magnificent contribution to the treatment and care of drug addicts.
Unfortunately, the ideologically blind, progressive judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, in September 2011, based on the flawed research by the advocates, concluded in Canada (AG) v PHS Community Services Society that not only must the Vancouver site remain open, but also that other applications for drug injection sites should be approved across the country. The court concluded that to do otherwise would deprive addicts of their Charter s. 7 right to “life and security of person.” The fall-out from this Supreme Court decision quickly became apparent.
Saskatchewan was the only province that refused to establish drug consumption sites. The other provinces and territories did so, and crime increased in the vicinity of the sites. This was because addicts need a minimum of $40,000 annually to feed their addiction. Deaths by drug overdose increased and thousands of used needles were discarded in local parks and school yards near the sites. Businesses in the areas were forced to shut their doors during business hours in order to prevent addicts from harassing customers. Drug addicts leaving the sites walking into heavy traffic, fighting, screaming and cursing, disturbed the peace in the area. Drug injections took place not only at the sites, but also in streets, alleys, parks and doorways since addicts believed they now had a legal right to take drugs. Further, the drug injection sites became honeypots and meeting places for drug traffickers because police were ordered not to lay charges against traffickers or addicts in the vicinity of the sites. Overdose deaths did occur at the sites, but the majority occurred elsewhere — including right on the streets or in hospitals after prostrate bodies were transported there by police.
The streets in the vicinity of the sites had become chaotic and disordered and unsafe for the public. For example, on July 7, 2023, a woman, the mother of young children, walking near the Riverdale consumption site in Toronto, was killed by gunfire exchanged between two drug traffickers.
Rejection of Drug Consumption Sites
(a) Alberta
In 2024, Alberta closed consumption sites in Red Deer and Lethbridge. A peer reviewed study of the result of closing the Red Deer site was conducted, and it was found that there was no increase in overdose deaths, but rather an increase in the number of addicts seeking treatment subsequent to the closure. In 2025, Alberta announced the closing of an additional two sites, and it is expected that the remaining three consumption sites in the province will also be closed in the coming months.
(b) Ontario
In 2024, legislation was passed in Ontario to prohibit the operation of drug consumption sites within 200 metres of schools and daycare centres. Nine sites were closed as a result of this legislation. In March 2026, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford announced that the province would cease to fund all the remaining drug consumption sites effective June 13, 2026. The reason for the closing of all the sites, according to Mr. Ford, was that public safety required such action.
(c) Manitoba
In November 2025, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew announced, for reasons of public safety, that drug addicts would henceforth be confined to involuntary detention in Drug Prevention Centres for a period of 72 hours. Mr. Kinew knows a thing or two about substance abuse, since he was a former abuser. Mr. Kinew stated that, unlike intoxicated persons who can be held in drunk tanks (cells) for 24 hours until they sobered up, the withdrawal process for drug addicts is much harsher, and can result in behaviour that is erratic, aggressive and sometimes psychotic. Consequently, if the addicts are let out onto the streets too early prior to the completion of the withdrawal process, they frequently harass and harm citizens in public places, or end up in hospital beds and emergency rooms, which, according to Mr. Kinew, wastes precious healthcare resources. The Drug Prevention Centres also provide other services for addicts such as assessments by healthcare professionals, counselling, and other addiction assistance. Mr. Kinew claims that his legislation will allow the public to take back the streets and make Manitoba safe again.
Further, Manitoba conservative MP, Dan Mazier (Riding Mountain), introduced Bill C-272, on March 26, 2026, to require the federal government to ban drug consumption sites within 500 metres of school and daycare centres. He stated, when introducing his bill, “No parent should have to worry about their child stepping on a used needle in a playground or walking through a cloud of fentanyl smoke on the way to school”. Mr. Mazier said, “Children are no longer safe in the vicinity of drug consumption sites.”
(d) British Columbia
The NDP government in B.C. is the epicenter of tolerance for illicit drug use in Canada. B.C. has the highest number of drug addicts and deaths by drug overdose. B.C.’s NDP Premier David Eby was formerly employed as a lawyer for the controversial, left-wing Pivot Legal Society in Vancouver which advocates harm reduction policies, opposes drug laws and works to decriminalize prostitution. Mr. Eby, therefore, is an enthusiastic supporter of the progressive agenda, including drug consumption sites. Further, he requested that the federal government decriminalize in B.C. the possession of 2.5 grams or less of certain hard drugs. The federal government thought this was a great idea, and authorized a decriminalization pilot study for three years, from January 31, 2023, to January 31, 2026. The decriminalization, however, was useful for drug traffickers who simply kept in their possession, 2.5 grams of drugs, and when they sold that, obtained another 2.5 grams. The police were stymied because they could not arrest the dealers. Consequently, drug usage increased in B.C. The situation deteriorated to such an extent that Premier Eby was forced to request that the federal government withdraw its pilot project of decriminalization. The federal government therefore ended decriminalization of drugs in B.C. on January 31, 2026. Mr. Eby continued, however, to permit the operation of drug consumption sites in the province.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Drug Bandwagon
In October 2018, the federal Liberals, under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, an enthusiastic supporter of harm reduction, decriminalized cannabis (marijuana) in Canada. Trudeau admitted that he had smoked cannabis himself for recreational purposes when he was a backbencher MP, despite the fact that it was illegal to do so. By decriminalizing cannabis, the Liberals violated Canada’s ratification of three UN treaties on drugs which prohibited the distribution and use of illicit drugs. In violating these treaties, Canada joined only Uruguay in doing so. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) raised serious objections to this violation, but they were ignored by the Trudeau government. The result of decriminalizing cannabis has been horrendous, especially for teenagers and young adults:
A growing body of research indicates that cannabis seriously impacts mental health. Its use increases the risk not only of schizophrenia, but also psychosis, depression, and anxiety disorder, and irreparably lowers IQ. Further, hospital emergency departments are seeing a spike in the side-effects of chronic cannabis use, such as violent repeated vomiting lasting many days, with intense abdominal pain. This occurs in those who are chronic users of cannabis – three days a week or daily usage. Transport Canada has raised concerns about greatly increased traffic accidents occurring due to increased cannabis use.
“Safe” Drug Supply
As if drug consumption sites and decriminalization were not bad enough, the Liberal government had yet another bright idea with regard to drug addiction. Supposedly to prevent addicts from purchasing contaminated drugs from drug traffickers off the street, the government would provide addicts with a “free” so-called “safe” supply of drugs. These drugs, of course, are not “free” but are paid for by the taxpayer. Addicts were delighted by this government windfall of free drugs. They gleefully took the drugs and scampered off to sell the drugs to traffickers and used money from the sale to purchase the more powerful and deadlier drug, fentanyl. Deaths by drug overdose rapidly increased, not only in the major cities, but also in the smaller towns which were overwhelmed by homeless drug addicts. These smaller towns have a smaller tax base than larger cities and could not cover the costs of increased policing, housing and health/social services, and were overwhelmed by the drug problem and addicts littering their streets.
The Solution to Drug Addiction
Before we can adopt successful drug addiction policies, we must recognize that there is nothing glamorous or romantically heroic about altering reality with the drug du jour, be it marijuana, heroin or cocaine. Having said that, it must also be recognized that a solution to drug addiction will only be successful to the extent that it provides a holistic approach for addicts to obtain treatment that addresses the underlying cause of the addiction. In other words, the focus must be on recovery, not perpetuating substance abuse under the guise of harm reduction. This is the pathway taken by Alberta’s Recovery Model which has had success in reducing addiction and overdose deaths.
Treatment centres should also provide services such as mental and physical health care, temporary housing, and other support services for recovering addicts. Sweden and Portugal have taken similar pathways with marked success. In both these jurisdictions, drug addicts are sent into treatment, whether voluntary or involuntary (there is no difference in results). Treatment which focuses on recovery, however, is not a quick fix as it takes time, and setbacks are frequent. Nevertheless, programs that aim at recovery are a better proposition than costly and ineffective harm reduction policies which have harmed both addicts and society. Recovery programs such as Alberta’s are, for once, taxpayers’ money well spent.
For background information you may consult REAL Women’s brief on controlled drugs presented in 2014 to the House of Commons Public Safety and National security Committee at the following link:
https://realwomenofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Brief-141-Bill-C_2.pdf