A proposed plan by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to shut down temporary overdose prevention sites is raising serious concern among experts, who warn it could significantly worsen the overdose crisis across Canada. During a recent campaign stop in British Columbia, Poilievre pledged to eliminate what he labeled as “drug dens,” arguing that these facilities are ineffective and contribute to the problem rather than solving it.
These overdose prevention sites operate under special federal exemptions that allow them to provide supervised environments for drug use, with trained staff on hand to intervene in the event of an overdose. If these exemptions are not renewed by a potential Conservative government after they expire in September, many of these facilities could be forced to close.
Dr. M-J Milloy, a substance use researcher, criticized the proposal, highlighting the rising threat of potent synthetic drugs like fentanyl. He emphasized that these facilities not only reduce overdose deaths but also lead to increased access to treatment and reduce the spread of infections through needle sharing. While the Conservative platform suggests OPS locations could remain open by converting into federally regulated supervised consumption sites, it also outlines new restrictions — including mandatory registration and bans on proximity to certain public spaces — that could make such transitions difficult.
Supervised consumption sites differ from temporary OPS by offering broader services like addiction counselling and by undergoing more stringent approval processes. Though both aim to provide safer spaces for drug users, the stricter oversight and potential new regulations could jeopardize access to these lifesaving services.
Studies conducted over the past two decades have found that such sites significantly reduce overdose deaths and promote recovery. For example, research on Insite, the country’s first supervised consumption facility, revealed a substantial decrease in local fatal overdoses after its opening, without an increase in drug use in the surrounding community. These findings, widely published and unchallenged by serious scientific opposition, support the continuation of these programs as part of a public health strategy.
While Poilievre insists that the facilities fail to deliver results and advocates redirecting funding toward recovery programs, many experts argue that removing harm-reduction services during an ongoing crisis would cost more lives. Though the Conservatives claim support from some specialists in law enforcement and addiction services, critics stress that a balanced approach including both treatment and harm reduction is essential — not just for saving lives now, but for offering a pathway to recovery in the long term.
