The opioid addiction epidemic is a real problem, and there is a real divide between liberals and conservatives over how the federal government should respond to that crisis.
But there is also a a lot of noiseBecause drug addiction is already a difficult problem to solve, party politics often makes it even more difficult.
At the moment, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is claiming that the government has a “secret plan” to “legalise” hard drugs across the country. But what he’s referring to doesn’t seem to be “secret” and isn’t really a “plan”. (And it’s not about legalising hard drugs either – there’s a big difference between decriminalisation and legalisation.)
The basis for Poilievre’s claim is a story published by Blacklock’s Reporter, an Ottawa-based media outlet. According to that report, which was released Monday, a federal document used the term “national decriminalization” and said the government was prepared to use “all the tools at our disposal” to combat the opioid epidemic.
Three hours after Blacklock shared his story on social media, Poilievre alerted his own followers.
“BREAKING: Secret documents show NDP-Liberal government has hidden plan for ‘national decriminalization,’” Poilievre wrote.
In the days since, Poilievre has repeated similar claims in a further five posts on X (formerly known as Twitter) and four posts on his Instagram account. Prominent Conservative MPs Andrew Scheer and Melissa Lantsman have made similar posts to X, while the Conservative Party sent out a fundraising message to supporters on Tuesday claiming a “secret memo” had been exposed.
“Please do your part and help sensible Conservatives ensure Canada does not turn into one big drug den,” the email reads.
At a press conference in London, Ontario, Poilievre said Thursday that the government had a “secret document planning national decriminalization.”
“They tried to keep it a secret until after the next election, hoping Canadians wouldn’t find out,” he said.
The Origin of the ‘Secret Plan’ Story
According to the office of Ya’ara Saks, the minister of mental health and addictions, base for the story of Blacklock’s Reporter is a package with briefing materials that was being prepared for the minister’s appearance before a House committee in June.
The package was then posted on the federal government’s public government portal on July 19.
(Blacklock did not respond to a request to confirm which document formed the basis for their reporting, but a section on “national decriminalization” in the briefing paper matches an excerpt posted by Poilievre.)
The 134-page document contains a summary of “key points” and “key statistics” on several dozen topics relevant to Saks’ portfolio. These are the kinds of information and messages a minister would want to know or have on hand when appearing before a parliamentary committee.
There are sections marked “decriminalization” and “support for decriminalization in British Columbia” and then there is a section titled “national decriminalization.” Under that heading are four sentences.
“We are committed to saving lives and ensuring that people who use drugs do not die alone,” the document reads. “Our government is committed to working in partnership with all jurisdictions that have a comprehensive plan for decriminalizing possession of small amounts of substances for personal use.
“Their plan should include close monitoring and evaluation, and provide for enhanced health and social support, public engagement, and law enforcement training,” it continues. “We continue to work with willing jurisdictions to use all available tools to address this crisis, including decriminalization approaches.”
One can agree or disagree with the principles outlined there. But the reference to “willing jurisdictions” seems to complicate the idea of a national plan. And there is really nothing in those four sentences that was not already clear in the government’s public words and actions.
The real decriminalization debate
In 2022, the federal government will has granted British Columbia’s request for an exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which decriminalized personal possession of certain hard drugs as part of a three-year “pilot project.” The exemption came into effect in January 2023.
The City of Toronto subsequently filed its own request for an exemption, but the federal government turned down that request in May – in part, Saks said at the timebecause the Ontario provincial government did not support it.
When Poilievre asked in May whether the Liberal government would expand decriminalization, Justin Trudeau said that “the only way we can move forward with proposals in this country, around decriminalization or other methods of combating toxic drug overdoses, is if provinces step forward and actually ask for it.”
Later that month, Trudeau said his government would “continue to act responsibly with a science and evidence based approach who works with jurisdictions on the tools they need to combat the growing opioid and toxic drug epidemic.”
In short, the Liberal government’s position is that it is prepared to allow decriminalization, but only if a provincial government wants it.
The Conservatives disagree with the Liberal government’s openness, quite vehemently. But if the Liberal position was secret until this week, it wasn’t exactly well kept.
It is fair to debate the merits of decriminalization and the details of how it has been implemented in British Columbia. While that debate would ideally be based on facts — while conservatives tend to point to the death toll in British Columbia as evidence that policies like decriminalization and safer delivery have either failed or made matters worse — deaths in British Columbia have increased death toll in other provinces suggesting that the answer is not so simple.
The Conservatives say they would put more emphasis on treatment and recovery. Ironically, some of the Liberal government’s “key points” on treatment can be found on the next page of the minister’s briefing pack.
According to that document, nearly $2.6 billion in federal funding has been set aside to date for “mental health and substance abuse initiatives” through bilateral agreements with provinces.
The minister was also encouraged to mention the $150 million emergency treatment fund which was founded in 2018.
Should the federal government provide more money? Are provinces—which are primarily responsible for delivering health care—using that money effectively? Exactly how much more money would a Poilievre government provide? If safer delivery programs were to be shut down tomorrow, what would be the impact on the people who have access to those programs? If personal drug possession were to be recriminalized in British Columbia, would more people struggling with substance abuse end up in prison?
These questions show that there is plenty to discuss and debate without having to worry about secret plans.