Joint statement demands accountability, federal infrastructure, and binding commitments to make human rights real for everyone in Canada.

Regina (May 21, 2026) — As federal, provincial, and territorial representatives gather at the Forum of Ministers on Human Rights this week, the newly-formed Civil Society Forum for Human Rights in Canada is calling on governments to take immediate and concrete action on human rights implementation.  

The Civil Society Forum delivered their statement to the Honourable Minister Marc Miller, responsible for human rights implementation at the federal level, the Honourable Minister Rebecca Alty, and the Honourable Rob Oliphant, along with Attorneys Generals from several provinces and territories — stressing the statement’s importance as a guidepost for human rights implementation at all levels of government. 

“The timing of this Ministers’ Forum is critical. People across Canada are facing violence, discrimination, homelessness, environmental harm, and persistent inequality,” says Zoë Craig-Sparrow, Vice-President of Justice for Girls. “Canada participates in international review processes and receives recommendations, but domestically there is no implementation framework and no clear accountability mechanism. For Indigenous, racialized, migrant, low-income, women and gender-diverse persons, and disabled communities, these failures have life-and-death consequences.”

“Human rights cannot remain as simply words on paper. We need to close the gap between promises and action,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director at the National Right to Housing Network. “When human rights go unimplemented, it shapes everything — people are excluded from decisions that affect them, and governments use narrow interpretations of their obligations in court to avoid accountability under the Charter. Governments at every level must step up to protect and save lives.”

Six Demands for Immediate Action

The Civil Society Forum is calling on governments to act on six priorities:

1. Transparent and accountable Ministers’ Forum — Establish a public mandate, clear decision-making processes, and a follow-up mechanism to track implementation commitments.
2. A legislated national human rights implementation framework — Develop a legal framework, with civil society input, to translate Canada’s domestic and international human rights obligations into lived reality no later than December 2027.
3. A federal Department of Human Rights — Create a dedicated central body, working in coordination with the Departments of Intergovernmental Affairs and Justice, to champion human rights implementation and ensure cohesion across all levels of government.
4. Economic, social, and cultural rights as binding legal obligations — Affirm these rights are justiciable and align legislation, budgeting, and policy accordingly — including ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ahead of Canada’s UN review in early 2027.
5. A formal role for municipalities — Formalize local governments’ participation in human rights forums and implementation processes, given their frontline role in delivering programs that engage these rights.
6. Stable, ongoing funding for civil society engagement — Establish a civil society engagement fund, with contributions from each Forum member, to support treaty reporting, monitoring, and implementation work.

“As governments around the world openly challenge human rights, Canada has both the opportunity and the responsibility to demonstrate a different and more productive path forward, both in its interactions with other nations and through meaningful implementation at home,” says DJ Larkin, Executive Director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

 “We are united in our shared belief that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated,” says Meghan Doherty, Director of Global Policy and Advocacy at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. “And that systemic changes to Canada’s human rights infrastructure are necessary for the realization of any and all of our human rights.”

-30-

Media Contact:
Jessica Tan
Communications Lead
National Right to Housing Network
Jessica@housingrights.ca
613-621-4575

About the Civil Society Forum for Human Rights in Canada

The Civil Society Forum for Human Rights in Canada is a group of civil society organizations, advocates, and academics united around a shared vision: a Canada where human rights are not merely aspirational, but legally binding, fully funded, and felt in the daily lives of every person in this country.

Signatories

• Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights
• Alex Neve, Professor of International Human Rights Law, University of Ottawa
• Amnesty International Canadian Section (English-speaking)
• Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St Thomas University
• Canadian Centre for Housing Rights
• Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children
• Canadian Drug Policy Coalition/Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues
• Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
• Charter Committee on Poverty Issues
• Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change
• Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa
• John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights
• Justice for Girls
• Maytree
• Mining Watch Canada
• National Right to Housing Network 
• Righting Relations Canada
• Sandra Wisner, Director, International Human Rights Program, The Henry N.R. Jackman 
• Faculty of Law, University of Toronto 
• Social Rights Advocacy Centre
• South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario 
• The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies
• The Helix Foundation for Children and Youth

Backgrounder:

Despite being a signatory to numerous international human rights treaties, Canada has no formal infrastructure to implement recommendations from United Nations human rights bodies. This means that when the UN identifies gaps in Canada’s human rights record — on housing, health care, Indigenous rights, and more — there is no legal obligation, dedicated institution, or funded mechanism to act on them. The result is a persistent gap between the rights Canada promises and the reality people experience.

• https://maytree.com/publications/strengthening-canadas-implementation-reporting-and-follow-up-for-international-human-rights-commitments/
• https://maytree.com/publications/canada-must-strengthen-its-mechanisms-for-the-domestic-implementation-of-civil-and-political-rights/

The post Canadian Civil Society Organizations Unite in Call for Human Rights Action at Minister’s Forum  appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

Since that date, at least 18,000 people have died from unregulated drugs in the province, and more than 50,000 from opioids and/or stimulants across Canada.^{3 4} This crisis is defined first by staggering and ongoing loss of life. People who use drugs and their families have borne its deepest harms: death, grief, ongoing suffering, and life-altering brain injury. Frontline workers who have dedicated their lives to this work also carry deep and lasting harms, including trauma, family disruption, inadequate mental health support, and the burden of working in flawed systems that leave them responding to preventable suffering without the needed tools and resources. Communities have been left to carry these effects, while public systems face significant strain through rising hospitalizations, emergency medical services calls, and pressure across health and social services.

Though this is a B.C. anniversary, the issue is national. Since B.C.’s declaration, Alberta declared a public health crisis in 2017, the Yukon declared a substance use health emergency in 2022, and numerous First Nations governments and councils declared related states of emergency (including but not limited to Carcross/Tagish First Nation, Dene Tha’ First Nation, Athabasca Tribal Council, Sipekne’katik First Nation, Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation). Ten years after B.C.’s declaration, the loss and grief continue in communities across the country, made worse by stigma, misinformation and politicization.

In B.C., declaring a public health emergency allowed for medical health officers to collect and analyze more detailed, real-time information on both fatal and non-fatal overdoses across the health system.⁵ Previously, limited information on overdoses was only reported if someone died. The declaration allowed medical health officers to collect information related to any overdose in the province where emergency personnel or health care workers respond, including location, the drugs used, and how they were taken. The expanded authority connected to the emergency declaration was conferred by the province’s Public Health Act. This is an important distinction between B.C.’s declaration and, for example, the Yukon’s, which was largely symbolic, lacking authority tied to specific legislation.

With the authority of the emergency declaration, then Health Minister Terry Lake issued ministerial order 488/2016 in December 2016, ordering Emergency Health Services and the regional health boards to provide overdose prevention services “in any place there is a need for these services, as determined by the level of overdose related morbidity and mortality.”⁶ Within weeks, approximately 20 overdose prevention sites opened across the province, with many more operational within a year.^{7 8} The speed of this response demonstrates what is possible when there is political will and decision makers act with real urgency. Despite this initial service expansion, the order was never enforced and largely depended on individual health authorities’ willingness to act proactively, leaving communities across the province without access to life-saving services.⁹

Beyond the specific authority it conferred, B.C.’s emergency declaration held symbolic weight. For many people, it was a meaningful recognition of their lived reality. It offered a sign that perhaps the province would act with the seriousness and urgency required in an emergency. In the ensuing months and years, the province increased investments into some frontline services, oversaw the rapid opening of overdose prevention sites, created the Overdose Emergency Response Centre, and initially moved to expand access to safer supply. Ten years on, the urgency of the declaration seems to have ebbed away, alongside the government’s willingness to put the authority it confers to use.

Charting the past ten years, it feels impossible to separate the personal from the political, the specific grief of individual losses from the collective, cumulative exhaustion of so much loss. This is compounded by witnessing the ongoing crush of a system that actively harms people, and the ways decisionmakers continue to prop it up. It is deeply wrong to have to argue that the people we love should be able to live, receive care and support, and have the things they need to be well.

In recent years, we have witnessed a regression: some opportunistic public figures have peddled mis- and disinformation, driving the rollback of evidence-based harm-reduction measures that save lives, prevent unnecessary harms, and support safer, healthier communities. Governments and policymakers have caved to stigma, othering people who use drugs and veering away from evidence-based approaches and life-saving interventions.

Alongside the pain, this past decade has also seen deep care and compassion, mutual support and reciprocity within communities, solidarity from unlikely corners and intertwined movements, and persistence in the face of immense hardship—and we must recognize and uplift those bright spots. We believe in a future where all people, no matter their relationship to substance use, can access safety, well-being, autonomy and community. It does not have to be like this. People create law and policy. People can change it.

To understand how this reality came to be, we must look at the systems and structures that create and uphold it.

• Our current drug laws create an unregulated, toxic drug supply. This drives preventable death and injury. Policing and criminalizing drug use and restricting services then increases risk, displacement, and preventable harm.  
• Our system of prohibition is sustained by politics that reward punishment-first narratives and short-term fixes over evidence-based, life-saving action and systems-level shifts.  
• The unregulated toxic drug supply means proven approaches that reduce death and harm are vital for community well-being: these include supervised consumption sites, drug checking, naloxone and safer supply. These supports and services are a necessary part of an approach to substance use that includes fact-based education, universal access to voluntary, non-profit evidence-based treatment, and ensuring all people have their basic needs met through safe housing, universal health care, income supports and more.  
• Ultimately, stopping the harm, grief and loss of this public health crisis requires that we shift from control and punishment responses (including policing and forced treatment) to health and rights-based systems. We must protect and expand services, centre the leadership of people with lived and living experience, and ensure people have safe homes, access to care, and adequate income to meet their needs. Ultimately, we need to build a pathway from the harms of prohibition toward legal regulation for safety.

The Vision for B.C. Drug Policy maps a path to a future beyond prohibition, anchored in the guiding principles of autonomy, choice, and compassion. Co-created by a provincial working group of civil society organizations and people who use drugs, the Vision lays out four key areas for reform:

• Drug Regulation: The Vision advocates for responsible regulation of drugs to displace the toxic unregulated drug supply  
• Decriminalization: Emphasizing the need to separate policing from substance use, the Vision aims to empower individuals to seek support without fear of criminal sanctions.  
• Addressing Substantive Equality: Recognizing the intersectionality of drug-related issues, the Vision seeks to tackle root social problems perpetuating cycles of poverty, homelessness, family separation, and social exclusion.  
• Detox, Recovery, and Treatment: Focusing on voluntary choices, the Vision calls for evidence-based programs and services to reduce the trauma and death associated with the current unregulated treatment landscape.

The powers conferred by the public health emergency declaration are still valid: our elected leaders must act to fulfill its spirit and intention. This includes enforcing the Ministerial Order for overdose prevention services “in any place there is a need.”

On this anniversary, we send our love, sorrow and rage to everyone who is mourning, who is angry, who is weary, who is trying. We remember and honour the people we have lost. We acknowledge the thousands of people living with grief who continue to work toward a better future, all while some who hold power manipulate the issue for political gain, cut funding and restrict evidence-based services, and politicize and criticize life-saving work. We call upon the province of B.C., alongside all provinces and territories, to act with the urgency a public health emergency requires.

Shifting from harmful policies toward a vision for the future grounded in autonomy, choice, and compassion is an act of love and care for all. We must hold to our vision for a better future and fight for it: that future is only possible if we act.

Events Marking 10 Years of B.C.’s Toxic Drug Public Health Emergency

Across Canada, communities will mark this anniversary. We’ve collected a handful of events below. If you’d like to share another with us, please email info@drugpolicy.ca

10 Years of the Toxic Drug Crisis
Hosted by Len Pierre Consulting, this webinar features Marnie Scow exploring Indigenous approaches to harm reduction through teachings rooted in relationship, responsibility, and community care.

Date: April 14th, 2026
Time: 12:00 – 1:30pm PT
Location: Online Webinar

Moment of Silence and Minute of Rage
Join The BC Coalition of Organizations By/For People Who Use Drugs in marking the 10 Year Anniversary of the Province of B.C.’s declaration of a public health emergency due to the toxic drug supply with a Provide-wide moment of silence and minute of rage.

Date: April 14th, 2026
Time: 2:00pm PT
Location: You can do this as an individual activity, in a small group, at a larger public event in your community or by joining us at the ‘In Sadness and Rage’ demonstration at the Provincial Legislature in Victoria.

In Sadness and Rage
Join Moms Stop the Harm, Doctors for Safer Drug Policy, PEERS, NANDU, SOLID and others for a rally to rage, grieve and remember.

Date: April 14th, 2026
Time: 1:00 – 3:30 pm PT
Location: Provincial Legislature Lawn, Bellville Street, Victoria, BC.

Naming a Crisis
This community arts project will feature the names and photos of people lost to drug-related harms in an audio and video installation as part of a community art show at the Victoria Arts Council space in the Bay Centre on lək̓ʷəŋən Traditional Territory.

Date: April 7 – 26, 2026
Time: 12:00 – 5:00pm, Tuesday-Sunday
Location: Victoria Arts Council space in the Bay Centre in Victoria, BC

A Service of Remembrance and Prayer
This Sunday, Amanda Jane Burrows from First United and Moms Stop The Harm will be at the Christ Church Cathedral for a service of remembrance and prayer for the opioid crisis.

Date: April 12, 2026
Time: 12:00 – 4:00pm PT
Location: 690 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC

Community Action Team: Sunshine Coast
Join the Community Action Team: Sunshine Coast for a week of events – a chance to learn, support each other, and take real action.

Date: April 13 – 19, 2026
Location: Multiple events, click here for details.

Qathet Commmunity Action Team
Join the Qathet Community Action Team to commemorate this anniversary, remember those who have died, and acknowledge the ongoing impacts of this crisis in our community.

Date: April 14, 2026
Time: 11:00am – 3:00pm PT
Location: #101 – 4871 Joyce Ave, Powell River, BC

Prince George Community Action Team
The Prince George Community Action Team has organized a demonstration to acknowledge the 10-year anniversary of the Toxic Drug Crisis in BC.

Date: April 14, 2026
Time: 11:00am – 1:00pm PT
Location: Intersection of HWY 16 & 97 (By Mr. PG)

An Act Of Remembrance
Join ANKORS East Kootenay for An Act Of Remembrance to honour and remember those we have lost to the toxic drug supply. April 14th 2026 is the 10th year anniversary of the toxic drug crisis being declared a public health emergency in B.C.

Date: April 14, 2026

Time:
At 11am the Memorial will begin
Lunch is Served at 12:30
Open Mic Begins at 1:30
Film Screening of No Fixed Address: The White Cart Memorial begins at 2PM

Location: 2324 2nd St S, Cranbrook, BC

1. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016hlth0026-000568   ︎
2. According to current data, 86 people died in January 2016. As data is collected and/or confirmed over time, it is normal for this information to change. ︎
3. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiY2EwYTk1YjctYTYwNy00MTViLTgwZmItYjFmN2Y1MzdlNjI3IiwidCI6IjZmZGI1MjAwLTNkMGQtNGE4YS1iMDM2LWQzNjg1ZTM1OWFkYyJ9   ︎
4. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/   ︎
5. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016hlth0026-000568  ︎
6. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016HLTH0094-002737  ︎
7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34854162/   ︎
8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30708237/   ︎
9. Beyond provincial order 488/2016, there is a federal authority that provides for overdose prevention sites. In December 2017, Health Canada announced that it would authorize emergency “overdose prevention sites” for provinces and territories that request them, through a section 56 class exemption. This allows for the rapid establishment of overdose prevention sites as a shorter-term response to address urgent public health needs, without the comprehensive and burdensome application process for a supervised consumption site. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/12/statement_from_theministerofhealthregardingtheopioidcrisis.html  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/controlled-substances-precursor-chemicals/policy-regulations/policy-documents/subsection-56-1-class-exemption-urgent-public-health-needs-sites-provinces-territories.html  ︎

The post 10 Years in Crisis: B.C.’s Decade-Long Public Health Emergency appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

Toronto, ON | March 31, 2026––Today, exactly one year since the Government of Ontario forced nine Consumption and Treatment Services sites (CTS, also known as supervised consumption sites, or SCS) to close across the province, more than 250 organizations — led by the HIV Legal Network, the Drug Strategy Network of Ontario, and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition — have sent a clear message to the Government of Ontario. Together, they are calling on the government to respect the expert advice of organizations with unparalleled experience on substance use issues, follow the mounting evidence demonstrating the clear need for SCS, and pledge to keep individuals and neighborhoods safer for everyone by reversing the misguided decision to defund the remaining eight funded CTS sites in Ontario.

Despite claims from the province that the closure of CTS sites last March caused no problem, data shared at a media conference today highlight a troubling trend: Ontario-wide data shows a sharp increase in EMS calls (+69.5%) and emergency department use (+67%) for opioid-related overdoses in the period following the forced closure of nine CTS sites in March 2025 under the so-called Community Care and Recovery Act.

“These trends are troubling and warrant very careful scrutiny by the province,” says Dr. Gillian Kolla, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University. “The timing and magnitude of these increases are consistent with concerns that were raised at the time of the closures to the Government of Ontario by countless public health experts, including their own internal advisors. The government has an obligation to take these trends seriously and to consider what role the removal of supervised consumption services may have played.”

In the City of Toronto, EMS calls for opioid-related toxicities have increased by 82% since the closures of CTS sites, rising from 192 calls in March 2025 to 350 monthly calls in January 2026, a sharp upward shift consistent with what experts warned would happen following site closures, and starkly at odds with the prior downward trend. In Hamilton, where the city’s CTS closed in April 2025, opioid-related EMS responses rose from 66 in April 2025 to 199 in February 2026 — the highest recorded monthly count since reporting began. Taken together, these trends raise serious concerns about the flawed and ultimately inconclusive Alberta crown corporation study recently invoked by the Ontario government to justify the closures.

The eight remaining sites to be defunded in June 2026 have served 120,997 unique people and reversed 15,402 overdose emergencies, aided by exceptional client-provider relationships and an impressive suite of wraparound services, including primary healthcare, voluntary addiction and mental health treatment opportunities, specialized social supports, and more.

“As someone who has experienced both sides of the system, harm reduction is not theoretical to me — it is life-saving,” says Akosua Gyan-Mante. “I’ve gone from being a service user to now supporting others on the frontlines, and I’ve seen firsthand how compassion, dignity, and non-judgment can keep people alive long enough to access care and build stability.”

Harm reduction initiatives and SCS are also proven to reduce Ontario’s tax burden by preventing HIV and hepatitis C transmission, among other cost-saving benefits.

“The closure of these sites, and the wider and illogical attack on harm reduction in Ontario and across Canada, is deeply worrisome and already proving deadly,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director of the HIV Legal Network. “Starving supervised consumption sites of funding and pressuring people into an abstinence-only model — including HART Hubs — will not work. Supervised consumption is a key part of the response to the crisis of our toxic, unregulated drug supply: it cannot be replaced.”

“We strongly encourage the advancement of drug policies that help, not harm, individual and community health and safety,” says Michael Parkinson, Executive Director of the Drug Strategy Network of Ontario. “The Government of Ontario has a duty to ensure the life, liberty, and security of all of its residents. Intentionally defunding proven interventions guarantees dangerous and expensive results, threatening the relief we all seek and deserve.”

We are calling on the Government of Ontario to respect the evidence and immediately reverse its disastrous decision to further defund SCS and force their closure during an ongoing public health emergency of historic magnitude.

-30-

For the Evidence Brief that shares data on the impact of 2025 CTS closures in Ontario, please see What the Evidence Says about Defunding Ontario’s Remaining Supervised Consumption Sites.

For more information on the need to scale up supervised consumption services Canada-wide, please see Scaling Up Supervised Consumption Services: What has changed in Canada?

Media contact
Dylan DeMarsh – d.dmarsh@hivlegalnetwork.ca

The post Organizations Worldwide Denounce Ontario’s Decision to Defund Remaining Supervised Consumption Sites appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

Together, we have advanced research, policy, and community engagement to address some of the most pressing issues in substance use, human rights and public health. We would like to express our deep appreciation for our time with SFU and the people who have supported our work there, and for the support of the many community members, donors, and partners who have made this work possible.

Operating as an independent not-for-profit organization will better reflect the national scope of our work and allow us to build transparent and accountable governance structures that support community leadership and impact.

 What does this mean for you?

• Our work continues without interruption. Our priorities and commitment to evidence-informed, community-driven policy change remain the same.
• Our partnership with SFU continues. We will continue to collaborate on important research and knowledge mobilization together with researchers and leaders at SFU. CDPC’s Executive Director DJ Larkin remains an Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Health Sciences.
• If you are a donor (thank you!), going forward you will need to make your donation directly to CDPC to support our work. After March 31, 2026, CDPC will no longer receive donations made through SFU. You can make a one-time or monthly donation here.
• We want to stay in touch. If you receive email from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, you will continue to do so. If you are uncertain and you want to ensure you’re on the list to stay connected, you can sign up here.

Thank you for being part of this work. Your support has helped build a strong foundation for this next phase, and we are excited about what we will continue to achieve together.

If you have any questions, please reach out directly to info@drugpolicy.ca

The post CDPC is now an independent not-for-profit appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

The Honourable Doug Ford, MPP
Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Via email: premier@ontario.ca | doug.fordco@pc.ola.org

The Honourable Sylvia Jones, MPP
Deputy Premier, Minister of Health 
Via email: sylvia.jones@ontario.ca | sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org 

The Honourable Vijay Thanigasalam, MPP 
Associate Minister of Mental Health and Addictions
Via email: vijay.thanigasalam@ontario.ca | vijay.thanigasalam@pc.ola.org

Dear Premier Ford, Minister Jones, and Associate Minister Thanigasalam,

RE: Defunding of all supervised consumption sites in Ontario

On behalf of the organizational signatories below, we urge you to reconsider the decision to defund the last eight provincially-funded supervised consumption sites (SCS) in Ontario. The evidence in support of SCS — provided to you by internal staff and reports as well as recommendations from Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, among others — is unequivocal and validated by decades of research. SCS prevent deaths, injuries, and other negative health impacts disproportionately borne by Ontarians who use drugs; reduce the burden on overtaxed first responders, hospital personnel and social service staff; and reduce both public drug consumption and drug debris.

The eight sites facing June 2026 closure have served 120,997 unique people and reversed 15,402 overdoses while maintaining or improving community safety and providing numerous wraparound services including primary health care. These sites directly provide and/or connect people with addiction and mental health treatment opportunities and have reduced Ontario’s tax burden by millions of dollars annually through the prevention of HIV and hepatitis C transmission. Ontario-wide data following the 2025 SCS closures demonstrate a sharp increase in EMS (+69.5%) and emergency department use (+ 67%) for opioid-related overdoses, as well as an increase of deaths in private residences and outdoor settings.

SCS are an essential part of the ecosystem of community care that includes a wide variety of treatment and supports highly valued by local communities — and not available anywhere else. While HART Hubs offer some supports, they cannot replace SCS and the low-barrier, emergency care they offer when people experience a life-threatening overdose. The intentional exclusion of SCS at HART Hubs as well as the prohibition on needle and syringe distribution creates needless barriers to people accessing broader healthcare and social services. The choice to cut these services represents not only the loss of desperately needed emergency care, but also the fracturing of relationships nurtured between healthcare providers and people who use drugs — relationships that are a pathway to other supports. For example, if someone chooses to pursue abstinence, SCS can support them to connect with abstinence-based care. 

Notably, wait times for publicly-funded withdrawal management services, outpatient services, and residential addiction treatment facilities in Ontario can often be several months long, despite recommendations since 2017 for universal, evidence-based, publicly available, voluntary addiction treatment on demand. Further, the pursuit of abstinence is far from a linear process. Following a course of treatment, the immediately increased risk of life-threatening overdose is well-documented. In Ontario, treatment is also provided in the context of an unregulated industry where anyone can offer services. SCS keep people alive until treatment is available or until they can meet their own goals, including but not limited to abstinence.

Effective law and policy must be grounded in evidence, and shifting funding from SCS elsewhere is not supported by evidence or the public at large. Defunding SCS in Ontario will hurt the most marginalized people in our communities, namely people experiencing homelessness, people living in extreme poverty, and people who consume criminalized drugs. The urgent calls are clear from grieving Ontario residents, people who consume or serve people who consume unregulated drugs, health professionals, community safety experts, and more: SCS are an essential service in need of expansion, not elimination.

There is a formidable wealth of experience and expertise on issues of substance use in Ontario available to policy makers. We encourage and remain open to dialogue. 

We urge a reversal of the decision to defund SCS. 

Signed,

Canadian Drug Policy Coalition
Drug Strategy Network of Ontario
HIV Legal Network
ANCS Sénégal
2-Spirited People of the 1st Nations
2039192 Ontario Inc
A Womb With A View
Aboriginal Legal Services
Access Alliance
Action Hepatitis Canada
Adam Newman MPC
Addiction Services Central Ontario
Addictions and Mental Health Ontario
Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario
Africa Network of People Who Use Drugs (AfricaNPUD)
AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa 
AIDS Bereavement and Resiliency Program Of Ontario (ABRPO)
AIDS Committee Newfoundland & Labrador
AIDS Committee of Durham Region
AIDS Committee of Ottawa
AIDS New Brunswick
AIVL
akzept e.V. Bundesverband für akzeptierende Drogenarbeit und humane Drogenpolitik
Alliance for Healthier Communities
Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa
Amnesty International Canada (ES)
Anglican Diocese of Toronto
Anishnawbe Health Toronto
AQPSUD
ARCH Disability Law Centre 
ArtHouseTO 
Asian Community AIDS Services
Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec
Association for Humane Drug Policy, Norway
Association pour la santé publique du Québec
Awen Consulting Services (International Harm Reduction Capacity Building)
BC Civil Liberties Association
BC-Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Being Alive/People with AIDS Action Coalition
Blood Ties Four Directions Centre
BOOM Health
Bras outaouais
Breakaway Community Services
Bronx Movil
Butterfly- Asian and Migrant Sex Worker Support Network
CACTUS Montréal
Cambridge council on aging 
Canadian Civil Liberties Association 
Canadian Federation of Mental Health Nurses
Canadian Mental Health Association – Sudbury/Manitoulin
Canadian Mental Health Association – Champlain East
Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario 
CanHepC
Care Through Chaos
Casey House
CASON
CATIE
CAYR Community Connections
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation 
Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation
Centretown Community Health Centre 
Changemark Research + Evaluation
Church of St Stephen-in-the-Fields
Clinique juridique Grand-Nord Legal Clinic
Coderix Medical Clinic
Community Health Project Los Angeles 
Community-Based Research Centre (CBRC)
Comprehensive Treatment Clinic
Comprehensive Treatment Clinic – Community Initiatives
Cornerstone Housing for Women
Cranstoun
CUPE 3903
CUPE 5536
CUPE Local 5399
CUPE Ontario
DAP Health Harm Reduction
Davenport 4 Palestine
Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood and Community Health Centre
Deliberar ORG
DIY Community Health Timmins
Doctors for Safer Drug Policy
Dopamine 
Dr Joel Voth Medicine Professional Corporation
Drug Injecting Services in Canterbury Trust (NZ)
EACH+EVERY: Businesses for Harm Reduction
East Coast Prison Justice Society
East End Community Health Centre
Elementa
Elevate NWO
Elgin-Oxford Legal Clinic
Elizabeth Fry Society of Northwestern Ontario
Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA)
European Network of People who Use Drugs CLG
Evangel Hall Mission
Families for Addiction Recovery (FAR)
Feast Centre for Indigenous STBBI Research
FightBack! KW
Flemingdon Health Centre
Fontbonne Ministries
Forearms of Change Center to Enable community
Fred Victor
Freddie
Gay Men’s Sexual Health Alliance
George Hull Centre for Children and Families
Gerstein Crisis Centre
Grandmothers Act to Save the Planet (GASP)
Guelph & Wellington Poverty Elimination Collaborative
Guelph Community Health Centre
Harlem United
Harm Reduction Australia 
Harm Reduction Nurses Association / L’association des infirmiers et infirmières en réduction des méfaits
Health Equity Alliance of Nova Scotia
Health Providers Against Poverty
Healthcare for All Coalition 
HealthRIGHT 360
Hepatitis C Elimination Roadmap Ontario
HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO)
HIV Justice Network
Homeless Youth Alliance
HOPS – healthy options project Skopje
House Of Sophrosyne
Housing Works, Inc.
IAVGO Community Legal Clinic 
Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC)
Indigenous Harm Reduction Network
Indonesian Harm Reduction Network
Inner City Family Health Team
Inner City Health and Wellness Program, University of Alberta
instituto RIA
Interfaith Grand River
International Network of People who Use Drugs
International Network on Health, Hepatitis and Substance Use (INHSU)
Into the Outside Mind
IRIS Estrie
Jean Tweed Centre
JM Drama Alumni
John Humphrey Centre for Peace and Human Rights
Kensington Health
Kensington-Bellwoods Community Legal Services
Kickstart Medical
Kootenay Insurrection for Safe Supply
LAMP Community Health Centre
Langs Farm Village Association (Langs)
Legal Assistance of Windsor
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat
Mad Studies Hub York University 
Magpies place volunteer for outreach
Mainline
Maytree
Médecins du Monde Canada – Doctors of the World Canada
Médecins du Monde International Network
META:PHI
Metzineres sccl
Mindful Nurse Gardener Inc. 
Moms Stop the Harm
Mothercraft, Breaking the Cycle
Moyo Health and Community Services
Mozia Women’s Network Society
My Brain My Choice Initiative (Germany)
National Harm Reduction Coalition
National Overdose Response Service
National Right to Housing Network
Native Child and Family Services of Toronto 
Neighbourhood Legal Services
Neighbourhood Legal Services (London & Middlesex) Inc.
Niagara Region Anti-Racism Association 
Nurse 2 Nurse Peer Support
Oasis unité mobile d’intervention
OCRINT
Ontario Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Strategy
Ontario AIDS Network
Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS)
Ostrowski Medicine Professional Corporation
PACT de rue
PAN 
Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre (PARC)
Parkdale Community Legal Services
Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre
PASAN (Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network)
PATH: Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes 
PEERS Alliance
Penticton and Area Overdose Prevention Society (P+OPS)
People’s Health Movement-Canada
Planned Parenthood Toronto
Positive Living Niagara
Pozitive Pathways Community Services
PREKURSOR Foundation
Reach Out Chatham Kent (ROCK)
RECAP
RECLAIM Collective 
Recovery Care
Regent Park Community Health Centre
Regent Park Community Ministry
Regional HIV AIDS Connection
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO)
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Sudbury & District
Réseau ACCESS Network
Respect Rx Pharmacy
Retired Executives for Social Equity
Rideauwood Addiction and Family Services
Righting Relations Canada
Shelter Health Network
Shelter Housing Justice Network
Skana Family Learning Centre
Skoun, Lebanese Addictions Center 
SLO Bangers Syrunge Exchange and Overdose Prevention Program 
Social Development Centre Waterloo Region
Social Planning Toronto
South African Network of People who Use Drugs
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
South Riverdale CHC
St Felix Centre
St. Michael’s Homes
Street Cats YYC
Street Haven
Street Nurses Network
Substance Overdose Prevention and Education Network (SOPEN)
Substance Use Health Network
Sudbury Temporary Overdose Prevention Society
Sunset Country Family Health Team
The Ally Centre of Cape Breton
The Centre for Psychology and Emotion Regulation 
The Gilbert Centre for Social and Support Services
The Neighbourhood Group Community Services
The Ottawa Mission
The Peterson Foundation
The Seeking Help Project
The Sidewalk Project
Thrive HIV Prevention and Support
Toronto Board of Health
Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance (THRA)
Toronto Indigenous Harm Reduction
Toronto Overdose Prevention Society
Toronto’s Drug Checking Service and Ontario’s Drug Checking Community 
Tracking(IN)Justice Project
Unison Health and Community Services
Up North Harm Reduction 
Vibrant Community Health
VIRCAN Care & Research Inc.
Washington Office on Latin America
Waterloo Region Community Legal Services
Waterloo Region Drug Action Team
Welcome Centre Shelter for Women & Families
Wellington Guelph Drug Strategy
West Neighbourhood House
Women and HIV / AIDS Initiative
WoodGreen Community Services
Workers for Ethical Substance Use Policy 
Youth RISE
YWCA Toronto

The post OPEN LETTER RE: DEFUNDING OF ALL SUPERVISED CONSUMPTION SITES IN ONTARIO appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

The evidence on these issues has been well-established for decades. We note that the Alberta government is attempting to support its decision with its own flawed six-month study that contradicts the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the harmful impacts on communities when a site closes. In Ontario, supervised consumption site closures have been associated with several harms over the past year, including sharp increases in EMS-treated opioid toxicities (+69.5%)  and in emergency department visits for opioid toxicities (+67%), as well as an increase of deaths in private residences and outdoor settings.

As experts in drug policy, we emphasize that the rate of toxic drug deaths is directly impacted by the composition and volatility of the unregulated drug supply, which is currently outside of the oversight and control of any regulatory body. Shockingly, the Government of Alberta says now is the time to close these sites because overdose deaths have dropped “about 39 per cent” since a peak in 2023. But 602 people lost their lives in only six months in 2025. We are still in the midst of a toxic drug crisis, and supervised consumption sites are crucial to reducing overdose deaths. Eliminating a critical, evidence-based overdose prevention tool defies all logic.  

The supervised consumption site in Calgary alone responded to 475 drug-related events in the first three quarters of 2025. To be clear, these numbers represent lives that would have been lost without the availability of supervised consumption services.  

People who use drugs in Calgary and Lethbridge will lose a lifeline when these sites close in June 2026. Removing access to one of the most evidence-based, proven tools available to reduce preventable drug-related deaths and injuries is a reckless choice with clear consequences: more needless suffering. In the context of the volatile, toxic, unregulated drug supply, supervised consumption services are an essential element of a broader approach that includes access to voluntary, regulated, evidence-based substance use treatment. Increased investments in abstinence-based treatment services do not replace the unique and life-saving service provided by supervised consumption. It is well established that working towards abstinence, for those that choose to do so, is not a linear process. For example, the increased risk of life-threatening overdose following substance use treatment is well-documented. By ensuring the availability of a range of evidence-informed services, including supervised consumption, we are better able to support people and reduce preventable deaths. Harm reduction and access to voluntary treatment services go hand in hand.

We stand in solidarity with people who use drugs and their families, as well as frontline workers who will bear the brunt of harm from this policy decision. We are committed to working with allies in Alberta to advance substance use policy that is grounded in evidence and creates safer, healthier communities for every member of our society, regardless of their relationship to substance use.

The HIV Legal Network and Canadian Drug Policy Coalition call on the Government of Alberta to immediately reverse this decision.

The post Alberta’s Decision to Close Supervised Consumption Sites Will Result in Needless Death appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

Ottawa, Canada | March 24, 2026—Yesterday, the United Nations Human Rights Committee released a report rebuking Canada’s narrow interpretation of the “right to life” and called for action to save and protect lives.

Human rights groups, including the National Right to Housing Network (NRHN), the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC), the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), and HIV Legal Network welcomed the report, which follows the Committee’s review of Canada’s implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) earlier this month.

“This is a significant and necessary correction,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director of the National Right to Housing Network. “Canada has treated international human rights obligations as largely symbolic. The Committee has now made it clear: as a party to international human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Canada has made binding commitments that require real action—especially in the face of preventable deaths.” 

The UN Committee expressed surprise during the review when Canada’s delegation stated that Canada does not accept the Committee’s authoritative findings that the right to life imposes “positive obligations” on governments to ensure access to essential health care, address homelessness, the drug toxicity crisis, or climate change. 

Canada has not changed its position despite the Committee consistently affirming that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that threaten life. “Positive measures” require states to take proactive steps to guarantee rights, rather than merely refrain from violating them. This means tackling the root causes of preventable deaths, including homelessness, poverty, and the drug toxicity crisis. Notably, Canada had previously earned an “E” grade for rejecting a Committee decision affirming these principles in Toussaint v Canada. 

In their report, the United Nations Human Rights Committee highlighted: 

• Rising drug toxicity deaths: The Committee expressed particular concern about “the very high number of deaths related to drug toxicity,” which “affects persons experiencing homelessness and poverty and disproportionately affect Indigenous persons.” Drug policies must be primarily based on “public health, harm reduction and human rights considerations.” This acknowledgment reinforces the need for a coordinated, rights-based response to overlapping crises and effective access to services, including harm reduction services. This is of particular importance at a time where both Ontario and Alberta have just announced the closure of many supervised consumption services by mid-June. 
• Lack of implementation mechanisms: Critically, Canada currently has no effective domestic mechanism to receive, coordinate, and implement recommendations from international human rights bodies. Without such a mechanism, Canada is failing to meaningfully act on guidance from the international community—including recommendations that could help address homelessness and unregulated drug toxicity to prevent further loss of life. 
• Gaps in the legal system: Canada is not doing enough to ensure that its international human rights obligations are understood and applied within its own legal system. The Committee called on Canada to strengthen awareness of the ICCPR among judges, prosecutors, and lawyers so that these obligations are meaningfully considered in domestic court decisions—an issue with profound implications for cases involving housing, homelessness, access to essential health and social services, and encampments. 
• Encampment evictions and rights violations: The Committee expressed concern about the use of extraordinary legal measures, including the notwithstanding clause, an issue that has tremendous impact on people marginalized by policy. For example, provincial governments threaten encampment residents with eviction despite positive court decisions without providing access to safe and adequate housing alternatives. 

“We strongly support the Committee’s call for Canada to take ‘all necessary steps’ to address these concerns through effective mechanisms across federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and to ensure access to remedies through domestic courts,” says Beeta Senedjani from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, speaking on behalf of a coalition of human rights groups. “We also endorse the call for Canada to establish a national mechanism to monitor implementation and to ensure that individuals can seek enforcement of the Committee’s decisions.” 

These recommendations build on the Committee’s longstanding position that the right to life requires governments to take positive measures to provide access without delay to shelter, social housing programs, and health care—a principle reaffirmed in its General Comment No. 36 and reinforced in the current review.

“We call on the federal government to respond urgently and meaningfully to the Committee’s findings,” says Biss. “We specifically await a response from Canadian Heritage Minister Marc Miller, Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, and Health Minister Marjorie Michel outlining how Canada will fulfill its obligations to international human rights law and the right to life.” 

“The message from the Committee is clear,” says Senedjani. “Canada cannot continue to deny its responsibilities while people are dying preventable deaths. The right to life must include the right to live with dignity—and that starts with ensuring access to adequate housing and lifesaving health services.” 

-30- 

For further background: 

• UN Human Rights Committee – Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada (March 23, 2026)
• VIDEO – UN Human Rights Committee ICCPR Periodic Review of Canada
• Press Release March 4, 2026: Canada Challenged at United Nations Over Narrow Interpretation of Right to Life
• NGO Joint Statement Urging Review of Canada’s Position on Positive Obligations Under Article 6 (the Right to Life)

Media Contact: 

Jessica Tan 
Communications Lead 
National Right to Housing Network (NRHN) 

Email: Jessica@housingrights.ca 
Phone: 613-621-4575 

The post UN Committee Rejects Canada’s Position, Calls for Action on Preventable Deaths appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

March 4, 2026 | Geneva —   Today in Geneva, United Nations Human Rights Committee members expressed surprise at Canada’s claim that Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not require governments to take positive measures to protect life when it is at risk. 

In a joint statement ahead of the Committee’s review of Canada’s ICCPR compliance, human rights groups had called on the Committee to press Canada to accept that the right to life requires governments to take positive measures to address systemic conditions that place lives at risk. These conditions include homelessness, lack of access to essential healthcare, toxic drug deaths, violence against Indigenous women and girls, food insecurity, unsafe water, inadequate disability supports, and climate change. 

“In case after case, Canadian governments argue that even when people are dying, they have no constitutional duty to act,” says Michèle Biss, Executive Director of the National Right to Housing Network. “The right to life means more than simply refraining from harm. It requires governments to prevent foreseeable loss of life.” 

The United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors Canada’s compliance with the ICCPR, which guarantees the “inherent right to life” in Article 6. This is the first time the committee has reviewed Canada since 2015. The Committee has consistently affirmed that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that threaten life. “Positive measures” require states to take proactive steps to guarantee rights, rather than merely refrain from violating them.  

Today, committee members questioned Canada’s restrictive interpretation of the right to life, which includes denying any obligation to ensure access to health care when life is at risk.  Committee members further raised concerns about Canada’s reliance on punitive responses to drug use and homelessness rather than addressing serious risks to life.  Committee members referred to the Committee’s General Comment No. 36 (2018), which affirms that protecting the right to life requires states to adopt “positive measures” and to address “general conditions in society” that may threaten life, including inadequate health care, homelessness, toxic drug deaths and environmental degradation. Canada has rejected this interpretation in its submissions to the Committee and in litigation before domestic courts. 

Domestically, Canada has opposed arguments invoking positive rights made under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, asserting that governments are not legally required to take positive measures—even where evidence shows that lives are in foreseeable danger. Canada has made these arguments in cases where individuals have invoked their right to life in response to homelessness, denial of health care, climate inaction, or the closure of supervised consumption sites.  

“Canada’s refusal to fully uphold the right to life has allowed for thousands of preventable deaths across the country,” says Beeta Senedjani of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “We are hopeful the committee will hold Canada to account and spur the changes we need to ensure all people in Canada can be healthy and safe.”   

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

• Affirm that the right to life requires positive measures to protect life, consistent with the Committee’s jurisprudence; 

• Review and revise its domestic litigation positions to ensure consistency with its international human rights obligations; 

• Implement the Committee’s Views in Toussaint v. Canada; and 

• Ensure access to effective remedies for systemic violations of the right to life. 

“Courts in Canada have held that international human rights laws are not abstract, aspirational principles,” says Sandra Ka Hon Chu, Co-Executive Director for the HIV Legal Network. “The Charter is presumed to provide protections as outlined in the international human rights treaties it has ratified.” 

The full joint statement is available here.

— 30 — 

Media Contact: 
 
Jessica Hannon  
jthannon@sfu.ca  
604-341-5005 

BACKGROUNDER 

Canada’s Position on Positive Obligations Under Article 6 (Right to Life) 
NGO Joint Statement – Summary of Key Issues 

1. The Legal Issue 

Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the inherent right to life. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has clarified — beginning with General Comment No. 6 (1982) and reaffirmed in General Comment No. 36 (2018) — that this right requires positive measures to address systemic conditions that pose foreseeable threats to life. 

These include environmental degradation, homelessness, hunger, substance use, and the denial of essential deprivation of essential health care and public services. 

In Toussaint v Canada (2018), the Committee applied this interpretation to Canada, finding that denying essential health care to an irregular migrant exposed her to a reasonably foreseeable risk to life, in violation of Article 6.  The Committee directed Canada to prevent similar violations in the future by ensuring access to essential health care where life is at risk. 

2. Canada’s Position 

Canada has: 

• Rejected the Committee’s interpretation that Article 6 requires positive measures addressing socio-economic conditions; 
• Stated it does not accept that the right to life includes a right to live with dignity where this might entail socio-economic obligations; 
• Declined to implement the Views in Toussaint because it does not agree with the Committees findings 
• Advanced arguments in domestic litigation, asserting that the right to life in section 7 of the Charter does not impose positive obligations to provide life-saving benefits or address systemic threats to life. 

This position, when upheld by courts, has meant that individuals whose right to life under international law have been violated have no effective remedies under the Canadian Charter.   Canada has an obligation to ensure access to effective remedies, requiring that the Charter of Rights be interpreted consistently with Canada’s obligations under international human rights law. 

3. Systemic Impacts 

The consequences of rejecting positive obligations under the right to life are evident across multiple areas: 

Homelessness 
Deaths among people experiencing homelessness are rising, with significantly reduced life expectancy. 

Essential Health Care 
Irregular migrants lack access to essential health care necessary to protect their lives. Lack of access to mental health services remains a systemic problem, with suicide a leading cause of death among youth. Indigenous peoples experience markedly reduced life expectancy and unmet health needs. 

Substance Use 
Canada’s criminal laws make the unregulated drug supply more unpredictable, contaminated and potent, driving thousands of foreseeable, preventable deaths annually. Meanwhile, governments continue to argue that they have no obligation to provide, fund, or ensure the availability of proven lifesaving services to protect the right to life, including supervised consumption or safe supply. 

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 
Indigenous women and girls face disproportionate rates of homicide. Most Calls for Justice from the National Inquiry remain unimplemented. 

Disability Supports 
Inadequate social supports leave some persons with disabilities seeking Medical Assistance in Dying due to poverty and deprivation rather than irremediable suffering. 

Water and Sanitation 
Dozens of long-term drinking water advisories remain in First Nations communities. 

Food Insecurity 
Approximately one in four people in Canada live in food-insecure households, a condition linked to premature mortality. 

Climate Change 
Canada is not on track to meet its Paris Agreement targets and is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Extreme heat and wildfires have already resulted in documented loss of life and serious health impacts. 

4. What the Coalition Is Requesting 

The coalition calls on the Committee to recommend that Canada: 

1. Publicly affirm that the right to life in Article 6 requires positive measures to address systemic threats to life; 
2. Align its domestic litigation positions with its international human rights obligations; 
3. Implement the Committee’s views in cases involving the right to life that have been denied effective remedies 

The post Canada Challenged at United Nations Over Narrow Interpretation of Right to Life appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

This return to criminalizing and punishing people for their substance use is a step backward. More than that: by so thoroughly and disingenuously fumbling the potential of this initiative, the province of B.C. has done a deep and lasting disservice to people harmed by the unregulated toxic drug crisis worldwide.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Yesterday, B.C. Minister of Health Josie Osborne announced that the province would not seek to extend its decriminalization policy when it expires on January 30, 2026.

The policy, introduced as a three-year pilot project in 2023, had removed criminal penalties for the personal possession of small amounts of some currently-illegal substances. The stated goal of the decriminalization pilot was to “reduce stigma and fear of criminal prosecution that prevents people from reaching out for help, including medical assistance.”²

This announcement comes despite the province’s own data demonstrating the policy’s early successes.

POLITICS AS POLICY

There are limits to the influence that evidence has on government policy choices. This is why we must situate evidence within the social, economic, cultural and political context in which policy is made and implemented. So before we look at the available data around decriminalization and assess the province’s stated reasons for axing it, let’s examine the context for this policy decision.

People in B.C. are experiencing a housing crisis and cost-of-living crisis that have combined to force record numbers of people to live in public spaces, in tents and in shelters. The unregulated drug supply is unpredictable and frequently contains additives with complex effects on the human body. This is hell for those experiencing it, and can be uncomfortable, upsetting and disruptive for those who witness it. It would be difficult not to witness it: with significant increases in the number of people homeless across B.C. and lack of accessible low-barrier services in most communities, the deprivation and suffering of people harmed by oppressive systems has become highly visible in recent years.

Not wanting to let the nuances of causation deny a pithy soundbite, it was in this context that opposition politicians took aim at the policy. Decriminalization offered a novel and highly visible scapegoat at which they could direct their constituents’ fears and frustrations. And they did.

In a media environment that rewards conflict, many news outlets amplified politicians’ fearmongering narratives – sometimes without question, reducing the systemic down to the sensational, blaming decriminalization for the broader issues at play, and obscuring the more complex realities facing British Columbia communities.

In determining the policy’s future, the province’s own data showing promising impacts fell short when stacked against the firestorm of public opinion and moral panic. The B.C. government was not only unwilling to defend the merits of its own policy, but eventually adopted and amplified the sensational language itself, giving credence to the false narrative of decriminalization as the central cause of community challenges.

There are lessons to be learned here: not only about the specifics of policy design and implementation, but also about the vulnerability of policy to those peddling fear- and anger-driven narratives.

B.C.’s RATIONALE FOR ENDING DECRIMINALIZATION

At the announcement, Minister Osborne stated that the reason the province has chosen to return to criminalizing people who use drugs is that the policy “hasn’t delivered the results that we hoped for.” The province’s own positive and promising data indicators suggest that it was on track to deliver many of the results it sought. B.C.’s reports further cite evidence from other jurisdictions that indicates “it takes years for many health and other outcomes to fully emerge.”³

In answering media questions – of which there were many, and pointed – the Minister shared that the data did not show the desired increase in self-referrals to care, or use of certain services, though provided details were scant on which services she meant.

This claim does not appear to be supported by the data the B.C. government reported to Health Canada, which notes that “core service utilization indicators are stable or increasing since decriminalization.”⁴

In answering media questions, the Minister also noted that during the three-year exemption, there was not a measurable decrease in stigma, and that the public conversation “has become very challenging.” It is important to note here the province’s role over that time in fueling and entrenching the very stigma decriminalization sought to decrease, by amplifying misleading narratives.⁵

Taken together, the data tells a different story than the Minister. Rather than a policy failure, this is a failure of government to address the structural issues driving visible poverty and homelessness, a failure to do the proactive engagement and dialogue to help the public understand a novel policy change in context, a failure to meaningfully respond to politically-motivated moral panic, and ultimately, a failure to support a policy that showed promise in reducing harm and helping people.

TO THE DATA: WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE DECRIMINALIZATION PILOT?

By the B.C. government’s own measures, decriminalization was achieving its policy goals.⁶ For example, in a key element of decriminalization, offences and seizures decreased. This is important because evidence shows that fear of criminal sanction can prevent people from accessing services, and involvement with the criminal legal system can drive harms like losing housing or employment, and increasing risk of overdose.⁷

Another desired outcome of the project was to increase awareness of and comfort accessing health and social services, and increased connections to those services. Data in B.C.’s reporting to Health Canada appears to show positive results here as well: “data…suggests that core service utilization indicators are stable or increasing since decriminalization.”

In addition to B.C.’s measured indicators on accessing services, a recent peer-reviewed study in Vancouver found that young people reported being less likely to be deterred from accessing harm reduction services because of fear of police.⁸

Further data showed ambulance calls decreased. At least initially, visits to Overdose Prevention Services were up. There was no observed increase in Substance Use Disorder diagnoses, including in youth.⁹

It is important to note that B.C.’s decriminalization model had significant flaws in its design and implementation, several of which were identified prior to launch by People Who Use Drugs, community groups, and academics.¹⁰ Contextually, during the policy’s implementation, the province saw significant increases in the number of people experiencing homelessness and poverty. And, despite these flaws and contextual realities, and by the province’s own measures, decriminalization in B.C. showed notable successes and promise.

DEFLECTION

As with all sleight of hand tricks, the Health Minister made an effort to refocus attention away from the shaky policy logic of the announcement. Here we saw once again, government turn to promoting access to treatment – specifically the expansion of Access Central, a phone line that exists to connect people with health services and supports – as B.C.’s new policy direction. We can assume, however, that as informed, diligent public servants, the Minister, her staff, and the policy analysts behind the scenes know: treatment alone is an individual response to a systemic issue; it is insufficient and inappropriate to tout it as a cure-all response to the unregulated toxic drug crisis. Without taking anything away from what may be a worthwhile service, it is misleading to speak of Access Central, or any treatment-focused intervention, as an appropriate policy substitution for decriminalization. Instead, in this context, it reads more like narrative management, a distraction from the province’s decision to return to criminalization and its attendant harms.

The expansion announcement reframes the issue as an individual problem with individual solutions. It further implies that help exists at sufficient scale when it does not, and – as outlined in CDPC’s Addiction Treatment position statement –much of the help that does exist is unregulated, inaccessible, and poor quality.¹¹

WHAT WE DO KNOW (AND HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO BACK UP)

The main driver of death and harm today remains the unregulated, toxic drug supply.^{12 13}Criminalization makes the unregulated supply more dangerous. Despite yesterday’s announcement, the broad base of evidence that supports decriminalization has not changed. Decades of data show that policing, arresting, charging, and jailing people for their substance use increases harm, while doing nothing to reduce drug use or increase safety. That is why we still need decriminalization.

Decriminalization is one necessary piece of a much larger puzzle that includes housing, health care, voluntary treatment, and a regulated supply. It could never address housing shortages, cost-of-living pressures, and toxic drugs. What it could and did do, by the province’s own metrics, is reduce some of the harm connected to the criminal legal system, reduce barriers that stop people from connecting to supports and services, and reduce the fear that drives people to hide their substance use.

This decision reflects politics, not evidence. The facts haven’t changed. The need for decriminalization hasn’t either.

1. Ministry of Health. (2026, January 14). Minister’s statement on status of the decriminalization pilot program [Press release]. Government of British Columbia. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026HLTH0003-000031 ︎
2. Government of British Columbia. (2025, September 29). Decriminalizing people who use drugs in B.C. Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/overdose/decriminalization (Last updated September 29, 2025) ︎
3. British Columbia Ministry of Health. (2025, August). Decriminalization: Data report to Health Canada (February 2023–April 2025). Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/overdose-awareness/data_report_to_health_canada_august_2025.pdf ︎
4. British Columbia Ministry of Health. (2025, August). Decriminalization: Data report to Health Canada (February 2023–April 2025). Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/overdose-awareness/data_report_to_health_canada_august_2025.pdf ︎
5. For insight on PWUD experiences of stigma in year one of the decriminalization policy, see: Ali, F., Russell, C., Torres-Salbach, S., Lo, M., Bonn, M., Bardwell, G., Budau, J., Hyshka, E., & Rehm, J. (2025). Experiences of stigmatization among people who use drugs in the initial year of British Columbia’s drug decriminalization policy: A qualitative study. International Journal of Drug Policy, 139, 104791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104791
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/
   science/article/pii/S0955395925000908 ︎
6. British Columbia Ministry of Health. (2025, August). Decriminalization: Data report to Health Canada (February 2023–April 2025). Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/overdose-awareness/data_report_to_health_canada_august_2025.pdf ︎
7. Office of the Provincial Health Officer. (2019). Stopping the harm: Decriminalization of people who use drugs in British Columbia (PHO Special Report). Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-of-the-provincial-health-officer/reports-publications/special-reports/stopping-the-harm-report.pdf ︎
8. McAdam, E., Milloy, M.-J., Sayre, E. C., Verdicchio, C., Sedgemore, K., May, H., Pranteau, S., Corriveau, D., Friesen, D., Fleury, M., Fast, D., & DeBeck, K. (2025). Policing and access to harm reduction services among young people who use drugs and young Indigenous people who use drugs before and after the pilot implementation of decriminalization of personal possession. International Journal of Drug Policy, 146, 105068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.105068 ︎
9. See Appendix C: Additional Contextual Indicators of British Columbia Ministry of Health. (2025, August). Decriminalization: Data report to Health Canada, February 2023 – April 2025 (Appendix C: Additional Contextual Indicators). Government of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/overdose-awareness/data_report_to_health_canada_august_2025.pdf ︎
10. Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. (2022, June 1). “We need decriminalization for all:” Drug policy & human rights organizations say model in British Columbia leaves many behind. Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. https://drugpolicy.ca/we-need-decriminalization-for-all-drug-policy-human-rights-organizations-say-model-in-british-columbia-leaves-many-behind/ ︎
11. Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. (2025, December 30). Addiction treatment in context: Principles for a system of just, accessible, and voluntary care (Position Statement). https://drugpolicy.ca/our-work/addiction-treatment-position-statement/ ︎
12. Health Canada Expert Task Force on Substance Use. (2021). Report 2: Recommendations on the federal government’s drug policy as articulated in a draft Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS). Retrieved from Health Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/expert-task-force-substance-use/reports/report-2-2021.html ︎
13. Gonzalez-Nieto, P., Wallace, B., Kielty, C., Gruntman, K., Robinson, D., Substance Staff, Arredondo Sanchez Lira, J., Gill, C., & Hore, D. (2025). Not just fentanyl: Understanding the complexities of the unregulated opioid supply through results from a drug checking service in British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Drug Policy, 138, Article 104751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104751 ︎

The post IGNORING ITS OWN DATA, B.C. REVIVES CRIMINALIZATION appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Blocked From Testifying, Civil Society Groups Urge Withdrawal of Bill C-12 Citing Threats to Human Rights and to Fundamental Justice

OTTAWA, Nov. 24, 2025 – A broad coalition of groups from across Canada is sounding an urgent alarm in advance of a critical parliamentary vote on Bill C-12. 

The bill would open the door to discrimination and violations of human rights and due process in Canada’s immigration system, authorize sharing of sensitive personal immigration information, and expand dangerous approaches to drug policy. Yet it is being pushed through parliament with minimal debate while those that will be impacted by its sweeping changes are locked out of the process. 

“This deeply concerning and highly controversial legislation will put many refugees in danger, risking their return to persecution in violation of rights protected under the Charter and international law,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, Co-Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Refugees. “And yet the bill is moving at break neck speed through Parliament while those with expertise and lived experience who want to advise on its dangers are shut out of the process. Neither the law nor the public interest is being served.”

The bill will deny many refugees access to fair and independent assessment and full appeal of their claims by the Immigration and Refugee Board because of arbitrary time limits and exclusions. This approach will not streamline Canada’s processing of refugee claims, but will lead to lower quality decisions while shifting backlogs to our already overburdened Federal Courts and to IRCC. 

The bill will also compound harm arising from the Canada-US Safe Third Country Agreement, which abandons many refugees to the U.S. immigration system at a time when well documented human rights violations have become the dominant feature of that system. 

”Bill C-12 would deny protection to vulnerable people irrespective of changes to their personal circumstances or political conditions back home. So many people like me, who sought safety here and have made lives here, would be shut out by this Bill. This isn’t just policy, it’s people’s lives,” said Tonny Muzira, Co-Founder & Director of Advocacy and Partnerships Centre for Black Development Options Canada. “Canada cannot turn its back on those seeking safety.”

Under Bill C-12, the government will also be able to cancel or suspend immigration documents and applications based on an undefined assessment of the “public interest”. This power grants dangerous discretionary power to the government without any individualized assessment or procedural safeguards.

“The bill sets up open-ended powers with little thought to the consequences and inevitable abuse”, said Louis-Philippe Jannard, of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI). “We haven’t seen such broad, discretionary powers in our immigration system since the 1970’s, when their abuse led to rampant discrimination and fatal decisions.” 

Bill C-12 would also authorize the government to share highly sensitive immigration information with few limitations. This includes changes in gender identity and the status of any refugee claimants, exposing vulnerable people in Canada to severe risk. 

“Broad dissemination of sensitive personal information can place migrants and refugees at significant risk of discrimination and persecution in Canada and abroad”, said Tamir Israel, Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Privacy, Surveillance and Technology Program. “Despite this significant potential for abuse, Bill C-12 lacks minimum safeguards like the need to ensure information sharing is necessary and proportionate.”

Bill C-12 also doubles down on prohibition-based drug policy that has demonstrably failed to protect public health and safety. 

“Instead of funding affordable housing and other health and social supports, Canada is supporting U.S.-led militarized drug enforcement,” said Nick Boyce, from the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “If Canada follows this path, it will be complicit in violations of international human rights law.”

In disregard of the dire risks posed by this legislative proposal, the bill has been fast-tracked and received minimal consideration in Parliament. It is scheduled for a final vote by the Standing Committee on Public Safety tomorrow—just three weeks after its study of the bill began. 

Despite the highly attenuated timeline, dozens of refugee and migrant groups, human rights groups, labour organizations, health advocacy groups, representatives of the Black community, gender based violence groups, legal professional bodies, drug policy groups and others requested to speak at committee hearings but were denied. They have also submitted briefs expressing concern regarding Bill C-12’s consequences. 

These groups were largely absent from committee proceedings and MPs will not have the time to consider the long list of concerns raised by these submissions. In contrast, MPs heard repeatedly from border and policing agencies and officials. The end result is that the voices of those most impacted by Bill C-12 have not been heard.

“MPs and the public should be extremely concerned that the government is fast-tracking legislation that will only multiply the possibility of discrimination, exploitation, and violations of human rights,” said Karen Cocq of the Migrant Rights Network. “ This government got elected promising to reject Trump-style politics, but Bill C-12 is the opposite of that. This bill cannot be fixed, it must be withdrawn.”

– 30 –

Media contact:

Jessica Hannon, Director of Communications
jthannon@sfu.ca

Watch the press conference here.

Images from the Ottawa, ON press conference featuring in-person speakers Nick Boyce, Gauri Sreenivasan and Karen Cocq, and Zoom speakers Louis-Philippe Jannard, Tonny Muzira and Tamir Israel.

POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE

Des organisations de défense des droits sonnent l’alarme à la veille d’un vote crucial sur le projet de loi C-12

Empêchés de témoigner, des groupes de la société civile demandent le retrait du projet de loi C-12 en invoquant des menaces aux droits humains et aux principes de justice fondamentale.

OTTAWA, 24 novembre 2025 – Une large coalition pancanadienne d’organisations sonne l’alarme à la veille d’un vote crucial à la Chambre des communes sur le projet de loi C-12.

Le projet de loi ouvrirait la porte à la discrimination, aux atteintes aux droits humains et au non-respect de principes d’application régulière de la loi au sein du système canadien d’immigration, il autoriserait le partage d’informations personnelles sensibles en matière d’immigration et approfondirait des approches dangereuses relatives aux politiques sur les drogues. Le gouvernement accélère toutefois son étude au parlement, avec des débats limités, alors que les personnes et les groupes qui subiront les effets de ces changements majeurs ne sont pas entendus.

« Cette proposition législative profondément inquiétante et controversée plongera plusieurs personnes réfugiées dans des situations dangereuses, à risque de retour vers la persécution, en violation des droits protégés par la Charte canadienne et le droit international », affirme Gauri Sreenivasan, codirectrice générale du Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés. « Cependant, le projet de loi avance à vitesse grand V au Parlement, pendant que celles et ceux qui ont l’expertise et le vécu et qui veulent mettre en garde les parlementaires contre les dangers qu’il présente sont exclus du processus. Cela ne sert ni la loi ni l’intérêt public. »

Le projet de loi privera plusieurs personnes réfugiées d’un examen juste et indépendant de leur demande et des mécanismes d’appel de la Commission de l’immigration et du statut de réfugié (CISR) en raison de restrictions temporelles et d’exclusions arbitraires. Cette approche n’améliorera pas le processus d’examen des demandes d’asile, mais minera plutôt la qualité des décisions tout en déplaçant les arriérés de la CISR vers IRCC et vers la Cour fédérale, qui est déjà surchargée.

Ce projet de loi aggravera également les préjudices qui découlent de l’Entente canado-américaine sur les tiers pays sûrs, qui abandonne plusieurs personnes au système américain d’immigration, à un moment où des atteintes aux droits humains sont documentées et où elles sont devenues une caractéristique fondamentale de ce système.

« Le projet de loi C-12 refuserait la protection à des personnes vulnérables, peu importe les changements à leur situation personnelle ou à la situation politique dans leur pays d’origine. Il y a tellement de personnes qui, comme moi, sont venues ici chercher la sécurité et refaire leur vie, et qui seraient exclues par ce projet de loi. Il ne s’agit pas seulement de politiques publiques, mais de la vie de ces personnes, » déclare Tonny Muzira, cofondateur et directeur du plaidoyer et des partenariats du Centre for Black Development Options Canada.

Avec le projet de loi C-12, le gouvernement aura également le pouvoir d’annuler ou de suspendre des documents ou demandes d’immigration sur la base d’une évaluation non définie de « l’intérêt public ». Ce projet de loi octroie au gouvernement un pouvoir discrétionnaire dangereux, sans aucun examen individuel ou garanties procédurales.

« Le projet de loi met en place de vastes pouvoirs discrétionnaires, avec peu de réflexions quant à leurs conséquences et aux abus qui en découleront inévitablement, » soutient Louis-Philippe Jannard, de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. « D’aussi larges pouvoirs discrétionnaires n’existent plus dans notre système d’immigration depuis les années 1970, pouvoirs qui laissaient alors place à des décisions largement discriminatoires et aux conséquences parfois funestes. »

Le projet de loi C-12 autorisera le gouvernement à partager des informations très sensibles contenues dans les dossiers d’immigration, et ce, avec très peu de balises. Cela comprend des changements à l’identité de genre ou le statut de toute personne en demande d’asile, mettant à risque des personnes vulnérables au Canada.

« La large diffusion d’informations personnelles sensibles peut mettre les personnes migrantes et réfugiés à risque de discrimination et de persécution au Canada et ailleurs, » martèle Tamir Israel, directeur du programme Vie privée, surveillance et technologies de l’Association canadienne des libertés civiles. « Malgré le grand potentiel d’abus, le projet de loi C-12 ne contient pas de garanties minimales comme l’exigence de s’assurer que le partage d’informations est nécessaire et proportionnel. »

Le projet de loi C-12 renforce aussi une politique relative aux drogues basée sur la prohibition qui n’a manifestement pas permis de protéger la santé et la sécurité publiques.

« Plutôt que de financer le logement abordable et d’autres mesures sociales et de santé, le Canada soutient la lutte antidrogue militarisée menée par les États-Unis », affirme Nick Boyce, de la Coalition canadienne des politiques sur les drogues. « Si le Canada poursuit dans cette voie, il pourrait se retrouver complice de violations du droit international des droits humains. »

Sans tenir compte des risques considérables qu’il pose, le projet de loi a suivi un processus accéléré et n’a fait l’objet que d’un examen minimal au Parlement. Le vote final du Comité permanent de la Sécurité publique et nationale est prévu demain – seulement trois semaines après que l’étude du projet de loi ait débuté.

Malgré de très courtes échéances, des douzaines d’organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, d’organisations de défense des droits humains, d’organisations syndicales, de groupes du milieu de la santé, de représentant-e-s de la communauté noire, de groupes de lutte contre la violence basée sur le genre, d’instances de professionnel-le-s du droit, de groupes sur les politiques en matière de drogues et autres ont demandé à être entendus lors des audiences tenues par les comités, mais cela leur a été refusé. Ils ont aussi déposé des mémoires exprimant leurs préoccupations quant aux conséquences du projet de loi C-12.

Ces groupes ont donc été largement absents des débats des comités et les député-e-s n’auront pas le temps de prendre en considération la longue liste d’inquiétudes soulevées dans leurs mémoires. À l’inverse, les député-e-s ont entendu de façon répétée des représentants d’agences frontalières et policières. Il en résulte que les voix des personnes qui souffriront le plus des effets du projet de loi C-12 n’ont pas été entendues.

« Les député-e-s et le public devraient s’inquiéter au plus haut point du fait que le gouvernement accélère l’étude d’une proposition législative qui ne fera que multiplier les possibilités de discrimination, d’exploitation et d’atteintes aux droits humains, » dénonce Karen Cocq, du Migrant Rights Network. « Ce gouvernement a été élu en promettant de rejeter les politiques d’inspiration trumpiste, mais le projet de loi C-12 est à l’opposé de ces promesses. Rien ne pourrait rendre ce projet de loi acceptable, il doit être retiré ».

– 30 –

Contacts médias :

Jessica Hannon, Direction des communications
jthannon@sfu.ca

Regardez la conférence de presse ici.

The post Rights Groups Issue Urgent Warning Ahead of Critical C-12 Vote appeared first on Canadian Drug Policy Coalition.