The Point Douglas Residents Committee has been sounding the alarm about how the provincial government is manipulating the public consultation process for a proposed supervised consumption site in their neighbourhood. Their fears are justified. On Monday, it was revealed that a formal application had been submitted to Health Canada to locate the facility at 200 Disraeli Freeway. This was done without a single meeting with the community at large. The group now feels even more strongly that its voices are being marginalized.
The committee points to federal guidelines for the application process that require a community consultation report. Yet, residents are not considered key stakeholders. This glaring omission raises serious questions about the fairness of the process. While the Aboriginal Health and Wellness Center filed the application, the report is still at the screening stage. Meanwhile, the NDP’s Housing, Addictions, and Homelessness Minister, Bernadette Smith, told CBC that she would not confirm the location, claiming the province isn’t ready to divulge such information.
Amy Robinson, the PDRC's housing chair, highlights the exclusion of residents from meaningful consultation. Although the AHWC proposed a closed meeting with the PDRC board, Robinson’s group refused, demanding an open house where all residents could voice their concerns. Such transparency is necessary for any significant development, such as a supervised consumption site.
The proposed site’s 500-meter consultation radius includes diverse locations such as Chinatown, schools, churches, high-end condos, and industrial shops. The social and economic impact on this area demands a comprehensive consultation process. Instead, the government appears to be fast-tracking the project without adequately engaging the public.
The PDRC has also flagged a conflict of interest in Minister Bernadette Smith’s dual role as both the MLA for the area and the minister responsible for addictions. Residents feel they lack an unbiased advocate to represent their concerns. They question how fair representation can occur when the person spearheading the initiative is also their MLA. Issues of fragmented city representation further compound this. The north and south sections of the area fall under different city councillors, leaving residents feeling unheard.
The PDRC’s request for a review of electoral boundaries to unite their community under a single representative reflects a deeper systemic issue. Residents see reunification as a way to rectify a historic inequity and enable their concerns to be represented more effectively.
Winnipeg should heed the cautionary tales of Calgary and Lethbridge. Both cities introduced supervised consumption sites with the best intentions but encountered severe unintended consequences. In Calgary, the area surrounding the Sheldon M. Chumir Health Centre saw a dramatic rise in crime and disorder. Businesses suffered, residents felt unsafe, and community cohesion eroded. Lethbridge faced similar problems with its ARCHES facility, which became a magnet for open drug use, violence, and property crime. These examples underscore the need for a balanced approach that addresses both addiction and public safety.
The Kinew government’s push to establish a safe consumption site in downtown Winnipeg ignores the lessons from other cities. Winnipeg’s downtown is already grappling with crime, homelessness, and addiction. Adding a supervised consumption site without a robust plan to address these underlying issues risks exacerbating the challenges. The city’s claim of being financially strapped raises further questions. Who will fund the increased police presence required to mitigate the site’s impact?
Supporters of supervised consumption sites argue that they save lives and reduce the spread of diseases, but these facilities alone cannot address the root causes of addiction. They need to be part of a broader strategy that includes increased funding for addiction treatment, mental health services, and law enforcement. Anything less leaves communities vulnerable to harm.
Winnipeg’s response to the opioid crisis must go beyond the rhetoric of harm reduction. Comprehensive solutions are necessary. This includes investing in detox centers, residential treatment programs, and aftercare services. Integrated programs offering mental health support and employment training can provide individuals with the tools to rebuild their lives. Addiction is a personal battle, but recovery requires systemic support.
Creative solutions from other jurisdictions offer valuable lessons. Burlington, Vermont, adopted a public health approach to the opioid crisis, equipping police officers with naloxone and creating positions like an Opioid Policy Coordinator. These efforts led to a significant decline in opioid overdose deaths. Winnipeg should explore similar approaches, focusing on recovery and public safety.
Manitoba’s NDP government must also be held accountable. How many treatment facilities have been opened since they took office in 2023? How much funding has been allocated to addiction treatment? The public deserves answers. At the same time, the federal government must step up. Border control measures to prevent drug trafficking and support for Indigenous communities are federal responsibilities. The stories of Indigenous people becoming stranded in Winnipeg and falling into addiction highlight a failure of federal leadership.
This crisis has been decades in the making, enabled by political neglect. Addressing it requires bold, well-thought-out solutions. Treatment facilities and 24/7 access to services are essential. When someone is ready to seek help, they should not have to wait. Delay often leads to relapse and further suffering. A safe consumption site without immediate access to recovery services is a missed opportunity.
Law enforcement must also play a crucial role. Targeting the top 100 drug dealers in Winnipeg sends a clear message. Persistent surveillance and legal pressure can disrupt drug networks. Federal laws must impose harsher penalties for drug dealers, reflecting the gravity of their crimes. Five years for your first offense, ten for your second and life for your third. These individuals are responsible for countless deaths and the destruction of families and communities. The punishment should fit the crime.
Investing in solutions is not just a moral imperative; it is an economic one. The costs of addiction—from healthcare to law enforcement to lost productivity—are staggering. Redirecting resources toward long-term solutions will ultimately reduce these costs. Winnipeg’s future depends on addressing addiction with compassion, urgency, and resolve.
Supervised consumption sites, as currently proposed, fall short of addressing the complexities of addiction. They offer a band-aid solution to a deep, systemic problem. Winnipeg deserves better. The city needs a comprehensive, community-focused approach that prioritizes recovery, safety, and the well-being of all its residents. Let’s learn from the mistakes of other cities and chart a path toward a healthier, safer Winnipeg.
Comments