A new strategy for the new Tories
On Monday, Toronto’s medical officer of health, David McKeown, released a report advocating three safe injection sites be opened in pre-existing medical clinics. In response, federal Conservative health critic Kellie Leitch sent out an interesting press release.
“The drugs that are used at these sites, mostly heroin, are dangerous and addictive,” it read. It insisted that “public consultations (be) held … and that everyone (get) a say regarding what happens in their community” — as required by the Conservative- era Respecting Communities Act. And it argued “every effort should be made to help people get off of drugs and live healthy and productive lives.”
Its vituperative tone aside, it’s difficult to argue with most of it: addiction treatment should obviously be available to those who want it; no one is going to argue against community consultations. Heroin is certainly addictive. And heroin — or what passes for it on the streets — is certainly dangerous in certain circumstances in which it is often used. Clean needles and a nurse in the room reduce the danger enormously, which is the whole point of safe injection sits.
Despite its stern tone, the press release didn’t actually oppose safe injection sites. “We are very concerned about what ( McKeown’s) report might mean for the lawabiding residents of Toronto,” it read. But it conspicuously failed to elaborate.
If the reinventing Conservatives are rethinking this issue, it wouldn’t be surprising. The principle of safe injection sites has enjoyed majority support in polls for many years. By the time the Conservatives next take power, national public opinion on the matter may be utterly sanguine — as it might be on marijuana, prosti- tution or (less likely, I suspect) assisted dying.
Local opinion, of course, may vary. So perhaps there’s a lesson for the Conservatives in Leitch’s press release.
Under the Respecting Communities Act, a safe injection site requires an evidence- based case for an exemption from the Controlled Substances Act, and extensive consultations with municipal and provincial governments, police and local communities. That’s a perfectly defensible compassionate conservative position. But it was adopted only grudgingly, after the Supreme Court of Canada kiboshed the previous one.
Under Stephen Harper, the Conservatives had no trouble keeping out of the provinces’ business when it came to health-care delivery in general. Keeping out of their business when it came to safe injection specifically should perhaps not have been such a stretch. And keeping out of their business as a general operating principle might be useful in future.
Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci caused a storm Wednesday when he suggested marijuana might be available in liquor stores. He quickly clarified that he was joking, But it demonstrated the complexity of the issue. The Manitoba and Ontario premiers are on board with marijuana in liquor stores … but Alberta’s liquor stores are private, not public. Whoever sells the province’s booze, other premiers might doubt the wisdom of selling pot alongside it, inasmuch as it might glamorize consumption or suggest combining drugs. Quebec’s government sounds very much as if it doesn’t want marijuana sold legally at all.
Interim Tory leader Rona Ambrose has already come off the party’s hard- line prohibitionist position. Perhaps “legalize it, then let the provinces sort it out — or not” might work as a replacement.
When it comes to prostitution, Conservatives and their supporters are likely less divided than the Liberals and New Democrats. But if the Liberals don’t amend the Conservatives’ much- derided new prostitution law, the courts might. If the Conservatives wanted to come off their obviously futile hard- line prohibitionist stance, the basic idea of their Respect for Communities Act might work well for the sex trade: if communities want to experiment with another model, let them make a case and apply for an exemption.
And when it comes to assisted dying, trying to arrive at a position per se — yes or no — is a nightmare, as the Liberals discovered when they mystifyingly tried to whip the vote on an asyet- undrafted law. There are far too many emotional individual experiences tied up in this for blackand- white positions: this MP watched her father waste away in agony; that MP has a severely disabled child. What if a Catholic doctor can’t abide referring someone for the service? What if a Catholic doctor can abide that, but works for a Catholic hospital that can’t?
Again, we’re t alking about health care — a provincial jurisdiction. Why not set the table in Ottawa and let the provinces serve what they wish?
Strictly respecting the division of powers is out of fashion right now, but it certainly has its merits: it can encourage policy innovation; it keeps Quebec relatively happy; it allows decisions to be made by governments closer to the people. For a conservative party rebuilding in a diverse and rapidly changing world, it’s a principle worth clinging to.
A PLATFORM OF SIMPLY RESPECTING PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION IS ONE WAY THE TORIES COULD BOTH MAKE GOOD POLICY WHILE SIDESTEPPING NEEDLESS CONTROVERSIES.