Councillors in two B.C. communities are welcoming the premier’s announcement of involuntary care facilities amid public safety concerns, even as a drug policy academic says forcing people into drug treatment is ineffective.
B.C. Premier David Eby announced Friday at the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) convention that Surrey and Prince George would receive involuntary care facilities, though he said exact details would come later.
In making the announcement, Eby directly referenced one of the central issues of UBCM — municipalities’ concern over public disorder and drug use — as the reason for the 100 new involuntary treatment beds between both communities.
Surrey and Prince George councillors expressed relief over the announcement, saying that there’s an urgent need for addiction treatment in both regions.
B.C. Premier David Eby announces two new involuntary care sites
“Quite honestly, almost sobs of relief,” said Prince George Coun. Trudy Klassen.
“This is certainly not the end of what we need to do, but it is an excellent beginning.”
Klassen said that the lack of an involuntary care facility in Prince George, which serves as a hub for many services in B.C.’s north, was leading to an overuse of hospital beds and straining other health-care services.
“All we have is hospital beds for psychiatric patients,” she said. “They’re only supposed to be there for two weeks and that isn’t long enough to treat someone who needs more care.”
Who gets admitted to involuntary care spaces? Mental health advocate calls for transparency
Surrey Coun. Linda Annis said she was pleased to learn of the promised facilities but said it’s just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of what is needed.
She added that in Surrey, B.C.’s second-largest city by population, there’s a general need for more housing and social services.
Annis attributed the city’s street disorder to people who are “out on the street” but who should, instead, “be in care.”
“It’s not fair to the individuals, and it’s not fair to the businesses and residents that are enduring some of the negative activity as a result of this.”
DJ Larkin, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, questioned the government’s focus on involuntary care, saying that involuntary care should be a clinical decision and not a political one.
“Homelessness is a structural issue caused by government, and … what is being called disorder is public suffering,” Larkin said.
“Detaining someone against their will is not a response to public suffering.”
Larkin said that the government should look at improving the quality of voluntary care, which could help drug users get help before they overdose multiple times and get brain injuries.
The advocate added that the coalition had concerns with B.C.’s addiction treatment facilities, saying that regulation was spotty for facilities that are often for-profit and advocate an abstinence-based approach to care.
“We understand that municipalities may be frustrated, but the question again is, ‘Did we create the conditions where all of us can thrive?'” Larkin said.
“And if the answer is ‘No,’ we should not be blaming the people who are suffering.”
Kora DeBeck, a professor at Simon Fraser University’s school of public policy, said she welcomed the funding — but that pushing someone into involuntary care against their will is ineffective.
“When we push them into an involuntary treatment setting, their tolerance for opiates goes down,” she said.
“And if they have a relapse, they’re much more likely to to die.”
DeBeck said research showed that more treatment alone would not solve the issue of public drug use, saying a safer supply and alternatives to toxic drugs would help.
“The more that we can give people alternatives to toxic drugs, the more that we can give them some stability and some support,” she said. “I think from a community’s perspective, they would see a lot of changes.”
