NDP trying to solve the problem, Tories just want it to go away

Everything is so predictable and dull.

The opposition Progressive Conservatives this week introduced a series of amendments to a bill that would give the province the ability to house people with drug addictions for up to 72 hours in a detox center to be opened at 190 Disraeli Fwy., on the northern edge of the Exchange District.

Under legislative rules, each of the amendments would require debate, which would delay passage and promulgation of the law by Saturday, the government's deadline for the sobering crackdown to begin.

MICHAELA MCKENZIE / FREE PRESS FILES

The proposed facility on the Disraeli Motorway will save lives and provide vulnerable people with direct access to social, health and housing support, writes Dan Lett.

Frankly, missing a deadline won't be that big of a deal. Given the NDP's majority vote in the legislature, the facility will open in the near future following the passage of a new law allowing three days of medically supervised detention.

Of great concern is that we are once again faced with dangerously misled and ridiculously misinformed forces who want to block any attempt by the NDP government to provide critically needed treatment and shelter.

Opponents of the NDP plans, which include people who live downtown in fairly close proximity to the proposed site, are making heroic attempts to portray the lockdown as some kind of perverse attempt to improve public safety.

It's a plan they used earlier this year to thwart NDP plans to use the same building as a safe place for drug use.

The strategy goes like this: To make them safer, critics will cite the need to keep detox centers, supervised drug use sites and mobile overdose prevention machines away from… well… just about everyone and everything.

What opponents cannot or will not do is offer an alternative. If these services cannot be provided in the building designated by the province, where else can they be provided?

The PC amendments are a particularly good example of this half-baked thinking: a ban on any drug treatment or consumption site within 500 meters of a school, day care center, nursing home, playground, park or community center. They also suggested that North End Sunshine House, a non-profit resource center, have a mobile monitored vehicle located at least half a kilometer from 190 Disraeli.

Tory housing, addiction and homelessness critic Jeff Bereza — MLA for Portage la Prairie — passionately defended the amendments as a way to protect citizens from people who may be “high” from using drugs — especially methamphetamine.

“We want to make sure there's enough space there so they can't hurt anyone else in the area. If my grandma lives that close, you know, do we really want it that close?”

If Birch's grandmother lived in East Exchange (which I highly doubt), she would tell her grandson not to worry about detox, safe consumption places, or vehicles that attract drug addicts, because they are already present in abundance in this central area.

You could chalk up such flawed logic to ignorance or even intellectual dishonesty. Opponents may understand that these proposals will make the situation safer, but they still don't want to go near it.

But arguing against providing services to vulnerable populations in areas where they already live is one of the most confusing aspects of this debate.

Homelessness, addiction, and mental illness certainly undermine public safety. But if these people are already present and jeopardizing public safety in a particular area, what good would it do to provide less support?

Although it seems almost unimaginable, the PCs and community who are opposed to these plans are implicitly demanding that these people be relocated to some other area of the city. It's hard to imagine what kind of territory this will be; Tory's proposals limit eligible locations to shopping center parking lots and train stations.

At some point, the area's affected residents and political opponents will have to face the inescapable reality that the Exchange District, like much of the city's downtown area, is a gathering place for vulnerable people.

The East Exchange area, which is the epicenter of the fight for sober and safe drinking facilities, is already a hub for social services for vulnerable populations. The province is slowly but steadily working to house the homeless, and these efforts should bring some relief in the long term.

However, in the short term, there is a population in the inner city that needs mental health and addiction services, and expecting them to take a bus to an industrial park to get that help is completely unreasonable.