STILL STUCK

What The Insite Decision Means For Victoria

Back in 2006, then-Victoria mayor Alan Lowe kicked off his third term
in office by noting in his inaugural address, "I believe there is
increasing awareness and understanding about the benefits of
establishing a safe consumption site in our City that is integrated
with other social services, housing and medical care. With this in
mind, the City will work closely with VIHA in the new year to seek an
exemption under the Canada Health Act to allow us to establish a safe
consumption site in Victoria."

In 2007, then-provincial health minister George Abbott told the media
he would begin lobbying federal health minister Tony Clement for the
Section 56 criminal code exemption that would authorize three
satellite supervised consumption sites to be established in the city,
as per the recommendations of UVic researcher Dr. Benedikt Fischer's
feasibility study on the subject.

Fast forward to 2010, and not only does Victoria have no supervised
consumption facility, but has actually lost a pillar of its harm
reduction program with the closure of the fixed-site needle exchange
on Cormorant Street in 2008. And it appears a January 15 B.C. Court
of Appeals decision that the Insite safe consumption site in
Vancouver offers health services that supersede the provisions of the
criminal code won't change Victoria's circumstances any time soon.

Vancouver Island Health Authority Chief Medical Health Officer Dr.
Richard Stanwick says the legal battle over supervised drug
consumption versus Canada's criminal code is not over yet, so the
local health authority is not prepared to commit funds to
implementing a service that could ultimately get shut down if the
federal government is successful in appealing the recent 2-1 decision.

"For myself, and I think for a lot of my colleagues, we were buoyed
by the court decision which largely said that addiction should be
addressed as a health issue, rather than one of criminality," says
Dr. Stanwick. "But, unfortunately, this is not the Supreme Court of
Canada but the Appeal Court of B.C., so there is still the very
distinct possibility that this decision will be appealed by the
federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada."

Health Canada has yet to reveal its future plans, although a
spokesperson for federal health minister Leona Aglukkaq told
reporters, "While the government respects the court's decision, we
are disappointed with the outcome."

Dr. Stanwick says VIHA is constrained by the laws of the land.

"Even now, there is likely to be some caution in terms of embarking
on even the planning phase until it is clear that we do have the
authority to move forward, and our health authority is obliged to
follow regulations, laws-local, provincial and federal-and there is
angst, and not misplaced I think, that we really want to do the right
thing, but in a way that it is properly sanctioned."

Critics however, say VIHA has an obligation to deliver health
services to all its clients, regardless of potential legal implications.

"We have a health authority that is unwilling, a health authority
that lacks in the political will, to provide people with the health
services that are necessary and rational for people who most need
them," says Harm Reduction Victoria's Kim Toombs.

And the City of Victoria too bears responsibility for forward
momentum on the file, Toombs says. "This issue takes a champion, so
let's have one," she argues. "City council could really shine on
this. Someone needs to be the rational voice in this, so if the
health authority isn't going to do it, let city council be the
champions on this one."

If the matter goes unresolved for too long, says Toombs, the health
authority risks being left out of the loop when activists move
forward to establish a supervised consumption site unsanctioned by
the authorities. M