0
F j, Y
g:i a
April 4, 2026 3:32 am
By Wallace Pong, Founder, WeVote
Before entering the substantive discussion, several principles must be clearly stated.
This article does not deny the importance of compassion toward vulnerable populations, nor does it make value judgments about any specific group. We explicitly support humane, responsible, and sustainable approaches to assisting people experiencing homelessness, addiction, and mental-health crises.
The focus of this discussion is a long-standing issue in public governance that is too often treated emotionally rather than rationally: how individual freedom and human rights should be balanced, under real-world conditions, with responsibility, public safety, and the collective interest of society.
Different members of society naturally hold different understandings of “love,” “charity,” and “help.” Such diversity should be respected rather than moralized or forcibly unified. Disagreement over policy approaches does not equate to a lack of compassion, nor should it be reduced to moral opposition.
This article rejects the ideological, emotional, or stigmatizing framing of complex governance issues. Instead, it seeks to examine-based on facts, data, and lived outcomes which
approaches genuinely reduce harm, restore individual capacity, and preserve long-term social stability and public trust.
Any public policy that cannot withstand both ethical scrutiny and practical effectiveness ultimately fails those it intends to protect.
Public debate surrounding Supportive Housing and Complex Care Housing has increasingly become polarized. Differences in opinion are quickly elevated into moral or political judgments, with opposing sides labeling and condemning one another. Such non-rational, non-fact-based discourse neither improves public policy nor meaningfully serves people experiencing homelessness, addiction, or the broader community.
It is therefore necessary to return this discussion to the foundations of reason, evidence, and public governance.
I. The Core Disagreement Is Not About Compassion
The current conflict does not arise from disagreement over whether society should help vulnerable individuals. On that question, there is broad consensus. The real divergence lies in how assistance should be delivered in a way that benefits individuals while remaining responsible to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, some narratives frame differing views as evidence of moral failure or lack of empathy. This framing overlooks a fundamental reality:
Compassion and charity are inherently diverse. There is no single correct expression of care, nor should one be imposed upon others.
To compel acceptance of a particular definition of “love” or “charity” not only fails to resolve policy challenges but also undermines the rational foundation necessary for constructive public dialogue.
II. Freedom and Human Rights Are Not Abstract Absolutes
In public governance, freedom and individual rights do not exist in isolation from real-world conditions. Their meaningful exercise generally presupposes a basic capacity for judgment, self- control, and responsibility, and must coexist with public safety and the rights of others.
When an individual is temporarily unable to exercise stable judgment or self-control due to severe addiction or acute mental-health crisis, behavior is no longer guided entirely by rational agency. In such circumstances, society’s use of medical treatment, therapeutic intervention, supervision, and supportive measures is not a denial of rights, but a means of protecting the individual from further harm and enabling the restoration of the capacity to exercise freedom responsibly.
Establishing reasonable boundaries on freedom under these conditions does not negate human rights; rather, it reflects a responsible application of them. The real question is not whether rights are respected, but how freedom and public interest can be preserved together with minimal harm and maximum recovery.
III. Good Intentions Do Not Guarantee Effective Outcomes
The objective of assisting people experiencing homelessness is legitimate and necessary. However, evidence consistently shows that many chronically unhoused individuals are not primarily homeless due to housing scarcity alone, but due to severe addiction, mental-health disorders, and prolonged social disconnection.
When policy relies on housing provision as the primary or sole-intervention, while avoiding addiction treatment, behavioral support, and long-term rehabilitation, several consequences may follow:
Limited improvement in individual well-being Persistent conflict with surrounding communities
Erosion of public confidence in social-welfare systems
International experience indicates that more effective approaches integrate medical care, treatment, behavioral expectations, and social reintegration, rather than reducing complex human crises to a single housing solution.
IV. Moralization and Polarization Lead to Social Fragmentation
When governance challenges are framed as moral absolutes or ideological battles, public discourse quickly becomes extreme. Legitimate community concerns regarding safety and quality of life are dismissed as “politically incorrect,” while implementation failures remain unexamined.
Such dynamics do not resolve problems. Instead, they deepen social division and place the most vulnerable individuals in the crossfire of polarized debate, increasing instability rather than reducing harm.
V. An Open Invitation to Rational and Respectful Dialogue
Based on these principles, we wish to state clearly:
We do not reject differing views, nor do we regard residents, organizations, elected officials, or government agencies who support these projects as adversaries.
On the contrary, we sincerely invite supportive residents, community groups, elected
representatives, and relevant government bodies to engage with us in a public, rational, and fact- based dialogue forum.
Through direct discussion, transparent sharing of data and experience, and genuine listening to differing concerns, we believe it is possible to:
In complex public issues, dialogue is not weakness-it is a defining capacity of a mature society.
VI. Returning to Evidence to Find Better Solutions for All
A healthy society allows room for disagreement on how best to help vulnerable populations, provided such debate is conducted in good faith. What is needed is not confrontation, but:
Only on this foundation can society avoid fragmentation while identifying solutions that are simultaneously beneficial to people experiencing homelessness, individuals struggling with addiction, and the broader community.
In public governance, reason is not indifference it is responsibility in action.
Recently, media reports revealed that BC Housing plans to establish a new supportive housing facility in Burnaby, British Columbia, intended to house individuals experiencing homelessness, severe financial hardship, or substance addiction. Similar proposals in Surrey and Richmond have already been rejected by local residents, and once again the plan has ignited intense public debate.
Many residents emphasize that they are not opposed to helping vulnerable populations. What they oppose is the real possibility that supportive housing may deteriorate into hubs of uncontrolled drug use. As many have argued, people struggling with addiction need treatment—not forced concentration in poorly supervised facilities, and “human-rights-based shelter” should not come at the expense of public safety or community well-being.
The complex interaction between drug policy, homelessness, and supportive housing deserves serious, evidence-based scrutiny.
Drug-related deaths remain the province’s most severe public health emergency
According to the BC Coroners Service, since the declaration of a “toxic drug crisis” in 2016, more than 16,000 British Columbians have died from illicit or non-prescribed drug toxicity.
In August 2023, 174 people died of drug-related poisoning—while this was the lowest monthly figure since June 2022, it still represented an average of 5.6 deaths per day.
This stark reality underscores that fentanyl-contaminated drugs, unsafe usage conditions, and unpredictable potency continue to devastate families across the province.
Changing patterns of drug use and rising risks
Public health data indicate that since the COVID-19 pandemic, drug consumption methods have shifted. Smoking and inhalation are now more common than injection. While often perceived as “safer,” these methods actually increase overdose risk and introduce new public health concerns—particularly second-hand exposure to drug fumes, including airborne fentanyl.
In response, the BC government launched a task force in the summer of 2025 to examine safety and health risks in supportive housing, including weapon incidents, criminal activity, and airborne drug exposure affecting residents and staff.
BC’s long-standing policy direction has been to close large psychiatric institutions, distribute services into communities, and rely on small regional facilities plus a limited number of highly specialized inpatient centers. However, in practice, severe bed shortages have been repeatedly criticized by auditors and healthcare experts.
1. From Riverview Hospital to Red Fish Healing Centre
Riverview Hospital
• At its peak, housed over 4,000 patients, representing a large-scale institutional model.
• Beginning in the 1960s, BC pursued deinstitutionalization, steadily reducing capacity.
• By the early 2000s, only a few hundred beds remained.
• When Riverview closed in 2012, fewer than 200 active beds were left.
Red Fish Healing Centre
• Opened in 2021 on the former Riverview site.
• Provides 105 beds, serving adults with the most complex psychiatric and substance-use disorders province-wide.
• Additional buildings on the site (Connolly, Cottonwood, Cypress) add roughly 60 long-term psychiatric rehabilitation beds.
• Combined, these facilities represent only a fraction of Riverview’s former capacity.
• Media analysis suggests that post-Riverview redevelopment resulted in only 183 net new beds, with many Red Fish beds transferred from older facilities rather than newly created.
2. Why “community-based care” became official doctrine
This shift was not accidental—it was explicitly embedded in provincial policy:
• 1998 BC Mental Health Plan prioritized closing Riverview and redistributing services into community-based systems.
• The 2016 Auditor General’s Report confirmed that Riverview’s closure aimed to decentralize tertiary psychiatric care into smaller hospitals, community teams, and residential facilities.
• Advocacy organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association publicly argued that rebuilding a large Riverview-style institution was not the solution; instead, they called for a continuum of community supports.
In theory, BC developed a layered system ranging from prevention to specialized inpatient care.
In reality, the upper tiers—detox, long-term treatment, and recovery housing—remain severely underfunded, while harm reduction and low-threshold housing expanded rapidly.
To residents, this imbalance looks like “providing drugs without treatment.”
BC’s strategy combines supportive housing, harm reduction, healthcare access, and safer supply prescribing. On paper, this aligns with the province’s Adult Substance Use System of Care Framework (2022), which envisions a continuum:
• Prevention and education
• Early intervention
• Harm reduction (needle exchanges, supervised consumption, naloxone, drug checking, prescribed safer supply)
• Treatment (detox, opioid agonist therapy, inpatient and outpatient addiction care)
• Highly specialized facilities (e.g., Red Fish, forensic psychiatry)
• Recovery and long-term support (rehabilitative housing, employment assistance)
Emerging evidence raises concerns
A March 2025 study published in JAMA Health Forum found that BC’s combination of drug decriminalization and safer supply prescribing was associated with significant increases in opioid-related hospitalizations:
• Safer supply alone correlated with a 33% increase in hospital admissions.
• When combined with decriminalization, hospitalizations rose 58% above pre-policy levels.
While mortality rates did not necessarily increase at the same pace, rising hospitalizations suggest greater health harm and instability, highlighting the risks of large-scale policy experimentation without sufficient safeguards.
Safety risks inside supportive housing
In June 2025, BC Housing and health authorities began assessing airborne drug residue in supportive housing buildings. Preliminary findings from 14 facilities in Vancouver and Victoria showed elevated fentanyl concentrations in office areas, even without entering resident units.
This raises serious legal, occupational safety, and public health concerns. Without strict oversight, supportive housing can unintentionally become high-risk environments for residents, workers, and surrounding communities.
IV. Why Burnaby, Richmond, and Surrey Have Rejected These Projects
Opponents are often labeled as lacking compassion. Yet the data suggest their concerns are grounded in lived experience and legitimate risk assessment.
1. Residents oppose unmanaged concentration—not social assistance
Most residents accept the moral obligation to house and assist vulnerable people. What they reject is the concentration of active drug users without adequate supervision, treatment pathways, or security measures.
2. Addiction requires treatment and recovery—not just housing plus tolerance
Viewing addiction as a medical issue is progress. However, “supportive housing + safer supply” is not a cure-all. Without mandatory treatment options, psychological support, employment pathways, and accountability mechanisms, the result may be greater public health and safety burdens.
3. Communities have the right—and responsibility—to participate
Public safety, environmental health, children’s well-being, and neighborhood cohesion are legitimate concerns. Governments must engage communities transparently, rather than relocating controversial projects from one city to another.
V. Toward a More Responsible and Credible Policy Framework
Supportive housing is not inherently flawed—but it requires far stricter standards, oversight, and integration with treatment and recovery systems.
Key principles should include:
• Mandatory community consultation and public hearings
• Embedded addiction treatment and recovery services, not only safer supply distribution
• Strong security and enforcement against violence and drug trafficking
• Continuous air-quality monitoring to prevent second-hand drug exposure
As emphasized by the BC Centre for Disease Control, only an integrated approach—combining harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and housing—can produce sustainable outcomes.
Housing alone cannot solve addiction.
Transparency, Respect, and Democratic Participation
Meaningful public engagement must precede the placement of any social facility. A strategy of moving rejected projects from one city to another will only deepen public mistrust and create new social fractures.
Conclusion: Compassion Without Accountability Is Not a Solution
What society needs is not “moving people into a building and calling it done,” but a comprehensive approach grounded in care, governance, responsibility, and community partnership.
Addiction is a personal tragedy and a societal challenge. Providing shelter reflects compassion. But without systemic planning, treatment capacity, and long-term oversight, well-intended policies risk shifting harm onto innocent residents—children, seniors, neighbors, and frontline workers.
We should not abandon reason in the name of kindness, nor abandon kindness out of fear. A responsible social policy protects the vulnerable and safeguards the broader community.
If BC Housing, municipal governments, and community members can genuinely collaborate—sharing data, enforcing standards, and expanding treatment and recovery capacity—supportive housing could become a bridge to healing and reintegration. Without this, it risks leaving new scars.
Burnaby, Surrey, and Richmond are not rejecting people in need.
They are rejecting an irresponsible system design.
It is time for government and society to confront the drug crisis honestly—and ensure that compassion does not become the next preventable disaster.
Disclaimer
Voices & Bridges publishes opinions like this from the community to encourage constructive discussion and debate on important issues. Views represented in the articles are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the V&B.
Si vero id etiam explanare velles apertiusque diceres nihil eum fecisse nisi voluptatis causa, quo modo eum tandem laturum fuisse existimas?
Nummus in Croesi divitiis obscuratur, pars est tamen divitiarum. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore.
BuyRoyalTicketson
Recent Comments