With the debate over the drug policy pursued by the liberals dominating parts of the spring House of Commons session, the conservatives provided little insight into the approach they would take regarding supervised consumption sites.

When asked earlier this month whether a future Conservative Party government would seek to change the application process for opening such centers, the party’s addiction critic said she could not speculate.

Layla Goodridge clarified, "But I believe this has been politicized in a way that sets one viewpoint against another, and that is not helpful."

At supervised consumption sites, users can inject or inhale drugs under the supervision of staff who can intervene in the event of an overdose; centers often also provide drug testing and clean supplies to prevent the spread of disease, as well as referrals to detox or treatment facilities.

Poilievre has been clear about his opposition to other harm reduction strategies aimed at alleviating the opioid overdose crisis.

These efforts include decriminalization measures to help keep users out of jail and "safer supply" programs that provide pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic street drugs.

Instead, he wants to offer people "a path to a drug-free life" by focusing on treatment and recovery. In a 2022 op-ed, Poilievre also promised to create a national nasal naloxone distribution program to help reverse overdoses.

But what about supervised consumption sites?

In response to a question about the party's stance, Goodridge pointed out that the Supreme Court of Canada had already ruled on the matter.

She said, "I advise you to read that."

In a historic ruling in 2011, the Court unanimously held that closing the doors of Canada’s first supervised injection site would deprive users of their rights under the Charter.

The ruling kept Insite operational despite the opposition of the then-Conservative government, which required the Health Minister to grant an exemption from federal drug laws.

Poilievre's office declined to disclose whether he supports supervised consumption sites or whether he would include them as part of his approach to addressing the toxic drug crisis.

It also did not respond to a question about a reported statement by Poilievre at a town hall in Northern Ontario in January. The Salt Lake Star reported that he told the audience he would not be prepared to fund supervised consumption sites.

Poilievre's office also did not answer whether he would review any current operations or change requirements for operators.

Benjamin Perrin, a law professor at the University of British Columbia who previously served as an advisor to Harper, said, "It seems they are trying to have it both ways, which you cannot do."

"You either support them or you don’t."

Four years after the Supreme Court decision that prevented it from closing the Insite facility, the Harper government enacted the Respect for Communities Act.

This required potential supervised consumption sites to meet a set of criteria to operate, such as tracking crime rates and consulting with local residents and police.

After their election, the liberals passed their own law that allows for easier opening of facilities. There are now 39 supervised consumption sites, according to Health Canada, with 10 more applications open.

Goodridge, the MP from Alberta, noted that there are facilities in her home province.

She said, "We have continued to supervise consumption sites, recognizing they are part of the continuum of care in a recovery-oriented system," but "it must be done in a way that takes into account all factors."

The United Conservative Party government in Alberta says it is shifting focus away from what it calls "heavy-handed interventions" towards allocating more resources for long-term recovery from addiction — an approach Poilievre praises.

In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford withdrew funding from some supervised consumption sites, stating in 2018 that he was "against them."

Critics say both provinces are waging a war on harm reduction, as the increasing supply of toxic drugs leads to rising death tolls. More than 40,000 people have died since federal tracking began in 2016.

Poilievre has expressed opposition to a few specific supervised consumption sites.

Weeks ago, he urged the federal Health Minister to deny the exemption requested by a site in Montreal, citing residents’ concerns about its proximity to a school and daycare.

Goodridge said that as a "mother," she does not believe the site takes into account "what is best for the community and the community’s well-being."

Earlier this year, Poilievre also called on supporters to oppose the proposed opening of a "new drug site" in Richmond, British Columbia. He accused the liberals and New Democrats of "pushing drugs into the Chinese community," where some members of that community protested the site.

When it comes to whether any supervised consumption sites should be operated, critics point out that other Conservative MPs have sent mixed messages.

Alberta MP Glen Motz stated in the House of Commons in April that "there is no such thing as a safe consumption site," while Todd Doherty of British Columbia recently indicated in a committee that his party has not settled on a position yet.

Doherty said, "No one from the conservatives, whether it’s our leader or ourselves, has said anything about safe consumption sites in any policy or any conversation," adding that he believes "there are many tools in the toolbox."

New Democrat addiction critic Gord Johns said, "We can’t get an answer from the conservatives."

He added, "Good luck."

Perrin said one way for a future government to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling is to use the "exception clause."

This allows the government to enact laws that override portions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for up to five years.

Poilievre said he would be willing to use this clause to keep convicted killers ineligible for parole for a longer period. His office clarified that any use of this tool would be limited to criminal justice matters.

Perrin said of supervised drug sites, "This is a criminal justice issue."

Poilievre's office declined to answer whether they were in agreement.