Reclaiming Section 7: Why Poilievre’s Stand Against Drug Policy Failure Is a Call for Common Sense

Pierre Poilievre is drawing a line. In a speech that spares no room for ambiguity, the Conservative leader delivered a sharp rebuke of Canada’s current approach to drug addiction — and positioned himself as the only federal leader willing to challenge the status quo. The catalyst for his comments? The continued expansion of safe consumption sites across major Canadian cities and the staggering human toll the drug crisis has taken since harm-reduction became the dominant public health framework.

At the centre of the debate is Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — a constitutional guarantee that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

In recent years, advocates for safe consumption sites and safe supply programs have pointed to Section 7 as the basis for ensuring that individuals with addictions are not criminalized, pushed into unsafe environments, or denied access to life-saving care. On that front, the legal argument holds real weight. No one is disputing that people battling addiction deserve dignity, and that Section 7 protects them from arbitrary and harmful state actions.

But here’s where Poilievre makes a crucial — and long-ignored — point: Section 7 applies to everyone. It’s not a one-way street. Children, families, seniors, and small business owners also have the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Those rights are jeopardized when a so-called safe consumption site operates in a way that contributes to public disorder, stray violence, and unsafe street conditions.

Poilievre invoked the tragic case of a mother who was struck by a bullet outside a Toronto consumption site — a stark reminder that these facilities do not exist in a vacuum. They operate in communities, around schools, playgrounds, and homes. When these sites become hubs for crime or act as magnets for illegal drug activity, they do not merely fail in their mission — they risk infringing on the very Charter rights they were designed to uphold.

His argument is not that we should abandon people with addictions. It’s that we have reached a breaking point with policies that prioritize short-term harm reduction over long-term recovery and community safety. The Liberal model — centered on the distribution of hard drugs and the normalization of open drug use — has led to over 50,000 overdose deaths. That’s not just a policy failure. That’s a public emergency.

Safe consumption sites may reduce the immediate risk of overdose in controlled environments. But what happens outside those walls? What happens when residents no longer feel safe walking down their own streets? What happens when parents worry every day about what their kids might find in the park? These are not theoretical questions. They are the daily reality in parts of Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, and other cities where overdose deaths have continued to climb despite — or perhaps because of — the harm reduction model.

Poilievre is proposing a national shift: one that ends the open distribution of hard drugs, shuts down unsafe consumption sites, and replaces permissiveness with enforcement and compassion-driven recovery. He’s called for life sentences for fentanyl traffickers and a massive investment in detox, counseling, and rehabilitation. This approach is focused not on punishing addiction, but on confronting it — through structure, boundaries, and the belief that full recovery is both possible and necessary.

The debate around Section 7 is far from settled. Courts will continue to weigh the legal limits of public health interventions and community safety. But the principle behind Poilievre’s stance is clear: the right to life and security cannot be viewed in isolation. The safety of the broader community matters too. And Canadians deserve a government that sees addiction not as a permanent condition to be managed, but as a challenge to be overcome.

As the country moves deeper into this debate, it’s worth asking: what kind of future are we building when the streets outside our schools, churches, and homes are the front lines of an ongoing drug crisis? And when will we start treating the rights of all Canadians — not just some — with the seriousness they deserve?

Poilievre’s answer is direct. When he’s Prime Minister, that shift will begin on day one.