Government inaction on the overdose crisis is a human rights violation, according to a recent position statement released by British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. It makes clear that the ongoing inaction and misdirection of policies aimed at handling the crisis are largely rooted in stigma, politics and systemic oppression—and run contrary to scientific evidence.
“[The toxic drug supply crisis] is the leading cause of death for people between 19 and 59 in this province,” BC Human Rights Commissioner Kasari Govender told Filter. “The fact is that this toxic drug crisis won’t be solved without an approach that focuses on safer supply and harm reduction.”
Under international human rights law and Canadian constitutional law, governments have an obligation to protect the right to life and security and promote the health of individuals in their jurisdictions, which, the statement noted, includes “removing life threatening risks to individuals in consumer products.”
“We’re asking for harm reduction to be funded and to be supported.”
In the position statement, the commissioner wrote that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the right to life, liberty and security of the person—is “engaged when government policy contributes to preventable death, such as by denying access to harm reduction services,” and that inadequately addressing underlying factors such as trauma and mental health conditions “over the course of decades, is a failing of provincial and federal social policy to uphold rights.”
Although the position statement does not include a formal set of recommendations for the province, Govender told Filter that her office is “calling for increased access to safe supply … We’re asking for harm reduction to be funded and to be supported. We’re also asking for involuntary treatment to be treated with a variety of safeguards in place.”
In March 2020, BC became the first jurisdiction in Canada to provide free prescribed pharmaceutical-grade opioids (primarily hydromorphone and morphine) to individuals deemed at high risk of overdose. The program became permanent in July 2021, and expanded to include injectable fentanyl.
Initiatives like BC’s, in addition to 10 similar pilot projects implemented by Health Canada, were demonstrably effective at decreasing risk of overdose death, though many critics also pointed to the limited access to these programs.
The BC human rights commissioner’s position statement is just the latest in a slew of testimony from provincial officials calling for bolder interventions.
In recent years, the province has largely ignored appeals, and stalled or rolled back policies that focused on harm reduction efforts like prescribed alternatives.
Lisa LaPointe, BC’s chief coroner at the time, along with a Death Review Panel of substance use specialists, regional health leaders, researchers, a police chief, BC’s representative for children and youth, and a peer clinical adviser, called for the expansion of non-medical safe supply options in their 2023 report.
In 2023 and 2024, BC Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry likewise echoed calls for a broader range of substances and access models to be included, including non-prescriber based options.
But in recent years, the province has largely ignored appeals from officials and numerous peer-led organizations, and stalled or rolled back policies that focused on harm reduction efforts like prescribed alternatives.
In February 2025, the province overhauled its safe supply program to require witnessed dosing for all new clients, effectively ending the take-home model for prescribed alternatives and significantly limiting access.
It claimed this was an effort to reduce drug diversion and “hold bad actors accountable for putting people and communities at risk,” according to a BC government news release.
But Govender emphasized that while some concerns around diversion may be justified, they should not supplant the demonstrated benefits of a robust safer supply program. “[Diversion] is about [pharmacies] abusing the law and the programs that were available to them. We should be addressing that problem, not taking away the entire system,” she said. “It’s a classic ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’ situation.”
“The ultimate effect of [diversion] is to have safer drugs on the market, so ultimately that still probably did save some lives.”
In 2025, leaked information claimed a number of pharmacies (60 out of 1,400) were involved in diverting prescription opioids. The commissioner’s position statement noted that “as a result, the Ministry of Health quickly backtracked on their efforts,” and that “notably, there is no evidence to suggest that [diversion was] inherent in the safer supply program rather than a problem of illegal action taken by individuals within an otherwise legitimate public health effort.”
The political damage was done, however, and perhaps this was always likely. In 2024, BC’s Auditor General report had found that “there were no strategies to address major implementation barriers” of safe supply, and as a result, “the provincial government could not adequately communicate the effectiveness of programs and therefore was more susceptible to political critiques about the risks … such as diversion.”
Govender told Filter that “the ultimate effect of [diversion] is to have safer drugs on the market, so ultimately that still probably did save some lives … diversion is a far easier issue to tackle than the toxic drug crisis itself.”
A key component of the commissioner’s statement notes that while the province has been backtracking on safe supply and harm reduction-oriented policies, it has been simultaneously boosting its investment in involuntary drug treatment.
There is currently limited evidence to support the use of involuntary treatment for substance use disorder alone. Other evidence has associated involuntary treatment with increased overdose risk, and some experts deem the practice inherently unethical.
Govender said that “involuntary treatment shouldn’t exist only for substance use disorders … The science is really problematic on this.”
BC’s Mental Health Act has always allowed for the involuntary treatment for mental health disorders under certain conditions. But in September 2024, the governing BC New Democratic Party announced plans to expand the infrastructure used to detain people with substance use disorders and co-occurring conditions who could be certified under the Act.
Govender said that “involuntary treatment shouldn’t exist only for substance use disorders … The science is really problematic on this.”
On November 24 the province announced that it would be proposing what some experts have called a very “technical” and “confusing” change to the act.
The move came in the midst of an ongoing Charter challenge to BC’s Mental Health Act, and if passed the change would not impact eligibility criteria for involuntary treatment. It would, however, provide additional protections for health care workers engaged in it, should they face legal action. It will also “help clarify the purpose of the act, which is to provide treatment to those who require it,” according to a BC government news release.
“It is unclear what the recent amendments to the MHA will mean in practice,” Govender said. “The government has been clear that deemed consent—which is currently before the courts in a constitutional challenge—remains in the law. But the result is definitely still to be determined.”
“Our investments should be going towards voluntary treatments … Not only does that respect rights to agency, but it is also more effective.”
Earlier in 2025, BC announced the opening of 18 involuntary beds at the Alouette Homes and 10 at the Surrey Pretrial Centre, where participants were being housed in the solitary confinement unit. While the government touted adding 760 new voluntary treatment beds since 2017, a recent news release also stated that “work is underway to open an additional 100 involuntary care beds in Surrey and Prince George facilities.”
“Our investments should be going towards voluntary treatments,” Govender said. “We need to properly fund voluntary services so that people have places to go when they choose to go. Not only does that respect their rights to agency, but it is also more effective.”
The commissioner’s position statement notes that “until these services actually meet demand, using evidence of the tragic harms of the toxic drug crisis to support violating people’s liberty rights not only lacks credibility, but also seriously undermines human rights protections.”
No significant changes have been made to BC’s Mental Health Act as yet, but Govender noted that Dr. Daniel Vigo, the scientific advisor to BC Premier David Eby, released guidance to psychiatrists on the use of involuntary treatment in March 2025.
“We don’t know yet the impact of that and whether that’s increased … our use of involuntary treatment, but that’s certainly presented as a possibility because there’s just been so much focus on involuntary approaches,” Govender said.
Govender was appointed as BC’s first independent human rights commissioner in September 2019. After serving her first five-year term, she was unanimously reappointed for a second term by the BC legislature in May 2024. The release of a position statement, though sure to generate attention, falls on the softer end of her powers.
Govender has the ability to use formal measures such as inquiries and official reports, which unlike position statements generally include recommendations. She also has legal powers to obtain information.
Although she does not have the ability to mandate recommendations, she explained, she can “require [that] those I make recommendations to report back to me on how well they’re doing in implementing the recommendation.”
“Part of the goal of this statement for our office is to have a jumping-off point … so that we can [then] make [formal] recommendations.”
Based on a recent report, the province and private entities to which she has issued recommendations fully or partially implement them about 59 per cent of the time.
“Part of the goal of this statement for our office is to have a jumping-off point … so that we can [then] make [formal] recommendations,” Govender said.
She also has the power to act as intervenor in cases before the BC Supreme Court. When asked if she intended to be an intervenor in the DULF constitutional challenge or any other upcoming court cases regarding the overdose crisis, she declined to comment.
However, she suggested that this position statement is only the beginning for her office, which is set to host a December 10 discussion with Govender, former Chief Coroner Lapointe and the Canadian Mental Health Association’s Jonny Morris.
Govender’s many past roles at human rights-oriented nonprofits include a spell on the board of Pivot Legal Society, which advocates for drug policy reform; as BC human rights commissioner, she could do so with substantial influence. While this is the first time that her office has addressed the toxic drug supply crisis head on, it has previously released letters on issues relating to poverty and housing, and inquiries into policing, as well as initiatives around equitable health care access.
“I’m not sure yet what our next steps will be,” Govender said of the commission’s drug policy involvement, “but this certainly is one of the focuses of our work going forward.”
Photograph of an April 2025 rally to mark the ninth anniversary of the BC government declaring the overdose crisis a public health emergency, by Dustin Godfrey