Surrey mayor Linda Hepner's opposition to supervised-injection sites defies common sense

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Surrey mayor Linda Hepner has remained steadfast in her opposition to allowing a supervised-injection site in her city.

      She reiterated this stance today on CBC Radio in an interview with host Rick Cluff.

      She's taken this position in the wake of Fraser Health declaring its interest in opening safe-consumption sites, which would be modelled on the low-key facility inside Vancouver's Dr. Peter Centre.

      It comes after a spike of overdoses in Surrey, including 43 over the July 15 weekend.

      Hepner mentioned on the radio that she doesn't have enough information to convince her that these facilities will help addicts get off drugs.

      This wrong-headed stance makes me wonder if Hepner could be opening her city up to lawsuits.

      Scientific evidence clearly shows that harm-reduction programs, including supervised-injection sites, improve public health. They result in more people seeking treatment, reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and save lives.

      In addition, local governments owe a "duty of care" to their residents. But that concept is sometimes legally fuzzy and can be subject to interpretation by the courts.

      So does the City of Surrey owe a duty of care to drug addicts living within its boundaries?

      Has Hepner's reckless opposition to supervised-injection facilities needlessly put their lives in danger and created liability for taxpayers?

      Hepner's Surrey First party holds every seat on council, so it's unlikely that any of the mayor's cronies will question her judgement.

      But that doesn't mean that provincial politicians should remain silent.

      There's an opportunity for NDP MLAs Bruce Ralston, Harry Bains, and Sue Hammell to show some leadership by putting pressure on the B.C. Liberal government to disavow itself from Hepner's remarks.

      Nobody, not even a mayor, should be allowed to make statements that fly in the face of scientific evidence to justify a policy that could jeopardize some residents' lives.

      Comments