By Jizi
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.
I. BC’s Drug Crisis: Not Abstract—But Measured in Lives Lost
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.
II. Drug Policy Has Shifted—But the New Model Has Not Proven Effective
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.”
III. Supportive and Complex-Care Housing: No Silver Bullet
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.