Addictions
So What ARE We Supposed To Do With the Homeless?

David Clinton
Involuntary confinement is currently enjoying serious reconsideration
Sometimes a quick look is all it takes to convince me that a particular government initiative has gone off the rails. The federal government’s recent decision to shut down their electric vehicle subsidy program does feel like a vindication of my previous claim that subsidies don’t actually increase EV sales.
But no matter how hard I look at some other programs – and no matter how awful I think they are – coming up with better alternatives of my own isn’t at all straightforward. A case in point is contemporary strategies for managing urban homeless shelters. The problem is obvious: people suffering from mental illnesses, addictions, and poverty desperately need assistance with shelter and immediate care.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Ideally, shelters should provide integration with local healthcare, social, and employment infrastructure to make it easier for clients to get back on their feet. But integration isn’t cost-free. Because many shelters serve people suffering from serious mental illnesses, neighbors have to worry about being subjected to dangerous and criminal behavior.
Apparently, City of Toronto policy now requires their staff to obscure from public view the purchase and preparation of new shelter locations. The obvious logic driving the policy is the desire to avoid push back from neighbors worried about the impact such a facility could have.
As much as we might regret the not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) attitude the city is trying to circumvent, the neighbors do have a point. Would I want to raise my children on a block littered with used syringes and regularly visited by high-as-a-kite – and often violent – substance abusers? Would I be excited about an overnight 25 percent drop in the value of my home? To be honest, I could easily see myself fighting fiercely to prevent such a facility opening anywhere near where I live.
On the other hand, we can’t very well abandon the homeless. They need a warm place to go along with access to resources necessary for moving ahead with their lives.
One alternative to dorm-like shelters where client concentration can amplify the negative impacts of disturbed behavior is “housing first” models. The goal is to provide clients with immediate and unconditional access to their own apartments regardless of health or behaviour warnings. The thinking is that other issues can only be properly addressed from the foundation of stable housing.
Such models have been tried in many places around the world over the years. Canada’s federal government, for example, ran their Housing First program between 2009 and 2013. That was replaced in 2014 with the Homelessness Partnering Strategy which, in 2019 was followed by Reaching Home.
There have been some successes, particularly in small communities. But one look at the disaster that is San Francisco will demonstrate that the model doesn’t scale well. The sad fact is that Canada’s emergency shelters are still as common as ever: serving as many as 11,000 people a night just in Toronto. Some individuals might have benefited from the Home First-type programs, but they haven’t had a measurable impact on the problem itself.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Where does the money to cover those programs come from? According to their 2023 Financial Report, the City of Toronto spent $1.1 billion on social housing, of which $504 million came in funding transfers from other levels of government. Now we probably have to be careful to distinguish between a range of programs that could be included in those “social housing” figures. But it’s probably safe to assume that they included an awful lot of funding directed at the homeless.
So money is available, but is there another way to spend it that doesn’t involve harming residential neighborhoods?
To ask the question is to answer it. Why not create homeless shelters in non-residential areas?
Right off the top I’ll acknowledge that there’s no guarantee these ideas would work and they’re certainly not perfect. But we already know that the current system isn’t ideal and there’s no indication that it’s bringing us any closer to solving the underlying problems. So why not take a step back and at least talk about alternatives?
Good government is about finding a smart balance between bad options.
Put bluntly, by “non-residential neighborhood shelters” I mean “client warehouses”. That is, constructing or converting facilities in commercial, industrial, or rural areas for dorm-like housing. Naturally, there would be medical, social, and guidance resources available on-site, and frequent shuttle services back and forth to urban hubs.
If some of this sounds suspiciously like the forced institutionalization of people suffering from dangerous mental health conditions that existing until the 1970s, that’s not an accident. The terrible abuses that existed in some of those institutions were replaced by different kinds of suffering, not to mention growing street crime. But shutting down the institutions themselves didn’t solve anything. Involuntary confinement is currently enjoying serious reconsideration.
Clients would face some isolation and inconvenience, and the risk of institutional abuses can’t be ignored. But those could be outweighed by the positives. For one thing, a larger client population makes it possible to properly separate families and healthy individuals facing short-term poverty from the mentally ill or abusive. It would also allow for more resource concentration than community-based models. That might mean dedicated law enforcement and medical staff rather than reliance on the 9-1-1 system.
It would also be possible to build positive pathways into the system, so making good progress in the rural facility could earn clients the right to move to in-town transition locations.
This won’t be the last word spoken on this topic. But we’re living with a system that’s clearly failing to properly serve both the homeless and people living around them. It would be hard to justify ignoring alternatives.
The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Addictions
Should fentanyl dealers face manslaughter charges for fatal overdoses?

Tyler Ginn prior to his death from a fentanyl overdose in 2021. [Photo credit: Gayle Fowlie]
By Alexandra Keeler
Police are charging more drug dealers with manslaughter in fentanyl overdose deaths. But the shift is not satisfying everyone
Four years ago, Tyler Ginn died of a fentanyl overdose at the age of 18. Tyler’s father found his son unresponsive in the bedroom of their Brooklin, Ont., home.
For Tyler’s mother, Gayle Fowlie, the pain of his loss remains raw.
“He was my kid that rode his bike to the store to buy me a chocolate bar on my birthday, you know?” she told Canadian Affairs in an interview.
Police charged Jacob Norn, the drug dealer who sold Tyler his final, fatal dose, with manslaughter. More than three years after Tyler’s death, Norn was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.
“I don’t think you can grasp how difficult going through a trial is,” Fowlie said. “On TV, it’s a less than an hour process. But the pain of it, and going over every detail and then going over every detail again … it provides details you wish you didn’t know.”
But Fowlie is glad Norn was convicted. If anything, she would have liked him to serve a longer sentence. Lawyers have told her Norn is likely to serve only two to four years of his sentence in prison.
“My son’s never coming back [and] his whole family has a life sentence of missing him the rest of our lives,” she said. “So do I think four years is fair? No.”
Norn’s case reflects a growing trend of drug dealers being charged with manslaughter when their drug sales lead to fatal overdoses.
But this shift has not satisfied everyone. Some would like to see drug dealers face harsher or different penalties.
“If we say that it was 50 per cent Tyler’s fault for buying it and 50 per cent Jacob’s fault for selling it … then I think he should have a half-a-life sentence,” said Fowlie.
Others say the legal system’s focus on prosecuting low-level drug dealers misses the broader issues at play.
“[Police] decided, in the Jacob Norn case, they were going to go one stage back,” said Peter Thorning, who was Norn’s defence lawyer.
“What about the person who gave Jacob that substance? What about the person who supplied the substance to [that person]? There was no investigation into where it came from and who was ultimately responsible for the death of that young man.”
Manslaughter charge
At least 50,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses since 2016. Last year, an average of 21 individuals died each day, with fentanyl accounting for nearly 80 per cent of those deaths.
Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. A dose as small as a few grains of salt can be lethal.
Given its potency, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned to manslaughter charges when a dealer’s product results in a fatal overdose.
A recent study in the Canadian Journal of Law and Society found that the number of manslaughter charges laid for drug-related deaths in Canada surged from three cases in 2016 to 135 in 2021.
Individuals can be convicted of manslaughter for committing unlawful, reckless or negligent acts that result in death but where there was no intention to kill. Sentences can range from probation (in rare cases) to life.
Murder charges, by contrast, require an intent to kill or cause fatal harm. Drug dealers typically face manslaughter charges in overdose cases, as their intent is to distribute drugs, not to kill those who purchase them.
Joanne Bortoluss, a spokesperson for the Durham Regional Police, which charged Norn, said that each of their investigations follows the same fundamental process.
“Investigators consider the strength of the evidence, the dealer’s level of involvement, and applicable laws when determining whether to pursue charges like manslaughter,” she said.
The Canadian Journal of Law and Society study also found that prosecutions often target low-level dealers, many of whom are drug users themselves and have personal connections to the deceased.
Norn’s case fits this pattern. He struggled with substance abuse, including addiction to fentanyl, Xanax and Percocet. Tyler and Norn were friends, the judge said in the court ruling, although Fowlie disputes this claim.
“[Those words] are repulsive to me,” she said.
The Crown argued Norn demonstrated “a high degree of moral blameworthiness” by warning Ginn of the fentanyl’s potency while still selling it to him. In a call to Ginn, he warned him “not to do a lot of the stuff” because he “didn’t want to be responsible for anything that happened.”
Fowlie’s outrage over Norn’s lenient sentencing is compounded by the fact that Norn was found trafficking fentanyl again after her son’s death.
“So we’ve killed somebody, and we’re still … trafficking? We’re not worried who else we kill?” Fowlie said.

Trafficking
Some legal sources noted that manslaughter charges do not necessarily lead to harsh sentences or deterrence.
“If you look at how diverse and … lenient some sentences are for manslaughter, I don’t think it really pushes things in the direction that [victims’ families] want,” said Kevin Westell, a Vancouver-based trial lawyer and former chair of the Canadian Bar Association.
Westell noted that the term “manslaughter” is misleading. “Manslaughter is a brutal-sounding title, but it encapsulates a very broad span of criminal offences,” he said.
In Westell’s view, consistently charging dealers with drug trafficking could be more effective for deterring the practice.
“What really matters is how long the sentence is, and you’re better off saying, ‘We know fentanyl is dangerous, so we’re setting the sentence quite high,’ rather than making it harder to prove with a manslaughter charge,” he said.
Trafficking is a distinct charge from manslaughter that involves the distribution, sale or delivery of illicit drugs. The sentencing range for fentanyl trafficking is eight to 15 years, Kwame Bonsu, a media relations representative for the Department of Justice, told Canadian Affairs.
“Courts must impose sentences that are proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,” Bonsu said, referencing a 2021 Supreme Court of Canada decision. Bonsu noted that aggravating factors such as lack of remorse or trafficking large quantities can lead to harsher sentences.
‘Head of the snake’
Some legal experts noted the justice system often fails to target those higher up in the drug supply chain.
“We don’t know how many hands that drug goes through,” said Thorning, the defence lawyer.
“Are the police going to prosecute every single person who provides fentanyl to another person? Jacob [Norn] was himself an addict trafficker — what about the person who supplied the substance to him?”
Thorning also questioned whether government agencies bear some responsibility. “Is some government agency’s failure to investigate how that drug came into the country partly responsible for the young man’s death?”
Westell, who has served as both a Crown prosecutor and criminal defence lawyer, acknowledged the difficulty of targeting higher-level traffickers.
“Cutting off the head of the snake does not align very well with the limitations of the international borders,” he said.
“Yes, there are transnational justice measures, but a lot gets lost, and as soon as you cross an international border of any kind, it becomes incredibly difficult to follow the chain in a linear way.”
Bortoluss, of the Durham police, said even prosecuting what appear to be obvious fentanyl-related deaths — such as Tyler Ginn’s — can be challenging. Witnesses can be reluctant to cooperate, fearing legal consequences. It can also be difficult to identify the source of drugs, as “transactions often involve multiple intermediaries and anonymous online sales.”
Another challenge in deterring fentanyl trafficking is the strong financial incentives of the trade.
“Even if [Norn] serves two to four years for killing somebody, but he could make a hundred thousand off of selling drugs, is it worth it?” Fowlie said.
Thorning agreed that the profit incentive can be incredibly powerful, outweighing the risk of a potential sentence.
“The more risky you make the behaviour, the greater the profit for a person who’s willing to break our laws, and the profit is the thing that generates the conduct,” he said.
A blunt instrument
Legal experts also noted the criminal justice system alone cannot solve the fentanyl crisis.
“Most people who have [lost] a loved one [to drug overdose] want to see a direct consequence to the person that’s responsible,” said Westell. “But I think they would also like to see something on a more macro level that helps eliminate the problem more holistically, and that can’t be [achieved through] crime and punishment alone.”
Thorning agrees.
“These are mental health .. [and] medical issues,” he said. “Criminal law is a blunt instrument [that is] not going to deal with these things effectively.”
Even Fowlie sees the problem as bigger than sentencing. Her son struggled with the stigma associated with therapy and medication, which made it difficult for him to seek help.
“We need to normalize seeing a therapist, like we normalize getting your eyes checked every year,” she said.
“Pot isn’t the gateway drug, trauma is a gateway drug.”
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.
Addictions
The Fentanyl Crisis Is A War, And Canada Is On The Wrong Side

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Drug cartels, China, and Canada’s negligence are fueling the deadliest epidemic of our time
It took the threat of U.S. tariffs for Canada to wake up to the horrors of the fentanyl epidemic that is destroying young lives and shattering families. Canadians, who panicked over COVID-19 deaths, have hardly noticed that far more healthy Canadians and Americans are now dying from fentanyl overdoses than ever died from COVID.
Yet while Americans confront this deadly epidemic, Canada remains oblivious to how deeply the crisis has infiltrated our borders.
A grim milestone came in 2021 when U.S. opioid overdose deaths exceeded 100,000 in a single year. More than a million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since these highly addictive drugs first entered the market. Today, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 25.
Behind every kilogram of fentanyl lies half a million potential deaths. Behind every pill—a game of Russian roulette.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid so powerful that one kilogram can kill 500,000 people. Its extreme potency makes it both highly dangerous and easy to smuggle. A single backpack thrown across the border can carry $1 million worth of the drug. It is easy to see why so many opportunists are willing to risk their lives producing and selling it. Overdose statistics fail to capture the bodies found in deserts or those murdered in the vicious drug trade.
Fentanyl is produced for a few cents per pill but sold on the street for many times that, making it both profitable and a cheap high. Incredibly addictive, it is found in virtually all street drugs, giving “the most bang for the buck.” Made by amateurs, these drugs are carelessly laced with lethal doses. And because the pills look identical, users never know whether a dose will get them high—or kill them.
But Canada is not just a bystander in this crisis. A loophole in our border laws—the “de minimis” exemption—has turned Canada into a gateway for fentanyl entering U.S. communities. This exemption allows exporters to ship small packages valued at less than $800 directly to customers with minimal border inspection. Chinese exporters exploit this loophole to ship fentanyl precursors into Canada, where they are processed into pills or moved to Mexico under the supervision of Mexican drug cartels.
The Trump administration has pressed Canada to close this loophole. That it has existed for years, almost unnoticed, should shock us to the core.
The problem of fentanyl production within Canada should not be minimized. The RCMP reports that fentanyl labs are appearing across B.C., often producing methamphetamine alongside fentanyl. These small labs supply both domestic and international markets. The threat is real, and it is growing.
Exactly how many Canadians have died from fentanyl overdoses is unclear. However, with Canada’s population roughly one-ninth of the U.S., it is reasonable to estimate that Canadian deaths are approximately one-ninth of U.S. numbers.
But overdose numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. The number of lives wrecked by this drug is staggering. Parents watch their children—once vibrant and full of promise—disappear before their eyes. Their beauty fades, their minds unravel, and their lives collapse into the desperate cycle of chasing the next fix. Some escape. Many don’t. Until death takes them, that is.
The new Trump administration has promised to confront this carnage. “This is a drug war,” Peter Navarro, assistant to the president and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, recently told reporters. “The Mexican cartels have expanded up to Canada, making fentanyl there and sending it down to the U.S. The Chinese are using Canada to send in small parcels below the radar. It’s important that Canadians understand we are trying to stop the killing of Americans by these deadly drugs.”
But while the U.S. acts, Canada hesitates. Trump is addressing the problem—Canada is enabling it.
The Trump administration also views Canada’s lax drug laws and casual attitude toward buying and selling even the most dangerous drugs as an exacerbating factor. However, on the fentanyl issue, it is clear Trump is determined to tackle a problem Canada has largely ignored. He should be commended for this, and Canada should start cleaning up its own mess.
Yet fentanyl smuggling from Canada is only part of a larger issue. Behind the drug trade lies an even more insidious enemy: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
The importation of fentanyl precursors from China, facilitated by Mexican cartels, has turned Vancouver into a money-laundering hub for the CCP. Investigative reporters like Sam Cooper and Terry Glavin have revealed the depth of this corruption, despite the Hogue Commission’s failure to expose it fully.
Ryan P. Williams, president of the Claremont Institute, warns that “The fentanyl crisis is part of a larger campaign by the CCP to destabilize Western nations. They flood our streets with poison while corrupting our institutions from within. If Canada doesn’t confront this threat, it will lose not only lives—but its sovereignty.”
Our new “fentanyl czar,” appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, should not only address the drug crisis but also expose how deeply a hostile CCP has compromised Canada.
Tackling the fentanyl problem will be enormously difficult—likely impossible— for the Trump administration without cooperation from China, Mexico and even Canada. And forcing that cooperation is likely the first part of Trump’s plan.
Canada’s role may be small, but it must take full responsibility for securing its borders and confronting the fentanyl crisis. Trump has forced us to act. Now, if we are serious about restoring our nation’s integrity, we must break the CCP’s grip on our institutions.
In doing so, we will save Canadian lives.
Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge. He is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He was recently named the ‘Western Standard Columnist of the Year.’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre to let working seniors keep more of their money
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Voters should remember Canada has other problems beyond Trump’s tariffs
-
COVID-191 day ago
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
Community1 day ago
Support local healthcare while winning amazing prizes!
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy
-
International2 days ago
Vice President Vance, Second Lady to visit Greenland on Friday
-
Business1 day ago
While “Team Canada” attacks Trump for election points, Premier Danielle Smith advocates for future trade relations