Atlantic Canadian Politics Thread

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

I am against a plan that will ultimately leads to worse outcomes regardless of it making people feel better in the moment. The status quo is absolutely better than an option that makes things worse if its a binary choice.

I would imagine though at a high level I would support things that target the issue before it reaches a breaking point such as:

-Further investment in clinics for voluntary treatment, whether that's increased wages for addiction professionals, increased schooling access for addiction professionals. Tax credits for people who stay in NB to work after school etc. We will never get anywhere if we can't get that waitlist down
-Create models like 12 neighbors all over the province, starting with Moncton & Saint John
-Investments in police services to deal with supply (this needs to happen at all government levels).
-Increase in mental health services available - many of these issues begin as mental health issues, that spiral to drug use because self medication will happen if someone cannot get help.
-Invest in programs that help people re-integrate in society after incarceration

Ultimately these issues tie back to the biggest issues in our province, health care & housing. People don't just find themselves doing fentanyl when things are going well in the jobs and family life, and if they do they often have support systems that the people who we see distressed on the streets never had.

Don't disagree with many points, but the gap is where the problems lie. Mind the gap, suggests the kind voice on the tube.

What's your proposal for individuals that resist voluntary treatment?

If 20% (a # plucked from the air) are resistant to voluntary treatment, what should be done?

As an aside, I would love to know the micromorts per use based on the current supply. BC estimated the micromorts to be around 1 in 2020, but that was on a population basis, and not by exposure to activity.

Would it rate up there with ascent of Everest, I wonder at 37,932 per successful ascent?

[lirette]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

Don't disagree with many points, but the gap is where the problems lie. Mind the gap, suggests the kind voice on the tube.

What's your proposal for individuals that resist voluntary treatment?

If 20% (a # plucked from the air) are resistant to voluntary treatment, what should be done?

As an aside, I would love to know the micromorts per use based on the current supply. BC estimated the micromorts to be around 1 in 2020, but that was on a population basis, and not by exposure to activity.

Would it rate up there with ascent of Everest, I wonder at 37,932 per successful ascent?

I don't have all of the answers, beyond it being a likely charter issue anyways on peoples rights, I would rather we focus our limited resources we have now on helping the 80% who have a better chance of success. It is just how I see it from a pragmatic point of view on how to improve things long term.

I'm willing to shift my opinion on this if someone has some better evidence but every data point I find suggests forced treatment does not work. All I see when I hear forced treatment is the resources we have now are stuck working the most difficult of cases while the waitlist of less advanced cases we have now continues to grow, and in 5 years time the problem is even worse when these same individuals relapse and we have an even larger list of people whos addictions are advanced.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

I don't have all of the answers, beyond it being a likely charter issue anyways on peoples rights, I would rather we focus our limited resources we have now on helping the 80% who have a better chance of success. It is just how I see it from a pragmatic point of view on how to improve things long term.

I'm willing to shift my opinion on this if someone has some better evidence but every data point I find suggests forced treatment does not work. All I see when I hear forced treatment is the resources we have now are stuck working the most difficult of cases while the waitlist of less advanced cases we have now continues to grow, and in 5 years time the problem is even worse when these same individuals relapse and we have an even larger list of people whos addictions are advanced.

It would be based largely on the Portuguese model. Portugal’s approach to addiction is known largely for how the country decriminalized all personal-use possession of drugs starting in 2001.

Less known is how Portugal paired this with a strict system of compelled treatment. Anybody caught with drugs is referred to a Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, where a panel of health professionals recommends treatment – and can levy fines and other civil consequences in cases of non-cooperation. ref: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/involuntary-drug-treatment-alberta-2023-election

Works in Portugal.

We barely know what this looks like in AB, and obviously NB hasn't released their plan. All I know is we don't need a Needle Park (Zurich) or DTES locally. We don't need to be that cool to have our own skid row.

[sailor734]

i think the idea of "forced" treatment is just a political fig leaf. Sounds like the only real thing it would accomplish is to get hard core addicts off the street for a period of time. Not a bad thing in and of itself but I wonder at the cost. Would it be cheaper to expand provincial jail capacity and start enforcing more laws (shoplifting, vandalism, petty theft, public mischief etc etc with custodial sentences? It would seem the benefits to society would be about the same as forced 'treatment".

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by sailor734

i think the idea of "forced" treatment is just a political fig leaf. Sounds like the only real thing it would accomplish is to get hard core addicts off the street for a period of time. Not a bad thing in and of itself but I wonder at the cost. Would it be cheaper to expand provincial jail capacity and start enforcing more laws (shoplifting, vandalism, petty theft, public mischief etc etc with custodial sentences? It would seem the benefits to society would be about the same as forced 'treatment".

Well its a routine condition for convicted of certain crimes to be required to abstain from alcohol as part of sentencing.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

It would be based largely on the Portuguese model. Portugal’s approach to addiction is known largely for how the country decriminalized all personal-use possession of drugs starting in 2001.

Less known is how Portugal paired this with a strict system of compelled treatment. Anybody caught with drugs is referred to a Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, where a panel of health professionals recommends treatment – and can levy fines and other civil consequences in cases of non-cooperation. ref: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/involuntary-drug-treatment-alberta-2023-election

Works in Portugal.

We barely know what this looks like in AB, and obviously NB hasn't released their plan. All I know is we don't need a Needle Park (Zurich) or DTES locally. We don't need to be that cool to have our own skid row.

The Portuguese plan has great results, but I don't buy for a second that a government run by Higgs and Austin are capable of executing a plan with that type of care and dignity. In fact many aspects of this plan involve the harm reduction that is being talked about as the issue on this very forum.

A plan with the amount of care and professionals needed will need a massive investment that would make Higgs head spin. The plan in Portugal truly treated addiction as a health care issue. The language on this forum and by others does not indicate any willingness to talk about it in that way. The plan in Portugal had a buy in from the professionals involved in the process while the PC's decided to start looking at this legislation without involving any of the key stakeholders - a pattern for this government.

A few examples of some of the things you see in the Portugal. (NPR article)

"Every day, a government van pulls up and gives him a dose of methadone, an opioid that helps wean people off of heroin. It's a step toward harm-reduction. He still does cocaine, but no longer shoots up."

"Drug workers hand out packets with clean needles and condoms and listen to another addict, Antonio, describe his anxiety."

"For every person in Portugal who cannot escape addiction, there's daily methadone, counseling and free treatment. A generation ago, these addicts were put in jail. Now they're on the street."

The Portugal plan works because it comes with an entire team of resources paired with harm reduction efforts that are heavily criticized by conservatives at provincial and federal levels.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

It would be based largely on the Portuguese model. Portugal’s approach to addiction is known largely for how the country decriminalized all personal-use possession of drugs starting in 2001.

Less known is how Portugal paired this with a strict system of compelled treatment. Anybody caught with drugs is referred to a Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, where a panel of health professionals recommends treatment – and can levy fines and other civil consequences in cases of non-cooperation. ref: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/involuntary-drug-treatment-alberta-2023-election

Works in Portugal.

We barely know what this looks like in AB, and obviously NB hasn't released their plan. All I know is we don't need a Needle Park (Zurich) or DTES locally. We don't need to be that cool to have our own skid row.

The Portuguese plan has great results, but I don't buy for a second that a government run by Higgs and Austin are capable of executing a plan with that type of care and dignity. In fact many aspects of this plan involve the harm reduction that is being talked about as the issue on this very forum.

A plan with the amount of care and professionals needed will need a massive investment that would make Higgs head spin. The plan in Portugal truly treated addiction as a health care issue. The language on this forum and by others does not indicate any willingness to talk about it in that way. The plan in Portugal had a buy in from the professionals involved in the process while the PC's decided to start looking at this legislation without involving any of the key stakeholders - a pattern for this government.

A few examples of some of the things you see in the Portugal. (NPR article)

"Every day, a government van pulls up and gives him a dose of methadone, an opioid that helps wean people off of heroin. It's a step toward harm-reduction. He still does cocaine, but no longer shoots up."

"Drug workers hand out packets with clean needles and condoms and listen to another addict, Antonio, describe his anxiety."

"For every person in Portugal who cannot escape addiction, there's daily methadone, counseling and free treatment. A generation ago, these addicts were put in jail. Now they're on the street."

The Portugal plan works because it comes with an entire team of resources paired with harm reduction efforts that are heavily criticized by conservatives at provincial and federal levels.

Another element involved in the plan is decriminalizing drugs, something again that conservatives are against.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lirette

A generation ago, these addicts were put in jail. Now they're on the street.".

And this is the crux of the problem.

Do these people belong on the street?

Street dwelling addicts pose a risk for the neighbourhoods they infest, make the streetscape feel unsafe, and are a source of chronic petty crime and theft, and occasional violent crime.

Is it better to let this infestation continue, or, should these people be institutionally housed in order to get the treatment they deserve.

How would you get them off the street?

[CharlotteSJ]

Originally Posted by lirette

The Portuguese plan has great results, but I don't buy for a second that a government run by Higgs and Austin are capable of executing a plan with that type of care and dignity. In fact many aspects of this plan involve the harm reduction that is being talked about as the issue on this very forum.

A plan with the amount of care and professionals needed will need a massive investment that would make Higgs head spin. The plan in Portugal truly treated addiction as a health care issue. The language on this forum and by others does not indicate any willingness to talk about it in that way. The plan in Portugal had a buy in from the professionals involved in the process while the PC's decided to start looking at this legislation without involving any of the key stakeholders - a pattern for this government.

A few examples of some of the things you see in the Portugal. (NPR article)

"Every day, a government van pulls up and gives him a dose of methadone, an opioid that helps wean people off of heroin. It's a step toward harm-reduction. He still does cocaine, but no longer shoots up."

"Drug workers hand out packets with clean needles and condoms and listen to another addict, Antonio, describe his anxiety."

"For every person in Portugal who cannot escape addiction, there's daily methadone, counseling and free treatment. A generation ago, these addicts were put in jail. Now they're on the street."

The Portugal plan works because it comes with an entire team of resources paired with harm reduction efforts that are heavily criticized by conservatives at provincial and federal levels.

The federal and provincial governments have cut funding and programs for mental health for over the last 40 years, which they've done so hand-in-hand, dumping the true cost onto society.
They would rather throw crumbs at NGOs and let them deal with any consequences of their programs not helping the complex situation.
You will NEVER see a province actually step up and take charge/lead the mental health and addiction initiatives/programs/institutions, because they know it is very costly and IF PROVEN SUCCESFUL, it would lead to an influx of people with said issues coming to their province, putting major strain on their services and budget etc.
For anything to be truly successful, you would need to see the federal government and ALL the provinces/territories step up and make it happen.
I'm not holding my breath.

At some point something has to give because society is starting to get frustrated with the situation, feeling that government/justice system/healthcare are ACTIVELY disregarding the problem. My fear is vigilantism is not too far ahead in the future, when dealing with these issues. The public is vocally mentioning this stuff.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And this is the crux of the problem.

Do these people belong on the street?

Street dwelling addicts pose a risk for the neighbourhoods they infest, make the streetscape feel unsafe, and are a source of chronic petty crime and theft, and occasional violent crime.

Is it better to let this infestation continue, or, should these people be institutionally housed in order to get the treatment they deserve.

How would you get them off the street?

The poster suggested that NB follow the portugal plan or even suggested that NB has intentions to do so.

The Portuguese plan has shown a good success in reducing addiction and homelessness so we should absolutely consider that model. I am responding directly to him with aspects of the plan and what worked and how it is unlikely the NB plan will be ANYTHING like the portugal plan because many of the elements are opposed by conservatives

- Decriminalization
-Harm reduction efforts including vans of workers providing safe supply and needles
-Daily access to methadone and counselling
-Large scale investments in health care and addiction services so there is a team of individuals ready to help

I am an outcomes based person. If a plan works lets do that plan. The Portugal plan has shown success. Plans where we just lock up people don't.

This is my last post on this issue as unfortunately it just doesn't really seem like I am being understood. I appreciate the discussion.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by lirette

The poster suggested that NB follow the portugal plan or even suggested that NB has intentions to do so.

The Portuguese plan has shown a good success in reducing addiction and homelessness so we should absolutely consider that model. I am responding directly to him with aspects of the plan and what worked and how it is unlikely the NB plan will be ANYTHING like the portugal plan because many of the elements are opposed by conservatives

- Decriminalization
-Harm reduction efforts including vans of workers providing safe supply and needles
-Daily access to methadone and counselling
-Large scale investments in health care and addiction services so there is a team of individuals ready to help

I am an outcomes based person. If a plan works lets do that plan. The Portugal plan has shown success. Plans where we just lock up people don't.

This is my last post on this issue as unfortunately it just doesn't really seem like I am being understood. I appreciate the discussion.

The point about decriminalization is not freedom to do drugs though. Consequences must still continue, albeit in a non judicial environment. Including loss of freedom if warranted.

When someone bandies around the words decriminalization, they expect what happened to cannabis. This simply cannot occur.

[adamuptownsj]

People want safe communities for their families and neighbours. The needs and sensitivities of screaming junkies and their attendant NGOs are currently superseding them. Doing more for screaming junkies while normal people are supposed to suck it up and tolerate rampant theft, vandalism, drug use, and intimidation will not hack it any longer. Drop the theory and magic plans, and talk with residents of the afflicted neighbourhoods. As CharlotteSJ said above, public sympathy is not just waning-- it's totally gone. People are angrier than ever, from single mothers on welfare, to developers, to police. City government is so out of touch it's unreal. Whatever replaces this council in May 2026 will be hostile to the status quo, and the hostility will only get more extreme as time goes by.

And what suddenly appears, as if on cue, but City Hall bullshit:

Myth: Clearing encampments will make them go away.

Fact: Clearing encampments results in people being displaced to other precarious & sometimes dangerous options. It moves people from supports they rely on until they're able to secure sustainable housing.

'Precarious and dangerous' describes Waterloo Village right now, for normal people. Apparently it doesn't describe a lifestyle of 'overdosing multiple times a week.'

Clear it out. Zero tents, zero green zones, zero tolerance.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

People want safe communities for their families and neighbours. The needs and sensitivities of screaming junkies and their attendant NGOs are currently superseding them. Doing more for screaming junkies while normal people are supposed to suck it up and tolerate rampant theft, vandalism, drug use, and intimidation will not hack it any longer. Drop the theory and magic plans, and talk with residents of the afflicted neighbourhoods. As CharlotteSJ said above, public sympathy is not just waning-- it's totally gone. People are angrier than ever, from single mothers on welfare, to developers, to police. City government is so out of touch it's unreal. Whatever replaces this council in May 2026 will be hostile to the status quo, and the hostility will only get more extreme as time goes by.

And what suddenly appears, as if on cue, but City Hall bullshit:



'Precarious and dangerous' describes Waterloo Village right now, for normal people. Apparently it doesn't describe a lifestyle of 'overdosing multiple times a week.'

Clear it out. Zero tents, zero green zones, zero tolerance.

<sarq>But what about the junkies feels???</sarq>

A wild ass guess is that it would take around 1 month to clear out the problem, should they approach it with a zero intoxication approach. Zero pot, booze, meth, heroin, fent on you or affecting your judgement.

Start on the corner of waterloo and union. Work your way up.

[NB_ExistsToo]

You fellas are just not listening to any reason and continuously spout that it needs to be addressed immediately. lirette keeps trying to explain how there's no overnight fix and there's substantial investment needed to address the drug concerns.

TitleRequired - You keep referencing the Portuguese model and mentioning something about losing freedoms, that's just false. Unless you mean community service is losing your freedoms.

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider
re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma.1 Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.

It's essentially treated akin to a parking ticket if you're in possession of drugs. Good luck implementing that policy here. In addition, heavy investment in the health care sector would be needed (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL).

We all feel bad for the "normal" residence of Waterloo street in SJ but just blindly clearing out the area without any plan or investments (refer to any of Lirettes posts in the last couple pages). This will lead us feeling bad for people on another street in the city. I'm not sure what zero tolerance means? Do we think "beatings will continue until morale improves" will work?

As of right now though, pretty much all successful approaches involves municipal, provincial, and federal cooperation to address. There doesn't seem to be ANY communication between any of these entities.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by NB_ExistsToo

You fellas are just not listening to any reason and continuously spout that it needs to be addressed immediately. lirette keeps trying to explain how there's no overnight fix and there's substantial investment needed to address the drug concerns.

TitleRequired - You keep referencing the Portuguese model and mentioning something about losing freedoms, that's just false. Unless you mean community service is losing your freedoms.

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider
re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma.1 Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.

It's essentially treated akin to a parking ticket if you're in possession of drugs. Good luck implementing that policy here. In addition, heavy investment in the health care sector would be needed (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL).

We all feel bad for the "normal" residence of Waterloo street in SJ but just blindly clearing out the area without any plan or investments (refer to any of Lirettes posts in the last couple pages). This will lead us feeling bad for people on another street in the city. I'm not sure what zero tolerance means? Do we think "beatings will continue until morale improves" will work?

As of right now though, pretty much all successful approaches involves municipal, provincial, and federal cooperation to address. There doesn't seem to be ANY communication between any of these entities.

What's your proposal brah?

We put drunks in drunk tanks when intoxicated, n'est-ce-pas? What's the difference?

[adamuptownsj]

It DOES need to be addressed immediately. I am not going to listen to someone who thinks coddling these people, giving them free run of a neighbourhood to act antisocially and destructively until they're each individually ready to stop, is the right approach. It's inane. Rot begets rot.

A MAJORITY of police, firefighter, and I believe paramedic calls in the city are to this one area. There is serious burnout among all three professions. They're bringing the same guy back to life three times a month and arresting him twice in the same time span. Less than 4% of the city's population lives there. Developers are being constantly stolen from. Who's going to want to live at Steepleview, let alone pay a premium for St. Vincent's, in this mess?

Enforce the laws on tents, vandalism, theft, and panhandling. Allow none of it in the city. Forcibly close the 'harm reduction' facilities. Cut funding to, and audit, the Homeless-Industrial Complex of NGOs.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

It DOES need to be addressed immediately. I am not going to listen to someone who thinks coddling these people, giving them free run of a neighbourhood to act antisocially and destructively until they're each individually ready to stop, is the right approach. It's inane. Rot begets rot.

A MAJORITY of police, firefighter, and I believe paramedic calls in the city are to this one area. There is serious burnout among all three professions. They're bringing the same guy back to life three times a month and arresting him twice in the same time span. Less than 4% of the city's population lives there. Developers are being constantly stolen from. Who's going to want to live at Steepleview, let alone pay a premium for St. Vincent's, in this mess?

Enforce the laws on tents, vandalism, theft, and panhandling. Allow none of it in the city. Forcibly close the 'harm reduction' facilities. Cut funding to, and audit, the Homeless-Industrial Complex of NGOs.

Straight Talk from Ford: “Well, those are just typical scare tactics that these folks have been saying for years and has not worked,”

https://www.cp24.com/news/ford-defends-p...perts-calling-for-more-to-open-1.7009317

Ford said that his government’s new plan to invest $378 million to open 19 new Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment (HART) hubs is “what we believe in.”

On Tuesday, the Ministry of Health (MOH) outlined details about these hubs, saying that they would "reflect regional priorities by connecting people with complex needs to comprehensive treatment and preventative services" as well as offer primary care, mental health services. addiction care and support, social services and employment support, shelter and transition beds, supportive housing, and other supplies and services like naloxone, onsite showers, and food.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by adamuptownsj

People want safe communities for their families and neighbours. The needs and sensitivities of screaming junkies and their attendant NGOs are currently superseding them. Doing more for screaming junkies while normal people are supposed to suck it up and tolerate rampant theft, vandalism, drug use, and intimidation will not hack it any longer. Drop the theory and magic plans, and talk with residents of the afflicted neighbourhoods. As CharlotteSJ said above, public sympathy is not just waning-- it's totally gone. People are angrier than ever, from single mothers on welfare, to developers, to police. City government is so out of touch it's unreal. Whatever replaces this council in May 2026 will be hostile to the status quo, and the hostility will only get more extreme as time goes by.

And what suddenly appears, as if on cue, but City Hall bullshit:



'Precarious and dangerous' describes Waterloo Village right now, for normal people. Apparently it doesn't describe a lifestyle of 'overdosing multiple times a week.'

Clear it out. Zero tents, zero green zones, zero tolerance.

Willing to bet this post was made by a city worker that doesn’t live inside the city. The City of Saint John is full of bedroom community residents in key leadership roles. They aren’t going to have to deal with green zones where they live, but have no problem gas lighting city residents that will have to deal with them. This plan from the city has unmitigated disaster written all over it.

One thing that people seem to discount here is climate. Saint John has one of the more mild climates of any Canadian east of BC. No matter how robust our solutions are, there will be people living on the street. The green zones risk turning SJ into what could be seen as a homeless haven of sorts. The SJ region already has the mildest climate and biggest % of bleeding hearts who think we need to drop everything to solve the “homelessness crisis”

It’s easy for your average KV resident to virtue signal their support online fir green zones in SJ, but if they had to have these green zones within their communities, they’d change their tune mighty quick.

[TitleRequired]

Originally Posted by EnvisionSaintJohn

Willing to bet this post was made by a city worker that doesn’t live inside the city. The City of Saint John is full of bedroom community residents in key leadership roles. They aren’t going to have to deal with green zones where they live, but have no problem gas lighting city residents that will have to deal with them. This plan from the city has unmitigated disaster written all over it.

One thing that people seem to discount here is climate. Saint John has one of the more mild climates of any Canadian east of BC. No matter how robust our solutions are, there will be people living on the street. The green zones risk turning SJ into what could be seen as a homeless haven of sorts. The SJ region already has the mildest climate and biggest % of bleeding hearts who think we need to drop everything to solve the “homelessness crisis”

It’s easy for your average KV resident to virtue signal their support online fir green zones in SJ, but if they had to have these green zones within their communities, they’d change their tune mighty quick.

There has been a marketing strategy by ngo and city staff in both SJ and Fredericton on 'myths' of homelessness.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had hired a public relations agency to move this forward. The messaging, as documented on cbc, is eerily similar.

This marketing is to help sell the harm reduction strategy; the encampments fitting in this bucket.

[EnvisionSaintJohn]

Originally Posted by TitleRequired

There has been a marketing strategy by ngo and city staff in both SJ and Fredericton on 'myths' of homelessness.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had hired a public relations agency to move this forward. The messaging, as documented on cbc, is eerily similar.

This marketing is to help sell the harm reduction strategy; the encampments fitting in this bucket.

And what a dismal bucket that is. If Holt and the Liberals are smart, they will shift their campaign focus towards solutions and promises to build more housing.

Affordable rental housing, transitional housing, and homeless shelters need to be better funded than they have been under the Higgs PCs, and they can make this the hallmark of their critique of the currently inadequate response from the PCs to the housing crisis and homelessness epidemic. That should be their focus, not harm reduction strategies and allowing sanctioned tent cities to pop up.

FDR effectively used “Hoovervilles” against Hoover and won the 1932 in landslide. Holt should be trying to do the same thing, blaming these tents cities on Higgs and promising to support better solutions to build our way out of this crisis.

Enabling people clearly isn’t the way to win on this issue, though, I don’t exactly think harm reduction and tent cities are cornerstones of the Liberal platform. For such a hot button topic, none of the major parties have really said much on the issue of homelessness, addiction, and the associated rise in crime. It really shouldn’t be that hard for Holt and the Liberals to lay the blame squarely on Higgs for these issues… they’ve been in power nearly 6 years now, and the situation has gotten progressively worse.