INTERVIEW: Police Chief Stuart Betts defends his “no-tolerance” approach to public drug use

On October 5, 2023, Peterborough’s police chief, Stuart Betts, announced a new “no-tolerance” approach to the use of illicit drugs in public. Starting immediately, police officers will order people who are using drugs in public to move along to a different location and arrest them if they don’t comply, Betts announced.

The announcement won praise from some local politicians, including MP Michelle Fererri, who thanked Betts for his leadership on social media. But the announcement drew swift criticism from the local health unit, with Peterborough’s medical officer of health saying that the new approach “criminalizes people who are vulnerable and ill, and pushes them further from help and support.”

Peterborough Currents interviewed Chief Betts on Tuesday, October 10, asking him to respond to some of the questions and concerns we have been hearing from community members. Below, you can find a transcript of the interview. It has been edited lightly for readability and concision, but we have taken care not to alter the meaning of any statements.

Peterborough Currents: First, let’s drill into what this will look like in practice. Let’s imagine a situation where an officer comes across someone that’s using drugs and tells them, “You need to move along. You can’t do this here.” In the absence of a safe inhalation site or 24/7 injection site, one likely scenario is that people will just move from one park bench over to the next park bench a couple of blocks away. How would police respond to that kind of a scenario? Would police follow the people? Like, how far away out of the public eye do people need to be?

Stuart Betts: Maybe we can back this up even before that. I do want to acknowledge that I think there’s been some misinformation out there, quite frankly, and I’m disappointed that even some of our community partners don’t necessarily realize that. I hear a lot about criminalization. And I think you were there — in fact, I heard you on your podcast saying the Chief has said this is specifically not about criminalizing people. And of course that’s absolutely accurate. Because we’re not charging people. 

I’m not sure that people appreciate or understand the difference between arrest and charge, right? So an arrest-and-release unconditionally is not criminalizing anybody. I’ve had people who said, “Well, you’re gonna clog up the courts with this. They’re only going to be thrown out.” We’re not sending anybody to court for this particular simple offense. There may be other things that spring from that investigation. But the simple possession component of it is not going to trigger a charge.

So how is this going to play out? This will come to our attention two ways. One, a community member may call in to the police and say there’s somebody, and I’ll use your example, on this park bench, who is injecting or is about to light up a crack pipe. We’ll respond to that. The other is the officers encounter it. And we tell them that you have to move on, we provide them with an explanation of why. We’re doing our best to try and connect them to local resources. When they decide to move on, depending on where they go, we won’t have another contact with them. We’re not following people. I don’t have the time or the resources or the inclination to be following people in our community from one location to another. And if anybody thinks that’s the case, they’re sadly mistaken, because that’s not what this is about.

Currents: Okay, so people will move along. And depending on where they go, they might be at risk of another interaction with police if they stay in a different public place. 

On Thursday, Peterborough’s medical officer of health, Thomas Piggott, said that your approach is going to push vulnerable and ill people further from help and support. And on Friday — well, you listened to the podcast — Star Fiorotto said that she also worries that this is going to push people into hiding. 

From a public safety perspective, what do you think is better: People using drugs in public, where it can be seen, or people hiding, maybe in the woods or something like that, to use drugs?

SB: Well, I don’t think either, I don’t think it’s an either/or scenario here, quite frankly. Neither are acceptable behaviours, right?

Currents: What do you think will happen? Where are people supposed to move along if they’re not supposed to go hide?

SB: Some will go to apartments where they live or reside. Some won’t have that luxury, they may return to a tent if they’re living rough. We certainly don’t want to see anybody who’s living rough in our community, but that is a reality. 

During normal business hours, it’s certainly my hope that they will go, if they’re injecting, to the CTS. But quite rightly, there is a lack of other resources that are out there, right? That isn’t the responsibility of the police to create those resources. 

When you reference Dr. Piggott, I see in [his statement to the media] that he put, you know, “14 years of evidence-based approach.” Well, here we are, 14 years in, and nothing has gotten better. If anything, things are getting worse.

Currents: I appreciate what you say about the police not offering resources, but I think that you do have a place of advocacy. And you know, you have the ear of the provincial government. Are you advocating for safe inhalation services in Peterborough?

SB: Great question, and I’m glad you brought that up. Because that ties into another misunderstanding, and I’ll tell you I’m a little bit disappointed when I see headlines like “the police blindsided their community partners,” because that is not the case. Just because individuals within those organizations may not personally have been reached out to, the heads of those organizations absolutely were. My very first consultation was with the health sector, in terms of, “Here’s what we’re doing, here’s what’s happening, any feedback?” It doesn’t mean necessarily that we’re going to change what we were going to do but I wanted to solicit some feedback. So the very first people I spoke to were in the health sector, and the very last person I spoke to was in the health sector. So it’s misleading to suggest that they were blindsided. So to come back to your question, my very last conversation with one of those organizations was that they might actually see this as a springboard for advocating for things like safe inhalation.

Currents: Are you advocating for that? 

SB: That’s not my role, to advocate. My role is law enforcement. Crime prevention, law enforcement, in this pillar of the four pillars of the [Peterborough Drug Strategy]. I certainly can appreciate those who will advocate for it, and I can lend my support where that would be appropriate within my pillar within the PDS. But I can’t advocate for those types of things because that’s a public health response.

Currents: So we talked a little bit about a scenario where someone does move along. Let’s imagine someone doesn’t move along and you arrest them and seize their drugs. I’m wondering what the impact of that might be. Now this individual, if they get released unconditionally, now they’re experiencing withdrawal. They don’t have their drugs, presumably the first thing they’re going to do is try to find them, which might involve theft or violence or sex work. And I’m wondering if you’ve thought through the potential that seizing people’s drugs like this will lead them into more risky behaviours that are less safe?

SB: I absolutely have and thanks for asking that. And what I’ll do is I’ll just frame this within the context that what we’re talking about here are illegal drugs. They are not lawfully allowed to be in possession of those. So we’ll just get that out there right now. Nothing has changed in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. They were never allowed to have these drugs. This is not new. All I am saying is it’s not going to be tolerated in public. 

So, do I think that they may? Yes, you know what, there is a potential that that could happen. But I also know that those users, and you know, in the interactions we’ve already had, the vast majority of people have said, “Thank you.” And they’ve packed up and they have moved on as we would expect them to do. 

If they are going to engage in criminal behaviour as a result of losing their criminally possessed drugs, then we will of course, deal with that, because that’s the pillar and that’s the lane which the police occupy.

I absolutely understand where you’re coming from and what you’re suggesting. But the fact is, the entire possession of those drugs is illegal in the first place.

Currents: So you say that charging people for possession is not the priority because that won’t get prosecuted. But as you mentioned, I think a lot of people who use drugs are likely to have arrest warrants out for them or some sort of previous interaction with the justice system. So do you think that this will result in more charges facing people for those reasons?

SB: What I’m hoping will happen is that people will understand that this is simply not allowed in public and in our public spaces, and that we won’t have to have those interactions. There will be a period of adjustment as people get used to this. But my hope is that they will come to realize, “Okay, the permissiveness that’s been allowed to exist in our city, and in all cities, is over, and we can’t do it here.”

It’s also important to touch on who else is doing this. Why now? Because that’s important, and I know that that was raised.  “Okay, why are the police doing this now?” So, as you know, October 5 is when we launched this. My information and awareness campaign, if you will, behind the scenes started for a couple of weeks in advance of that. And the timing follows Edmonton’s release. So I happened to have dinner with the chief of Edmonton Police Service on August 20, in which he told me what they were about to launch. And he and I had a discussion and I agreed, because I wanted to wait and see how they rolled things out, what they had done, what considerations they had made prior to launching. And then what the impacts were in their community after they launched. And so I waited for two weeks following their launch to be able to observe and have an opportunity to see what impacts and feedback they may have to offer.

Now, unbeknownst to me, the British Columbia government has introduced legislation that essentially mirrors exactly what I’m talking about. They want to have a look at that. They also introduced that on October 5. I’m sure it had nothing to do with budgets. In fact, it has everything to do with community safety. And when you have a look at what they’re trying to do, it’s true. It’s about creating safer public spaces. And so they’re walking back the decriminalization and the permissiveness for open air illicit drug use in their entire province.

Currents: I’m interested about that shift. Because in 2020, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police voted to endorse decriminalization of the possession of drugs and stated that “merely arresting individuals for simple possession of illicit drugs has proven to be ineffective.” Do you think that’s wrong? And are you advocating for the Association to change its position?

SB: No. So I think it was a somewhat nuanced recommendation that they approved. They approved it, and they put it subject to those other resources being in place, right? And so the fact of the matter is, some areas moved to decriminalize, and we see the province of British Columbia of course did the decriminalization with a whole lot more supports in place than we have here, and even that wasn’t enough. And so it has created an unstable environment in terms of public safety.

Currents: So why are you moving forward if you acknowledge that there are even less supports here?

SB: Because the community at large is at risk. My job is the entire community, not just the segments of the community who are afflicted with this addiction. My responsibility is the entire community. Them as well, and let’s face it, if we are moving them away, and we’re directing them to places where they can get treatment — and we do need more treatment — if we can direct them to those locations, then hopefully somebody will benefit from that. 

In the meantime, the other percent of the community who are affected by this, they should also have a right to feel safe in their community. And that’s why I’m implementing this now. Because the vast majority of our community does not feel safe, and we have been permissive allowing illegal activity, and I need to stress that. Possession of these controlled substances is illegal. Full stop. It’s not up for debate. It is still an illegal activity that has been allowed to take place and at some point, we have normalized that. We have defended people’s right to engage in an illegal activity. And it’s almost become villainous to speak out against this illegal activity. And I think that’s a detriment, because as you said, it is leading some to other criminal activities. The thefts, right? And the minor, the lower level robberies. And we have to be mindful of that as an entire community.

Currents: I was pushed by someone in the community to ask you about how this might relate to reconciliation. Because there’s data that shows that Indigenous people disproportionately experience homelessness in Peterborough. I’m not aware of data around drug use, but there is a connection between homelessness and drug use. So I think it’s worth asking, at least, whether this policy will impact Indigenous people more than settlers. And I think that’s important considering the Call to Action from the TRC Commission, which was to eliminate the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in custody. And it strikes me that this policy has at least the potential to do the opposite of that. Did you consult with any Indigenous communities about this and how do you think it fits into reconciliation?

SB: So I’m not really going to be able to speak with any sort of clarity around how it might intersect with reconciliation. I will just reconnect it re: the incarceration. And you’re quite right about the overrepresentation or the disproportionate representation of Indigenous persons in custody. And, I’m going to stress again, this is not about putting people in custody. This is about creating safer public spaces by having a no tolerance approach to open air illicit drug use. It’s not about putting people in custody, regardless of what community they’re from.

Currents: Given the potential for existing warrants to trigger custody for other reasons, will you be tracking how often people who are interacted with under this policy get charged with anything, not just possession?

SB: Yes. That is one of the key performance indicators that we’re tracking.

Currents: I want you to imagine a situation for me. Imagine people are using drugs together in public and someone overdoses. Are you worried that this policy is going to dissuade their friends from calling for help? What message do you have to someone who’s using drugs and sees their friend overdosing? Are they at risk if they reach out for help?

SB: They shouldn’t be afraid because the legislation exists now that allows them to call in if somebody is overdosing regardless of where it is. Public, private residence, it doesn’t matter. You call in somebody who’s overdosing, it’s not going to result in a charge directly related to you for that particular activity. So I would just steer them back to, nothing in practice or in law has changed with regard to that.

Currents: I guess I would just worry that now the police might be aware of where they’re using drugs, and now it’s on your radar.

SB: If they’re in public, it better be on our radar, because that’s where I’m worried about. I’m worried about safer public spaces.

Currents: I want to ask a question that’s a little political. I know you said earlier that this isn’t about budgets, but I think it’s definitely relevant. You’ve already given fair warning to councillors and the public that the Police Board is probably going to be requesting a pretty sizable increase to its budget for next year. And now you’re also laying out this framework for additional responses and additional work for police. Do you think this announcement is going to make it easier for you to convince councillors to give you that budget increase, or might it make it harder for you?

SB: Well, I don’t think it’s going to make it any harder. But I think maybe what it will do is it will show people that the police are serious about doing the job of police. That is our job. And I think that’s what people would expect from us. And that’s what I’m committed to doing. So it wasn’t designed, as I told you, with regard to the timing, it’s not designed around our budget presentation whatsoever. It’s around public safety and I gave you the timing as to why I was doing it when I was doing it. And it’s to try and be informed based on the only other agency that has implemented it here in Canada, so that we could take as thoughtful an approach as possible.

Currents: What estimates do you have for how much this might cost, these new enforcement efforts, both for the police that are doing these interactions with people, but then also for any additional workload on the courts? Have you thought that through?

SB: Well, here’s what I’m coming back to. There is no additional workload on the courts, because we’re not charging anybody for possession of these drugs. So that’s not going to change. So that’s not a consideration whatsoever. 

And when my officers are responding to this, because there are no charges anticipated, we simply want people to move on to an appropriate location where they can consume, then the workload on them is also reduced. And it will hopefully reduce the calls for service we get for the community, concerned about their safety when they feel they can’t attend locations in the city because of this behavior. So it’s my hope that this will in fact trigger a reduction in concern and perceived crime-safety related issues.

Currents: How else will you know whether this has been a success or not? If you’re tracking perceptions of safety, that’s one thing. How will you know whether this has actually made Peterborough more safe?

SB: Well, we’re going to know from essentially some of the anecdotal evidence in terms of feedback. We’re also going to be tracking our engagements with people starting as of October 5th. And as I would expect, we’ll see probably higher levels of engagement at the start. And what I would like to see, but of course time will tell, is reduced requirement for us to engage with people because the message will have gotten across that it’s simply not permitted in our public spaces here in our city. And so I would like to see a reduced requirement to engage with people because they won’t be using this in our public spaces.

Currents: So we’ll be able to see the drug use less?

SB: Hopefully so, yeah. I have no illusions that this is suddenly going to make somebody want to seek treatment. But if we can help just one person, two people, three people, who feel that “Hey, okay, I need to get to somewhere.” Because when we walk past somebody on the side of the road, when we walk past somebody in a parking lot, or on a park bench, who’s smoking up, who’s injecting and we don’t look at them. We don’t say something, we don’t acknowledge it. Essentially, what we’re communicating to them is that they don’t matter. I don’t think that’s a message anybody wants. But guess what? That is what’s been happening. We have been turning a blind eye to this in our community. Our entire community. It doesn’t matter who they are, when we enable that type of behavior we’re saying, “You don’t matter. You’re beneath our matter to even look at.”

Currents: Well, I think that’s what the message of, “You need to leave this place” communicates, too, right? “We don’t want to look at this.” So I wonder how you think you’re communicating that people matter if you tell them that they can’t be in public, and if they are in public, they’ll be arrested?

SB: Because what we’re also saying — It’s not just about “Move on.” It’s about, “You matter. And here’s where you can get some help.” It’s not just about moving on. It’s about connecting them and providing them with information on where they can get help. And where they can get help without requiring an appointment. And here’s another bonus that we have as well, and I’m shocked that some people may not yet know this. We actually have mental health workers riding around in some of our police cars. We have the mobile crisis intervention team that actually engages with people on the roads to help with those who might have sort of an intersection between mental health and addiction. And they’re there across our city to help with people who are in that particular predicament as well.

Currents: You mentioned the goal of hopefully getting some people to treatment. Your website said that you’ll be tracking how often people get referred. Will you be tracking how often people actually end up getting help after having one of these interactions with police?

SB: That one’s going to be a little bit more on to the side of our health care workers. I’m not trying to stigmatize people by tracking them through the healthcare system once they’ve had an interaction with our officers. We simply want to point them in the right direction. And then once they make their way to those who provide that health care, we expect that they will take up that baton and they will carry it. They will continue to champion that treatment, rehabilitation, harm reduction, whatever and wherever those people are on that continuum towards recovery. That’s their lane, that’s where they operate. That’s where they are the subject matter experts. We are the subject matter experts at the other end.

Currents: Are there any potential harms that are on your radar that could emerge that you’ll be tracking?

SB: One of the things that we always track and we have tracked is potential overdoses related to certain substances. And so we will continue to track that and we’ll have an opportunity to examine whether or not that increases or decreases post-October 5th. I’m certainly hopeful that we will see no increase. And if we can serve people and steer them towards places where it’s appropriate to use this, for example, the CTS, then they’ll be able to use in a location where there is an ability to assist them should they find themselves in distress after using.

Currents: Is there anything else that you wanted to say?

SB: I want people to realize this is not about criminalizing. This is simply about ensuring our entire community, our entire city, feels safe. And then also helping in terms of education with our community partners. Nobody was blindsided. It’s a shame that people feel that way. But the heads of the organizations and our four pillars, they all had a personal conversation with me.

Currents: Okay, well, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me. I know that some of these questions were kind of critical, but it means a lot to me that you’re open to answering them. 

SB: That’s okay. Good luck and thank you. Keep up the good work.