VICTORIA, B.C.: “The recent convictions of the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF) founders in the B.C. Supreme Court confirm that the procurement and trafficking of illicit drugs carried out through their so-called “compassion club” were illegal under Canadian law. These convictions are a significant development, but they cannot be the end of the story.

The court record makes clear that DULF’s activities did not occur in isolation. They operated with the knowledge, support, funding, and authorization of senior officials within the BC NDP government and the provincial health system.

Evidence presented in court shows:

• Senior Vancouver Coastal Health officials wrote letters supporting DULF’s model, fully aware that it involved acquiring and distributing illicit drugs.
• Provincial health authorities granted DULF special designations and exemptions, even after Health Canada refused to authorize the program.
• The province provided significant taxpayer funding and supplied a government-owned site for DULF to operate.
• Officials acknowledged that procurement and distribution were not exempt under federal law, yet the operation continued with provincial blessing.
• A de facto “non-enforcement environment” existed because of provincial direction and discretion.

Despite this extensive support, the BC NDP government abruptly cut ties only after public scrutiny intensified, leaving two young founders to face criminal convictions. At the same time, those in positions of authority avoided all accountability.

British Columbians deserve answers and accountability from their government.

This is no longer simply a case about two individuals. This is a case about whether senior NDP government officials and top bureaucrats knowingly sanctioned activity they understood to be illegal, funded it with public dollars, and then attempted to distance themselves when the political risks increased.

Today, I am calling for a full, independent investigation into:

• The role of NDP government officials who approved, enabled, or quietly authorized DULF’s operations.
• The decision-making process behind funding, exemptions, and the provision of a provincial site.
• Whether provincial direction or discretion contributed to a lack of enforcement of federal drug laws.
• Any institutional involvement or pressure placed on public bodies to facilitate DULF’s activities.

All parties involved must be held accountable, not just those who were convicted.”

-30-

Media Contact:
Ryan Painter
Communications
Ryan.Painter@leg.bc.ca