I know the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse has harm reduction as one of their pillars. So I just wondered why are we cherry picking some things and not others, especially when internationally it has been shown that harm reduction is of use. In Australia, in Europe, it is now completed accepted as a piece of that, because when you reduce harm and the person knows they're not going to die, their tendency to want to be treated becomes greater.
How much time do I have, Mr. Chair? A quick minute.
Ms. Davies talked about coordinating. I remember, in 2002, the report from the committee on this issue suggested that everyone integrate the work they do. Integrating the work that you do means working with the provinces, etc.
I know that in British Columbia there's a triplicate program for opiates. It means that when the doctor writes a prescription, there are three pieces to it. The doctor keeps one, the pharmacist gets one, and the colleges get one which they share with the police, and therefore you stop. It's been very effective in stopping double-doctoring.
Why wouldn't you, working with the provinces, think this is a good idea to promote as a national strategy? It's not just provinces. You're working with them. You all said that—that this integrated approach is working. So why wouldn't that happen, especially with people the federal government is responsible for, like Inuit, first nations, and the armed forces?