I wanted to point out that the Liberals seem to be focusing on safe injection sites, and the truth is they are only putting resources into that. In the budget, there was no new money for treatment, prevention, or education. One of the frustrations I have is that in Oshawa, if an addict wants treatment, he has to wait. Sometimes he waits weeks and weeks. Then he relapses before he even gets the treatment. It would be easier for him to just go to a place and keep injecting and injecting.
I just don't think, unless you put the priority on treatment, that we're going in the right direction. It was interesting to see the minister's priorities. I think that treatment was number three. I liked it when the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse said that treatment is number one, because this whole obsession with safe injection sites.... Bill C-2 doesn't stop safe injection sites. It lets people who have the right to know have some input. If the community doesn't support the injection site, then it's not going to be successful.
I want to get back to my question for Dr. Young.
Our government was moving in step with other people around the world. I know we received letters from United States governors and the White House asking us to look at this entire class of drugs and move them toward tamper-resistant or abuse-deterrent formulations. That was where we were going. This past June, Minister Philpott, at a Toronto drug policy conference, said there was strong anecdotal evidence that the introduction of a tamper-resistant form of OxyContin in Canada caused the current fentanyl crisis in Canada. I just wondered, is this true, or is this situation more nuanced and complex than that?