There's been a bit of a change in philosophy over harm reduction, safe consumption sites. We do know that previously there was a lot of opposition to it. The one in Vancouver was the only site for a long time simply because its status was unknown. It was being appealed to the Supreme Court. We didn't know if it was going to exist anymore.
If there had been less objection or less resistance to harm reduction throughout the past few years, would that have made it easier for surveillance and treatment to get ahead of this problem earlier with the crisis?