These are two very important questions.
I just want to speak for a second about the split in scientific evidence that the member referred to. There isn't actually a split when you look at what is considered peer-reviewed evidence or evidence that's been reviewed by multiple scientists in the field.
Our team did a study where we looked at all of the evidence for safe supply. There are close to 40 of these types of peer-reviewed articles, and the evidence is overwhelmingly positive: It connects people to a safer alternative, reducing overdoses; connects them to health care and other types of supports, as needed, like housing; and reconnects them back to family and community. I just wanted to mention that evidence.
Should safe supply be temporary? This is a good question, because when it was introduced in British Columbia, it was introduced as a temporary measure. However, it became clear that we needed it as part of a systems response. I really want to emphasize this piece about a systems response. In British Columbia, we had some evidence early on that when we combined multiple interventions, like take-home naloxone with opioid agonist treatment and overdose prevention, it showed some really good results. However, it wasn't enough. Safer supply comes in as another form of intervention within a comprehensive approach.
As to your question about why there's opposition, I personally don't understand why safer supply is being scapegoated, because the real harms here are coming from a very toxic and unregulated drug market. That is what's killing people.