We've heard both sides on the issue of safe supply. We've certainly heard people say that there's plenty of evidence for the beneficial effects of safe supply, and by that, they meant the Canadian version of safe supply, which is getting a whole bunch of Dilaudid and going home with it.
We've also heard the opposite from members of Health Canada, who generally seem to be supportive of the idea. However, they admitted that there wasn't a lot of evidence for a safe supply in the Canadian context.
We also heard the same thing from the Stanford-Lancet Commission, which was very much against safe supply. I would note that the B.C. Provincial Health Officer, in her review of safer supply, also said that there wasn't a lot of good evidence for safe supply.
What there is a lot of good evidence for is iOAT, injectable opioid agonist treatment. NAOMI and SALOME, as Mrs. Goodridge pointed out, offered directly observed treatment. A lot of the evidence from Switzerland and the studies that are again cited as evidence for safe supply also offered observed treatment with injectable drugs—heroin, at the time.
The concerns about diversion, I think, are totally legitimate. The Swiss have this approach because of the concerns around diversion. A lot of people in B.C. continue to die because of fentanyl. That's what's killing them. Even though they get Dilaudid, it's not enough for them. They use fentanyl.
What do you think about intravenous observed treatment in this kind of Swiss model, where people can come into a treatment facility and get observed injectable doses of fentanyl?
Would you be in favour of that or at least willing to contemplate this?