Health Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you.

You alluded to this. The original cause of the opioid crisis was Purdue Pharma. They advanced drug liberalization in order to aggressively market their own new opioid product, OxyContin, in the 1990s and early 2000s. This is how the first opioid crisis began, and certainly there was conflict of interest rampant at that time with people moving back and forth between companies and regulators, etc.

Today, Purdue is at it again. Their own branded hydromorphone product, Dilaudid, seems to be the preferred option for this program of state-subsidized hard drug distribution.

It seems bizarre to me that the people responsible for the opioid crisis at Purdue are now making even more money selling drugs, marketing easier access and drug liberalization as a solution to the problem.

Do you have any insight into why a Purdue product specifically has become the go-to and what Purdue has done to engage government and civil society to be able to bring about this outcome that's very financially beneficial to them?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

Unfortunately, no, I don't, but I share your observation that it is a perverse irony.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We know that Fair Price Pharma has met extensively with this government, meeting multiple times with the previous minister of mental health and addictions in person and having, I think, 12 meetings over the course of two years with officials.

Dr. Somers, I have moved a motion at the government operations committee asking for the release of these so-called safe supply contracts. I believe that parliamentarians and the public should know about the kinds of deals that these high-priced companies like Purdue Pharma have signed with the federal government.

The Liberals have been filibustering that motion of the government operations committee in order to prevent the release of those contracts. They've said on the one hand that they don't think any such contracts exist directly between the federal government and these companies, but, on the other hand, they've filibustered to prevent the release of those contracts

Do you think those contracts should be released? If you do, why do you think so?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

They absolutely should be released because they represent public expenditures that are directly related to a highly controversial set of drug policies that are really only active in Canada, so we absolutely need greater transparency.

I would add that we need greater transparency on the flow of public and private funds into organizations like the BCCSU. Our standards for reporting in comparison to the U.S. Sunshine Act are relatively lax. We need to understand better how funds are flowing through organizations like the BCCSU into community groups that are allied with their advocacy like VANDU, DULF and many others and how pharmaceutical funds are augmenting those monies in order to pursue what appears to be a concerted agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Somers.

Next is Dr. Powlowski for five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'd like to start off with a question for Dr. Somers.

You said that at some point you were ordered to destroy your database. Who ordered you to destroy the database? Why?

Did you actually destroy the database?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

I did my best to protest, but we were forced to destroy the database, and that has been done. I provided a briefing to deputy ministers—all the non-dirt deputy ministers.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Who ordered you?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

The Government of British Columbia.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Your database was as a professor at UBC?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

I started it at UBC. I subsequently moved it to my position at Simon Fraser University.

This is data that we obtained from multiple government ministries, in some cases with the consent of people we were aiming to assist, people with profound addictions who were living homeless in Vancouver and who were participating in some of our intervention efforts.

We had a large raft of information spanning more than 20 years. We had been doing this work for two decades, and we received that instruction one week after I provided the briefing.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

What was the reasoning for that? Was it that there was confidential information in there that you weren't supposed to have, or was there no rationalization?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

There was no question of propriety.

In fact, we had agreed with the government to renew the database for another period. That had been formally completed with the Ministry of Health, and we were rebuilding it around an additional study looking at addiction and death in COVID. There was no rationale.

The government lied by saying that they were planning to do this anyway, which clearly was not true. If it were, there would certainly have been some prior communication about that. They said things that really didn't make any sense—that we could get the data from other sources, which is clearly false. There is no other way to get these data.

The only rationale that makes sense to me, and I've had this confirmed from one of the deputies that was in the room, was that my remarks antagonized some of the deputy ministers because they got the impression that I was saying their policies addressing addiction and homelessness were not effective.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Why did you comply with that? It seems like an administrative order by someone in government. It wasn't a legal authority. Why did you do it?

[Dr. Julian M. Somers]

No one at the university was coming to my defence. They persisted in ordering it done. I didn't see any recourse. Maybe I should have spoken with you earlier.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Maybe.

Mr. Perrin, you talked about your Christian faith, and I agree with a lot of your positions on harm reduction.

What do you say to people who are concerned about somebody smoking crack next to them on the beach when they're there with their kids? What do you say to the little old ladies or your parents who want to go downtown in Ottawa or B.C. but are afraid to because of open drug use?

People are using drugs, and we've heard that with methamphetamines they sometimes become psychotic. The fact that a lot of downtown cores have become, a little bit, hellholes...and it's revolving around things like safe injection sites. I'm sure—or I would think—that you have some sympathy for these people, while still believing in harm reduction. How do you get that balance right? Have we got the balance right?

[Prof. Benjamin Perrin]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, we've had public drug use in Canada prior to the now largely rescinded decriminalization pilot in B.C. and in other cities. As I travel throughout the country, I see the types of things you're talking about. It's not limited to B.C. or Vancouver. I want to talk briefly about B.C., though.

The Vancouver Police Department, and this is a quote from Inspector Phil Heard, who oversees the VPD drug unit, stated on March 3, 2024, “We've actually seen a decrease in public complaints around public consumption”. That's a direct quote from him.

Chief Constable Adam Palmer was asked about any sorts of statistics that were kept around the police claims that they didn't have recourse for the types of situations you're talking about. This is a quote from the article I'm referring to: “Palmer said the VPD has not kept statistics on number of incidents where a person was using drugs in a public place, where police were unable to intervene.”

Really, what we're seeing is quite a large upspring in concern, but the data is not backing it up. How do we get it right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Professor Perrin.

Thank you, Dr. Powlowski.

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Jutras, we know that we need to take more than just one approach. We can't force people living on the street to go to detox treatment. Harm reduction also has an important role to play. From what the people who opened up to you said, has a safe supply had a positive or stabilizing effect on their path to healing or to a more humane existence?

[Catherine Jutras]

Yes, absolutely.

It is a complex problem and that approach will not necessarily work for everyone. That said, there are some great success stories. I asked one person what access to a safe supply had changed for her, and she said jokingly that she's much fatter now. Since that person was constantly searching for drugs, she was not eating well. So her health has improved and she has started working again. She even said she can afford to go to the movies now. So this approach has made a huge difference in her life.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Have you also heard that drug use stabilizes?

[Catherine Jutras]

Yes. Safe supply allows for dosing, which gives the person some balance not available to a street person. A person can say they take a certain number of doses, but those doses can vary. So it is not the same stability as when a person consults a medical specialist. If this approach works for someone, it can certainly offer stability.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Some people focus a lot on the diversion of safe supply. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, does that do justice to the benefits of this approach, in your opinion?

[Catherine Jutras]

Not necessarily. If a person is using drugs, it is because it is meeting a need. I don't know many people who will divert the drugs they use and go through withdrawal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes, please.