Thank you for the question. I'm happy to share the paper you referred to with the committee.
One of the interventions that is being implemented across the country is safer supply. We are currently engaged in some work on reviewing the literature on safer supply.
There is evidence, particularly from Dr. Bohdan Nosyk's team, who I believe the committee has heard from, that safer supply prescribing or risk mitigation prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a reduced risk of death. This is very promising. More work—quantitative research in particular—on the impacts of safer supply is needed.
I think it's very important to say that lack of evidence around an intervention is not evidence of a lack of effectiveness. Where we are at with safer supply at the moment is a lack of evidence in many cases. We do need to see more quantitative work such as that done by Dr. Nosyk, which is very carefully designed quantitative studies evaluating safer supply programs across the country, the same way we would with any new medical intervention.
I think withdrawing those programs would have devastating consequences for people who are currently part of safer supply programs. We know that safer supply programs are helping people to regain some measure of control over their lives.
At the same time, though, I do believe that we need more studies of what the effective components of safer supply programs are and also consider the range of programs. At the moment, there are a lot of different models, so it's understanding these different models, coming to a clearer understanding of what we actually mean when we say safer supply, and understanding what the effective components of these models are.