Through the chair, very briefly, I do believe there is real danger associated with eliminating supervised consumption services.
As I mentioned in an earlier answer, we see that supervised consumption services have actually prevented fatal overdoses. They also happen to be a method by which people are able to connect to important social services, and they serve as pathways to treatment. I think the loss of supervised consumption services will mean the loss of those pathways, whether it's to improve social service or to treatment services.
I think, as well, when we look at what this means, we are seeing thousands of people across supervised consumption service sites making use of those services in Toronto. If those services are no longer available, I think what that means is you'll have more and more people, particularly in the face of an affordable housing crisis, actually using in public and creating the kinds of challenges that we've heard many people around this table speak of, to say nothing of the fact that you will have more overdoses happening in the public realm. That will be a draw, I would say, on paramedics resources, on law enforcement resources and on emergency room visits.
There are some real challenges that I foresee associated with this, given our experience with supervised consumption services, but as I've said already to this committee and to all other parties who ask me about this, we need multiple points of intervention. We need multiple approaches. We absolutely need more prevention. Yes, we need harm reduction, and yes, we need treatment, and we need a better policy environment that actually supports people towards better health, whether they use drugs or they don't.