Health Committee on Dec. 9th, 2025

[Kendal Weber]

The money is going to organizations that are in the community—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

To buy crack pipes....

[Kendal Weber]

—that are responding to support vulnerable individuals who are using—

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

Please let the witness have time to answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Okay.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

That's not a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Ms. Weber, has any funding from Health Canada's substance use and addictions program been used to purchase controlled substances for drug use, yes or no?

[Kendal Weber]

For a period of time, the substance use and addictions program funded prescribed alternative projects. In very few cases—I think, in fact, three—where the actual projects did not have drug coverage from the province, prescribed alternatives were funded for a short period. In general, the pharmaceuticals are funded by the drug programs in the provinces and territories.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Ms. Weber, Health Canada's own website describes supervised consumption sites as places where people can “bring their own drugs to use, in the presence of trained staff.” Does Health Canada require that a licensed doctor or nurse be physically present whenever drugs are being consumed at these sites, yes or no?

[Kendal Weber]

No, there are health practitioners on site at different times and on different shifts. The requirements vary by operation. Did you say a nurse practitioner? To give you a 100% answer on that, I would have to get back to you to confirm that or not.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Dan Mazier]

Thank you very much. If you could table all that, that would be great.

That's six minutes.

We move on to our next questioner, Mr. Eyolfson.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming.

Ms. Weber, I know the issue of harm reduction, in general, becomes very contentious. There's a lot of misinformation regarding whether this facilitates drug use or whether people are more likely to use drugs because these programs are here. The medical evidence shows it's just simply not.... That's never been verified.

Am I to understand that the increased use of things like pipes for smoking for certain drugs was to help decrease the incidence of infections due to IV use?

[Kendal Weber]

That's a good question. I'd have to get back to you with that answer.

I could turn to the Public Health Agency to see if they have anything to add. No.

Sorry, did you say the correlation between pipes and intravenous use?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

We heard testimony from other groups, which may not have been in this committee, that there are public health experts who have said that by introducing the use of methods to smoke such drugs as fentanyl in supervised consumption sites, they are less likely to have infections that they would get from intravenous drug use.

[Kendal Weber]

Well, the supply is evolving, and how individuals use the drugs is evolving. It can depend on the individual. I think health practitioners would understand that whether it's intravenous use or pipe use, it depends on the individual and the evolution. We're ensuring that there are harm reduction tools that are there to support the individuals, regardless of the means they're using.

Natasha from the Public Health Agency has something to add.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Please go ahead.

[Dr. Natasha Crowcroft, Acting Chief Public Health Officer and Vice-President, Infectious Diseases and Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada]

I can confirm that the reduction in injections does reduce the risk of injection sites, which don't occur with drug inhalation or substance inhalation. It also reduces the risk of antimicrobial-resistant organisms for the same reason.

Thanks.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

All right. Thank you.

Given the cost of such infections to the system, would this change be likely to actually decrease what the taxpayers are paying for health care?

[Kendal Weber]

Do you mean by decreasing harms?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Yes.

[Kendal Weber]

Definitely. With regard to decreasing harms, there would be less impact and cost on the health care system.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

There was a question about whether Health Canada has been funding the purchase of certain devices. We are reminded very often that direct health care decisions are a provincial responsibility. Is it at the provincial level that authorities are deciding which supplies to buy for harm reduction?

[Kendal Weber]

Decisions can be made across all jurisdictions. Provinces and territories can make those decisions. We also provide funding to municipalities. Public health officials in those municipalities or in indigenous communities would be making decisions about the purchase of public health supplies, which can include harm reduction tools. It's across all levels of government—municipal, provincial and territorial, and then indigenous organizations as well.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Okay. Thank you.

So federal agencies are not deciding directly that this money is to be spent on “this” device, such as crack pipes.

[Kendal Weber]

Health Canada is not. We're transferring money to other jurisdictions. I must note that Corrections Canada will be making decisions about purchases, so I can't say Government of Canada across the board. We do know that Corrections “may” purchase. I can't speak for them, so I do need to keep it broad. At Health Canada we transfer the money to municipalities and also to provinces and territories.