Health Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. That was perfect timing.

Before we go to Madame Gaudreau, I would love to welcome our honourable colleague from North Island—Powell River, British Columbia. Is that correct?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Gunn. I know that you will participate a little later on in the discussion.

We will go to Madame Gaudreau for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're carrying out a study. I was speaking with my former colleague, Luc Thériault. He told me that we're still studying the issue, even though we've been talking about increasing vulnerability for decades, particularly with regard to housing availability. The bottom line is that problems become more severe when people encounter difficult circumstances. I have the feeling that we're going nowhere. I've heard what you have to say.

Ms. Kennell and Mr. Smith, when an organization establishes a system for prevention, support and follow‑up, how do you explain the fact that funding might last a year or three years and then disappear afterwards, even though you have the solution? How do you handle that?

[Sarah Kennell]

Thank you for the question, Ms. Gaudreau.

People across the country are asking exactly that question.

We have CMHAs that are delivering evidence-based, compassionate interventions. They are delivered by frontline staff, who are the most passionate people in this country. They keep our communities safe and offer care and support to those impacted directly, their community members and their family members.

Those organizations are funded piecemeal and patchwork by a combination of different funding sources that are short-term and driven by very short-term metrics. As a result, the precariousness through which we deliver care is contributing to the inability for us to tackle this crisis as we should be.

As Dr. Caudarella said, we know what works. It's time to invest in it over the long term. Given the nature of this crisis, it is a pan-Canadian, multi-jurisdictional issue that requires such an approach to address.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Investments are being made in housing and people will be provided with a place to live. However, I gather that simply providing access to housing doesn't mean that people can rent or buy it. Quebec has affordable housing as well as social housing specifically designed to maintain a connection. Unfortunately, too many legislators here at this table and in other places think that they can just inject money and consider the issue resolved, and then move on to other matters.

Dr. Caudarella, when it comes to mental health and substance abuse, is it true that these issues can't be resolved all at once?

[Dr. Alexander Caudarella]

As you said, these issues are naturally quite complicated. For example, we've seen the need to make modifications to homes and housing for people who use drugs.

I'm trying to explain that the solution doesn't lie in any one specific model. Someone in the community must see how connections are formed and how the police work with housing developers. They want to work together. How will we help people? In some programs, participants have started treatment for opioid use, for example. Between 50% and 60% of those people were employed a year later. How will we all make these connections together?

As you said, we're looking at the short‑term impact. Hence my point that assessments must be carried out independently, with open and accessible data, so that communities can decide how best to proceed.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Let's be honest. We want to measure the results so that we can claim success. If we can't measure the work on the ground that actually leads to fewer people in need, it doesn't pay off on a political level. We need to ask ourselves whether we can let go and trust the experts, the people on the ground. I'm telling you this because I worked on the front lines 30 years ago.

I'm also thinking of Maison Lyse‑Beauchamp, which serves as a model in the Hautes‑Laurentides. It now employs 60 people. They work in the warming centre as well as in emergency and medium‑term support services. People are realizing this. They tell me that it's a continuum of services and that a person may experience a certain relapse. Any former smokers here may have had as many as seven relapses before deciding to quit for good.

I have 25 seconds left. Do you agree that we must let go of our desire to regulate, ensure compliance and set limits, but that you need a budget because you know what you have to do?

[Dr. Alexander Caudarella]

I would say to show courage. Often, the only thing that legislators can access is funding and grants. How will we hold people accountable, beyond just using sound bites? Set goals. What goals do we want to achieve? We won't stop overdoses. It's tragic, but no world exists where the number of overdoses is zero. However, can we ensure that 30% more people have access to treatment? Can we ensure that the wait time for treatment is reduced by two months?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you.

Now, because that was six minutes and 20 seconds, we will go to MP Gunn for five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Zivo, has the federal Liberal government directly funded the handing out of deadly, dangerous and otherwise illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl or other opioids, to those addicted to the very same substances?

[Adam Zivojinovic]

Yes, it has. The federal Liberals are actually very proud of the fact that they invested approximately $100 million into safer-supply pilot programs that were meant to incentivize the prescribing of safer-supply drugs.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Now, when you take a step back and go up to 30,000 feet, here in Canada we've had more than 50,000 overdose deaths since the Liberals came to power: That's more Canadians than died in all of World War II. When you look at their policies to promote the flooding of our streets with drugs—with the pilot of decriminalizing fentanyl, crystal meth and crack cocaine in my home province of British Columbia—do you believe these policies contributed to this devastating outcome?

[Adam Zivojinovic]

I would say so, but, at the same time, I think the underlying problem is that maybe some of the lawmakers who supported these policies initially were, unfortunately, scientifically illiterate, and they thought there was an evidence base behind this intervention. They didn't understand that studies that rely on self-reported survey data from drug users may not actually be reliable. I don't fault them for this, because they were duped in a certain way.

However, I am very angry about the fact that, after reports of widespread safer-supply diversion came out from 2023 onwards, there was a defensive response from the federal Liberals, and that it took over two years for them to defund these pilot programs. During those two years, many people developed unnecessary addictions due to readily accessible, cheap, diverted safer-supply hydromorphone.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Yes, I hear what you're saying with regard to the fact.... I'm not trying to prescribe ill motive towards anybody. However, at the same time, do you find that, from the beginning, there should have been some obvious red flags and inherent contradictions? For example, the federal Liberal government took part in a class action lawsuit against Purdue pharmaceuticals, presumably for the role that company played in supercharging the opioid crisis by producing and distributing a deadly supply of opioids—mainly OxyContin—while marketing it to the population as safe. However, at the same time, was our own government not doing the exact same thing? Were they not also paying for the production and mass distribution of opioids—actually, a more powerful one in Dilaudid, or hydromorphone—while marketing it to our population, especially to young people, as safe supply?

[Adam Zivojinovic]

I mean, I would agree. I find the whole concept of safe supply a bit perplexing. I don't understand why people supported it, given that the OxyContin crisis is the reason that we have an opioid crisis to begin with. OxyContin was so widely available: In the United States it was often covered by Medicaid, so it was essentially a form of safer supply. The barriers to access were minimal. You could just get some fake X-rays and claim that you had chronic pain. If you had a low income, you could get very cheap, basically free, access to opioids. We saw what that did, so why did we believe that giving people free access to pharmaceutical opioids would have any different outcome here?

Further, this isn't the first time that safer supply has been tested out. Sweden actually tried safer supply from 1965 to 1967, and the results were disastrous. There were about 100 safer supply patients in Stockholm. They were given nearly unlimited supplies of stimulants and opioids, clean pharmaceutical drugs, with this idea that it would be a compassionate and non-authoritarian approach to drug policy. They just ended up diverting the majority of it. The area around the clinic became known as a hotbed of crime. The percentage of arrested individuals who showed signs of intravenous drug use increased, from 20% in 1965 to about 33% in 1967, which is a huge jump for two years. Swedish policy-makers ended up shutting down their safer-supply pilot program after just two years.

It's not hard to find this information. I don't understand why Canadian policy-makers and harm reduction researchers didn't look at that example and think to themselves, “Well, maybe this is a bad idea.”

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm also concerned about some of the perverse profit incentives that have cropped up. Here in Ottawa, there are pharmacies set up right next to, basically, the clinics where these drugs are being prescribed. In some cases, they have overlapping board structures, with many of the same people receiving federal grants. Are you concerned about the profit incentives for some of the clinics that may be prescribing these drugs or the pharmacies dispensing them?

[Adam Zivojinovic]

Yes, of course. It's very easy to make a lot of money off safer supplies.

Let's say, for example, you own a pharmacy and you have a patient who's stable on methadone. They're coming to pick up their methadone every once in a while, or they're getting their Suboxone carries. They're not coming to the pharmacy that often, so you're not charging that many dispensing fees.

Then, if you have an unstable safer supply patient who's coming in every single day, picking up three different prescriptions, and your dispensing fees are approximately $10 per medication, with 100 safer supply patients you can make about $1 million in dispensing fees a year. In Ontario—

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much. You are 20 seconds over.

We will go to MP Sidhu for five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us.

We know the opioid crisis is a very complex issue, and no single organization or level of government can address it alone.

Dr. Caudarella, you talked about many sides of that issue.

Ms. Kennell, you said that funding and a pan-Canadian approach are essential. You talked about that.

Dr. Caudarella, can you tell us who needs to be more involved in the response to the opiate crisis? In your opening remarks, you said that the greatest challenge is putting evidence into practice. Can you elaborate on that?

[Dr. Alexander Caudarella]

Yes, and I think what's really encouraging is that there are a lot of people who want to be involved. That's what we see. They just want to know what to do.

We're going to be releasing a report in the next couple of weeks that talks about the fact that substance use harms cost businesses about $15 million per day, just in short-term disability and absenteeism. I think that businesses have a big role to play in catching things early, in supporting people and in helping people with lived experience in getting work. This is part of why we've been trying to help educate and support...and different pieces.

One thing we've been encouraging is for small-town mayors to really get involved more in how they can do things and deliver things. They find themselves, often, as the coordinators, the traffic police...as different things.

I really think that, at the end of the day, if you're not involved, you should look at this and say, “What's the role I can play?” It really is a civic challenge of that dimension.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, I know that Peel is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. The Peel Dufferin branch of the CMHA operates a rapid-access addiction clinic. How important are low-barrier points to access to helping people, when they come to connect with the treatment, before any emergency happens?

[David Smith]

Thank you.

The whole idea of low-barrier access is that you can start somebody when they want to make a change. Trying to be available when folks are looking for help is critical to the success of the intervention. It's also really important to have a full range of supports behind that. It's not just about the addictions issue itself; it's solving some of the underlying social determinants of health issues: food, housing, safety and employment.

Setting the rapid-access addictions medicine clinics inside organizations that can also offer all of these other supports is going to be critical to the long-term success—and we do see regular success. Sometimes, though, we're not able to help people, because we don't have enough resources.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Your branch has developed culturally responsive programs, including many organizations for Black, Afro-Caribbean and South Asian communities, especially to address the stigma and to improve access to addiction services in Brampton's multicultural communities. How impactful is that program to removing stigma and to giving better treatment to the communities?

[David Smith]

It's about bringing together a range of different resources. We work very closely with Punjabi Community Health Services. We're a partner in the Black Health and Social Services Hub. Obviously, we're in a very diverse region, with over 50% visible diversity across our entire patch, so working with those communities to blend in our addictions responses with the other culturally appropriate responses that they have, and the connections they have into those communities, is critical. It's about those organizations working together in order to develop the relationships, and then bringing the people who are in those communities to the supports they need.