Dr. Lori Regenstreif warns: No other country would hand bottles of opioids to addicts ‘with the assumption that this will solve their risk of overdose death’

A scathing new study by a Canadian addictions physician concludes that ideologically driven “social justice” governments have worsened the country’s fentanyl crisis by aggressively funding and promoting so-called “safer supply” programs—despite a lack of evidence they save lives. Instead, as mounting proof showed that thousands of government-distributed opioid tablets—as potent as heroin—were being diverted into the black market by organized crime, Health Canada, public health officials, and sympathetic media outlets continued to defend the controversial programs and attack critics.

Even as violent incidents emerged—including a shooting outside a Toronto safer supply clinic—the study notes that some advocates called for medical professionals to be removed from program oversight entirely.

In a paper published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Dr. Lori Regenstreif, a veteran addictions physician, argues that Canada’s “safe supply” programs—widely expanded after 2019—have not only failed to reduce overdose deaths, but have coincided with a steep rise in fatalities. The number of opioid-related deaths in Canada surged from 3,023 in 2016 to more than 7,300 by 2021, despite increased distribution of government-supplied hydromorphone tablets. Regenstreif warns that the policy, intended as harm reduction, has morphed into a dangerous social justice experiment, sidelining evidence-based treatments like methadone and buprenorphine in favour of unproven, unsupervised opioid dispensing.

What Canada has chosen to do to address opioid overdose is unique, Regenstreif states of her findings, released today.

Instead of curbing fatalities, safe supply programs have unleashed a wave of diversion—with powerful 8mg hydromorphone tablets, known on the street as “Dillies,” leaking into illicit markets and being trafficked across the country. She cites a growing body of evidence, also covered in reports from The Bureau, that these pills are not only widely sold and traded by program participants, but also used as currency by organized crime groups.

Cited in the study, like-minded addiction experts Dr. Sharon Koivu and Dr. Jenny Melamed report that the street price of Dilaudid 8mg tablets collapsed from $15–$20 in 2020 to as low as $0.50 by late 2021. “Things changed within weeks of the hydromorphone hitting the streets,” Melamed said. This sudden flood of pharmaceutical-grade opioids reshaped local drug economies—allowing criminal networks to exploit the government-funded supply chain and expand access to hard opioids far beyond clinical settings.

Regenstreif also highlights systemic flaws in the program’s implementation. Staff at supervised injection sites often appeared well-meaning, but lacked clinical experience and a clear understanding of untreated addiction behaviour.

One notable case cited in the report occurred in 2023, when a peer support worker at the Parkdale Community Health Centre in Toronto was implicated in a shooting incident.

“A peer support worker, perhaps with naïve but good intentions, ended up on the wrong side of the law in attempting to protect a safe consumption site client involved in a shooting,” Regenstreif writes.

Yet despite such outcomes, advocates continued to push for a “non-medicalized” model of opioid distribution, in which trained addiction specialists were sidelined.

Regenstreif traces how media coverage of the safer supply programs has shifted in tone amid growing investigative scrutiny and backlash from program advocates and public health officials.

Health Canada is described as having dismissed or re-framed concerns over diversion. One federally funded guidance document, titled Re-Framing Diversion for Health Care Providers, argued that diversion should not be stigmatized. “The current medical and criminal-legal framing of diversion perpetuates stigmatizing and patronizing views of people who use drugs,” the document reads.

The Globe and Mail’s Andrea Woo wrote in 2024 citing British Columbia’s Coroners Service and noting no definitive link between prescribed safe supply and overdose deaths. However, Regenstreif points out that coroners cannot determine how a victim first encountered opioids—only which drug was in their system at death. “A coroner cannot determine if the opioid came from a diverted prescription,” she writes.

National Post contributor Adam Zivo—who has reported on diversion for The Bureau—was among the first to investigate pill diversion in 2023, interviewing clinicians who used pseudonyms due to fear of backlash. The study cites his reporting in describing a pattern: as police across the country seized tens of thousands of prescription opioid pills, and more physicians documented evidence of diversion, the research field remained notably shallow. Meanwhile, advocates of safe supply programs politicized the issue, accusing critics of inciting a “moral panic” and aligning with entrenched institutional interests.

Regenstreif contends that it is frontline addiction physicians—those treating users of fentanyl and working within the safer supply framework—who are best placed to assess its consequences. She recounts one patient under 18 describing a visit to a Burlington, Ontario clinic, where they saw a doctor only on video and were handed a bottle of Dilaudid. Others reported buying diverted Dilaudid bottles openly on the streets of Peterborough, Thunder Bay, and Windsor in Ontario, or Victoria and Nanaimo in British Columbia.

Not all supporters of the program are acting in bad faith, Regenstreif notes, but many fail to see the bigger picture. Addiction specialists, public health officials, and researchers have each addressed isolated elements of the crisis based on their particular lens—yet none have managed to bring these perspectives together into an effective, unified response.

Corroborating Canadian reports, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration identifies hydromorphone—marketed as Dilaudid—as a drug of interest to traffickers, producing effects similar to heroin and fentanyl. The DEA lists common street names such as “D,” “Dillies,” “Dust,” “Footballs,” “Juice,” and “Smack,” and warns that diversion occurs through forged prescriptions, doctor-shopping, and pharmacy theft—risks compounded by unmonitored safe supply systems.

In her conclusion, Regenstreif warns that comparing opioids to alcohol, as some safe supply advocates do, is a false analogy. Alcohol’s harms accumulate gradually; opioids, by contrast, are acutely toxic and deadly. Canada must chart a better path forward, she argues—one that prioritizes evidence-based care, not ideological narratives. That path includes a return to opioid agonist therapy and wraparound services; genuine adherence to medical science; balancing individual and community well-being; and reuniting the four pillars of Canada’s drug strategy: prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and enforcement.

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Canada’s bread price-fixing scandal is one of the most damaging breaches of corporate trust in the history of Canadian food retail. The recent approval
of a $500-million class-action settlement by an Ontario court is a significant—though partial—step toward accountability. But the story isn’t over.

For over a decade, grocery giants secretly rigged the price of the country’s most basic food item, and most Canadians had no idea.

From 2001 to 2015, retailers and suppliers deliberately coordinated to raise the price of packaged bread, a basic household staple. This kind of illegal arrangement, known as price-fixing, occurs when supposed competitors agree to set prices rather than compete, driving up costs for consumers. Companies named in the lawsuit include Loblaw, its parent company George Weston Ltd., Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Giant Tiger.

The impact on consumers was steep. Estimates suggest Canadians were overcharged by more than $5 billion over 14 years. The added cost was hidden in weekly grocery bills, largely unnoticed, but cumulatively devastating, especially for lower-income households that spend a greater share of their income on food.

The Competition Bureau, Canada’s competition watchdog, launched its investigation in 2015 after Loblaw came forward as a whistleblower under its Immunity and Leniency Program. In exchange for cooperating, Loblaw and George Weston were granted immunity from criminal prosecution. Their disclosure triggered years of scrutiny. In 2017, the companies attempted to contain the public backlash by offering $25 gift cards to 3.8 million Canadians, a gesture that cost $96 million and was widely seen as inadequate.

More recently, in 2023, Canada Bread pleaded guilty and paid a record $50-million fine for its role in the scheme. Although the violations occurred while it was owned by Maple Leaf Foods, it was Grupo Bimbo—which acquired Canada Bread in 2014—that took responsibility and cooperated with regulators. It was a rare show of accountability in a case otherwise marked by corporate silence.

Despite multiple companies being implicated, only Loblaw, George Weston and Canada Bread have admitted wrongdoing. No fines or sanctions have been imposed on the others. Walmart, Metro, Sobeys and Giant Tiger—all named by Loblaw—deny the allegations. Yet the investigation drags on nearly a decade later.

This imbalance in accountability has deepened public frustration. Many Canadians believe only those who stepped forward have faced consequences,
while others remain untouched. Or perhaps Loblaw threw its competitors under the bus in a calculated effort to save its own reputation?

The $500-million settlement—$404 million of it from Loblaw and George Weston —was approved by an Ontario judge earlier this month as “fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.” The other $96 million reflects the earlier gift card program. What’s left to be paid amounts to about $13 per Canadian adult. After legal fees and administrative costs, 78 per cent of that will go to eligible Canadians outside Quebec, with the remaining 22 per cent reserved for Quebecers, pending a June 16 court hearing.

But for many, the money and the apologies do little to restore trust. If companies can quietly collude on something as essential as bread, it raises questions about what else might be going unnoticed in our grocery bills. The scandal exposed major weaknesses in Canada’s food retail system: toothless competition laws, limited pricing transparency and weak deterrents against collusion. These investigations take too long, and the damage to public confidence lingers long after the cheques are cashed.

Bread is not just a commodity. It symbolizes nourishment, affordability and stability. Manipulating its price isn’t just a legal violation; it’s a betrayal of public trust.

If this case is to be a turning point, it must lead to more than payouts. Canada needs stronger enforcement, faster investigations and real transparency in pricing. Without systemic reform, Canadians will remain vulnerable to the next coordinated “market adjustment,” hiding in plain sight on store shelves.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country