Addictions
Safe supply opioids based more on ideology than evidence?

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Those who advocate for them always claim the moral high ground because of ‘evidence-based studies.’ But such studies appear to be in short supply.
That’s probably why 72 BC doctors recently signed a letter that argues against safer supply, saying the evidence underlying the philosophy is “weak or inadequate.”
Almost three years into the experimental opiate “safer supply” program in British Columbia and no one, including those handing out the pills, seems to know if it is working or making the problem worse. There are no shortage of opinions arguing on either side of the debate, but recent reports suggest that the facts remain in short supply.
Safe supply initiatives fall under the broad category of harm reduction programs. For opiate addiction, the program typically involves the prescription and distribution of pills like hydromorphone, a medical-grade opioid that is as potent as heroin, to addicts. The underlying hope is that addicts will then forgo possibly-tainted, illicit street drugs in favour of the ‘safer’ government-provided pills.
More than 40,000 Canadians have lost their lives to opioid overdoses since 2016 and British Columbia is one of the world’s first jurisdictions to take the ‘safer supply’ route in an effort to quell opioid overdoses.
But BC’s Auditor General just released a report on the trial program and, so far, it remains unclear as to whether the program has made any progress. Opioid deaths are still increasing and, while the report doesn’t criticize the underlying philosophy of ‘safer supply,’ it does note “deficiencies in key areas.”
According to the report, the government is conducting the program in a rather haphazard way. BC health authorities failed to maintain basic standards for administering an experimental trial and neglected their obligation to publish data on how the program is doing. The data was supposed to be publicly available by September 2022, more than 18 months ago.
Instead, the report found that health authorities are overly reliant on incomplete and out-of-date fact sheets about the program’s performance. It also cited authorities for major failings in the management and delivery of the program.
The bureaucrats in charge claim that they have the data to support their claims about the success of the program, yet one has to wonder why — three years in — no data is available to support those claims.
A similar dearth of data has been noted in Ottawa where the House of Commons Health Committee has been exploring the opioid epidemic and toxic drug crisis. One doctor who leads a safer supply program in London, Ontario, appeared to be a strong advocate for safer supply programs, claiming that safe supply clinicians “rely on good research and published evidence.”
But Dr. Marcus Powlowski, a Liberal MP and medical doctor who also has a master’s degree in health law and policy from Harvard, had apparently looked at the papers that she proclaimed as evidence, and soundly renounced the studies as “basically a bunch of anecdotes.”
So where is this rigorous scientific evidence for safer supply programs?
Those who advocate for them always claim the moral high ground because of ‘evidence-based studies.’ But such studies appear to be in short supply.
That’s probably why 72 BC doctors recently signed a letter that argues against safer supply, saying the evidence underlying the philosophy is “weak or inadequate.” They called for all safer supply programs to be “tightly controlled, rigorously monitored, and meticulously documented.”
A lack of medical evidence is likely related to another major issue outlined in the Auditor General’s report – “prescriber hesitancy.” That is, there are only a limited number of doctors who are willing to write prescriptions for the potent opioids used in safer supply.
However, there is plenty of evidence for one disturbing aspect of this program – diversion. This is a practice whereby safer supply pills (primarily hydromorphone) given to addicts are subsequently sold (or diverted) to drug traffickers and/or organized crime groups to obtain more potent and illicit drugs like fentanyl.
In early March, the RCMP in Northern BC revealed that thousands of safe supply opiate pills had been seized as part of organized crime busts in Prince George and Campbell River. It was considered to be solid evidence that diversion of safer supply drugs was occurring. According to the RCMP spokesperson, “Organized crime groups are actively involved in the redistribution of safe supply and prescription drugs,” and “what has been deemed safe is not being kept safe.”
It is simply not realistic to expect that such practices are not occurring in our major cities. The National Post, the CBC and an independent filmmaker have all previously published evidence of diversion occurring in London, Ottawa and Vancouver, respectively.
Drug policies such as safe supply have long bypassed appropriate scientific scrutiny because they supposedly save lives. But the question still remains – do they? And at what cost to addicts and the rest of society?
Susan Martinuk is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of Patients at Risk: Exposing Canada’s Health-care Crisis.
Addictions
Calls for Public Inquiry Into BC Health Ministry Opioid Dealing Corruption

The leaked audit shows from 2022 to 2024, a staggering 22,418,000 doses of opioids were prescribed by doctors and pharmacists to approximately 5,000 clients in B.C., including fentanyl patches.
A confidential investigation by British Columbia’s Ministry of Health, Financial Operations and Audit Branch has uncovered explosive allegations of fraud, abuse, and organized crime infiltration within PharmaCare’s prescribed opioid alternatives program. Internal audit findings, obtained by The Bureau, suggest that millions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted into illicit drug trafficking networks rather than serving harm reduction efforts.
The leaked documents include photographs from vehicle searches that show collections of fentanyl patches and Dilaudid (hydromorphone) apparently packaged for resale after being stolen from the taxpayer-funded “safer supply” program. This program expanded dramatically following a federal law change implemented by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government in 2020, which broadened circumstances in which pharmacy staff could dispense opioids, according to the document’s evidence.
“Prior to March 17, 2020, only pharmacists in BC were permitted to deliver [addiction therapy treatment] drugs,” the audit says.
B.C.’s safer supply program was launched in March 2020 as a response to the opioid overdose crisis, declared in 2016. It allows people with opioid-use disorder to receive prescribed drugs to be used on-site or taken away for later use.
The Special Investigations Unit and PharmaCare Audit Intelligence team identified a disturbing link between doctors, pharmacists, assisted living residences, and organized crime, where prescription opioids meant to replace illicit drugs are instead being diverted, sold, and trafficked at scale.
“A significant portion of the opioids being freely prescribed by doctors and pharmacists are not being consumed by their intended recipients,” the document states.
It suggests that financial incentives have created a business model for organized crime, asserting that “prescribed alternatives (safe supply opioids) are trafficked provincially, nationally, and internationally,” and that “proceeds of fraud” are being used to pay incentives to doctors, pharmacists, and intermediaries.
BC Conservative critic Elenore Sturko, a former RCMP officer, began raising concerns about the program two years ago after hearing anecdotes about prescribed opioids being trafficked. She asserts that the program is a failure in public policy and insists that Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry be dismissed for having “denied and downplayed” problems as they emerged. Sturko also argues that B.C. must change its drug policy in light of U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance linking the trafficking of fentanyl and other opioids to potential trade sanctions against Canada.
The document shows that PharmaCare’s dispensing fee loophole has incentivized pharmacies to maximize billings per patient, with some locations charging up to $11,000 per patient per year—compared to just $120 in normal cases.
Perhaps most alarming is the deep infiltration of B.C.’s safer supply program by criminal networks. The Ministry of Health report lists “Gang Members/Organized Crime” as key players in the prescription drug pipeline, which includes “Doctors, pharmacies, and assisted living residences.”
This revelation confirms long-standing fears that B.C.’s “safe supply” policy—originally designed to prevent deaths from contaminated street drugs—is instead sometimes supplying criminal organizations with pharmaceutical-grade opioids.
The leaked audit shows from 2022 to 2024, a staggering 22,418,000 doses of opioids were prescribed by doctors and pharmacists to approximately 5,000 clients in B.C., including fentanyl patches.
Beyond organized crime’s direct involvement, pharmacies themselves have exploited regulatory gaps to generate massive profits from PharmaCare’s policies:
- Pharmacies offer kickbacks to doctors, housing staff, and medical professionals to steer patients toward specific locations.
- Financial incentives fuel fraud, with multiple investigations identifying 60+ pharmacies offering incentives to clients.
- Non-health professionals, including housing staff, are witnessing OAT (opioid agonist treatment) dosing, violating patient safety protocols.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
For the full experience, please upgrade your subscription and support a public interest startup. We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
Addictions
Provinces are underspending on addiction and mental health care, new report says

The Greta and Robert H. N. Ho Psychiatry and Education Centre, the HOpe Centre, a health care facility for mental illness and addiction in North Vancouver, B.C. (Dreamstime)
By Alexandra Keeler
The provinces are receiving billions in federal funds to address mental health and substance use. Why are so many spending so little?
The provinces are failing to allocate sufficient funding to addiction and mental health care services, a new report says.
The report, released Dec. 19 by the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, criticizes the provinces for a “long history of … demanding maximum cash for health care from the federal government with minimum accountability.”
The alliance is a coalition of 18 prominent health organizations dedicated to improving Canada’s mental health care. Its members include the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Mental Health Association.
On average, the provinces have allocated just 16 per cent of $25 billion in federal health-care funding toward mental health and addiction services, the report says.
“Given the crisis of timely access to care for those with mental health and substance use health problems, why are so many provinces and territories investing so little new federal dollars to improve and expand access to mental health and substance use health care services?” the report asks.
However, some provinces dispute the report’s criticisms.
“The funding received from the federal government is only a small part of Alberta’s total $1.7 billion allocation towards mental health, addiction and recovery-related services,” an Alberta Ministry of Mental Health and Addiction spokesperson told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement.
“[This] is a nation leading level of investment response.”
‘Take the money and run?’
In 2023, Ottawa and the provinces committed to spend $25 billion over 10 years investing in four priority areas. These areas are mental health and substance use, family health services, health workers and backlogs, and a modernized health system.
The alliance’s report, which looks at provincial investments in years 2023 through 2026, says mental health and substance use are being given short shrift.
B.C., Manitoba and P.E.I. have allocated zero per cent of the federal funds to mental health and substance use, the report says. Three other provinces allocated 10 per cent or less.
By contrast, Alberta allocated 25 per cent, Ontario, 24 per cent, and Nova Scotia, 19 per cent, the report says.
The underspending by some provinces occurs against a backdrop of mental health care already receiving inadequate investment.
“[P]ublicly available data tells us that Canada’s mental health investments account for roughly 5% of their health budgets, which is significantly below the recommended 12% by the Royal Society of Canada,” the report says.
However, several provinces told Canadian Affairs they took issue with the report’s findings.
“Neither the Department of Health and Wellness nor Health PEI received requests to provide information to inform the [alliance’s] report,” Morgan Martin, a spokesperson for P.E.I.’s Department of Health and Wellness, told Canadian Affairs.
Martin pointed to P.E.I.’s investments in opioid replacement therapy, a mobile mental health crisis unit and school health services as some examples of the province’s commitment to providing mental health and addiction care.
But Matthew MacFarlane, Green Party MLA for P.E.I.’s Borden-Kinkora riding, says these investments have been inadequate.
“P.E.I. has seen little to no investments into acute mental health or substance use services,” he said. He criticized a lack of new detox beds, unmet promises of a new mental health hospital and long wait times.
The alliance’s report says New Brunswick has allocated just 3.2 per cent of federal funds to mental health and addiction services.
However, a New Brunswick Department of Health spokesperson Tara Chislett said the province’s allocation of $15.4 million annually from the federal funds does not reflect the additional $200 million of provincial funding that New Brunswick has committed to mental health and substance use.
In response to requests for comment, a spokesperson for the alliance said the federal funding is important, but “does not nearly move the yardsticks fast enough in terms of expanding the capacity of provincial health systems to meet the growing demand for mental health and substance use health care services.”
Our content is always free.
Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.
‘Blaming and shaming’
The discrepancies between the report’s findings and the provinces’ claims highlight a need for standardized metrics around mental health and addiction spending.
The report calls on federal and provincial governments to develop national performance indicators for mental health and substance use services.
“At the end-of-the day you cannot manage what you do not measure,” the report reads.
It advises governments to communicate their performance to Canadians via a national dashboard.
“Dashboards are being used with increasing frequency in the health system and other sectors to summarize complex information and would be one way to effectively tell a story … to the public,” the report says.
It also urges Ottawa to introduce legislation — what it dubs the Mental Health and Substance Use Health Care For All Parity Act — to ensure equal treatment for mental and physical health within Canada’s health-care system.
This call for mental and physical health parity echoes the perspective of other health-care professionals. In a recent Canadian Affairs opinion editorial, a panel of mental health physicians argued Canada’s failure to prioritize mental health care affects millions of Canadians, leading to lower medication reimbursement rates and longer wait times.
The alliance says its call for more aggressive and transparent spending on mental health and addictions care is not intended to criticize or cast blame.
“This is not about blaming and shaming, but rather, this is about accelerating the sharing of lessons learned and the impact of innovative programs,” the report says.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Our content is always free.
Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.
-
Business2 days ago
FEMA paid for hotels housing Tren de Aragua, Laken Riley killer, Noem says
-
Business20 hours ago
Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada
-
COVID-192 days ago
Canadian medical regulator drops misconduct allegations against COVID jab critic Dr. Charles Hoffe
-
Community7 hours ago
New Documentary “Cooking with Hot Stones” Explores History of Fort Assiniboine, Alberta
-
Business19 hours ago
Trump Admin reports 75K federal workers have accepted buyout offer
-
Health1 day ago
RFK Jr. to focus on chronic disease, healthcare costs as HHS head
-
Business19 hours ago
An era of Indigenous economic leadership in Canada has begun
-
International19 hours ago
Senate Judiciary Committee approves Kash Patel’s FBI nomination in party-line vote