Jason Heit is running for Victoria City Council in British Columbia. He is a former combat sports athlete, coach, and promoter.British Columbia (BC) has spent years dealing with the devastating consequences of the opioid crisis. Lives have been lost, families devastated, and communities, including Victoria, continue to struggle with the consequences.We have spent significant public resources addressing this crisis, including prescribed safer supply programs intended to reduce overdose deaths.But I have questions. And I believe the public deserves answers.Let me start by making something clear. I’m not writing this to argue for or against safer supply. I’m trying to understand how the system works, who benefits financially, and whether we are doing enough to help people recover.Let’s start with Purdue Pharma.Most Canadians recognize Purdue as the company behind OxyContin, a prescription opioid at the centre of widespread litigation over the opioid crisis.In 2022, a Canadian court approved a $150 million national settlement involving Purdue Pharma Canada and Canadian governments over opioid-related claims.Yet Purdue has also marketed Dilaudid, a brand of hydromorphone, in Canada. Hydromorphone is one of the medications used in British Columbia’s prescribed safer supply program..That does not necessarily mean Purdue manufactures or supplies the hydromorphone currently dispensed through these programs.In May 2024, then-opposition leader Kevin Falcon raised this issue in the BC Legislature, questioning why the province was pursuing opioid manufacturers through litigation while allegedly purchasing medications manufactured by Purdue.That exchange raised an important question, but it did not establish how much, if anything, Purdue earns from BC’s safer supply program.So let’s get the facts.Is Purdue Pharma supplying medications being dispensed through safer supply programs in British Columbia? If so, how much public money ultimately reaches the company?Are Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers providing alternatives? Who determines which products are purchased or reimbursed? And are those expenditures publicly disclosed?Then there is the issue of trust.Given Purdue’s documented history, is it reasonable to simply trust that a pharmaceutical company’s financial interests will always align with the best interests of patients?.I don’t believe we should have to rely on trust alone.That doesn’t mean every medication produced by Purdue is harmful or without legitimate medical value. Opioids have important medical applications, particularly in treating severe pain.But history has demonstrated why independent oversight, transparency, and accountability are essential when powerful financial interests intersect with public health.And that brings me to an even more important question. What is the exit strategy?I understand that the primary objective of prescribed safer supply is to prevent overdose deaths by providing pharmaceutical alternatives to an unpredictable and potentially lethal illicit drug supply.Keeping people alive matters.But what happens after that?How many participants transition into addiction treatment? How many successfully reduce their opioid use? How many stop altogether? And how many remain on prescribed opioids indefinitely?.Are we tracking these outcomes consistently? Are we publishing the results? And are participants who want to pursue recovery being offered meaningful opportunities to do so?BC has addiction treatment and recovery programs, but prescribed safer supply is not itself necessarily designed to treat opioid use disorder.I recognize that recovery looks different for everyone. Some people may require long-term medication, while others may not be ready to stop using opioids. For some, stability and reduced overdose risk represent meaningful progress.An exit strategy doesn’t have to mean forcing someone off medication. It means ensuring that people have options, support, and a pathway forward when they are ready.But surely we should be asking whether people who want recovery have access to the treatment, counselling, housing, and support necessary to make that possible.Are we providing people with meaningful opportunities to move forward, including access to treatment and recovery when they want it, or are we leaving gaps in the support they need?That is a question, not a conclusion.I also believe we need to examine the financial incentives within the system..Pharmaceutical manufacturers earn revenue when their medications are sold. Pharmacies may also receive dispensing and witnessed-dosing fees for providing prescribed medications. These are different sources of revenue, and receiving payment for legitimate healthcare services is not evidence of wrongdoing.But when public money is involved, we have an obligation to ensure decisions are based on patient outcomes rather than corporate profitability.Who benefits financially, how much public money is involved, and what safeguards are in place to ensure financial incentives do not influence clinical decisions?I’ve seen enough over the years to recognize that research can be influenced by its funding sources, how it is conducted, and which outcomes are measured. That doesn’t mean we should dismiss scientific evidence, but we should be willing to question it, particularly when financial or institutional interests are involved.Research and evaluations of safer supply do exist, and BC has introduced additional safeguards, including witnessed-dosing requirements.But what independent evaluations have been completed, what have they found, and are the results, including any limitations or conflicting findings, publicly available?I want to see evaluations examining both successes and failures, with transparent data and measurable long-term outcomes.The objective shouldn’t be to justify an existing program. It should be to determine what is actually working and what could be improved..As a candidate for Victoria City Council, I recognize that healthcare policy and pharmaceutical purchasing are primarily provincial responsibilities.Victoria may not control provincial healthcare spending, but that doesn’t mean City Council should remain silent when the consequences are felt on our streets, in our businesses, and throughout our neighbourhoods.Municipal governments have every reason to demand transparency, advocate for effective solutions, and ensure residents have a voice.We should be able to ask difficult questions without being labelled as either supporting or opposing harm reduction.We should be able to acknowledge that saving lives today is essential while also asking what opportunities exist for recovery tomorrow.If the answers are available, let’s make them public. If the information is incomplete, let’s identify what’s missing.I’m not asking people to choose a side. I’m asking whether we have enough information to make an educated decision.Because when we’re talking about people’s lives, public money, and the future of our communities, asking questions isn’t unreasonable.It’s our responsibility.Jason Heit is running for Victoria City Council in British Columbia. He is a former combat sports athlete, coach, and promoter.
