Latest / Kvetch & Release / After two monthly opioid alerts, should the consumption & treatment site reopen

Transcript

After two monthly opioid alerts, should the consumption & treatment site reopen · Kvetch & Release

0:08
Hey folks, we are back John Lydkey here on AM eight hundred ckl W.
0:14
If you're just tuning in, thank you so much for your time this
0:18
morning to ten oh seven. Well, unfortunately, a community alert has been
0:23
issued after a high number of opioid related emergency department visits in Windsor Essex.
0:29
By the Windsor Essex County Health Units Opioid and Substance Use Notification System, there
0:36
were fifteen opioid overdose related among emergency department visits, eight of which involved fentanyl
0:42
between May twenty sixth and June the first. This is the second alert in
0:47
Windsor Essex that has been issued in less than one month. On May twenty
0:52
first, just a number of days ago, an alert was issued after there
0:56
were thirteen opioid overdoses reported among emergency department vis it's between a six day period,
1:02
with all thirteen at that time involving fentanyl. We had discussed this on
1:07
the round table a little bit, but we wanted to have this conversation be
1:11
continued. Ward nine Councilor Kieren mackenzie had stated on the round table that he
1:17
places a lot of the blame on this file with the Ford government and the
1:22
closure or the lack of funding for the consumption and treatment site that we had
1:26
here in downtown Windsor which served the entire region. Not pulling puncheons or mincing
1:32
his words whatsoever, but joining us right now to provide a response to what
1:37
was said earlier on the program is our government MPP for the region Windsor to
1:42
come see MPP. Andrew Dowie joins right now. Andrew good Mariin. Hey,
1:46
good morning, John. Thanks so for having me on. Absolutely,
1:49
thanks so much. So you were listening to a bit of what Kieran had
1:53
to say there, and you know, I guess, first off, I'll
1:55
give you the opportunity just to respond to the summary that I just gave and
1:59
to what you had heard. Yeah, thanks for that. So I guess
2:04
I certainly don't share the viewpoint that there's causality. And here here's why I
2:08
say that that the alert is for those who are actually experiencing overdoses, and
2:15
save point is not intended to stop someone from overdosing. Is intended to save
2:20
their life if they choose to consume the drugs in which they would overdose with.
2:25
When back on this show, I think it was Dan who's hosting March
2:30
sixth. Laney from Plosive Pathways was on and she relayed the experience of why
2:37
the same point is important, and she said there was a case where a
2:39
gentleman came in, they tested his drugs and that they said, if you
2:45
take this, it's a lethal dose, and he took the dose anyway,
2:50
and then they revived him after he consumed the drugs. So the overdose that,
2:55
like the Safe Point service, is not too off an overdose. It
3:00
is to give information and give give the personal tools to make decisions on their
3:07
own. Uh. And ultimately it is not going to affect the opioid overdoses
3:14
that happened, because that's not what it's there for. So I think that
3:16
that's the first one. The first one I wanted to leave. The second
3:22
is I'm getting a bit call it frustrated with this narrative that has been coming
3:27
out from from a couple of different quarters that there had been no critical incident.
3:31
Review has been widely published in a number of publications and most recently in
3:38
I believe that it was Ontario Today that Unity Help. It's a it's a
3:44
Catholic based hospital that operates a number of facilities in inner City Toronto, and
3:50
as a harm reduction expert, they were the body that created or that that
3:54
we're tasked with doing a critical incident review, and the Mintry of Help staff
4:00
undertook a review of of of operations at different sites as well. So any
4:06
suggestion from a person who would say these studies haven't even been initiated or are
4:14
fictitious, they don't do their homework. And that's what I find really troubling
4:17
is that you know, people will present themselves to be experts and knowledgeable on
4:20
this subject when they don't do basic research. So I wanted to make that
4:26
point very clear that the studies had been commissioned by experts in their field and
4:31
that we await the results of those reviews. Do we know how long it
4:35
might take to get those results. I do not know, because ultimately we
4:43
don't want them to be shortcut. We want them to be considered properly,
4:47
and then the consequences of the recommendations be considered. How do you adapt this
4:53
operationally? Because the last thing you want is to have, you know,
4:57
have this come out and then have no response to it. So it's important
5:00
that the recommendations when they're they're delivered, that they'd be properly considered. That
5:05
phone calls we made about how you implement or or not. Perhaps the recognations
5:11
are not taken. Who knows, but it's very soon to judge what that
5:15
would be. But by all means, we do not want a half asked
5:20
review once a story for the language. We need something comprehensive that will actually
5:26
save lives and bring about a better quale of life for those that are suffering
5:30
from addictions. So the studies have been initiated. While they are ongoing,
5:35
we don't know how long it's going to take. And I understand what you're
5:38
talking about how the consequences of the recommendations being adapted, but you know,
5:41
we are still in this situation right now with status quo. The funding isn't
5:45
happening at the provincial level, but it is licensed. I guess my question
5:47
to you, before I'll bring in Kieran's voice, Andrew, is would you
5:51
be supportive? And I know that this is not the way that it's supposed
5:55
to work in any way whatsoever in terms of funding. And I don't think
5:58
the city shouldn't be doing The funding should flow from the province once it gets
6:00
to that point. But let's say that there was a philanthropist or a benefactor
6:08
who wanted to step forward and provide that funding. Would you be supportive of
6:11
seeing safepoint cts reopen under a model like that, even if it is temporary.
6:15
Well, what you've described is exactly the case and subburine timents. So
6:20
there were anonymous or sometimes not an honest philanthropists who were carrying the funding in
6:27
those cases because what but in the having munisipalities or having centers open without funding
6:36
approved is a relatively new thing. The other sites waited until funding was confirmed
6:45
before opening. So those sites that did not want to wait for the funding
6:49
to be approved are in this situation collectively where they are waiting for approval of
6:56
their application. Okay, well it is a still We'll wait and see on
7:00
those other approvals. And it sounds like what you're saying is because in Sudbury
7:05
and Timmins that that new model does exist, that it would be supported here
7:10
or would be allowed here in one form or another. Kieran, based on
7:14
what you've just heard, I saw that you've been taking some notes frantically here.
7:17
I wonder what your response would be, just from the counselor level here
7:21
in Windsor. Look, there's a number of things that I'm not sure the
7:25
amount of time that we have, but that I want to respond to.
7:28
Let's start with Sudbury and Timmins. What's going on there. Those communities are
7:30
responding to the failure of the government. Their private people are stepping up to
7:35
fill the gap that the Government of Ontario has created by not funding these institutions
7:42
despite all of the evidence that have demonstrated that they are safe. Consumption sites
7:46
are a best practice and a very important tool that communities need to have in
7:51
order to assist and help people who are suffering from addiction. The other piece,
7:58
the idea of causality. I'm struggling to wrap my mind around this.
8:03
Uh. There are people who we know because they've accessed those services, have
8:11
a they're they're the likelihood that they are imperiled is massively diminished by it.
8:18
That is what the That is what these sites are there to do. Are
8:22
there to help people who and to to give people you know who are suffering
8:26
from addiction have very serious problems with respect to mental health and or addiction to
8:33
uh, to be able to do that and to consume in a in a
8:35
safe environment where they are not at risk to perish because of this affliction that
8:41
they're dealing with, the fact that something is not a silver bullet, that
8:45
it won't that it won't in and of itself solve all of the problems that
8:48
are associated with mental health and addiction is not a reason not to do it.
8:52
We know they work in many on several different levels, and they help
8:56
to keep the community safeer generally unity health. With respect to the study,
9:01
so why can't we Why is there no timeline attached to this? There's why
9:05
is there no interim report? Why is there no discussion? Because there are
9:09
people have been clamoring to hear from what are you studying exactly? What are
9:13
you studying? If it's the critical incidents, then the issues that have happened
9:16
in some of these facilities, that's fine. How long is it going to
9:20
take? And those are really important questions because people are dying as we speak.
9:28
They're dying. Not all of those folks. All of those issues would
9:31
be remediated by opening a reopening the cts in our community, but certainly there
9:37
would be an added layer of safety that would be there that currently isn't there
9:41
because of the failure in my opinion of the provincial government. The last point
9:46
I want to make is, actually, I'll just leave it there for now.
9:52
Well, Andrew, I guess the response I would ask from you regarding
9:56
what Kieren had just said, And I understand you had said to me that
9:58
you're you don't know how long this is going to take, but so you
10:03
won't be able to respond to the question of why is there no timeline?
10:05
But is that something that you've inquired about yourself as to what the timeline might
10:09
look like? Are these things that constituents have brought to you, Because I'm
10:13
sure that you're dealing with this in your office on a regular basis. It's
10:16
not like this is an isolated thing among orders of government. Of course,
10:20
Well, it's certainly not isolated this issue. I want results tomorrow, just
10:24
like everybody else. But that's not the reality that we deal with. We
10:28
have to consider the consequences of our actions. We need to understand just the
10:35
general scenario. We need to understand the science and the research that's been undertaken.
10:39
At Sometimes recommenations can be received, and I say, I have no
10:43
knowledge of what these recommenations would be, but I've seen recommations given that are
10:48
just not accurate or just are the perspective of the author that are not shared.
10:54
That doesn't mean they're not acknowledged and received. But sometimes you don't accept
10:58
the recommendation because you have evidence that they say something to the contrary. So,
11:05
but all that needs to be digested, and that's that's the responsibility of
11:09
being in a position where you need to make decisions and be the one who
11:13
has the responsibility to make decisions. Very easy to be a critic uh and
11:18
and not have to take ownership, but it's a lot tougher to have to
11:22
take into consideration everything that you need to to to consider in life and death,
11:30
literally life and death decisions. And I will also highlight one a couple
11:35
of things. Number one, the federal government gave a the the exemption for
11:41
the center to operate, and other centers have that as well, but they
11:48
waited for provincial funding. So the decision to operate without funding was not made
11:52
by the Province of Ontario. It was made locally. Locally. That decision
11:58
was that we could not wait for the provincial review, which was known to
12:03
be a year plus. We needed to open now. And therefore local funds
12:07
were secured for that, and I certainly don't fault anyone for prioritizing the services
12:15
that they wish to prioritize in a democratic society. But to then say,
12:20
well, you know what, we're time limited and it's all your fault,
12:24
Province because you can't turn around your application fast enough. Because there was a
12:30
shooting that involved an employee of one of these safe injection sites. So why
12:35
would a safe injection site hire someone who would be involved in a criminal matter,
12:41
a murder of a young mother. This is not an irrelevant piece of
12:46
the equation. Who are staffing these centers? Why are they being operated with
12:50
people like this? These are fundamental questions that you can't skirt over. You
12:56
also can't skirt over the impact of the communities if you look at Timmins.
13:01
Timins City Council debated a motion to rescind their support, not because they didn't
13:09
believe in harm reduction, but because the consequence on the community surrounding that center
13:13
was not well understood and that they needed to consider the bigger picture as to
13:18
how these people of the community were being impacted by the delivery of the service
13:22
and how it was being operated and that bigger picture is something that we're going
13:26
to want to dive into when we get back from the break. I'll ask
13:30
you both if you could just stick around with us just through the commercial shortly,
13:33
and then we'll give both of you an opportunity just to give your final
13:35
points on this very informal lid key debate that I'm hosting here on AM eight
13:41
hundred CKLW. Will be back right after this. Hey, we're back,
13:46
folks, John Letkee here on AM eight hundred KLW. We're keeping this conversation
13:50
going about the CTS and the opioid issue in the province. Having a bit
13:54
of an informal debate here between MPP Andrew Dowie for Winster Tecomci and Ward nine
13:58
Councilor Kieren McKenzie. Right now, Kieran, I wanted to give you the
14:01
opportunity to provide a last response on this file. You got a but a
14:05
minute and a half. Well, just in terms of locally, there was
14:09
a massive and robust study because drawing the parallel between Timmins to undertaking and the
14:13
council undertaken, what they've undertaken, what's happened here locally, there was a
14:18
four hundred page report that included a significant amount of public consultation, and there
14:24
was certainly there was some disagreement about whether or not we should proceed or not,
14:28
but ultimately Council chose to proceed after an incredibly robust process that frankly was
14:33
also initiated by the province. We followed it to a t and then we
14:37
came up with the model in drawing the comparison between what's happened and how we
14:43
brought that program forward in the City of Windsor versus the other places that are
14:48
perhaps under greater scrutiny. We've established the gold standard in the City of Windsor.
14:54
The partner, the service delivery partners, Hotel do Grace. I think
15:00
everybody would acknowledge that Hotel to Grace is an extremely competent and credible partner in
15:03
terms of being able to deliver these services and we should have full faith and
15:07
there was it would be something if it were me, I would be holding
15:11
up in the legislature and to my colleagues that that this is we've created the
15:16
gold standard, and Windsor if there are problems with other sites and other other
15:20
other ways, other communities in terms of how they've deployed the model. They
15:22
should be emulating Windsor I'd be funding Windsor with because because of the establishment of
15:30
that gold standard model and held it up as an example for other communities to
15:33
follow. Thank you for that, Kier and Andrew last response that you have
15:39
to give Ultimately, I don't the members of provincial parliament don't get to operate
15:46
in a vacuum unless you're an opposition. You have to consider the impacts of
15:48
what you do, problems wide in provincial decisions. That means treating everybody with
15:54
the same rules. The review is happening for everybody, and you know,
15:58
we don't know what the results will be. But ultimately I here and understand
16:04
Counselor mckenny's concern, but you can't. You can't be treated differently just because
16:10
you want to be. We need we have a process in place and a
16:15
locally a decision was made to proceed with opening in the absence of funding.
16:19
Many other places did not go down that route. They waited till the funding
16:22
was in place before opening their doors. So that was a local decision and
16:26
that's not something that can be blamed on the province. But the province.
16:30
Sure the province funds this service and the process is such that when an applications
16:36
submitted and on approval of that application, the funding can flow. Thank you
16:41
so much for that. Big thank you to both of you for this informal
16:45
debate that we held here today. You know, it's a complex issue.
16:49
There's there's various sides to it. Everybody, of course, cares about the
16:53
people that are impacted by this file. These are our community members, these
16:57
are our family, these are our friends. Different orders of government respond differently,
17:03
and that is not a new thing that is happening right now. I
17:07
hope that maybe there is opportunity for you and well for Kieran and for you
17:12
Andrew to maybe sit together and find a way that you can both be championing
17:17
this file from the same point of view. But I do recognize that that
17:21
is difficult from different vantage points. But big thank you again. Windsard to
17:26
comes the MPP. Andrew Dowie Ward nine Counselor. Kieran Mackenzie, thank you
17:30
very much for your time on this. It's tech