Health Canada says it has suspended the exemption for Saskatoon’s supervised consumption site due to the “significant funding shortfall” recently detected by the organization.
In a statement to Global News, the agency said it informed Prairie Harm Reduction of the suspension on March 25, adding “organizational constraints” were also a factor
“As a result, the site is required to cease operation until further notice,” a Health Canada spokesperson said in an email.
The suspension was first announced by PHR on Sunday in a news release, which said it was working to have its exemption reinstated.
It comes only a few days after PHR terminated the employment of executive director Kayla DeMong stating financial management “fell significantly short of what was required.”
Get weekly health news
“This is unfortunate, but not unexpected,” PHR said in a news release of Health Canada’s decision.
Prairie Harm Reduction said it remains in close contact with Health Canada and is “actively working” to provide information that’s been requested so the suspension can be lifted.
Health Canada went on to say there are certain requirements for exemption holders to keep it.
“In order to meet the public health and public safety objectives under the CDSA, exemption holders must demonstrate that they have resources available to support the safe and ongoing operation of a supervised consumption site, including adequate funding and organizational capacity,” the statement read.
The drop-in centre, also operated by PHR, remains open.
PHR also announced on Sunday that Emmanuelle “Em” Morin will be taking on the role of transitional support specialist, providing support to PHR staff and the board and overseeing day-to-day operations.
The organization said in the release its board of directors is working with external financial experts to continue its “detailed review” of financial reporting and the organization’s financial status. A detailed preliminary report is expected in early April.
It previously said that while a probe into the shortfall was underway, it did not believe there was evidence of fraud, theft or personal misuse of funds.
Not really surprised. This type of fraud tends to be common for “NGOs” in this space. Especially those run by indians