I want to point out my colleague's comment about being overly prescriptive. I think the fact that the minister just approved three more sites proves that even with the situation we have today, these applications do go through. He's making extreme extrapolations.
One site in Vancouver, called Insite, has been operating for a number of years. The Dr. Peter site, I think, has only been up for maybe a year, so to assume we can replicate that community everywhere.... This was a very seriously affected community beforehand, and as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said, there's no place in Toronto that is that bad.
He also mentioned that we don't know. We've heard the statistics that are being collected. I don't know the breakdown, but maybe our colleagues from Health Canada know. We do know that overdoses are increasing, but I've not seen the breakdown. Are these overdoses due to injections? Is it the injectable route, the oral route, the inhalation route? Are we even taking any of these things into consideration? I don't know.
All we're saying with this approach that we'd like to put forward is that we know the minister can overrule. She's going to do what she's going to do. We're just saying the communities where these are going to be placed.... We're talking about parents whose kids are going to schools and recreation centres and police officers who have to do their job in that community. Municipal politicians should have the right to be consulted. That has been proposed by this government over and over again. They've said they're going to be the government of more consultation, and I see that they're already decreasing it enough. I don't think these few simple additions are unreasonable, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It doesn't mean that it's going to be overly prescriptive.
Even with the 26 requirements, we've got three new ones that just came out last week. My understanding is there could be more in the pipe ready to go.