All right.
I agree with Ms. May that her amendments and two others that I have moved speak to the criteria that an applicant would have to show and information or evidence, as the case may be, that would have to be furnished to the minister. These are the criteria that the minister would have to take into account in determining whether to grant a section 56 exemption.
All three of the amendments speak to that, but in different ways. They're alternative approaches. The amendment that Ms. May has proposed, which is very similar to one of my proposals, actually changes the criteria that are currently in the bill. There are six criteria in the bill right now, which emanate from the Supreme Court decision in the Insite case. This particular clause would truncate that and eliminate some of those considerations.
I'm in favour of this in the sense that from a public health point of view, we want to make this process as streamlined, effective, and efficient as possible for an applicant. The end goal, in my view, is to get supervised consumption sites up and running as fast as possible to save lives.
However, I do want to make clear that there are two different approaches to doing so. I have submitted two different approaches for my colleagues' consideration. One is this one, which I guess is the most efficient proposal you could have for an applicant. My other proposal is one that, personally, I favour. It retains the six criteria and simply reorders them in terms of what the applicant and the minister do and where the burden of proof is.
I guess what I'm saying is that I support them both, but if this one doesn't pass, I certainly hope that my colleagues will take a look at the other proposal, which maintains the six criteria.