Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I've submitted two amendments, with two versions of each. There are a few late ones that I might remove from the floor. This is the one I feel the most passionate about and that I strenuously ask my colleagues to give serious consideration to, because I think it makes the bill better, stronger, and more clear.
I'll read the original section of the bill. It says:
An application for an exemption under subsection (1) shall include evidence
—note the word “evidence”—
submitted in a form and manner determined by the Minister, of the intended public health benefits of the site and information, if any, related to
Then it mentions the following five criteria: the impact of the site on crime rates, the local conditions indicating a need for the site, the regulatory structure, the resources available to support it, and expressions of community support.
All I've done in my amendment is reorder these items. The first thing, from a point of view of principle, is that we want to make sure that the burden on the applicant is commensurate with the applicant's abilities. We put on the applicant the burden of showing information that they need, and you allow the minister to take into account the information that she needs to take into account.
The problem with this is that the burden is entirely on the applicant. That's number one.
Second, the very first thing it says is that the application shall include evidence of the intended public health benefits. I don't think it's possible to furnish evidence of intended benefits. By definition, intended benefits are speculative. You could supply information about that, but you can't supply evidence of something that is yet to happen, so that's a structural problem.
Then it goes on to say “and information”—and we're still talking about what the application has to include—on a number of factors. Why is the burden on an applicant to supply information on the impact of the site on crime rates? That is definitely something the government minister should take into account, but this is one of the problems that applicants under the current system have complained about. The reason it takes so long and is so difficult to put the application in is that they have to furnish evidence of the impact on crime rates.
If you look at some of the community groups that want to open these sites, you'll see they don't have the administrative or financial expertise to go out and gather sociological evidence on the impact on crime rates, although I think the minister should definitely be.... She should get the Minister of Justice and other departments, such as Public Safety, to furnish that evidence.
With the way it is now, some might say that paragraphs (a) to (e) under proposed subsection 56.1(2) are qualified with the words “if any”.
Here's the problem. If I'm an applicant and I'm putting an application in and I read this section, I'd say okay, I have to put in evidence of the intended public health benefits and information, if any, on a bunch of things. Now, I don't know; do I have to do that? If I don't do that, will my application be weaker? I know the evidence exists; if I don't put it in, will my application look incomplete? It actually continues to confuse.
My amendment simply reorders it. It says that an application for exemption under subsection 1 “shall include information”—so I've changed that first word “evidence” to “information”—“submitted in the form and manner determined by the Minister, related to”, and then I've given three things that the applicant has to give to the minister.
The first is the same one that's there now, the intended public health benefits of the site. I think an applicant should have to furnish information on that. The second is the local conditions indicating a need for the site, because the applicant will be specifically well placed for that. The third is to tell the minister what resources are available to support the maintenance of the site.
I want to pause and say that I changed the term from “regulatory structure”, which I think is an error. I read the Insite decision from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court talked about the regulatory structure of Insite, but if you follow the words that came after that, it talked about there being nurses on site, having pamphlets for drug treatment, doing criminal record checks. I think “regulatory structure” is the wrong word to use here, because it tends to make you think of the regulatory structure of the province.
I'll finish up very quickly, Mr. Chair. I know you're being indulgent. I'm almost done.
What we really want to know is what resources the applicant has to support the maintenance of the site.
Then, in terms of evidence, it goes on to say that in relation to the application:
the Minister may take into account evidence,
Now I've changed it back to “evidence”, but it could be “information.” It doesn't really matter. I just thought “evidence” makes more sense in the second half. That's “evidence, if any, related to”
(a) the impact of the site on crime rates;
—because there would be evidence of that—
(b) the administrative structure in place to support the site;
—that's looking at the city, the municipality, the province, and any other structures, and then—
(c) expressions of community support or opposition.
There would be evidence, or not, of that. I'm happy to change that second word, “evidence”.
What I've done, in sum, is straighten out the evidence-information issue. I've clearly told the applicant what they have to satisfy. We keep all of the six criteria that the Supreme Court identified, and we let the minister have regard to the evidence that—I think everybody in this room, including the Conservatives, would agree—should be taken into account. It makes it a very clear and I think a much stronger section.
I don't have any skin in this game. I have no dog in this race. I don't have anything invested in this. I think, however, that it makes this subsection absolutely accord with what we want it to do, which it does not do right now.