There are a few things. The way the act is currently written, subsection 56(1) talks about the minister being able to grant the exemption. In the bill, proposed subsection 56.1(2) says:
(2) An application for an exemption under subsection (1) shall include
Therefore the only way an exemption can happen right now is if there's an application that responds to the information.
In answer to John's concerns, I don't see how a written request by a provincial health minister would obviate the need for the federal minister to consider the criteria of the Supreme Court. In fact, right now the application says only that it shall include information on the intended public health benefits of the site and information, if any, related to the rest.
Right now, the way the government members have voted for this, they don't even have to have information on the other five criteria of the Supreme Court. It's only if the applicant wants to put it in. It doesn't even require the minister to take those factors into account, so the only thing that has to be in an application right now is information regarding the intended public health benefits.
I'll read a little bit from Pivot's submission. I think Pivot sent a submission to all of us on this committee. It says:
Delegating the s. 56.1 exemption [or giving the power to the health minister] would empower provinces to take emergency actions during localized or regional health events.... Without legislation allowing them to do so, provinces will, in most cases, delay the provision of health services in order to apply for an exemption under s. 56.1....
The delay caused by the application process threatens timely access to crucial health and safety services.... Even if the application process is streamlined, Health Canada requires time to review and assess the merit of the application. Even when applications are expedited by Health Canada, as in the case of the two outstanding Vancouver...applications, they can take many months to process. At the time of this submission, the two Vancouver applications that were submitted on October 31, 2016 and are being expedited were still under review.
In that time, BC’s emergency SCSs went ahead without an exemption and have been extremely successful in limiting the number of fatal overdoses and increasing access to sterile injection equipment. Statistics from the Coroner’s Office at the end of 2016 show that of the 914 fatal overdoses in B.C. last year, none occurred in any supervised consumption facilities.
It goes on and on. It also says,
Provincial Ministers have more timely and extensive knowledge, expertise, and information than the Federal Minister about the health circumstances and needs of local communities in their province. Their familiarity with regional Health Authorities, medical services, frontline service providers, community health indicators, and gaps in existing services puts them in a better position to assess the nature and degree of need...in a given community.
I just see this again as adding to the tool box of the federal minister. In an unusual situation where a province has declared a provincial health emergency, as British Columbia has, instead of forcing them to go through the application process, which will take time, it gives the minister the ability to grant it quickly but also to consider those factors if the minister wants to. Nothing in here precludes that.
I want to point out something. Without this right now, and if the federal government does not accept this amendment, you are saying that there is no way to operate supervised consumption sites outside of getting an exemption. What you are really saying is that the current sites that are operating right now in B.C. are illegal. If that's the case, why is the federal government not shutting them down? Why is the federal government not enforcing the law? Why are you not sending in the RCMP or the Vancouver Police Department to shut down these sites because they're operating with flagrant disregard of the law?
I'll tell you why. It's because all members of the Liberal government know that those supervised consumption sites currently in operation are saving lives.
If you know that, why don't we provide a mechanism so that they can at least operate under the sanction of the law? Right now they're illegal. You are making the people who go into those sites and the people working there break the law each and every day. You know, and the government knows, that they are saving lives, but it won't take the jeopardy away from them.
To order them to shut down and to tell them to make an application means that in a public health emergency you would be saying exactly what we just argued against in Ms. Harder's motion, when we said 45 days was considered too long for the government, because people die in that time.
You're still going to make applications go through the application process, knowing that if a province needs it right now, there's no mechanism for a provincial health minister to directly consult with the federal health minister and for the health minister to authorize it right now, and that's what this amendment does.
There's no harm in providing the health minister the discretion. If the health minister doesn't think that the provincial request is legitimate or substantial, the health minister doesn't have to approve it, but let's give the health minister that ability to at least do that on an emergency basis when the health minister thinks it's necessary.
I'll just conclude by saying this is not academic. This is a real situation in British Columbia right now.