Mr. Chair, in this amendment I tried to balance two things. One is the timeliness, because I do understand that this is in fact a response to the opioid crisis, which I'll say is in fact urgent. At the same time, though, I want to balance that with the need for a public voice. The Liberals campaigned on and have stressed over and over again in the House how important consultation is and how important an evidence-based approach is. My hope would be that we would be able to come to a consensus today with regard to this amendment, given that it is important to both sides.
My amendment is this:
The Minister may grant an exemption under subsection (1) not earlier than 45 days after the day on which the Minister provides public notice, in the form and manner determined by the Minister, of any application for an exemption under subsection (1 ). The notice shall include the period of time—not to exceed 90 days—in which members of the public may provide the Minister with comments.
The change that's taking place here is that I'm advocating for a minimum amount of time during which we would allow the public to respond to a public notice. The way the piece of legislation reads right now, it simply says that the minister can give up to 90 days. I would say then that the minister could choose just to do zero days, which means she has not consulted or allowed the community to be consulted at all, which seems very counter to what the Liberal position is. I would say that a minimum of 45 days seems appropriate to allow the community the opportunity to consider a supervised injection site being put in place and to respond to the minister.
Again, I'm not taking away any authoritative power from the minister. At the end of the day, she gets to consider the thoughts that are brought before her and then make a final decision based on that information that is presented. I think this current government has demonstrated its desire for consultation, whether it's through pipelines or through putting national strategies in place at various times. I guess I'm a little bit confused as to why there wouldn't be more emphasis placed on allowing the public a voice with regard to something like a supervised injection site, which is going to alter the community in which it is located.
Further still, the minister was directed in her mandate letter to consult with Canadians, so again it would seem fitting for that to occur on all legislation going forward if it is in her mandate letter. I could quote that for you, but in the interest of time I won't be doing that today.
My statement is this: I certainly believe that this amendment is in alignment with the Liberal position with regard to seeking public input, doing consultations, and allowing individuals to take an interest in a change that's going to take place in their community. It's not a motion that stands in the way of the supervised injection sites being put in place. It's just simply a mechanism by which we can elicit further input from the community, which I think always strengthens the decisions that we make. Based on the platforms that have been put forward, I would expect you to agree.
I know my community is considering a supervised injection site and is taking the steps forward to look at that and to gather evidence for our need. I don't stand for or against that personally, but what I do stand for is bringing the community into that procedure and making sure that our different organizations are informed and given a voice.
For example, I want Canadian mental health at the table. I also want community mental health at the table. I also want Alberta Health Services at the table, along with our mayor, but also I want other community organizations such as our homeless shelter at the table because I believe that all of these organizations will have a role to play in the care that is provided to these individuals. As we're stating at this table, a safe injection site or a supervised injection site is only one of the pillars.
If we were to move forward with that without consulting with these other organizations or with community members, then it weakens it because it doesn't give them an opportunity to share their feedback and how they might further engage in the process going forward.
With that, I leave this in front of you to say that giving public notice a minimum of 45 days ahead of time allows for a broader consultation and for community organizations to partner with one another, rather than being left in the dust or blindsided. A community effort is what's going to strengthen this and allow all pillars to be obtained.