Thank you very much, Chair.
I appreciate the comments from my colleague on the need to continue this discussion. It's important that we underline for Canadians the fact that some controversy exists here. Not all of it is based on science and much of it is based on opinion, which is not necessarily helpful when we know there are good scientific-based arguments. Many of my colleagues may not like that those exist, but they do.
It's important to continue on this road to enable this committee to understand that some of the science that has been referenced here does not answer the questions that we need answers to. It's also important to understand that the Government of British Columbia has asked for an end to the decriminalization experiment, which has certainly been outlined by communities such as New Westminster, Richmond, Campbell River, Kamloops and Sicamous. As Canadians hear more and more about the experiment, Canadians are fearful for their own communities. They're fearful for their communities because of contamination from used paraphernalia. They are concerned because of the potential for exposure of drugs to children, and we've heard even to pets in some areas.
The other thing that I've heard directly from Canadians is they are concerned about the loss of accessibility to their downtowns. That's a concern that we heard very clearly from a deputy chief constable in Vancouver, who testified at this committee not that long ago. She made it very clear that the decriminalization experiment has led to the loss of downtowns. Substances are being used outside of businesses, outside of residences, on transit and near schools, parks and beaches. The deputy chief constable's testimony noted that police were powerless to stop this type of activity.
The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has spoken very forcefully about this in the House of Commons and in the media in attempting to explain away the request by the Government of British Columbia to end the experiment. I find that interesting, because it was the Government of British Columbia that came to the federal government asking for the experiment, but we all know, even though this is not scientific in a sense, that when an experiment is going awry and the people in charge of the experiment say they need to end it, it needs to end. When doing a scientific experiment such as a randomized controlled trial, if the lead investigators understand that something has gone awry, they don't continue the experiment. They stop it, and they don't wait for days and days to stop it. They stop it immediately when those signals are out there.
I'm very disappointed in the NDP-Liberal government, and specifically in the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. The British Columbia government has asked for the experiment to end, and now there are negotiations with the NDP-Liberal government to continue the experiment. If we want to talk about this and we use the metaphor I used, even though I realize it's not scientific, then we know clearly that the experiment must end now for the betterment of this country, because it's a failed experiment. We've heard that over and over. We know it's a failed experiment. The B.C. government knows it's a failed experiment.
The question that I have—