Minister, I'd like to differ very much with your saying that this works. Any—any—person who is a public health authority, any physician, any researcher, anyone who understands public health and addiction, will tell you that what you have mentioned are three elements of treatment, and you have missed the biggest one, and that is harm reduction. This is precisely what InSite did.
It is about treatment, yes, and it is about prevention, yes. But it is also about harm reduction and prevention of deaths and disease, which is really what harm reduction is. This is what InSite does. There's been evidence based in six European countries, 70 InSites, and in Australia, and been peer-reviewed by 24 international researchers on the whole InSite issue. The Supreme Court...and I could read it, but I don't have the time, Mr. Chair, all the areas where they agreed that this was working. I must say, Minister, the Supreme Court also said that when the minister has discretionary powers to grant this exemption or not, this discretion must conform to the charter. It is not absolute, and it must conform to the principles of fundamental justice for the person who is the patient in this instance, and I have not heard anything that helps the patient.