Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I was a little concerned to hear your answer to Ms. Davies' question about whether this exemption would include InSite. If you look at all the criteria that are set up here for the minister to be able to approve a safe injection site or a safe consumption site, InSite has fulfilled every single one of them over and over. I think it's really interesting to find that it will have to then do this all over again.
I just wanted to read the Supreme Court's page 187, that said:
Insite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven. There has been no discernable negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada during its eight years of operation. The effect of denying the services of Insite to the population it serves is grossly disproportionate to any benefit that Canada might derive from presenting a uniform stance on the possession of narcotics.
InSite has proven its outcomes. Over that period of time it has saved 366 overdoses that used to end, many of them, a large of percentage of them, in death. Its objectives are pretty clear. Its outcomes are clear. Its risks had brought down crime in the area, and that is again well documented, and in the Supreme Court ruling they spoke to that. My concern is simply this: I understand your wanting or a need to apply criteria for exemptions in the rest of Canada, but for eight years InSite has proven itself to fulfill every criteria. The provinces said it was okay. It was the provinces that took the government to court. Their health authorities have been supporting this with professionals who know what they're doing and who are doctors and nurses who are duly qualified under the licensing body of British Columbia. You have seen the police locally. There were huge community consultations before InSite was put down. I was the minister in charge of Vancouver East at the time, and so I know this. All the public were consulted. So every criteria except one: the RCMP are the only police force that said no. The Vancouver police and the police in the surrounding municipalities supported it.
I can understand your wanting to apply your criteria to other groups. InSite has fulfilled this criteria in spades, and the Supreme Court has said so. Why would you require that InSite go over it? The time it takes to do this, you do something that the Supreme Court asked the minister not to do, which is not to go against the Constitution, section 7, “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. During the wait time many of these people who currently use InSite will be subjected to overdose deaths, to illnesses, etc., because there'll be no way for them to do....
How does this balance what the Supreme Court asks? The Supreme Court said that the minister's discretion is not absolute. Ms. Geller, I heard you say that the minister has no limits on what she can make a decision on. It is my understanding that the limits are there. There's section 7 of the charter on the issue of fundamental justice, so those are your limits.
As Ms. Davies asked, opinions don't cut it. An opinion is somebody's thought. With no disrespect a minister of health in most provinces, with the exception of Ontario, is not a physician. Their opinions are purely subjective. You are looking for objective evidence when it comes to people's lives and to health and to spread of disease. Excluding InSite, and making them go over this all over again, with the years it'll take to do so, how will this save lives?