It's an interesting use of the word “elaborate”. I would say it more than elaborates. It takes us to the ultimate position of criteria, almost into absurdity in terms of what is required because what the Supreme Court decision said.... And I know we're all reading it and quoting different bits and pieces, and you're right it did talk about the appropriate balance between public health and safety goals, but then it said the minister should generally grant an exemption where the evidence—not opinion—indicates a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease. That seems pretty straightforward.
So how did we end up with this elaborate concoction of criteria that seem to go far beyond what is reasonably to be expected from the Minister of Health to give an exemption only on one element, which is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? Is it really not a provincial jurisdiction because it is a health service?