Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Over the course of this study, we have received a half dozen briefs, and I have read them all. To my surprise, the choice of witnesses is not at all representative of the views expressed in the briefs. It's quite the opposite.
For example, the Canadian Association of Nurses in HIV/AIDS Care recommends that the bill be withdrawn and a new bill be drafted. Moreover, the Canadian Bar Association, through the National Criminal Justice Section, which represents 37,000 lawyers across Canada, states the following in its brief. I will read you one paragraph of their brief, since the association has no witnesses here in committee to speak on its behalf. The following is stated in the brief:
However, other parts of the Preamble reflect a continued emphasis on prohibiting illicit drugs. This approach ignores overwhelming historical and current evidence that prohibition drives the drug supply underground and increases violence and debts associated with drug activity and overdoses. Not only dangerous, this approach has proven expensive and ineffective, even after decades and endless public funds to allow it to succeed.
The Canadian Bar Association and many other stakeholders are rather advocating in favour of harm reduction when it comes to illicit drugs and addiction. I think that the establishment of supervised injection sites leads to harm reduction. We should rather participate in the establishment of those sites, as the association suggests in its brief.
Mr. Grinham, you appear to be saying otherwise. What is your response to the association's statement?