Well, I find it really interesting. I just want to say that a week ago I was out at this dinner-date thing and who arrived out of the blue but Judge Pitfield, from the very first decision at the B.C. Supreme Court. He's the most conservative judge in British Columbia. He sat down beside me. I said, “Judge”, and he laughed and said, “Mr. Wilson.” I put it to him and asked him, “When did you decide that this was going to be a legit thing?” He asked me if I remembered the first hour of the trial when he asked the opposition if this was a medical issue, and they hemmed and hawed. He asked again, “Is this a medical issue?” They said yes. He said that he decided right then that the next two days did not matter.
I believe that Bill C-2 will put too many fingers in the pie, or whatever, and too many people that can stop it on nothing but a whim of a moral judgment. I don't think that's right. Nine Supreme Court justices—it was nine to nothing—stated that this was a medical issue and should be treated as such. It was framed within Canada's laws.
The people inside that building are not breaking any Canadian law. If we allow everybody and anybody to have a say and they don't have an actual participation within it.... If you go to any city where there are a lot of drug addicts around, you're going to see those people want a solution. I'm saying that I believe supervised injection sites are a beginning solution to the problem. It's not the be-all and end-all. In fact, it's probably only the first 20 or 30 minutes of the change in my life, that injection. There's a lot after that, but if we don't give those people that first 20 minutes, where are they going to go?