Yes, indeed.
I think it's good we're focusing here on the bill itself, on whether the bill is adequate or isn't adequate, or goes too far. It doesn't go too far. The Supreme Court decision says that the minister “must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The minister must always balance the charter rights, and section 7 of the charter, with such factors as deciding whether the impact of such a facility on crime rates...and I think it's absolutely appropriate for the police to be giving some kind of information on that.
Do the local conditions indicate a need for such a supervised injection site? That's a public health decision in terms of the evidence on HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, etc., just as the police can talk about crime. The regulatory structure in place to support the facility, that's all fine. The Supreme Court talks about that. The resources available to support its maintenance, that comes from the provincial minister of health and the municipality. It basically says, do they have these support systems in place? And of course there's community support.
There are about five pieces. I see them as five criteria, not 26 or 27. If the provincial minister of health knows that the provincial minister of health has all of that, it is up to the provincial minister of health to say so and to also go ahead and hire the people who will do this work, etc.
I know you don't disagree with these five factors, but do you believe they actually are too interventionist and go too far?