Okay. So I don't see anywhere in the Scriptures that would support your statement. Anyway, I'm going to read something for you.
First I want to make a general statement. I'm a little disappointed in a couple of the presentations I heard today, because they're defending or arguing against the merits of Insite. I don't think that's what we're doing here today. We're talking about Bill C-2, which is about respecting and protecting communities.
The Supreme Court rendered a decision about Insite as a supervised injection site. The court affirmed the discretionary power of the minister to grant exemptions but stated that decisions must be made in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and balance public health and safety concerns. The court specified factors that the minister must consider when assessing an application for a supervised injection site. These included any evidence related to “the impact of such a facility on crime rates, the local conditions indicating a need for such a...site, the regulatory structure in place to support the facility, the resources available to support its maintenance, and expressions of community support or opposition.”
My question for you, Mr. Wilson, is this. Is it reasonable for the government to require community input on proposals to establish injection sites, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling that the minister must consider such views?