Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to apologize for missing the tabling of my first amendment. I had one of those awful moments of having to decide which thing is more important. I was on the floor of the House and had the opportunity to join other leaders in paying homage to our veterans and making Remembrance Day statements, or I could.... I was hoping to be in two places at once. Every now and then that works, Mr. Chair, but today my powers failed me, and I chose to give the statement on our veterans.
But this legislation—and again, we're on clause 5 on page 8—is also very important to the Green Party, and with this amendment, Mr. Chair, I'm attempting to replace quite a lot of language with more succinct language.
Let me just say by way of prefacing this that it appears to me the government is attempting to do indirectly what it could not do directly, which the Supreme Court of Canada has said violates section 7 of the charter by preventing harm reduction clinics such as InSite from operating.
These numerous conditions that begin on page 8 and run on and on and on until we get to page 12 are essentially creating a set of obstacles and hurdles designed to stop InSite centres from operating. So to replace all these things, which I believe are mischievous in their intent, I suggest language that will be familiar to people who have read the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Vancouver area network of drug users and the Attorney General and Minister of Health and so on. In the Attorney General v. PHS Community Services Society, the Supreme Court of Canada said on page 74 of the decision that discretion must be—