Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the hon. member, whether we debated the bill in January or in June, or six years from now, those members would oppose it, and they certainly are entitled to do that.
However, I do not agree with the member's description as to what this is all about. The Supreme Court of Canada said that one of the conditions should be the impact of such a facility on crime rates. Again, that is one of the five conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I am pleased the minister, in drafting this legislation, has added, as one of the ten conditions, the potential impact of the proposed site on public safety, including law enforcement research statistics, if any, related to such issues as crime, public nuisance and public consumption of illicit substances.
This is very complete. This is one of the things that has to impress anybody looking at this. It goes beyond the conditions set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would ask the member if the NDP members would have been happier debating it in February, but let us face it, and all be honest, they would have opposed it in January, February, next March or 10 years from now, and that is their right to do so.
However, let us get it before a committee, so Canadians can have their say.