POLI 324 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Beverley Mclachlin, Premiership Of Stephen Harper, Insite
15 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
POLI324
Safe Injection site: Legal Rights
The SCC takes issue with the Harper government, for in site as a facility.
Bill C2 Respect for Communities Act
In Site decision is 2011.
Bill C37: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to
other Acts
At the end of the harper and thus the beginning of the Trudeau government there was only one safe
injection facility.
Legal context of in site between 2003-2017 represented North America only safe injection facility. Safe
Injection facility is a medical facility in which drug addicts can consume illegal products in a safe
environment, Insite does not provide narcotics. Why the Harper government was able to interfere in this
area. What insight also demonstrates are the complexities of Canadian Federalism. In site therefore is a
provincial sanction facility, however the federal government is assigned responsibility of criminal
activity. Control drugs substances act. How was insight able to function? In particular section 56.
Exemptions:
- First one was for 3 years, from 2003-2006
- In this period, is largely the government of Jean Chretien and paul morton, the exemption
expires in 2006. The government changes in january of 2006.
- The second exemption is from September 2006 , the harper government renews the exemption
for a year and a half. Minority conservative government.
- Third exemption was only granted for 6 month, from the beginning of January 2007-2008. The
conservative government refuses to grant the 3 exemption to insight, and this is how we get to
the supreme court of canada
PHS Community challenges the decision by the concern of the minister of health, who did not issue
continuation of insight injection.
Couple important things: why did the conservative government refused to issue a continuation to
insight, until the conservative canada nationals drug strategy included the pillar of harm induction.
While in office, the concerned is drug harm inductions as one of the pillars of the strategy, change in
public policy. Law and order agenda.
What is insight challenges?
Was the discretionary choices of the minister of health as a violation of the principles of fundamental
justice? The first part of the decision involved the division of powers, whether or not it could use
criminal power, and if it could regulate, power. The SCC outlines a procedure that the minister should
use when taking a decision. What is the issue whether the ministers discretion under section 56 to
invoke an exemption to insight is consistent with the principles of fundamental justice. Was the
ministers discretion exercised in an arbitrary fashion? (main question asked by the SCC)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Ministerial discretion and the use of it.
Insight is working.
Whats the problem for the conservative government?
What is the outcome?
- When you read insight, this is probably one of the strongest rebukes, unanimous decision, the
court was displeased with the conservatives.
- Outcome: the SCC ordered the minister of heath to immediately grants a continued exemption
to insight, not a permanent exemption, another 3 years exemption. The remedy is a judicial
remedy, but the court also does is sketch out the factors that the minister of health must use
when evaluating an application for an exemption under section 56.
- This decision was only about insight, and it would be up to the government whether new
facilities should be established.
- Chief justice Mclachlin.
- The SCC in a unanimous decision.
Papers due in a week, in class. You can use the governing with the charter but you need to use outside
sources. The audience is an informed audience. Get into your argument.
- Mclachlin was highly critical, of the decision.
- Cleet’s isite attak leaes WHO e-daced
- The oseaties haged aada’s dugs stategies i 8
- Anti-drug strategy where the emphasis will be on reduction
- Government is on record being opposed of these facilities
- Couple things
o Chief justice was critical of the conservative government in her remedy of the finding of
ministerial legislation, to deny access to insight which has clear health benefit, engage
section 7 right of the downside remedy. They should simply send insight help back to
the iiste of health. appopiate ad just i the iustaes. Muh is to e isked,
and few things are to be gained by sending this back to the minister.
o The remedy adopted by the SCC was 2 part:
▪ . Ioled isight as a istitutio. It as’t a peaet estitio
• If you look at paragraph 52 & 153, the application procedure for future
facilities. Case by case basis. The 5 factors outlined in paragraph 153.
Paragraph 152 is important the court is saying an overriding principle; if
the empirical evidence indicate that a safe injection facility, the minister
should grant the exemption.
• Insight decision is in 2011. (took nearly 4 years for the conservative
government to respond to the SCC)
• Bill C2
▪ 2nd they introduced the bill on the eve of an election. Mclachlin clearly
registered her disagreement with the service. It actually failed to comply.
o The Legislation process is the Respect for communities act
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
▪ Content: is the respect for ouities’ act, an example of charter dialogue in
action, or did the conservative illustrate mathew halls theory. There is a
legislative response, the response introduced by the harper conservative does
use the 5 criteria outlined by the SCC. Clarification dialogue.
▪ Bill C2 does confirm.
▪ They argue that the clarification dialogue happens when the court gives out
ambiguous guidelines, the government is respecting the ruling and limits to it,
and simply fleshing them out.
▪ What is missing ?
• First is their analysis is the void of placing the respect of communities
act within the broader context introduced by the Harper government. --
- drug strategy.
• Focus by the harper government was on prevention. War on drugs.
• The conservatives were attempting to change the mandate of insight of
harm reduction to one of the prevention of cconsumption. Clarification
dialogue, what is clarified is that the government led by harper would
not approve a new a single new injection facility. What matters is the
government position. From 2011-2015 insight only existed
• What explained the decision, no new facilities---22 new facilities
• We have a new government using the same legislation framework
accepting new facilities.
• Clarification dialogue ___
• 26 part application process, required to submit to health canada for
possible exemption—series of guiding principles
o What was required in this application
▪ The minister of health would only review complete
application.
▪ 5 Letters of support
• Provincial minister of health
• Territorial minister of public security
• Municipal council
• Police
• Public health official
▪ Example of non-compliance
▪ 26 parts
▪ Must hold consultations
▪ Must provide police background report for 10 years
previously.
▪ Any other information that the minister considers
relevant to the consideration of the application
▪ “ipl did’t hae the staff to ostut this
application.
o Even if a group has all of these, the application will still be taking
in consideration in exceptional circumstances
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The scc takes issue with the harper government, for in site as a facility. Bill c37: an act to amend the controlled drugs and substances act and to make related amendments to other acts. At the end of the harper and thus the beginning of the trudeau government there was only one safe injection facility. Legal context of in site between 2003-2017 represented north america only safe injection facility. Injection facility is a medical facility in which drug addicts can consume illegal products in a safe environment, insite does not provide narcotics. Why the harper government was able to interfere in this area. What insight also demonstrates are the complexities of canadian federalism. In site therefore is a provincial sanction facility, however the federal government is assigned responsibility of criminal activity. First one was for 3 years, from 2003-2006. In this period, is largely the government of jean chretien and paul morton, the exemption expires in 2006.
