Violating the Fundamental Rights to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person: Bill C-2 and its Implications on Supervised Consumption Sites in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015, the Conservative federal government passed Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act⏤amending the requirements of applications for exemption from the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. These exemptions allowed for supervised consumption sites to legally operate within Canada. The guiding principle behind such services is to promote and protect health through a variety of means, such as: reducing incidence rates of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C, and other sexually-transmitted and blood-borne infections; and reducing mortality rates from substance overdose. The reform sought to regulate the exemption application, however, it created an onerous process which made it substantially more difficult to obtain exemptions. The bill was a direct outcome of the ruling of Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society due to the failure by the then Minister of Health, Tony Clement, to grant an extension to Insite, Canada’s first legally-exempted supervised consumption site. Within two years, another bill was introduced in an attempt to remove unnecessary barriers created by Bill C-2. As a result of the swift amendments to Bill C-2, there was no formal evaluation conducted to assess the impacts of this reform. Many opponents of Bill C-2 argued that this legislation made it more difficult to develop new or maintain existing supervised consumption sites and as a result violated the rights of the users of these services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".