Health Committee on June 15th, 2016

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here, especially Ms. Padaric. Your story about your son, Austin.... As the father of teenagers, I can't even imagine what you went through.

I do have a question for you. This bill is one tool in the tool box. About Austin's death, you mentioned that the drug dealer actually crushed the opioid, held it up to his nose, and then indicated to him to snort it. I find that appalling. I don't know if you are aware that there are actual technologies out there. Have you ever heard of tamper resistance in opioids? Out of curiosity, would you be supportive? I know there is a possibility.... In the United States right now, for example, they are trying to make the entire classification of opioids tamper resistant. Is that another tool that you think is important to put in the tool box?

[Christine Padaric]

I think that would certainly help.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

My next question is for Mr. Saint-Denis.

You mentioned the rave and the situation this could put law enforcement officers in. Are you aware of any data out there in other jurisdictions where they put these laws in? Does it actually make a difference?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

I am not aware. Not only am I not aware of the impact of this legislation, but honestly, in Canada—I can't speak about other countries—I am unclear as to how often a policeman would charge someone in this kind of situation, where someone has called 911. I understand the fear of the drug user. I am unclear as to how rational that fear is. I don't know if it is based on anything, in the sense that.... Would police necessarily charge someone whom they find in this kind of situation? I am not aware that this has happened. It doesn't mean it hasn't, but I am just not aware that it has. Perhaps some of my colleagues here....

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Parkinson, I believe you are with Waterloo, and you were here when our colleague mentioned the statistics. I think he mentioned that 88% of people surveyed would call if they knew that this was the situation.

My concern is to have some hard data. As parliamentarians, we have the responsibility to analyze whether there is hard data to support what we are doing. Sometimes we come up with really great ideas, but they don't actually work out the way we thought they would. When you are talking about these 88% who would call, who are the people you were talking to? What was the group you analyzed for this? Bear in mind that many of the people who would be calling would be intoxicated at the time. Does that figure into the analysis of the 88% you were talking about?

[Michael Parkinson]

The 88% wasn't a group that we surveyed. It was a group surveyed out of Washington state. The research was reported by the University of Washington, I think. It indicated that 88% of people who were using opiates would be more likely to call after being informed about the good Samaritan legislation that existed there. We are in the same boat at the Crime Prevention Council: evidence-based or evidence-informed, and lots of really great ideas. I am not aware of any evaluation of existing state initiatives in the U.S.A. I am aware that something is coming in from New York state. I think that this is a flaw, really, on the Americans' part. We don't have to walk down that road in Canada. It might be palatable to pass Bill C-224 with a commitment to evaluate and revisit it, particularly some of the issues that have been addressed around this table, in a year or two.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Yes, my concern would be that, and we did hear from Mr. Saint-Denis, and I think his testimony was quite credible. My concern here is that there is no hard data to actually support it. Will we actually be putting law enforcement officers at a disadvantage as well, and the drug dealers who are around it, as my colleague said? How broad is this going to be? These people who are actually out there supplying drugs to our kids are going to be getting off scot-free just because they happen to be in the vicinity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Is there a question?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm just wondering. Are you not aware of any data that actually shows an increase in the call rate or people calling in because of these in those jurisdictions?

[Michael Parkinson]

I'm aware of a small study out of Massachusetts, and it was a hospital-based overdose prevention intervention program. People who went through it were informed about the good Samaritan law in Massachusetts, and the call rates jumped close to 90% from 41% upon entering this kind of program. That's a small survey.

To your point about putting officers at risk or people getting off scot-free, I think Christine's example is one of tens of thousands across Canada that lives would be saved. If there's something more important than saving lives of Canadians, then I think communities across Canada would like to know what that is.

When we did our report in the Waterloo region, we convened, as we always do, a multi-sectoral table. Senior management from all first responders were there. The medical community was there. Community services and social services were there. What we learned in those discussions was that police want to attend in an overdose emergency. There may be evidence; it may be things go wrong, but their first priority is the preservation of life, and I absolutely believe that to be true.

But we have situations in Ontario, in Nova Scotia and so on where people do get charged with possession, and that sometimes includes the victim. It has a chilling effect.

One story out of Halton spread through Ontario within two weeks. Everybody knew about it. So I think at the end of the day, you're on the right side of history to pass Bill C-224.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I want to nail down some facts. I really understand this bill. First, Mr. Saint-Denis, in the bill, for proposed subsection 4.1(2), the heading reads “Exemption from possession of substance charges”. Then the language beneath it simply makes reference to being “charged under subsection 4(1)”. Is 4(1) the section of the act that deals with possession?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

Yes, it is.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

I guess I'm certain now that this only protects people at the scene from being charged with possession. Is that correct?

[Paul Saint-Denis]

That is correct.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Okay.

Mr. Parkinson, you used the language, and I copied it exactly, that people would not call “because of fear of entanglement with the criminal justice system.”

Ms. Padaric, I have to also tell you that it's very courageous of you to share your story. Thank you for doing that with us.

If I understand your tragic story correctly, the dealer intimidated the other people in the room, Austin's friends, because presumably he would have been worried about being charged with dealing because he's the person who gave that. Is that right?

[Christine Padaric]

Yes.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm going to put it to Mr. Parkinson and Ms. Padaric: isn't that a gaping hole in this bill that it only exempts people from being charged with possession, and you could still be charged with dealing? Those people who have that fear will certainly not call 911, and certainly that's what happened in the tragic death of Austin. Do I understand that correctly?

Mr. Parkinson, maybe you could go first.

[Michael Parkinson]

In Austin's situation, that was absolutely the case. How prevalent that is across Canada, what went down that Friday night in Elmira, I really have no idea.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

From a principle point of view, do you think this bill should be amended to protect people at the scene from being entangled with the law and not one particular aspect of it? If our purpose is to encourage people to call, we should give immunity around the whole suite of drug-related offences. Why are we only picking out possession and leaving people vulnerable to being charged with trafficking—which I'll get to in a minute—which involves just sharing drugs? So people who share drugs aren't going to be calling 911 or people with warrants for their arrest. By the way, many people who are drug users are in breach of their probation if they are using drugs, so they're not calling 911. If we leave those things aside, we're not doing everything we can to encourage the calling of 911, which is what we want to do to save Austin's life and the lives of others like him. Am I missing something there?

[Michael Parkinson]

No, I don't think you are. We knew that of the people who said that entangling with the criminal justice system was a barrier, 53% were on probation or parole. I don't think this bill will encourage those folks to make the call.

It is my personal opinion that simple and sweet, the way this bill is, is the way to start. I suggest that you evaluate it among those groups that are not being reached and then propose an amendment, however far that is down the road. Hopefully it will not be a decade. The advantage to getting the bill through right away is, I'm convinced, that it will save lives right away.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Ms. Padaric, do you have a comment?

[Christine Padaric]

I really want to re-emphasize the need for education. In Austin's situation, just going back to that, the drug dealer in that case was charged with manslaughter. None of the witnesses was charged.

In the teaching I do within high schools to students who are ages 15 to 17, we talk about the signs and symptoms of overdose so that they're aware and they understand what's actually happening. Then I bring in 911 as being one of the steps to follow, and we talk about that.

I really believe that it helps for people to have a plan in place before they're put into that type of extremely stressful situation. We talk about what they would do in that circumstance. What I find the kids are doing is they're brainstorming with each other, and they're coming up with solutions, like they would leave the apartment and call, or they would go into the washroom and make the phone call. They're brainstorming ways to do it anonymously to get around that issue.

We have to keep in mind, too, that yes, there are a lot of drug dealers out there. But there are a lot of kids just at simple house parties where pills are present. So to come out with a trafficking charge.... I have no idea what percentage of deaths occur in that type of environment. Austin, yes, he was in a drug dealer's apartment, and it was filled with drugs. Again, a lot of these emergencies have been just outside in a park or in someone's parents' basement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. MacPherson, I want to ask you a question about the issue of the folks from the police or the people at the scene. Mr. Saint-Denis commented that he's concerned about the way police might react. If I am understanding correctly, it's not police behaviour we want to change. We want to change the psychology of the people at the drug scene so that they believe that they will not be charged. Do I understand that correctly?