Evidence of meeting #17 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was overdose.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Are you suggesting that in this legislation we put in amounts in terms of the possession offence being contemplated?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
No, no. I think jurisdictions already have that, or many jurisdictions do. They say that certain amounts are a threshold for the purposes of trafficking versus personal use. Those already exist in legislation in many places.
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
They do, but in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the amounts go to the penalty rather than to the offence, per se.
I guess it would be possible, but then the difficulty would become, first, what amounts, and then, what amounts for which drugs? More than a hundred and some drugs are covered off by the offence of possession here in subsection 4(1).
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you.
My last question is one which I guess everyone could answer in turn, with just a simple yes or no.
We agree that there are some holes in this law. Things could be changed, and things could be tightened up, but would you not agree that despite these holes there's a significant potential for saving lives with the bill as it is, as its first step?
Mr. Parkinson.
5 p.m.
Community Engagement Coordinator, Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Yes.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
We're looking at potential, so I think yes, there's the potential.
If I could make one small observation, the question was raised earlier on as to whether or not the person who suffers an overdose is covered by this. The person who's covered by an overdose would be covered only if he seeks assistance.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I believe the third paragraph says that it would protect anyone at the scene. By definition, the overdose victim is at the scene.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That's correct. I guess you could interpret the third paragraph, the precision, as covering off the overdosed individual. It could be interpreted that way, yes.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Thank you.
Ms. Padaric, would you agree?
5:05 p.m.
Board Member, Pivot Legal Society
[Inaudible—Editor] would work the other way around, too, in that if people do get arrested for very small amounts or very small warrants for shoplifting and that, word will get out on the street very quickly, which will lessen the impact of this legislation, so it works both ways.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I think we've touched base on this briefly, or allusively, but to hit it straight on, I guess, my question is for Paul. I'm wondering if you can clarify for me that this does in fact apply only to drug offences and not to a broad range.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The exemption targets only the offence at subsection 4(1) of the CDSA.
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
No, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay. Could this be taken to apply to any other Criminal Code provisions?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I don't think so, no.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay. I'm just wanting clarification. Thank you.
I guess I'm looking at crack houses, let's say, and shutting them down. Often when police come on the scene, they discover drug activity, which allows them to use municipal or provincial laws to shut down those properties. Beyond the public health aspects, this also prevents certain neighbourhoods from sinking into what we might call crime hotbeds. Do you think that granting immunity to everyone at the scene—again, working with this definition—might prevent the police from shutting down crack houses if it prevents them from laying any charges?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, typically, a crack house will have users but will also have traffickers. The traffickers will either be in possession for the purpose of trafficking, or they will have trafficked. Those individuals would not be covered by this exemption, right? The police would still be able to go after those individuals even if they would not be laying charges against the people who are simply in possession. It would be possible for the police to take action against certain types of individuals in a crack house and not with respect to the people who are just in possession of the cocaine, for instance.
