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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay.
Now, perhaps this is a quick point of clarification from Mr. McKinnon. Am I to understand that front-line workers were not consulted in the creation of this bill?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
No. We spoke to the parliamentary legislation drafters. We looked at the reports from organizations such as these. We talked to Justice and to Health.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
My question goes back to Paul, then. Of course, I understand that your job here today is to offer legal expertise, but based on your legal expertise, would you recommend that we hear from front-line workers before proceeding with this bill or would you say that it's not necessary?
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I'm not really in a position to say one way or the other.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's your committee's call. No doubt the police would have a perspective, but it's up to you to make that call.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'd like to address my sympathy to you, Madam Padaric. I'm very touched by your testimony. If we can do something through this bill to improve this for some generations ahead, that would be great.
I would like to ask a more technical question about the legal aspect, but I don't know whether Mr. Saint-Denis could answer it.
I don't want to make any waves, but subsection 4.1(1) talks about “a physiological event induced by the introduction of a controlled substance...”. It is implied that the individual introduced the substance into their own body or that they agreed to have that substance introduced by someone else.
I can't really know how it happens, since I don't have those kinds of experiences, but I assume that, at injection sites or crack houses, people help each other inject illegal drugs into their bodies. The Criminal Code could apply in some cases. In fact, this bill's intention is to save lives. However, as we know, no bill is perfect, but there may be a shortcoming in this area.
Am I wrong to bring up this aspect?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I think that the interpretation of the term “introduction” can cover both the cases where an individual introduces a substance into their own body and those where someone else does it for them. The provision in question does not specify whether the individual is introducing the substance or whether the substance is introduced by someone else. It is simply a matter of an “introduction of a controlled substance”.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
At the beginning of your presentation, you said that this is not how things are usually expressed in a piece of legislation. In this case, there is more of a tendency to protect rather than to prevent or charge. I feel that an attempt is being made to protect here, but that is not really what is being done. If it is not specified that the provision covers everyone, only a portion of those people can be protected.
I am under the impression that the individual who helps introduce a drug would not be protected. People in possession of an illicit drug would be protected, but not those who helped introduce the drug into someone's body. So we are coming back to the case Ms. Padaric mentioned. In fact, someone would not want an individual to call the authorities to avoid being charged. There is no problem if they save someone's life, but if the person dies, there may be an issue.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Subsection (2) states “they, or another person, are suffering from an overdose”. The focus is not on the person who introduced the substance that caused the overdose, if they are a third party. The provision talks about the victim of the overdose who is suffering. The way the overdose occurs becomes secondary. The intention is to protect the victim in this case.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's not important whether the person introduced the substance into their own body or whether someone else did it.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I did understand that. I don't have any other comments.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. MacPherson, how do outstanding warrants factor in the decision making of those calling 911? Do you believe individuals with warrants for non-violent crimes should also be covered by this bill?
5:10 p.m.
Board Member, Pivot Legal Society
I think it would make the bill better and maximize people calling. Any hesitation is a problem.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Saint-Denis, I might be asking you a law school question here, but can you distinguish for us the difference between simple possession and possession for the purposes of trafficking in the Criminal Code?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It's in the the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The bill is making amendments to the the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It's a common mistake. The possession for the purpose means that you end up having to demonstrate that the person in possession of the drug intends to traffic it. Normally what happens is that you have indicia that would prove or demonstrate to the court that the individual in question intends to traffic. Normally, things like the quantity would usually be very significant indicia, or if the individual has scales, for instance, if he has many baggies filled with drugs, if he has a client list. The more of this type of indicia that's put together, the better you can show that the individual actually possessed that particular substance for the purpose of selling it.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I see. That's helpful, thank you.
I want to quickly ask you something. I also am unclear about whether this legislation as drafted actually applies to the victim. It's quite curious wording. I understand it's the intent, I think, of the drafter to do that.
Would you advise us that it would be beneficial to try to clarify that?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The observation was made that the precision at proposed paragraph 4.1(3) covers that situation.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Wouldn't it be easier in proposed paragraph 4.1(2) just to say, “No one who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because they or another person are suffering from an overdose, or the person suffering from the overdose, is to be charged under subsection 4(1)”?
It would be a simple matter.
