Evidence of meeting #71 for Health in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was criminal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act. It was Bill C-224.
Conservative
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Chair, I want to commend my colleague opposite for the good Samaritan bill. It's certainly very important, and I think it will save lives. That being said, of course no one has overdosed from cannabis, and I feel that this provision is sort of like putting cover-up on skin cancer, so I will be voting against it.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Chair, along the same lines, I wonder if we could get a word from the department. Is there a possibility that a person could OD from marijuana use?
John Clare Director, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Branch, Department of Health
I can speak to that, Mr. Chair.
To clarify the way the provision would work, it wouldn't be an exemption due to an overdose from cannabis; it would be any medical emergency for which someone dials 911. What the provision does is it exempts the person who makes the call, or who is on the scene, from any charge of possessing more than 30 grams of cannabis under the cannabis act.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I'm just a little bit confused about why this is being introduced if there is no danger. Maybe we could hear from the doctors or somebody. I just need a little bit of clarification on this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
Mr. Davies, you're next, then Dr. Eyolfson, and then we'll go to Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Maybe I'll defer and let Mr. McKinnon respond to explain where it might help—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bill Casey
I think that's a good idea.
Mr. McKinnon, we're going to bump Dr. Eyolfson for a minute.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The problem we're trying to address here is that in a situation where there is a drug overdose caused by whatever substance, an overdose of any kind, people are fearful to call for help because they fear they're going to get in trouble, that they're going to get arrested for holding whatever they're holding, so they don't make the call. They will do extraordinary things like take their friend out into the street and call for help anonymously. They'll take them anonymously to emergency and dump them off. All of this takes time, and this is a situation where time is life. We can't save people from whatever their underlying demons are if they're dead. We can't cure dead people.
The purpose of this is to remove that fear of being apprehended for a possession charge in a situation where an overdose has occurred. We desperately want people to make the call for help for that person, or for themselves. We're not necessarily expecting a cannabis overdose in this circumstance, although you can get THC overdoses in the case of some of the concentrates.
We really just want to make sure that people call for help when there's a problem, and that they're not so afraid of criminal consequences for possession that it prevents them from making that call.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Yes, thank you.
Further to Mr. Van Kesteren's question, I just want to expand on this. The previous legislation said it would exempt someone, as we've said, from being charged with possession for any drug that they had on them in an emergency. The problem is that because this bill would take cannabis off the schedule, if someone was carrying cannabis.... Again, I am not aware of someone ever actually having overdosed on cannabis. However, we have a substance that they might be carrying for which they would have been protected under the old legislation. This legislation removes cannabis from that schedule, so they would no longer be protected. They might ask themselves, “Bob's turning blue, but I have a quarter-ounce of dope in my pocket, so should I leave him in the street anonymously?”
This would correct that. There won't be any hesitation in making the correct call that could save a life.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I have just a few things to add.
You can possess 30 grams in public, which is a little bit more than an ounce. There are 28 grams in an ounce, so it wouldn't be a quarter-ounce, but I get the point.
The point is that someone who had more than 30 grams on them—say, 60 grams—and wanted to call in an emergency would otherwise be in violation of this legislation. Let's say they were with someone else who was using opioids and overdosed. Is that the intent, Mr. McKinnon?
By the way, the evidence that we heard was that there have been some cases of children overdosing on THC after the introduction of edibles in Colorado, but there has never been a fatality.
Liberal
Doug Eyolfson Liberal Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Yes, I should have clarified that.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
That is what I recollect, other than one person who apparently jumped off a bridge or something, and it was claimed that had to do with it.
Mr. McKinnon, I just want to clarify the result of the legislation that Parliament passed, the so-called good Samaritan bill. Are you saying that by bringing in Bill C-45, the protection of the good Samaritan bill would no longer apply to someone who was in illegal public possession of more than 30 grams of cannabis? Is that why it's necessary to put it in this bill?
My question is why they wouldn't have the protection of the good Samaritan legislation. I think Dr. Eyolfson was getting at it with the schedule, but could you explain that?
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act was a change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. When this bill passes, cannabis is removed from the schedules of that act. The exemption that was available in that act refers specifically to drugs that are on the schedule. Cannabis is no longer on the schedule, so it no longer would provide the exemption.
The point is, if they're holding whatever they're holding, we don't want them to be afraid to call. Whether they think they're in violation of the law, whether they're holding 40 grams, or 50 grams, or a kilo, they should be able to make that call, because otherwise people are going to die.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
I don't want to belabour the point, but in essence I'm hearing from Dr. Eyolfson and Mr. Davies as well that you can OD. Let's face it, Mr. McKinnon, that bill was put into effect to protect those who could be charged with drug possession. Since this is no longer under that umbrella, we're going to put it in here. But the record should show—I think Mr. Eyolfson said that, Mr. Davies, and I think you're correct—that a person could have an overdose, however you define an overdose, from the use of marijuana. Am I correct? That was my question.
Liberal