Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 31-45 of 167
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Health committee  It's not important whether the person introduced the substance into their own body or whether someone else did it.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  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 t

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  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.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  The exemption targets only the offence at subsection 4(1) of the CDSA.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  No, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  I don't think so, no.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  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 abl

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  I'm not really in a position to say one way or the other.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  It's your committee's call. No doubt the police would have a perspective, but it's up to you to make that call.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  Are you suggesting that in this legislation we put in amounts in terms of the possession offence being contemplated?

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  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 d

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  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

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  Yes, it is.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  That is correct.

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis

Health committee  You're right in that it is very broad. As an example, if an overdose were to occur at a rave party, there may be dozens of people there. Would the precision here apply to everyone at the rave? Perhaps there's a way of narrowing it. Again though, it does depend on the bill's spo

June 15th, 2016Committee meeting

Paul Saint-Denis