“An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.”
A current, consolidated version of the CDSA, as amended.
These are the current, consolidated regulations of the Food and Drugs Act. Parts G and J regulate controlled drugs and restricted drugs, respectively.
These regulations, formerly aligned with Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act, now apply to the CDSA which repealed Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act when proclaimed in force 14 May 1997 by SI/97-47, below.
These are the current, consolidated regulations that now apply to the CDSA, since its predecessor legislation, the Narcotic Control Act, was repealed when the CDSA was proclaimed in force 14 May 1997 by SI/97-47, below.
These are the current, consolidated Natural Health Products Regulations.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things,
(a) simplify the process of applying for an exemption that would allow certain activities to take place at a supervised consumption site, as well as the process of applying for subsequent exemptions;
(b) prohibit the importation of designated devices — unless the importation is registered with the Minister of Health — as well as prescribed activities in relation to designated devices;
(c) expand the offence of possession, production, sale or importation of anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine so that it applies to anything that is intended to be used to produce or traffic in any controlled substance;
(d) authorize the Minister to temporarily add to a schedule to that Act substances that the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe pose a significant risk to public health or safety, in order to control them;
(e) authorize the Minister to require a person who may conduct activities in relation to controlled substances, precursors or designated devices to provide the Minister with information or to take certain measures in respect of such activities;
(f) add an administrative monetary penalties scheme;
(g) streamline the disposition of seized, found or otherwise acquired controlled substances, precursors and chemical and non-chemical offence-related property;
(h) modernize inspection powers; and
(i) expand and amend certain regulation-making authorities, including in respect of the collection, use, retention, disclosure and disposal of information. ”
“This Order comes into force 180 days after the day on which it is registered.”
“This Order comes into force 180 days after the day on which it is registered.”
“This Order comes into force 180 days after the day on which it is registered.”
“This Order comes into force 180 days after the day on which it is registered.”
“IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119, are declared of no force and effect.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this declaration is suspended for six (6) months from the date of this Judgment.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Justice Manson dated March 21, 2014, remains in effect until this Court orders otherwise.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs shall have their costs on a substantial indemnity basis to be fixed by the Court following submissions by the parties.”
These regulations come into force 180 days after the day on which they are published.
These regulatory amendments will come into force 180 days after the day on which they are published.
“What is this supposed to mean, exactly,” I asked?
“It means whatever we decide it means,” came the non-answer.
Which means it’s fortunate this research was complete before Health Canada makes further legitimate, independent research impossible:
S.J. Chapman, A.A. Avanes. PeakAL: Protons I Have Known and Loved — Fifty Shades of Grey-Market Spectra. BLOTTER: Absorbing bits of material. Isomer Design. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.16889/isomerdesign-1
“…I [The Hon. Peter Mackay] assign to the Director of Public Prosecutions the powers, duties and functions of the Attorney General of Canada as set out on July 20, 2015, in the following Acts: …the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act…”
The notice is deathly silent about the need for, or implications of, this unaccountable abrogation of responsibility.
“This Order comes into force 180 days after the day on which it is registered.”
“These Regulations come into force 180 days after the day on which they are registered.”
“Protection of Communities from the Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act”
The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rules that withholding medicine from a suffering child is… more or less…insane. Some insight as to the nature of the Harper-hive mind may be gathered from Health Minister Rona Ambrose. Responding decisively to the inexplicable judgement of the Court, Ambrose declared—wait for it—“I’m outraged!”
The Crown says there are health risks associated with extracting the active compounds in marihuana for administration via oral or topical products. It argues that there is a rational connection between the state objective of protecting health and safety and a regulatory scheme that only allows access to drugs that are shown by scientific study to be safe and therapeutically effective.
We disagree. [“I’m outraged!”, see Ambrose v. Reality, 2015.]
The evidence accepted at trial did not establish a connection between the restriction and the promotion of health and safety. As we have already said, dried marihuana is not subject to the oversight of the Food and Drugs Act regime. It is therefore difficult to understand why allowing patients to transform dried marihuana into baking oil would put them at greater risk than permitting them to smoke or vaporize dried marihuana.
Moreover, the Crown provided no evidence to suggest that it would. In fact, as noted above, some of the materials filed by the Crown mention oral ingestion of cannabis as a viable alternative to smoking marihuana.
[27] Finally, the evidence established no connection between the impugned restriction and attempts to curb the diversion of marihuana into the illegal market. We are left with a total disconnect between the limit on liberty and security of the person imposed by the prohibition and its object. This renders it arbitrary. [“I’m outraged!”, ibid.]
[28] We conclude that the prohibition of non-dried forms of medical marihuana limits liberty and security of the person in a manner that is arbitrary and hence is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice. It therefore violates s. 7 of the Charter. [“I’m outraged!”, ibid.]
[30] A law is ‘of no force or effect’ to the extent it is inconsistent with the guarantees in the Charter: s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982. We have concluded that restricting medical access to marihuana to its dried form is inconsistent with the Charter. It follows that to this extent the restriction is null and void. [“I’m outraged!”, ibid.]
Health Canada has long been of the opinion that “Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations.”—a construction which first appeared in Canadian drug law about a half-century ago—encompasses the many hundreds of chemically, structurally and pharmacologically dissimilar synthetic cannabinoids that have been discovered largely in this century.
These new compounds vary widely in structure, but few are even remotely like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or the structurally similar substances named in Schedule II—all natural products or a subtle modification thereof.
For years Health Canada has held out their opinion as fact, typically couched in tautological form:
“Products containing ingredients that are similar synthetic preparations of cannabis are regulated under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). All activities associated with them, (e.g., production, distribution, import, export, etc.) are illegal in Canada.”
Thank you—Yes, that is how the law /reads. /The issue, of course, is whether a court could be convinced the legislators had indeed intended “and similar synthetic preparations of cannabis” to capture the many hundreds of synthetic cannabinoids strikingly unlike anything discovered or imagined when the CDSA was conceived.
Unlike the charade that committee review has today become, the CDSA went through several rounds of clause-by-clause examination by several committees. There is no smoking gun in those transcripts, I assure you. It’s a tough case to make when you compare the mere six similar structures listed in Schedule II against the hundreds that appear, and often act, differently.
Yet this has never been tested in court. Charges have often been threatened on this pretext, and occasionally laid, but as far as I know no court has ever had the opportunity to consider (or, far more likely I think, dismiss) Health Canada’s fanciful, ad hoc interpretation and “as if” laws.
Even now, while holding firm that novel synthetic cannabinoids are currently controlled, they’ve apparently conceded their quixotic belief system has not found wide acceptance among those versed in in law, chemistry, pharmacology, or common sense. (Before ideology supplanted science, Health Canada used to consider evidence, as can be seen in their 1979 report Cannabis Control Policy: A Discussion Paper).
Employing the classic mandarinate phrasing for defeat without dishonour, we’re told this is all being done “for greater clarity,” (read: “In contradiction to what we have said, and still say, we now also say…”) Health Canada has now decided to follow the UK and the US by naming the scheduled substances, individually or “generically.”
In practice this approach hasn’t worked very well. It hinders research (hardly a concern at Health Canada) and simply spurs the global guild of artisanal chemists to dutifully circumvent comply with the law. It may well increase risk to the public and, in particular, to young people who, as Health Canada never stops crowing, are one of their “top priorities!” They spent more of your money in one year on anti-drug ads than on ads for all their other services combined!
For a considered review of the issue, L.A. King’s Legal controls on cannabimimetics: An international dilemma? is highly recommended, though I caution you that Dr. King cites 51 references in his analysis—51 more than Health Canada does.
“Chief Justice Hinkson of the BC Supreme Court granted an injunction to the participants in the SALOME study (The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Maintenance Effectiveness) providing an exemption from new federal regulations that prohibit doctors from prescribing heroin to patients for whom other treatment options have been ineffective.”
Health Canada’s shirty response to the Federal Court injunction setting aside their latest bungled attempt to regulate Cannabis “like any other medicine.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson of the Federal Court rules that Health Canada has botched it. Again.
“The Applicants who, as of the date of this Order, hold a valid Authorization to Possess pursuant to section 11 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, are exempt from the repeal of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and any other operation of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations which are inconsistent with the operation of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, to the extent that such an Authorization to Possess shall remain valid until such time as a decision in this case is rendered and subject to the terms in paragraph 2 of this Order.”
These regulations appear designed to shield Health Canada from charges of extortion stemming from the craven letter sent to tens of thousands of Canadians threatening them with arrest for having dutifully obeyed the law.
The sad second coming of Bill C-65, tabled in the previous session. It died when parliament was prorogued.
Though more than 50 organizations and individuals decried Bill C-2 — It’s Time To Act, an open letter to Health Minister Rona Ambrose endorsed by more than 50 organizations, including Isomer Design, on 18 Jun 2105 it passed Royal Assent into law, the spitefully titled /Respect for Communities Act.
Newly minted Health Minister Rona Ambrose went apeshit at the prospect a handful of very ill individuals might possibly be allowed to live happier, healthier, more productive lives instead of suffering needlessly.
“This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada’s review and potential amendments to the Industrial Hemp Regulations (IHR) and express their interest in participating in the process.”
There are 128 pages of regulations here—twice the length of the Narcotic Control Regulations which confront the hundreds of substances engaged by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine.
The entire Criminal Code is less than 10 times as long. All over a plant that seems to terrify.
Livid the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the Minister of Health had acted arbitrarily (i.e. unlawfully; not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice) by terminating a life-saving, injection-drug clinic, the PMO responds by rewriting the law to spite them.
The Bill died when the PM, yet again, prorogued parliament on 13 Sept 2013. It returned in the second session as Bill C-2.
After a decade long track record of failure, and repeated sanctions by the Supreme Court of Canada, Health Canada concedes drug dealing is beyond its core competency and is leaving patients to fend for themselves.
I suppose that’s why their epic fail is deemed an improvement. I’ll leave that for the reader to decide—after you’ve absorbed all 117 pages explaining the proposed improvements. Oh, the price is going up too.
The amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act made in this act come into force on this date.
“The purpose of this regulatory initiative is to prescribe, by regulation, midwives, nurse practitioners and podiatrists as practitioners under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that they would be authorized to conduct activities (e.g. prescribing, administering and providing) with controlled substances provided they are already authorized to do so within their scope of practice as set out in provincial or territorial legislation or regulation.”
As part of its perfunctory “consultation” charade, Health Canada has this to say to those who “expressed reservations:”
“Some submissions focused on drug control policy issues that are beyond the scope of this regulatory amendment, such as issues pertaining to the effectiveness of criminal sanctions in combating illicit drug use.”
In other words, they don’t care whether this will work, and they don’t care to discuss it. Here is their entire reply to those who objected:
“The reservations included assertions that there is insufficient evidence to support scheduling of MDPV under the CDSA and that reducing access to MDPV would lead to increased use of other, potentially more harmful drugs. Health Canada considers, however, that the growing evidence of health and safety risks associated with this substance warrants the control measures associated with Schedule I to the CDSA.”
Zero evidence, growing or otherwise, is cited. As usual.
The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition submitted this excellent critique. I highly recommend it as an antidote Health Canada’s bumf.
Amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act made by the Safe Streets and Communities Act are set to come into force on 6 November 2012.
“This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada’s intent to add methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV), namely 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone and its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues to Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA).”
Benzylpiperazine and its salts, isomers and salts of isomers, and Trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine and its salts, isomers and salts of isomers, become Schedule III substances.
ChemSpider lists over 650 isomers of these two substances; are they also now Schedule III substances Health Canada?
The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement on criminalizing the use of BZP and TFMPP. If you can stomach it, these pious and tiresome exercises are quite telling.
See if you can find a single substantiated fact—not vague conjecture, not shrill jeremiad—but real and compelling justification for criminalizing uncounted Canadians without notice. I seem to have missed it.
Allegedly dispassionate and objective, apparently yoked and broken, Health Canada has done the Harper Government proud.
The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada ordering the federal Health Minister to keep Insite, a safe site for injection drug users in Vancouver, BC, alive. Then Health Minister Tony Clement attempted to shutter the facility some years ago, to the dismay of anyone with half a brain and a jot of compassion.
The Court concluded that since Insite had irrefutably saved lives and improved the health of drug users, to close it was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada’s highest law. It found Clement’s decision to be “…arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the CDSA, which include public health and safety. It is also grossly disproportionate.”
Current Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, after “reviewing” the court order for two full hours, graciously agreed to “comply” with it. Canada’s Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, found the ruling “disappointing.”
“An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts”
“[The Bill] amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.”
Part 2 of this bill is similar to Bill S-10 which died with the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.
The government has issued this summary of Part 2: Backgrounder: Safe Streets & Communities Act: Increased Penalties for Serious Drug Crime.
Health Canada’s latest attempt to frustrate access to medical marihuana. The title alone deserves an award for shameless partisan politicking. See also the consultation document below.
One of the alleged beneficiaries (youth) of the proposed changes to the medical marihuana access regulations (MMAR) isn’t buying Health Canada’s feckless rationale: Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP) submission responding to Health Canada’s proposal to “improve” access to medical marihuana.
The statute created when Bill C-475, (below) received Royal Assent. It came into force 24 June 2011
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit a person from possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffick in Methamphetamine or Ecstasy.”
This bill received Royal Assent 26 March 2011. See S.C. 2011, c. 14, above.
“This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada’s proposal to add Tapentadol (Phenol, 3-[(1R,2R)-3-(dimethylamino)-1-ethyl-2-methylpropyl]-), its salts and its related analogues to Schedule I to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and to the schedule to the Narcotic Control Regulations”
“This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide comments on Health Canada’s proposal to add the plant Salvia divinorum (S. divinorum) and its main active ingredient Salvinorin A to Schedule III to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)”
Health Canada issues regulations to save others being held liable for breaching regulations Health Canada forced upon them when their violation of said regulations is the result of Health Canada being unable to keep up with those very same regulations. These regulation expire after one month in force. I’m not making this up.
The Regulations Prescribing Certain Offences to be Serious Offences now defines several offences under the CDSA as “serious,” with respect to the Criminal Code.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for Cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.”
This bill is similar to Bill C-15 which almost made it through the previous session—until the PM prorogued parliament and killed the bill.
This bill died when the 40th Parliament was dissolved 26 Mar 2011.
A Legislative Summary of Bill S-10 prepared by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service is available and worth reading.
The government’s forced and belated response when section 54.1 of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations was declared constitutionally invalid by the British Columbia Supreme Court as of 3 March 2010.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit a person from possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffick in Methamphetamine or Ecstasy.”
This bill died when the 40th parliament was prorogued 30 Dec 2009.
The government’s forced and belated response when subsection 41(b.1) of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations was declared constitutionally invalid by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal as of 23 April 2009.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.”[From the Bill’s summary page.]
This bill is similar to Bill C-26, tabled but not passed in the previous parliament. This bill passed both the house and the senate (with amendments). But it was all for naught; the bill was doomed when the 2nd Session of the 40th Parliament was prorogued 30 Dec 2009.
“This notice provides interested stakeholders with the opportunity to provide preliminary comments on Health Canada’s proposal to add a series of benzylphenyl piperazine derivatives to the schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and to identify themselves for inclusion in any future consultation.”
The substances under consideration are
- 1-(Phenylmethyl)piperazine (BZP) and its salts
- 1-Methyl-4-(phenylmethyl)piperazine (MBZP) and its salts
- 1,4-Bis(phenylmethyl)piperazine (DBZP) and its salts
- 1-(1,3-Benzodioxol-5-methyl)piperazine (MDBZP) and its salts
- 1-(3-Trifluoromethylphenyl)piperazine (TFMPP) and its salts
- 1-(4-Fluorophenyl)piperazine (pFPP) and its salts
- 1-(4-Methoxyphenyl)piperazine (MeOPP) and its salts
- 1-(3-Chlorophenyl)piperazine (mCPP) and its salts
Health Canada summarizes the response to its proposal (see C. Gaz. 2007.I.2000) to add Tramadol to Schedule I of the CDSA.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for Cannabis (marihuana) production, to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.”
This bill died when the 39th parliament was dissolved 7 Sept 2008.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit the production, possession and sale of any substance or any equipment or other material that is intended for use in production of or trafficking in methamphetamine.”
This bill died when the 39th parliament was dissolved 7 Sept 2008.
A response to concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR) regarding inconsistencies between the English and French versions, and non-substantive clarifications of certain provisions.
“The purpose of this initiative is to introduce midwives, nurse practitioners, and doctors of podiatric medicine (DPMs) as practitioners under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) by prescribing them as such in a new regulatory framework.”
Health Canada proposes adding Tramadol to Schedule I of the CDSA.
“This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit the production, possession and sale of any substance or any equipment or other material that is intended for use in production of or trafficking in methamphetamine.”
This bill died when the 39th parliament was prorogued 14 Sept 2007.
This amendment implements changes proposed in C. Gaz. 2005.I.2111.
Six additional “precursor” chemicals are added to Schedule VI of the CDSA, as proposed earlier in C. Gaz. 2005.I.2098.
The Schedule I entry for Methamphetamine is expanded to include “its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues”
This amendment clarifies and corrects the situation created when Methamphetamine was moved, perhaps too hastily, to Schedule I from Schedule III by SOR/2005-235.
Health Canada’s position is that, notwithstanding the clarity restored by this amendment, salts such as Methamphetamine hydrochloride were at no point exempt from CDSA controls.
Citing section 2 of the Act:
Health Canada reaches this remarkable conclusion:“a reference to a controlled substance includes a reference to any substance that contains a controlled substance” and
“a reference to a controlled substance includes a reference to … all synthetic and natural forms of the substance”
“The salts of methamphetamine contain methamphetamine and are a synthetic form of methamphetamine”. (emphasis added)
By that reasoning, table salt contains sodium (a soft, silvery-white, highly reactive metal) and contains chlorine (a pale yellow-green gas that has its distinctive strong smell, the smell of bleach) [cf. Wikipedia].
Ketamine is added to the Narcotic Control Regulations in line with its addition to Schedule I of the CDSA by SOR/2005-271.
Ketamine is formally added to Schedule I of the CDSA.
There was no formal advance notice of this amendment in the Canada Gazette Part I. However, Health Canada did signal their interest in Ketamine in C. Gaz. 2004.I.204 and later declared in Status of Ketamine under the CDSA thatKetamine shall be considered an analogue of Phencyclidine, a Schedule I substance.
Ketamine is removed from the Food and Drug Regulations in line with its addition to Schedule I of the CDSA (see also SOR/2005-271, above).
Methamphetamine moves to Schedule I from Schedule III.
Interestingly, in its former Schedule III location, the entry for Methamphetamine included “salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues”
Now relocated to Schedule I, the former qualifiers have been left behind and only the unadorned free base is listed.
While I doubt it was the intent of this amendment, it seems to me that, for example, salts such as Methamphetamine hydrochloride are, arguably, no longer captured by the CDSA as a result.
See C. Gaz. 2005.I.2098 below.
“The purpose of this proposed initiative is to amend Schedule VI to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and the Precursor Control Regulations (PCR) to strengthen the regulatory framework and minimize any negative impact of the Regulations on the legitimate trade of precursors.”
“Among other things, the proposed amendments will add six substances to the CDSA and the PCR: Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), 1,4-Butanediol (BDO), Red phosphorus, White phosphorus, Hypophosphorous acid, Hydriodic acid.”
[From the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS).]
Health Canada now considers Ketamine to be an analogue of Phencyclidine a Schedule I substance.
“Analogue,” as defined by the CDSA, means “a substance that, in relation to a controlled substance, has a substantially similar chemical structure” The CDSA provides no definition for “substantially similar.”
See the CDSA definitions and interpretations for more about analogues.
This bill is similar to Bill C-10, tabled but not passed in the previous session of parliament.
This bill died when the 38th parliament was dissolved 29 Nov 2005.
This bill is similar to Bill C-38, tabled but not passed in the previous session of parliament.
This bill died when the 3rd session of the 37th parliament ended 23 May 2004.
Health Canada proposes to add Ketamine to the CDSA.
Amineptine is added to Schedule III of CDSA.
Health Canada proposes to add Red Phosphorous and White Phosphorous to the CDSA.
“The enactment amends the Contraventions Act to allow for the designation of certain criminal offences as contraventions and to specify that contraventions may be prosecuted by means of either a summons or ticket unless another Act of Parliament provides otherwise.”
“The enactment also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to create offences with respect to the possession of small amounts of Cannabis (marihuana) and the production of Cannabis (marihuana).”
This bill died when the 2nd session of the 37th parliament ended 12 Nov 2003.
Back in the day, Canada had Senators who could not only cope with filing their expense reports, they sometimes took upon themselves a real challenge—like restoring some sanity to our drug law.
A whole lot of effort went into this: 23 meetings, several reports, many dozens of witnesses. Alas, like so many reports before, it gathered dust.
Health Canada corrects errors introduced by SOR/97-230 and identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, in the CDSA entries for Levargorphan and Clotiazepam.
Health Canada adds Remifentanil to Schedule I and Olanzapine to Schedule IV, and excludes Nalmefene and Naltrexone from Schedule I of the CDSA.
Health Canada proposes to add Remifentanil to Schedule I and Olanzapine to Schedule IV, and to exclude Nalmefene and Naltrexone from Schedule I of the CDSA.
“The amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in this enactment deal with aggravating factors in sentencing and the criminal liability of law enforcement officers engaged in their duties.”
One of four amendments Health Canada proposes to enact the Benzodiazepines and Other Targeted Substances Regulations. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this group is contained in the fourth and final amendment dated 27 Mar 1999 below.
Health Canada proposes to add Brotizolam, Midazolam, Quazepam and Clozapine, to Schedule IV, and expand the existing Schedule III entry for Flunitrazepam by adding “and any salts or derivative thereof.”
Health Canada proposes regulations for Benzodiazepines and other targeted substances.
“An exemption from publication of these Regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I is requested as they deal solely with internal government management.”
[From the Consultation section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this amendment.]
Notice of proposed scheduling of Remifentanil, Olanzapine, Nalmefene and Naltrexone.
Notice of a review of the regulations pertaining to Benzodiazepines and other targeted substances.
“This initiative was exempted from prepublication due to the urgency to address the major health and safety risks associated with the use of Flunitrazepam and GHB. In addition, prior notice of this amendment may negate the effectiveness of the immediate scheduling of these drugs.”
[From the Consultation section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this amendment and for SOR/98-173, above.]
Health Canada sets the stage for comments regarding proposed Industrial Hemp Regulations. See C. Gaz. 1997.I.3905 above.
“An exemption from prepublication of this regulatory amendment in the Canada Gazette Part I was granted as extensive consultation has occurred with the passage of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”
[From the Consultation section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this amendment, and SOR/97-515, above.]
“An exemption from prepublication of this regulatory amendment in the Canada Gazette Part I was granted for the following reasons:”
- ⇒ adequate consultation was conducted during the Parliamentary process introducing the Criminal Law Improvement Act, 1996
- ⇒ the amendment is the correction of an error which was inadvertently created with the coming into force of the Criminal Law Improvement Act, 1996 and
- ⇒ enforcement requirements mandate that the correction be made expeditiously.
[From the Consultation section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this amendment.]
“An exemption from prepublication of this regulatory amendment in the Canada Gazette Part I was granted as adequate consultation was conducted during the Parliamentary process introducing Bill C-8, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.”
[From the Consultation section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for this amendment and for SOR/97-228, SOR/97-229, SOR/97-230 and SOR/97-234 above.]
“An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.”
The CDSA as enacted in 1996.
Representatives from Cunningham, Swan, Carty, Little & Bonham
Reform Party MP Grant Hill tries to allay fears of bureaucratic overreach in Bill C-8, soon to become the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, by correctly asserting the power of the bureaucracy had been severely reigned in (though he gives “his office” rather more credit than I would):
“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 has been a complex and long lived bill in this House. It was the first bill I was the watchdog for, so I have watched the process very carefully.”
“Reformers had one big concern with this bill in that the bill gave very broad powers to the minister and to the bureaucracy that would have affected the health food industry. The clause that caused us the most concern said that the minister could deem any depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic and include those in the schedules. [my emphasis]”
“I am proud of Canadians on that issue. Canadians with a little bit of help decided that was not suitable. The health food industry has stimulants, depressants and hallucinogenics. Our office was a bit of a focus for what I consider to be a campaign against that clause in Bill C-8.”
“There were petitions, faxes and a huge amount of interest on the bill and we were able to get that clause kicked out. Our efforts were rewarded. [my emphasis]”
Hill goes on to say:
“I always thought that if we in Canada were going to have a change in direction it should have public scrutiny.”
Hear, Hear!
Representatives from the Department of Health, and the Department of Justice
Representatives from the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, the Department of Health, and the Department of Justice
Representatives from the Lambton Families in Action, and the Council on Drug Abuse
Reform MP Bill Gilmour reminds the House that Bill C-8 should not encompass natural products.
Representatives from Hempline Inc., the Canadian Industrial Hemp Lobby, the Cannabis Canada, Robert Hamon, Andy Rapoch, Nicholas Bureau, the HIVAIDS Legal Network and the Canadian AIDS Society, City of Toronto, DowntownEastside Residents Association, Assembly of First Nations, and the National Coalition for Health Freedom
Appearances by the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.
Evidence of the Canadian Medical Association.
“An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.”
This bill is essentially identical to Bill C-7, tabled in the previous session but lost when the 35th parliament prorogued.
The background paper Illegal Drugs and Drug Trafficking prepared by Diane Leduc and James Lee for the Parliamentary Information and Research Service provides a good overview of the political context at the time.
The legislative summary Bill C-8: The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act prepared by Jane Allain and Peter Niemcza for the Parliamentary Information and Research Service is a good overview of the legislation, its torturous path to becoming law, and the arguments of its proponents and (many) critics.
Rather than start again from square one, the House allows Bill C-7 to pick up where it left off from the previous session, this time as Bill C-8
This may actually have been a good thing because had the Bill been tabled anew Health Canada might have tried, a third time, to restore the expansive powers that were struck out during committee review. Twice.
On the first day of the new session, members discuss which Bills deserved to be carried over from the previous session. By default, any Bill that had not made it through the House and the Senate and got Royal Assent would have to start all over again.
Such is Ottawa.
Evidence from Mr. Eugene Oscapella, barrister and solicitor, Madam Diane Riley, Mr. Glenn Gilmour and Mr. Benedikt Fischer, all of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
This evidence is unavailable online from any government source. We are fortunate the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy had the gumption to post it.
C-7 died when the 35th parliament prorogued on 2 Feb 1996, only to return with the next Parliament as Bill C-8.
Evidence from Mr. Robert Kellerman, barrister and solicitor from the Law Union of Ontario and Dr. Perry Kendall, President and CEO, Addiction Research Foundation (now CAMH: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health)
This evidence is unavailable online from any government source. We are fortunate the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy had the gumption to post it.
Evidence from Mr. Bruce Rowsell, Director, Bureau of Drug Surveillance, Health Canada, Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice and Mr. Gérard Normand, Counsel, Department of Justice
This evidence is unavailable online from any government source. We are fortunate the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy had the gumption to post it.
The Bill as amended by the Commons Sub-Committee on Bill C-7, and following third reading in the House.
A House of Commons committee hears evidence from witness, makes amendments to Bill C-7 and sends it back to the House for third reading i.e. “reports” it.
It’s difficult to follow even with the original at hand, but one key provision they expunged was the following sweeping interpretation clause from page 4 of Bill C-7 as tabled:
3. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a substance included in Schedule I, II or I II shall be deemed to include any substance:
(a) that is produced, possessed or provided by a person who intends that it be introduced into the body of another person for the purpose of producing a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III, and that, if so introduced, would produce such a substantially similar or greater effect; or
(b) that is represented or held out to produce, if introduced into a human body, a stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic effect substantially similar to or greater than that of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.
I don’t think Health Canada ever really got over their loss, or have accepted it to this day.
“An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.”
This bill is very similar to Bill C-85, tabled but not passed in the previous parliament.
It may be hard for some readers to imagine, but there was a time Health Canada were serious about protecting the health and welfare of Canadians. A paper like this one could never be produced today or would never see the light of day in any event.
· Isomer Design