Decriminalization in BC: S.56 (1) Exemption

Decriminalization
in BC: S.56(1)
Exemption
Request for an exemption to Health
Canada from the Controlled Drugs
and Substances Act (CDSA) pursuant
to Section 56(1) to decriminalize
personal possession of illicit
substances in the Province of British
Columbia
October 2021
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge with respect that the work we do throughout B.C. takes place on the
traditional lands of Indigenous peoples. The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions is deeply
committed to true and lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in B.C.
This submission was drafted by the BC Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions with input from
the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Children and
Family Development, Ministry of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Provincial Health
Officer, as well as our external partners that came together to form the Decriminalization Core
Planning Table (CPT).
We would like to express our gratitude for the contributions of CPT members who shared their
time, experiences, expertise, and data with us, engaging enthusiastically and in good faith even
when perspectives diverged. The recommendations put forth in this submission may not always
represent the views of all members. Member organizations include:
BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres Métis Nation BC
BC Association of Chiefs of Police PIVOT Legal Society
BC Centre for Disease Control RCMP “E” Division
BC Centre on Substance Use Rural Empowered Drug Users Network
BC First Nations Justice Council Society for Narcotic and Opioid Wellness
BC/Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors SOLID Victoria
City of Kamloops Union of BC Municipalities
City of Vancouver Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users
First Nations Health Authority Vancouver Police Department
This submission was also informed by conversations with additional organizations and experts,
including health authorities, the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA-BC), Moms Stop
the Harm (MSTH), the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, the South Asian Mental Health Alliance
(SAMHAA), the Rainbow Heath Cooperative, the Support Network for Indigenous Women and
Women of Colour (SNIWWOC), and others.
S.56(1) Exemption Request

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
2 Background and Rationale ....................................................................................................... 5
Substance Use and Criminalization Harms ...................................................................... 7
Addressing Inequities ....................................................................................................... 9
Decriminalization to Enable a Public Health Response.................................................. 10
Decriminalization in the Context of Public Safety.......................................................... 12
3 British Columbia’s Approach ................................................................................................. 12
Partners and Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 13
3.1.1 Cross-Government Project Team............................................................................ 13
3.1.2 Core Planning Table ................................................................................................ 13
3.1.3 Indigenous Partners and Leaders ........................................................................... 13
3.1.4 Additional Engagement........................................................................................... 14
Principles ........................................................................................................................ 14
4 A Framework for Decriminalization in BC ............................................................................. 15
Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 16
Eligibility ......................................................................................................................... 17
Defining Personal Possession ......................................................................................... 17
4.3.1 Considerations ........................................................................................................ 18
4.3.2 Data and Evidence .................................................................................................. 19
4.3.3 Recommendation.................................................................................................... 22
4.3.4 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback ........................................................................ 23
Alternatives to Criminal Penalties .................................................................................. 24
4.4.1 Provision of Information and Harm Reduction Supplies ........................................ 24
4.4.2 Voluntary Referrals ................................................................................................. 25
Health System Readiness ............................................................................................... 26
Regional Considerations ................................................................................................. 27
4.6.1 Rural and Remote Considerations .......................................................................... 28
Approach to Unique Populations (GBA+)....................................................................... 29
4.7.1 Youth ....................................................................................................................... 29

2
4.7.2 Indigenous Peoples ................................................................................................. 29
4.7.3 Other Identity Factors ............................................................................................. 30
Approach to Unique Circumstances............................................................................... 30
4.8.1 Personal Possession in a Motor Vehicle ................................................................. 30
4.8.2 Public Consumption ................................................................................................ 31
Implementation.............................................................................................................. 31
4.9.1 Implementation at Different Stages of the Criminal Justice System ...................... 31
4.9.2 Police Training ......................................................................................................... 32
4.9.3 Public Education...................................................................................................... 32
Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................. 32
5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 33
6 Appendix A............................................................................................................................. 35
7 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................. 37
8 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................. 39
9 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................ 40

3
1 INTRODUCTION
Since 2016, British Columbia has been under a public health emergency. This emergency is
arising out of unprecedented numbers of illicit drug poisoning deaths, primarily due to
increasing toxicity and unpredictability of the illicit drug supply with increasing concentrations
of fentanyl and its analogues. The emergency has been exacerbated by the COVID-19
pandemic, which has significantly impacted social determinants of health, reduced access to
harm reduction and treatment services, incentivized the manufacturing of more potent street
drugs as a result of international supply disruptions, and driven people at risk of a fatal or non-
fatal illicit drug toxicity poisoning to use drugs alone in dangerous situations.
BC has taken action to address the illicit drug poisoning crisis, including rapid scale-up and
implementation of life-saving initiatives such as the Take-Home Naloxone program, access to
medication-assisted treatments and prescribed safer supply, and expanded supervised
consumption, overdose prevention, and harm reduction services and improvements in
treatment and recovery. While these initiatives have saved lives and underscore the widely
accepted notion that substance use should be approached as a public health issue, they are
undermined by the continued criminalization of
illicit substance use under Canada’s Controlled This submission is intended to start
Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). Criminalization an iterative dialogue with Health
of simple possession remains a significant Canada regarding how BC’s approach
impediment to BC’s ability to implement a to decriminalization can satisfy the
expectations of both governments,
comprehensive public health response to the illicit
leading to the granting of a s.56(1)
drug poisoning crisis.
exemption.
To meaningfully address the illicit drug poisoning
crisis, including the widespread stigma that can lead people who use drugs (PWUD) to avoid
life-saving health services and use alone, the Premier’s 2020 Mandate Letter to Minister Sheila
Malcolmson directs the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (MMHA) to work with the
Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Ministry of Attorney General to pursue
the decriminalization of personal possession of illicit substances in BC.
Public support for the decriminalization of personal possession of illicit substances is strong,
with 66 percent of British Columbians in favour of the move, according to a February 2021 poll
conducted by the Angus Reid Institute.1 This represents the highest level of support for
decriminalization of any Canadian province. There have also been calls for decriminalization
from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police,2 the Health Officers Council of BC, BC’s
1
https://angusreid.org/opioid-crisis-covid/
2
https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=2189

4
Provincial Health Officer, several BC municipalities, Health Canada’s own Expert Task Force on
Substance Use,3 the First Nations Health Authority,4 and a variety of organizations representing
people with lived experience of substance use.
With this widespread support BC is formally asking the federal Minister of Health, in
consultation with the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to exercise their
authority under Section 56(1) of the CDSA to exempt all persons in British Columbia 19 years
of age or older from the application of Section 4(1) on the condition that the amount of any
controlled substance in their possession does not exceed the thresholds for “personal
possession” set out in a Schedule. This Schedule would be based on evidence of personal use
patterns. This submission includes BC’s recommendations for a personal use Schedule for
opioids (including heroin and fentanyl), crack and powder cocaine, and methamphetamine.
BC submits that this proposed exemption meets the test under s.56(1). It is necessary for a
medical purpose, namely combatting the public health emergency of drug poisoning deaths. In
addition to saving lives, this proposed exemption is in the public interest to mitigate the harms
to PWUD (i.e., unnecessary involvement in the criminal justice system) and to society of the
attendant costs, harms, and reduced effectiveness of public health interventions. It also reflects
the Charter values at stake in a proportionate way.
This document describes the overarching principles, objectives, and other key details of BC’s
proposed decriminalization framework. This submission represents the culmination of intensive
stakeholder and partner engagement, which will continue into the implementation planning
and post-implementation phases. This submission is intended to support ongoing dialogue
with Health Canada regarding how BC’s approach to decriminalization can satisfy the
expectations of both governments, leading to the granting of a s.56(1) exemption. It is
recognized that details of the proposed framework may change as a result of these future
discussions.
2 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Since the declaration of the public health emergency in April of 2016, over 7,700 British
Columbians have died from illicit drug poisoning. Numbers of fatal illicit drug poisoning initially
peaked at 1,549 in 2018, at an average of 4.2 deaths per day. Following a 36 percent decrease
in illicit drug poisoning deaths between 2018 and 2019 (984, for an average of 2.7 deaths per
3
Health Canada. Expert Task Force on Substance Use. (2021). Recommendations on the Federal Government’s
Drug Policy as Articulated in a Draft Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS).
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-
bodies /expert-task-force-substance-use/reports/report-2-2021.html#a3
4
https://www.fnha.ca/Documents/FNHA-harm-reduction-policy-statement.pdf

5
day), deaths reached a new high in 2020, with 1,733 deaths, or 4.7 per day – an increase that
the BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) linked, in part, to the ongoing COVID-19 public
health emergency.5 Deaths have continued to climb in 2021 with 1,204 suspected illicit drug
toxicity deaths in the first seven months and are on track to exceed the previous annual high.6
Illicit drug poisoning is now the leading cause of death amongst British Columbians aged 19 to
39—people in the prime of their lives. For men, the toxic drug crisis has been so severe that
overall life expectancy at birth for males has declined in recent years in BC.7
The BC Coroners Service reports that this year has seen an increase in deaths in which extreme
fentanyl concentrations were present.8 Regional Health Authorities, overdose prevention
service providers, and researchers9 also continue to issue alerts and raise concerns regarding
increased presence of benzodiazepines in the illicit drug supply, which is causing severe and
complex drug toxicity presentations. While no British Columbians have died of illicit drug
poisoning at overdose prevention or safe consumption sites, the scientific and medical
literature10,11,12 supports what we have been told by PWUD, namely that drug law enforcement
pushes PWUD to deliberately avoid these kinds of lifesaving services. Criminalization and stigma
lead many to hide their use from family and friends and to avoid seeking treatment, thereby
creating situations where the risk of drug poisoning death is elevated. The BC Coroners Service
reports that between 2018 and June 2021, most illicit drug toxicity deaths occurred in private
residences (55.7 percent) or other residences, such as social housing sites or shelters (26.3
percent), where residents are more likely to use alone.
5
http://www.bccdc.ca/resource-
gallery/Documents/Statistics%20and%20Research/Statistics%20and%20Reports/Overdose/2021.04.16_Infographi
c_OD%20Dashboard.pdf
6
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-
service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf
7
The Daily — Life tables, 2016/2018 (statcan.gc.ca)
8
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-divorce/deaths/coroners-
service/statistical/illicit-drug.pdf
9
Laing, M. K., Ti, L., Marmel, A., Tobias, S., Shapiro, A. M., Laing, R., Lysyshyn, M., & Socías, M. E. (2021). An
outbreak of novel psychoactive substance benzodiazepines in the unregulated drug supply: Preliminary results
from a community drug checking program using point-of-care and confirmatory methods. International Journal of
Drug Policy, 93, 103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103169
10
Kerr, T., Small, W., & Wood, E. (2005). The public health and social impacts of drug market enforcement: A
review of the evidence. International Journal of Drug Policy, 16(4), 210–220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.04.005
11
Collins, et al. (2019). Policing space in the overdose crisis: a rapid ethnographic study of the impact of law
enforcement practices on the effectiveness of overdose prevention sites. Journal of International Drug Policy, 73,
199-207.
12
Small, W., Kerr, T., Charette, J., Schechter, M.T., and Spittal, P.M. (2006). Impacts of intensified police activity on
injection drug users: Evidence from an ethnographic investigation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 17(2), 85-
95.

6
This data indicates that, while the purpose of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is to
protect public health, it is in fact undermining it by contributing to the conditions that make
fatal and non-fatal illicit drug poisonings more likely. An exemption to enable decriminalization
within BC is necessary and warranted in order to disrupt these conditions, as it meets the
s.56(1) criteria of serving a medical purpose and being in the public interest. It is supported by
scientific research and it will directly support BC’s response to the illicit drug poisoning crisis,
which will ultimately save lives.
SUBSTANCE USE AND CRIMINALIZATION HARMS

Before discussing the harms associated with substance use, it is necessary to acknowledge that
substance use occurs on a continuum, ranging from beneficial to harmful. Some people
experience minimal health-related harms from substance use. However, the harms caused by
criminalization of substance use affect many, regardless of whether their substance use is
beneficial, neutral, or problematic for their health. For those whose substance use could be
characterized as problematic, criminalization is an ineffective deterrent and serves to
compound harms.13 Dr. Bonnie Henry, BC’s Provincial Health Officer, highlights this in her 2019
report, Stopping the Harm: Decriminalization of People Who Use Drugs in BC:
If the intention of a prohibition-based system was to protect individuals

from harms inherent to substance use, then this policy approach has
significantly failed to achieve this goal at an individual or population level.
Evidence shows that this approach has had the opposite effect and has
substantially increased harms.14
In terms of quantifiable economic harms, the Canadian Centre for Substance Use and
Addiction15 has estimated that licit and illicit substance use in BC costs over $6.6 billion per
year:
• $1.9 billion in costs to the health care system (e.g., hospitalizations and emergency
room visits);
• $3.1 billion in lost economic productivity;
• $1.2 billion in costs from the criminal justice system (e.g., policing and court system);
and
13
Ibid.
14
Henry, B. (2019). “Stopping the Harm: Decriminalization of People Who Use Drugs in BC.” Office of the Provincial
Health Officer. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/office-
of-the-provincial-health-officer/reports-publications/special-reports/stopping-the-harm-report.pdf.
15
https://www.ccsa.ca/canadian-substance-use-costs-and-harms Canadian Substance Use Costs and Harms, 2015-
2017

7
• $483 million in other direct costs (e.g., property crime).16
These costs include the increased healthcare expenses and lost economic productivity
experienced by people with acquired brain injury due to drug poisoning events. Although the
diagnosis of neurological injury and associated long-term impairment is complex and
population prevalence is challenging to measure, recent research conducted by the BCCDC
found a high occurrence of such injuries in the Provincial Overdose Cohort.17 The long-term
impacts of acquired brain injury are varied, and can include physical and cognitive impairments,
diminished motor skills, and significant behavioural changes—all of which can pose significant
challenges for individuals, their families, and provincial health and social services.18
Harms associated with substance use are exacerbated by criminalization and the stigma faced
by individuals who use substances. In some cases, substance use can lead to social harms such
as job loss, housing insecurity, loss of driver’s license, and/or damaged interpersonal
relationships. In other cases, these harms may be primarily caused by the issuance of criminal
penalties for substance use, and the related structural stigma that individuals who use
substances face. Many people who use substances also face stigma and discrimination in
interactions with the healthcare system, leading to a lack of trust in health care services and
providers, and poorer health outcomes.19 Even in the absence of criminal charges or penalties,
fear of drug seizure prevents people from accessing life-saving services, from calling police
when in unsafe situations, and from calling emergency services during overdose events.
In addition to the harms caused by criminalization, there is also evidence that it does little to
deter illicit substance use. According to a study of injection drug users in Vancouver by Werb et
al (2008), the majority of individuals whose drugs were seized by law enforcement purchased a
replacement supply within 10 minutes.20
Beyond the harms experienced by people who are criminalized for substance use, there are
also major impacts on those around them, including family members, friends, and dependents.
16
This includes both licit and illicit substances. Provincial data is not available broken down by substance.
17
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/Harm-Reduction-
Reports/Neurological%20Injury_ODC_2020_01_03.pdf
18
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/opioid-related-hospitalizations-anoxic-brain-
injury.html
19
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2019). “Addressing Stigma: Towards a More Inclusive Health System: The Chief
Public Health Officer’s Report on the State of Public Health in Canada 2019.” Retrieved from
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/publications/chief-public-health-officer-
reports-state-public-health-canada/addressing-stigma-what-we-heard/stigma-eng.pdf.
20
Werb, D., Wood, E., Small, W., Strathdee, S., Li, K., Montaner, J., and Kerr, T. (2008). “Effects of police
confiscation of illicit drugs and syringes among injection drug users in Vancouver. International Journal of Drug
Policy, 19(4), p. 332-338.

8
These harms include social, emotional, relational, and financial impacts when an individual who
uses substances is fined, arrested, charged, incarcerated, and/or loses their job. It is also felt by
children who come to be involved with the child welfare system because of a parent or
guardian’s substance use.
MMHA urges Health Canada and the federal Ministers of Health and Mental Health and
Addictions to consider these harms in the context of the Charter rights of PWUD in our
province. Under Section 7 of the Charter, everyone has a right to life, liberty, and security of the
person and a right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice. One fundamental implication of this is that criminal laws with the purpose
of promoting public health and safety should not unintentionally make the risk of death–or
serious mental or physical harm—worse. Section 15(1) guarantees equality, including without
discrimination based on mental or physical disability. While the illicit drug poisoning crisis
affects all PWUD, people with substance use disorders–a recognized disability–are
disproportionately affected. All levels of government therefore have an obligation to minimize
the mortality and morbidity risks of their policies and to not exacerbate any pre-existing
inequities. This decriminalization framework strikes a careful and proportionate balance
between those rights—particularly under sections 7 and 15—and the primary purposes of the
CDSA: to preserve and protect public health and safety.
ADDRESSING INEQUITIES
Indigenous Peoples come from resilient communities with strong traditional wellness practices.
However, due to the ongoing impacts of colonization and racism and healthcare inequities,
Indigenous Peoples in BC are over-represented among those experiencing substance use
related harms and criminalization. In 2020, First Nations people died of illicit drug poisoning at
5.3 times the rate of other BC residents.21 First Nations women are disproportionately
represented among illicit drug toxicity deaths, dying at 9.9 times the rate of other women in BC
in 2020.22
Indigenous Peoples are also over-represented in the criminal justice system. In 2017/2018,
Indigenous adults accounted for 35 percent of admissions to adult custody, while representing
only approximately six percent of the Canadian adult population.23 Indigenous women
accounted for 42 percent of all women admitted to custody. During the same period,
Indigenous youth (aged 12-17) made up 43 percent of admissions to correctional services in
21
https://www.fnha.ca/AboutSite/NewsAndEventsSite/NewsSite/Documents/FNHA-First-Nations-in-BC-and-the-
Toxic-Drug-Crisis-January-December-2020-Infographic.pdf
22
Ibid.
23
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/gladue/p2.html

9
nine reporting jurisdictions, while representing only about eight percent of the Canadian youth
population.
Current federal drug laws pertaining to simple possession also create significant and
disproportionate harms for Black communities, evident in high rates of police stops, arrests,
and incarceration for drug use or suspected drug use. In 2010-11, nine percent of the Canadian
federal prison inmate population was Black, even though Black people account for just 2.5
percent of Canada’s overall population.24 In 2014, 12 percent of prisoners incarcerated for
drug-related crimes in Canadian prisons were Black,25 an inequity stemming in part from
racialized enforcement of the CDSA. Other marginalized communities also experience
additional and intersecting harms related to illicit substance use. This has been documented
within the LGBTQ2S+ community, particularly for trans women and men who have sex with
men.26,27 Negative outcomes are amplified for individuals experiencing multiple axes of
marginalization, such as People of Colour who also identify as LGBTQ2S+.
DECRIMINALIZATION TO ENABLE A PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE

In 2019, the Government of BC launched A Pathway to Hope: A roadmap for making mental
health and addictions care better for people in British Columbia.28 The roadmap lays out a 10-
year vision and three-year action plan for mental health and addictions, with an emphasis on
supporting well-being, addressing problems early on, and transforming care for children, youth,
and young adults. Initiatives in the three-year action plan include promoting early childhood
social emotional development, expanding services for youth and young adults, and Indigenous-
led mental health and wellness initiatives as part of the Memorandum of Understanding:
Tripartite Partnership to Improve Mental Health and Wellness Services. Other cross-government
initiatives that address root causes of substance use and support prevention of mental health
and substance use problems include a poverty reduction strategy, affordable childcare, and
housing affordability plans.
24
Wortley, S., & Owusu-Bempah, A. (2011). The usual suspects: police stop and search practices in Canada. Policing
and Society, 21(4), 395-407.
25
Solomon, E. (2017, April 4th). “A Bad Trip: Legalizing pot is about
race,” Maclean’s, http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-bad-trip-legalizing-pot-is-about-race/.
26
Fendrich, M., Mackesy-Amiti, M. E., & Johnson, T. P. (2008). Validity of self-reported substance use in MSM:
Comparisons with a general population sample. Annals of Epidemiology, 18(10), 752-759.
doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.06.001
27
Hughes, T. L., & Eliason, M. (2002). Substance use and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
populations. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 22(3), 263-298. doi:10.1023/A:1013669705086
28
Government of BC. (2019. A Pathway to Hope. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-
governments/initiatives-plans-strategies/mental-health-and-addictions-
strategy/bcmentalhealthroadmap_2019web-5.pdf

10
The Province has developed a comprehensive approach to responding to the illicit drug
poisoning crisis, led by MMHA’s Overdose Emergency Response Centre (OERC). BC’s emergency
response includes a comprehensive package of essential evidence-based supports and services,
including the Take-Home Naloxone program, overdose prevention and supervised consumption
services, drug checking services, opioid agonist treatment and prescribed safer supply, acute
overdose risk case management, and enhancements to the treatment and recovery system of
care29. According to modelling conducted by the BCCDC, BC’s harm reduction services averted
more than 6,100 deaths between 2016 and 2020 – a number which has almost certainly
increased since, with new healthcare initiatives coming on board.
Ultimately, the goal of each component of the comprehensive package for responding to the
illicit drug poisoning crisis is to prevent illicit drug toxicity-related events and deaths and to
improve health and social outcomes for PWUD. One of the biggest impediments to maximizing
the benefits of these interventions is the stigma and criminalization that PWUD continue to
experience. As noted previously, stigma and criminalization prevent people from accessing
critical health and social services and impacts social determinants of health like employment,
income security, and housing.
Despite attempts at de facto decriminalization in municipalities such as Vancouver, as well as

the BC Solicitor General’s request that police adopt a harm reduction approach to simple
possession, the application of such policies is inconsistent and many PWUD continue to be
criminalized for personal possession. Between 2008-2017, there were 49,891 criminal drug
possession charges in BC. 30 There is wide variation between regions in BC when it comes to
drug arrests. For example, in 2018 the rate of drug arrests in Kelowna was roughly twice that of
Vancouver.31 In addition, some measures of criminalization have increased in recent years.
RCMP data shows a 49% increase in total drug seizures between 2018 and 2020, with small
quantities (below thresholds proposed by City of Vancouver in their 2021 section 56(1)
exemption request) making up the majority of the additional seizures.32
To better ensure that all British Columbians who use substances can access health and social
services without fear of criminalization, and that drug laws are applied evenly and equitably in a
way that maximizes positive public health outcomes, a province-wide approach to
29
See the full list of comprehensive interventions and details of the OERC structure at:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/overdose-
awareness/bg_overdose_emergency_response_centre_1dec17_final.pdf
30
BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. British Columbia crime trends, 2008 - 2017. Victoria, BC.
Available from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/
assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/criminal-justice/police/publications/statistics/bc_crime_trends_2008-2017.pdf
31
Boyd, S. (2018). Drug Arrests in Canada, 2017. Report prepared for the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users.
32
RCMP “E” Division Criminal Operations Core Policing. (2021). Illicit Street and Pharmaceutical Drug Occurrences
& Total Drug Possession Charges “E” Division (20118-2020).

11
decriminalization is needed. That is why the Province is requesting a section 56(1) exemption
from the federal CDSA to decriminalize personal possession of small amounts of illicit
substances. Not only would a section 56(1) exemption allow the Province to better align its
response to the illicit drug poisoning crisis with a public health approach, but it would also
enable police to improve the nature of interactions between law enforcement and PWUD and
emphasize other public safety priorities, like violence, property crime, drug trafficking, and
organized crime.
DECRIMINALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

Saving and improving the lives of PWUD remains the overarching goal of BC’s response to the
illicit drug poisoning crisis. It is within this context that we are pursuing decriminalization of
personal possession of illicit substances. Complementary to this goal, the Province remains
committed to ensuring the safety of the entire public and combatting serious drug-related
crimes remain priorities. As such, the BC Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General has
received a mandate to “work with police to address serious crime in BC communities, including
cracking down on those who distribute toxic drugs.”33
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has emphasized the need to prioritize public safety
alongside public health, noting in its report recommending decriminalization that police must
continue to fight organized crime and disrupt the illicit drug supply into communities through
enforcement of laws pertaining to the trafficking, production, and importation of illicit
substances. This would require continued enforcement activities related to these more serious
drug-related crimes alongside moves to decriminalize personal possession.
While decriminalization would allow police to shift resources away from enforcement of laws
pertaining to simple possession and toward more serious crime such as trafficking and
importation of illicit substances, it is anticipated that, in many cases, frontline law enforcement
officers would continue to interact with people in possession of personal amounts of drugs at
times. We recognize that for many PWUD, interactions with police have the potential to
perpetuate trauma. Within this context, decriminalization offers an opportunity to improve
interactions and build trust between police and PWUD.
3 BRITISH COLUMBIA’S APPROACH

MMHA established a collaborative process to develop a comprehensive framework for
decriminalization in BC. Consultation with key partners and stakeholders has informed all
33
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/ministries-organizations/premier-cabinet-mlas/minister-
letter/farnworth_mandate_2020_mar_pssg.pdf

12
components of the framework, including key principles, implementation and evaluation
planning, risk identification and mitigation, and public education, training, and communications.
PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS

MMHA has undertaken engagement in a variety of ways to inform all elements of the full
s.56(1) exemption request, including through a cross-government Project Team, a Core
Planning Table made up of key stakeholders, and focused engagement with Indigenous
partners and other impacted groups.
3.1.1 Cross-Government Project Team

MMHA has convened a Project Team inclusive of leadership staff from the Ministries of Health,
Public Safety and Solicitor General, Attorney General, and Children and Family Development, as
well as the Office of the Provincial Health Officer. Project Team members have been working
with MMHA to ensure BC’s approach to decriminalization is supported by and reflects the
perspectives of all relevant arms of government and public health.
3.1.2 Core Planning Table

MMHA established a Decriminalization Core Planning Table (CPT) to support the development
of the policy framework that serves the basis of BC’s s.56(1) exemption request. Participating
members represent a variety of partners and stakeholders.34 Feedback from members was
generated through professionally facilitated workshops on key topic areas, discussion at regular
CPT meetings, surveys, and one-on-one conversations. Participants were provided with
materials in advance of meetings to help facilitate focused discussions on iterations of s.56(1)
exemption application drafts.
3.1.3 Indigenous Partners and Leaders

MMHA is taking a distinctions-based approach to engaging with Indigenous partners and
leaders in BC, seeking input from both First Nations and Métis leadership based on their
preferred methods and tables of engagement. In addition to the inclusion of representatives
from the First Nations Health Authority, Métis Nation BC, BC Association of Aboriginal
Friendship Centres, and the BC First Nations Justice Council on the CPT, MMHA has engaged
with governance organizations to seek input on the framework and guidance on how they
would like to be involved moving forward. MMHA is also committed to undertaking further
engagement to determine how or if the s.56(1) exemption could or would be applied to First
Nations reserves in BC, or whether individual First Nations could choose to opt out of
implementing decriminalization on reserve lands.
34
See appendix A for a more detailed list of organizations represented at the Core Planning Table.

13
3.1.4 Additional Engagement
Focused engagement has also been undertaken to generate feedback from additional
stakeholders not represented at the CPT or Project Team. This has included discussions on key
decriminalization policy issues with a variety of stakeholders, such as:
• Regional Health Authorities and other health and social service providers;
• Law enforcement and justice sector partners;
• Municipal governments;
• People with lived and living experience and family/caregiver groups; and
• Advocacy organizations, including drug policy advocacy organizations and organizations
representing racialized communities in BC.
PRINCIPLES
The following principles have been developed and endorsed by CPT members to guide the
development of BC’s decriminalization framework.
1. Do No More Harm: Drug prohibition creates significant harms for PWUD and broader
society, contributing to institutionalized stigma and discrimination, overdose deaths,
communicable disease, violence, incarceration, and barriers to effective health and harm
reductions services. The provincial decriminalization framework should seek to reduce
harms caused through its policies and programs.
2. Choice and Autonomy: The provincial decriminalization framework must ensure that PWUD
be treated with dignity and respect, including when interacting with the criminal justice and
healthcare systems. To this end, the framework should support PWUD to define their own
personal goals when it comes to their health and ensure that information is provided to
support PWUD to access timely health and social support.
3. Trauma-Informed and Person-Centred: Many PWUD have experienced trauma and

violence. The provincial decriminalization framework must ensure that alternatives to
criminalization (e.g., referrals to health and social services) are trauma-informed and
person-centred.
4. Anti-Racism: Recognizing that drug prohibition has disproportionately harmful impacts on

racialized people, including Indigenous Peoples, the development of a framework for
decriminalization should take an anti-racist approach, creating conditions of greater
inclusion, equity, and justice.
5. Reconciliation and Decolonization: BC’s approach to decriminalization should also be

informed by the understanding that colonialism is inherent in the province’s criminal justice

14
system, thus the framework must be designed in a way that removes the unique and
disproportionate impacts of drug prohibition on Indigenous Peoples.
6. Cultural Safety: BC’s decriminalization framework should ensure that alternatives to

criminalization are culturally safe and do not reproduce trauma, racism, or discrimination.
7. Equal Voice: Recognizing that pre-existing power imbalances exist, BC’s decriminalization
framework must consider the perspectives of all voices equally.
8. Value Lived Experience: The provincial decriminalization framework must reflect ongoing
engagement with PWUD throughout policy development, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation.
9. Public Health and Health Equity (including Gender-based Analysis +): Our work must seek
to understand and address social inequities and social determinants of health faced by
diverse populations of PWUD and take into consideration how varying identity factors such
as gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability may impact how people experience policies
and initiatives related to decriminalization.
10. Public Safety: The provincial decriminalization framework must recognize law
enforcement’s role in protecting society by combatting organized crime and disrupting the
supply of illegal substances into BC communities through enforcement of laws pertaining to
the trafficking, production, and importation of illicit substances.
11. Comprehensiveness: BC’s framework for decriminalization should provide protection and
benefits for as many PWUD as possible, in a variety of contexts and situations. This includes
recognizing the community and social contexts of drug use, and that not all PWUD require
or desire treatment interventions.
4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DECRIMINALIZATION IN BC

This full s.56(1) exemption request builds upon a previous outline submitted to Health Canada
by providing additional details regarding the proposed approach to decriminalization in BC.
MMHA has worked with partners inside and outside of government to ensure that this
submission comprehensively addresses the key components flagged for inclusion by Health
Canada. This submission is intended to form the basis for ongoing dialogue with Health Canada,
wherein revisions and/or additions may be made to satisfy the requirements and expectations
of both the Province of BC and the federal government.

15
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The overarching goal of British Columbia’s decriminalization framework is the decriminalization
of personal possession of small amounts of illicit substances in BC. Criminalization and
associated stigmatization for substance use have a significant and negative impact on the social
environment and wellbeing of people who use drugs by contributing to self-stigma, social
isolation, lack of economic opportunity, reduced access to health and social services, and
societal exclusion, all leading to increased vulnerability to substance use harms including illicit
drug toxicity-related poisoning events and deaths. As part of a comprehensive strategy to save
lives, this framework and policy seeks to address criminalization as a social determinant of
health, reducing harms caused by criminalization and removing structural barriers to support
for people who use drugs and who are at high risk of drug poisoning death.
Decriminalization is expected to support the following long-term objectives:
• Reduce illicit drug poisoning events and deaths;

• Reduce barriers to accessing health services experienced by PWUD;
• Reduce structural and societal stigma;
• Reduce health, social, and economic harms associated with the criminalization of
substance use;
• Reduce PWUD reliance on toxic illicit drugs, and increase access to health and social
services, including safer supply;
• Increase engagement and retention in treatment and support services for people with
substance use disorders;
• Improve interactions between law enforcement and PWUD;
• Increase PWUD trust in law enforcement and criminal justice system;
• Improve ability of law enforcement and criminal justice system to prioritize serious
crime; and
• Increase socio-emotional well-being of PWUD.
Measurable progress towards outcomes above is unlikely to be achieved through

decriminalization alone. Progress also relies on other complementary system change
initiatives, such as expanding and improving health and social services to support PWUD and
addressing other social determinants of health such as poverty, housing, and systemic racism.
Shorter term objectives include:
• Increase PWUD awareness of and comfort with accessing health and social services;
• Increase voluntary and appropriate connections between PWUD and health and social
services;
• Increase public awareness of decriminalization and its role in reducing stigma;

16
• Increase public understanding of substance use as a public health issue;
• Increase law enforcement awareness and understanding of decriminalization policy and
health and social services;
• Improve interactions between law enforcement and PWUD regarding personal
possession of illicit substances, including providing law enforcement with information to
support PWUD to access health and social services;
• Reduce seizures, arrests, charges, penalties, and criminal records for simple possession;
• Decrease existing racial disparities in enforcement of federal law regarding simple
possession; and
• Reduce police and court time and resources spent on enforcement or prosecution of
personal possession.
Measurable progress on these objectives is expected within 1-5 years of implementation.
Appendix B contains a logic model summarizing the key inputs, outputs, and intended
outcomes of BC’s decriminalization framework. This model will continue to be refined through
engagement with stakeholders, including research and evaluation experts, and PWUD.
ELIGIBILITY
At this time, BC’s decriminalization framework will apply to adults at the provincial age of
majority (19 years and older) within the geographic boundaries of British Columbia. Further
work will address how decriminalization could be applied appropriately for youth and young
adults aged 12 to 18. BC recognizes that youth are vulnerable to substance use-related harms
and is committed to developing an evidence-based and equitable approach to addressing the
needs of youth within its decriminalization framework. It is also necessary to undertake
appropriate steps to reconcile the potential inclusion of youth with existing federal and
provincial legislation and regulations governing youth justice. Any approach to addressing youth
substance use within a provincial decriminalization framework will be developed with the
participation of youth with lived and living experience and designed to ensure that any
penalties for youth possession are no more punitive than those for adults.
MMHA will also continue to work with First Nations, Indigenous partners, and governance
organizations to determine how decriminalization could apply on individual First Nations
reserves.
DEFINING PERSONAL POSSESSION

Section 4(1) of the CDSA makes it an offence to possess a controlled substance. A charge under
s.4(1) is often referred to as “simple possession” in contrast to a charge of possession for the
purposes of trafficking under s.5(2) of the CDSA. The CDSA does not have a concept of

17
“personal possession”, which is what BC is asking the federal Ministers of Health and Mental
Health and Addictions to decriminalize.
In order to decriminalize personal possession, it is necessary to first define it. In BC’s

decriminalization framework, the exemption will only apply if the quantity of the substance
possessed qualifies as an amount for “personal use”. Those amounts will be set out as specified
quantities in a Schedule. The definition will also provide PWUD clarity regarding criteria under
which the exemption applies to them. A robust public education campaign will support
dissemination of clear public-facing messages regarding the exemption.
MMHA has worked closely with the CPT to determine an approach to defining personal
possession. This includes examining much of the available evidence on substance use and
personal possession patterns in BC and exploring options for a discretionary model or a model
of binding thresholds based on available data regarding personal use patterns. A dedicated
workshop was held with the CPT to review available evidence and discuss options for defining
personal possession, followed by a focused discussion regarding proposed threshold amounts.
While CPT members did not come to complete consensus on a recommendation for defining
personal possession, BC recommends binding thresholds.
4.3.1 Considerations
Guided by the overarching framework principles identified in section 4.2, the CPT identified
several key considerations for defining personal possession. The following questions were
developed to help determine options.
• Is the model clear and easy to communicate to PWUD, police, and the public?
• How do we account for people who use larger amounts (e.g., those with severe
substance use disorders)?
• How do we account for people who use more than one type of illicit substance?
• People often purchase or use substances within a social context, such as purchasing on
behalf of or to share with friends and/or family. This usually occurs without intent for
profit. How do we account for “social supply” within the definition of personal
possession?
• What guidance do law enforcement need to limit discretion?
• Individuals who live in or travel to rural areas, where illicit drugs may not be as readily
available, may routinely purchase larger amounts of drugs that are intended as a multi-
day supply. How can a definition of personal possession account for regional variation
and multi-day supply?
• How do we ensure the proposal meets the needs of Indigenous Peoples, People of
Colour, and people of low socio-economic status (e.g., unhoused people)?

18
• In what cases will people still be arrested? In what cases will people have their drugs
seized?
Three approaches to defining personal possession were considered and discussed with the CPT,
based on a review of approaches in other jurisdictions and careful consideration of strengths
and limitations of possible options within this s.56(1) exemption:
• Indicative Threshold: A flexible, suggested threshold range of an illicit substance that an

individual can possess for personal use. This option would allow for some discretion and
consideration of individual circumstances by law enforcement.
• Binding Threshold: A firm threshold indicating the maximum amount of an illicit
substance than an individual can possess for personal use. Discretion could still be
exercised by law enforcement for those in possession above thresholds (i.e., it does not
automatically indicate a charge such as trafficking). In this definition, binding thresholds
should be considered a floor, not a ceiling.
• No Thresholds: No recommendations on what constitutes a “personal amount” of a
substance. This allows for maximum law enforcement discretion.
Based on the principles and considerations identified above, most CPT members indicated a
preference for binding thresholds, assuming threshold levels accommodate for current patterns
of possession and consumption. Binding threshold floors also offer the advantage of having the
greatest ease of communication to PWUD, law enforcement and members of the public. This
option also limits police discretion below the threshold, thereby reducing the likelihood of
biased and discriminatory application of the exemption, while still allowing for consideration of
unique circumstances for people in possession above the threshold. Although MMHA
considered the option of pursuing an exemption without established thresholds, it was
determined that such a model would provide too much discretion and likely fail to achieve
desired short- and long-term objectives.
4.3.2 Data and Evidence

For thresholds to be effective, they must be set to reflect actual patterns of use and possession.
Otherwise, many PWUD will continue to possess amounts over the threshold limit and remain
at risk of criminalization. Thresholds that are too low have been found to be ineffective and
diminish progress overall on the objectives of decriminalization. For example, in Mexico,
because binding thresholds were set extremely low, rates of drug-related arrests and criminal
proceedings have continued to rise,35 as have the numbers of people charged with trafficking.36
Russia has also set low thresholds that, combined with a punitive enforcement culture, have
35
Talking Drugs. Drug Decriminalization Across the World.
36
Office of the Provincial Health Officer, pg. 26

19
resulted in a lack of real drug policy reform. Conversely, setting thresholds too high may
impede law enforcement’s ability to conduct trafficking investigations.37
To help inform the potential development of threshold levels for decriminalization, researchers
(DeBeck., et al) developed a methodology for estimating drug consumption volumes based on
self-reported data from existing research studies of PWUD in Vancouver.38 Due to study
limitations, including measurement limitations and the timeframe of data (current to 2018
only), the researchers emphasize that the estimates produced from this methodology are
conservative and expected to underestimate the current volumes of drug consumption. They
are also focused on only a few classes of drugs (i.e., opioids and stimulants), and thus do not
provide guidance on other substances, such as psychedelics.
Figure 1: DeBeck et al estimated drug consumption volumes
In addition to the research conducted by DeBeck et al., in early 2021 the Vancouver Area
Network of Drug Users (VANDU) partnered with a local researcher to conduct a rapid survey of
PWUD to generate additional information regarding daily use and purchasing patterns. VANDU
recommended threshold amounts based on average daily purchase amounts and 90-95 percent
coverage (respondents not vulnerable to arrest for possession under these thresholds).39 It
37
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). Decriminalization for Simple Possession of Illicit Drugs: Exploring
Impacts on Public Safety and Policing. Special Purpose Committee on the Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs. (2020).
https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=2189
38
DeBeck, K., et al. Methodology to Estimate Drug Consumption Volumes to Inform Threshold Determinations
(September 2021) [Powerpoint Slides].
39
VANDU. VANDU Decrim Study Results (May 2021) [PowerPoint Slides].

20
should be noted that the VANDU survey did not address polysubstance use or cumulative
possession and purchasing patterns. While other regional drug user groups and researchers are
interested in surveying PWUD in their communities on local purchasing and consumption
patterns, current data reflects PWUD in Vancouver only. Consultation with provincial
stakeholders suggests that PWUD outside of the Vancouver (particularly those living in rural or
remote parts of BC) are likely to purchase and carry a multi-day supply for personal use due to
limited local availability of drugs for purchase, transportation issues, and in some cases higher
income and ability to purchase more supply at a given time.
Drugs Use quantities Purchase quantities Recommended Recommended
per day (average at one time thresholds: thresholds:
– max range) (average-max range) 95% Coverage 90% coverage
Fentanyl 0.75 - 5.0g 0.5-3.5g 10.00 4.50
Heroin 0.40 - 3.5g 0.5-3.5g 5.00 3.25
Cocaine 0.61 – 7.0g 0.5-2.0g 6.00 4.00
Crack 1.0 -14.0g 0.5-3.5g 6.00 4.00
Methamph 0.5 -7.0g 0.5-3.0g 28.00 10.00
-etamine
Figure 2: VANDU estimated drug consumption and purchase volumes
The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) has published data provided in response to a Freedom
of Information (FOI) request on drug seizures from May 2019 to June 2020.40 This data includes
drug type and quantity seized by the VPD over the period. 41 For the purposes of this
submission, the RCMP “E” Division has also provided a report to the BC Government on drug
seizure occurrences, quantities, and charges for possession from 2018 to 2020. 42 This data
provides additional context for drug quantities commonly held and seized by police in BC.
MMHA has also consulted with clinical experts to inform the development of appropriate
thresholds. Addictions medicine physicians around the province have observed that tolerance
levels have increased in recent years due to higher concentrations of illicit fentanyl, leading to
higher consumption quantities, particularly for opioids. Although use varies widely,
consumption for people with substance use disorders can be as high as 3.5g/day.
40
Vancouver Police Department. Records Access Request. (July, 2020). https://vpd.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2021/06/seized-illicit-substances-may-17-2019-to-june-9-20.pdf
41
MMHA team is grateful to researcher Dr. Geoff Bardwell for translating the seizure data from a PDF to a
workable spreadsheet, and to Erica McAdam, a graduate student at Simon Fraser University for sharing her
analysis of seizure quantities against varying threshold levels.
42
RCMP “E” Division Criminal Operations Core Policing. (2021). Illicit Street and Pharmaceutical Drug Occurrences
& Total Drug Possession Charges “E” Division (20118-2020).

21
4.3.3 Recommendation
Based on the available data and extensive consultation, BC seeks to establish a cumulative
binding threshold quantity at 4.5g, with no drug seizures, arrests, or charges for simple
possession at or below this amount. Phase one of BC’s exemption request seeks to set a
threshold for those substances most commonly involved in illicit drug poisoning deaths;
however, MMHA is committed to working with Health Canada and CPT stakeholders to develop
appropriate thresholds for other illicit substances (e.g., MDMA and psilocybin) in phase two.
We recognize that those who use multiple substances may possess higher cumulative
quantities than people who primarily use one type of substance, and that polysubstance use is
common. A common example of this is co-use of crystal methamphetamine with opioids.
Crystal methamphetamine was the most commonly used substance among clients of harm
reduction sites in BC in 2018 and 2019, and was frequently used concurrently with opioids. 43 As
such, we will seek to work with Health Canada, researchers, and people with lived experience
to evaluate any disproportionate impact of a cumulative threshold on polysubstance users and
adjust our approach if required. We propose an annual review (at minimum) of the proposed
threshold quantity alongside monitoring and evaluation data, which could result in either a
change in the cumulative binding threshold floor or the setting of thresholds for individual
substances.
Substance Cumulative Binding Threshold Floor for Personal Use

Opioids (including heroin and fentanyl)
Powder cocaine and crack cocaine 4.5g
Methamphetamine
This cumulative, binding threshold will be simple and clear to communicate to the public,
PWUD, and police agencies operating in the province. The threshold quantity is a floor, below
which nobody found in possession would be subject to confiscation of drugs, arrest, or charge
for simple possession. This model limits police discretion and reduces the risk of inequitable
application of the exemption based on bias and discrimination. Above the threshold, law
enforcement will continue to exercise discretion regarding whether to confiscate drugs or
arrest an individual for simple possession. Officers may still choose not to seize drugs or arrest
for amounts above the threshold floor if they feel that the individual circumstances do not
warrant such a response. Police discretion would continue to be governed by federal guidelines
which advise the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to avoid pursuing charges for simple
possession except in the most serious cases when there is a risk to the public. Due to variations
43
Papamihali, K., Collins, D., Karamouzian, M., Purssell, R., Graham, B., & Buxton, J. (2021). Crystal
methamphetamine use in British Columbia, Canada: A cross-sectional study of people who access harm reduction
services. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0252090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252090

22
in drug purchasing and possession patterns in rural and remote areas, it is expected that law
enforcement will use appropriate discretion for amounts for personal use that are above the
cumulative binding threshold floor. Similar discretion will be recommended to accommodate
individuals with severe substance use disorder and/or polysubstance use.
BC’s exemption request does not seek to exempt individuals from the charge of possession for
the purpose of trafficking (PPT) under the CDSA. Therefore, police will maintain their authority
under current law to arrest and/or seize drugs where evidence of an intent to traffic exists,
even if amounts of substances in possession are below threshold quantities.
Informed by available data from DeBeck et al and VANDU, a cumulative 4.5g threshold floor
would likely accommodate multi-day supply for many PWUD who primarily use one substance
(e.g., opioids or crystal methamphetamine), as well as some limited amounts of “social supply”
(i.e., substances possessed with intention to share with another individual where there is no
motivation to profit). Based on drug seizure data provided by VPD and RCMP, there is evidence
that eliminating seizures for personal possession below recommended threshold amounts
could reduce overall seizures significantly.44 When an individual who is living in poverty and
struggling with substance use disorder has their drugs seized, they are often put into desperate
and unsafe situations when seeking to replace their drugs. This includes incurring drug debts,
and/or turning to property crime or survival sex work. Therefore, by significantly reducing the
numbers of drug seizures, BC’s decriminalization framework has the potential to reduce harms
by decreasing property crime, increasing safety of PWUD, and improving interactions between
police and PWUD. While data on consumption and possession patterns outside of Vancouver is
limited, this approach would also provide coverage for some degree of regional variation.
4.3.4 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

CPT members, partners and stakeholders were not all aligned in their recommendations for
threshold amounts. While PWUD, clinical experts, researchers, and Indigenous partners
advocated for thresholds to be set at recommended levels based on available evidence, guiding
principles, and the perspectives of people with lived experience of substance use, policing
partners expressed concern that the recommended levels were too high.
The majority of CPT members were opposed to confiscation of personal amounts of illicit
substances under recommended thresholds. However, support for exempting drug seizures was
mixed amongst law enforcement agencies, as some perceived potential risks and liabilities in
allowing individuals to remain in possession of toxic illicit substances.
MMHA will work with BC’s Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General to mitigate any risks
and concerns associated with limiting drug seizures below the thresholds, including a legal
44
MMHA will work with policing partners to quantify this impact as part of our evaluation plan.

23
review of potential liabilities, a comprehensive change management approach, and rigorous
monitoring and evaluation.
ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES

Many jurisdictions that have pursued decriminalization have put in place a range of
administrative sanctions as alternatives to criminal penalties. These sanctions sometimes
include fines, confiscation of drugs, mandatory education or treatment, and/or confiscation of
documents. Widespread confiscation of drugs has also continued in areas of BC where forms of
de facto decriminalization exist, such as the City of Vancouver.
MMHA held a workshop with CPT members and others on September 10, 2021 to discuss and
formulate recommendations on alternatives to criminalization. This workshop revealed
widespread opposition to inclusion of administrative sanctions or any alternatives that could be
perceived as coercive, as these may contribute to further criminalization, stigma,
discrimination, and a lack of trust in the health and social service system for PWUD.
As such, BC’s framework proposes to exclude alternative administrative sanctions and

penalties such as fines, seizure of documents, or mandatory referral to education or
treatment.
In keeping with Canada’s obligations under international human rights and drug treaty
conventions to which it is a signatory, and by recommendation of the CPT, BC is committed to
offering alternative health and social service pathways to people found in possession of drugs
meeting the criteria for personal possession.45
BC’s decriminalization framework proposes that, as an alternative to criminalization, all

individuals found in possession of personal amounts of substances at or below the threshold
will be provided with information regarding local health and social services, as well as
additional assistance to connect with services if desired. Harm reduction supply provision may
also be provided where appropriate.
4.4.1 Provision of Information and Harm Reduction Supplies

Police will, at a minimum, provide people found to be in possession of small amounts of illicit
substances for personal use with information about how to access local health and social
supports.
45
Including, but not limited to, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948), the Single Convention on
Narcotic Drugs (1961), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971), and the Convention against Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988).

24
Provision of information would take the form of a pamphlet or card with a standardized
preamble as well as Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA)46-specific information on available
treatment, safer supply options, harm reduction and supervised consumption sites, drug
checking services, peer-led services, social services, Indigenous-specific services, and traditional
treatment approaches. Individuals would not be required to follow up with any of these
services but could choose to self-refer. When an individual requests it of them, police could
assist with a referral. An example of the types of services that could be included in these lists is
included in Appendix D. If this submission is approved, MMHA will work with Health
Authorities, social service providers and people with lived and living experience to develop
resource lists for all HSDAs and ensure that they are safe, relevant, up to date and inclusive of
peer-led supports as available.
Subject to funding and necessary policy arrangements, BC will also equip RCMP detachments
and municipal and First Nations police departments with harm reduction supplies such as Take-
Home Naloxone kits and drug checking supplies to offer to individuals.
4.4.2 Voluntary Referrals

Stakeholder opposition to mandatory referrals to addiction treatment or other services was
near-unanimous. Members of the CPT stated that mandatory referrals are rarely effective,
perpetuate the belief that all substance use requires treatment interventions, and further
stigmatize PWUD. Regional Health Authorities have also suggested that because clinicians take
a patient-centred, trauma-informed approach to supporting PWUD, there would be little
support for any model wherein referrals would be perceived as mandatory or coercive in
nature.
BC has taken a nuanced approach to defining “voluntary referrals”. Police will not proactively
refer individuals to health or social services, as PWUD may feel obligated to accept a referral
from a member of law enforcement. However, assistance may be provided to those who would
like a referral or require assistance to initiate a referral. Under this arrangement police would
not collect health information such as a BC Personal Health Number, although collection of
minimal identifying information such as name and birthdate may be required. Other
intermediaries such as peer support or outreach workers could also fulfill this role during their
own interactions with PWUD.
In addition to preserving the choice and autonomy of PWUD, the inclusion of voluntary
referrals to a range of services under BC’s decriminalization model represents an
46
Each Regional Health Authority contains three geographically bounded Health Service Delivery Areas (HSDAs),
which are in turn divided into a number of Local Health Areas. HSDA boundaries are used for administrative
purposes such as demographic data analysis and to group and classify the community-level health services
provided within them.

25
acknowledgement that treatment is not indicated for everyone who uses illicit substances.
According to the BC Coroners Service Illicit Drug Overdose Death Review Panel findings, at least
10 percent of those who died of illicit drug poisoning were not regular users, meaning that they
would not meet the criteria for substance use disorder.47 Furthermore, as noted by BC’s
Provincial Health Officer, substance use occurs along a continuum, with one end representing
beneficial and/or cultural use. For individuals engaging in forms of non-problematic substance
use, any harms are primarily associated with the potential contamination of their drugs as a
result of BC’s poisoned illicit drug supply.48 Although referral to overdose prevention, drug
checking, or other harm reduction services may be beneficial for these individuals, treatment
interventions are not necessary.
HEALTH SYSTEM READINESS

While significant work is underway to build up BC’s substance use system of care, our Regional
Health Authorities offer a continuum of substance use services, which range from specialized
treatment to harm reduction programming and novel safer supply programs that provide
pharmaceutical alternatives to the illicit drug supply. BC is continuing to strengthen the
substance use system of care and is currently developing a framework that would bring
together these and other services in a coordinated and comprehensive way.
The following is a high-level list of services that are available in all BC health regions and are
continuing to be scaled up by Regional Health Authorities in partnership with the Ministry of
Health and MMHA:
• Harm reduction services: Take-Home Naloxone, harm reduction supplies, drug checking
services, and overdose prevention and supervised consumption sites (including
supervised inhalation);
• Medication-assisted treatment: Expanded access to evidence-based medications for
substance use disorders (including through nurse prescribing) such as
buprenorphine/naloxone, methadone, and Kadian™ (opioid agonist treatment) and
acamprosate for alcohol use disorder;
• Community-based treatment and recovery: Access to community-based mental health
and substance use treatment and support, including psychosocial supports, group
counselling, and intake/referral to specialized treatment programs through regional and
local community clinics;
• Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT)
47
BC Coroners Service. (2018.) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/birth-adoption-death-marriage-and-
divorce/deaths/coroners-service/death-review-panel/bccs_illicit_drug_overdose_drp_report.pdf
48
Office of the Provincial Health Officer, p. 4.

26
• Prescribed safer supply: Programs and policies are aimed at increasing available
pharmaceutical alternatives to toxic illicit drugs;49
• Enhanced harm reduction services, including managed alcohol programs for people with
alcohol use disorder, and contingency management for people with stimulant use
disorder;
• Bed-based services, including withdrawal management, treatment, and recovery;
• Mental health and substance use supports for youth, including Foundry centres and
bed-based treatment and recovery care for youth and young adults; and
• Community outreach programs for people at risk of overdose, including Overdose
Outreach Teams, Intensive Case Management Teams, and Assertive Community
Treatment Teams.
REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
BC’s population is spread across many municipalities, unincorporated areas, and First Nations.
Overall, BC has 162 municipalities and 198 distinct First Nations. Seven of the top 10 most
populated municipalities are in the Metro Vancouver area, with a combined population
accounting for roughly half of BC’s overall population.50
Under the Police Act, municipalities with populations of 5,000 and over must provide law
enforcement by forming their own police department, contracting with an existing department,
or contracting with the provincial government for RCMP police services. Twelve municipalities
have their own police forces and 63 have contracts with the Province for RCMP services. The
Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service is the only Tribal Police Service in BC, providing policing services
to St'at'imc Nation communities. Several other agencies and integrated teams provide
supplemental or dedicated policing. These include the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, an
enhanced police force at the Vancouver International Airport, and integrated teams throughout
the province.
The Ministry of Health and MMHA partner with the Provincial Health Services Authority, five
Regional Health Authorities, and the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) to provide health
services across BC. This regionalized approach allows for services to be planned and delivered in
ways that meet the unique needs of specific regions and communities. These benefits are
evident in the range of innovative community-based substance use services that have been
developed across the province in response to the illicit drug toxicity crisis. Regional Health
49
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2021MMHA0035-001375
50
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/data/statistics/people-population-
community/population/pop_subprovincial_population_highlights.pdf

27
Authorities, the Ministry of Health and MMHA use sixteen geographic Health Service Delivery
Areas51 to plan and provide health program delivery and services to BC’s population.
FNHA represents a new relationship between First Nations, the Province of BC, and the
Government of Canada. FNHA aims to improve health outcomes for First Nations people in
British Columbia. FNHA is responsible for:
• Planning, managing, delivering and funding First Nations health programs and services
previously provided by Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch;
• Working with BC’s Ministry of Health and health authorities to address service gaps and
improve health outcomes for First Nations in BC; and
• Improving the quality, accessibility, delivery, effectiveness and cultural appropriateness
of health-care programs and services for First Nations.
MMHA is engaging with representatives from FNHA, the Union of BC Municipalities and its
members, Regional Health Authorities, municipal police, and the RCMP to ensure that BC’s
decriminalization framework is implemented in a safe and effective way to meet its core goals
and objectives.
4.6.1 Rural and Remote Considerations

Although most of the population in BC is concentrated in large and medium-sized
municipalities, a significant proportion of the population, including many Indigenous Peoples,
reside in rural and remote environments with unique barriers for timely health and social
service delivery. These barriers are the result of a variety of factors, including geographic
remoteness, low population density, challenges in recruitment and retention of health and
social service providers, limited mobile network coverage and access to internet services, and
inclement weather conditions affecting transportation and telecommunications. BC’s approach
to decriminalization will consider the needs of people living in rural and remote areas by
working with Regional Health Authorities to identify services able to support PWUD in each
HSDA. As evidenced by the approach to defining simple possession and alternative pathways,
BC is also actively engaged with municipal partners, and drug user advocacy groups to
understand and respond to the specific needs of PWUD in rural and remote communities.
BC also recognizes that for PWUD living in rural and remote regions of the province, purchasing
patterns of illicit substances may differ from those living in urban centres. Furthermore, some
of the barriers to accessing treatment and services in rural and remote areas (e.g.,
transportation issues) also impact drug purchasing patterns. These factors can lead PWUD living
or working in rural and remote areas to purchase larger, multi-day supplies of illicit substances,
likely in excess of 4.5g. As such, future phases of implementation may wish to consider higher
51
https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/health-service-delivery-area-boundaries

28
threshold quantities for these regions. This would require significant data collection and
stakeholder consultation activities, including with First Nations located in rural and remote
areas.
APPROACH TO UNIQUE POPULATIONS (GBA+)

BC’s decriminalization framework has been developed using gender-based analysis plus (GBA+)
to assess how diverse groups of people may experience and be affected by the policies and
approaches taken. This analysis goes beyond sex and gender and includes the examination of a
range of intersecting identity factors (e.g., Indigeneity, age, education, language, race, ability,
class etc).
4.7.1 Youth
BC’s decriminalization framework seeks alignment with existing federal and provincial
legislation and regulations. BC’s decriminalization framework proposes to define youth in a way
that is consistent with the age of majority (19 years of age) used in provincial regulation of legal
psychoactive substances like alcohol and cannabis. However, it is recognized that individuals 18
years of age are adults under the CDSA. Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), youth aged
12 to 17 who have committed a criminal offense may be dealt with through alternative or
extrajudicial measures rather than pursuing criminal charges. If the offence is nonviolent (e.g.,
personal possession of controlled substances) and the youth has no previous offences, a police
officer must consider this route. This may involve taking no further action, or, in the case of
possession of illicit substances, may include referral to community or health services. In cases of
multiple or more serious offences, Crown counsel may approve an extrajudicial sanction such as
participation in counselling as an alternative to a criminal charge.
Given the separate legislation governing youth justice and additional safety concerns, as well as
the fact that individuals 18 years of age are no longer subject to the YCJA and are treated as
adults under federal drug law, further discussion with Health Canada is needed to determine
how a decriminalization framework may apply to youth/young people. MMHA is also liaising
with leadership from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and other stakeholders
to explore all options and determine if special considerations are required to meet the needs of
youth/young people under BC’s decriminalization framework.
4.7.2 Indigenous Peoples

MMHA has taken a distinctions-based approach to consulting with Indigenous partners and
leaders in BC, seeking input from Indigenous leadership based on their preferred methods and
tables of consultation. A key area of policy development in the implementation planning phase
will focus on determining how or if the s.56(1) exemption could or would be applied to First
Nations reserves in BC. BC is committed to ensuring that alternative pathways identified as

29
appropriate for inclusion in BC’s decriminalization framework are culturally safe and trauma-
informed.
4.7.3 Other Identity Factors

As part of engagement with the CPT, as well as discussions with other stakeholders, several
other identity factors have been identified as having an impact on how an individual may
experience criminalization for substance use, or, conversely, decriminalization. If BC’s
submission is approved, MMHA will continue to work with partners and stakeholders to
address and respond to these factors where possible and mitigate unintended consequences
for specific groups of people. These include:
• Racialized people/People of Colour who face systemic racism in the criminal justice and
health care systems;
• Immigrants, refugees, and international students who may fear that accessing health
and support services for substance use will jeopardize their legal status;
• Women and gender-diverse individuals who engage in sex work, who may be more
vulnerable to experiencing violence and may fear seeking assistance from police due to
substance use and fear of criminalization;
• LGBTQ2S+ individuals who use substances may have longstanding distrust of police and
health systems due to experiences of discrimination;
• Parents who fear investigation and loss of custody due to substance use;
• People who work in labour and trade industries who are disproportionately represented
among people poisoned by illicit drugs, and who may work in remote locations for
extended periods and purchase substances in higher quantities; and
• People with disabilities, including chronic pain, who may have unique reasons for
seeking illicit substances and face unique barriers to accessing appropriate health and
social supports.
APPROACH TO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES

MMHA has undertaken work with government partners and the CPT to address intersections
between the decriminalization framework and other existing legislation and regulation,
including public safety concerns regarding personal possession while operating a motor vehicle,
local government bylaws and regulations surrounding consumption in public places,
considerations related to child welfare, and mental health and safety concerns.
4.8.1 Personal Possession in a Motor Vehicle

Under Canadian and BC legislation and regulations, adults can operate a vehicle with alcohol or
cannabis in it as long as the product is contained in its unopened original packaging, or not
readily accessible to the driver and any passengers (e.g., in the trunk). During the
implementation planning phase, MMHA will work with the CPT and government partners to

30
determine a clear policy for how BC’s decriminalization framework will approach possession of
personal amounts of other drugs while operating a motor vehicle.
Section 320.14(1) of the Criminal Code makes operating a motor vehicle while impaired by any
psychoactive substance a criminal offence. Police presently possess a variety of enforcement
tools to manage public safety concerns regarding impaired driving, regardless of the
psychoactive substance used. This will not be affected by the exemption application. The
Province does not anticipate that its application for a s.56(1) exemption for personal possession
will lead to increased rates of impaired driving but we will be monitoring closely for this
potential impact.
4.8.2 Public Consumption

Health Canada has previously indicated that a s.56(1) exemption request for decriminalization
should consider the risk of increased public consumption of illicit substances. A systematic
review of all available evaluation studies of the impacts of decriminalization on subsequent
drug use trends found that, in the majority of jurisdictions that have implemented some form
of decriminalization, drug use did not increase following implementation.52 This includes
Portugal, which remains the most highly studied example of decriminalization of personal
possession of illicit substances globally.53 As such, the Provincial Government does not
anticipate that our decriminalization framework will increase overall population prevalence of
substance use, or public consumption. Although police have ongoing concerns regarding
potential impacts to public consumption, officers will continue to have enforcement tools,
including laws prohibiting trespassing and public intoxication. Risk mitigation strategies to limit
the likelihood of increased public consumption will need to balance public safety risks with the
need to ensure that PWUD are not subject to increased enforcement and driven to use drugs
alone, where risk of illicit drug toxicity death is elevated.
IMPLEMENTATION
To realize the objectives of decriminalization, policymakers must pay significant attention to
how BC’s decriminalization framework will be implemented on the ground in communities.
4.9.1 Implementation at Different Stages of the Criminal Justice System

CPT members have raised questions concerning how an exemption would apply to people who
have an active criminal case file regarding a charge for simple possession in BC, and whether
52
Scheim, A.I., Maghsoudi, N., Marhsall, Z., Churchill, S., Ziegler, C., and Werb, D. “Impact evaluations of drug
decriminalisation and legal regulation on drug use, health and social harms: a systematic review.” British Medical
Journal Open 2020, 10:e035148. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035148
53
Hughes, C.E. and Stevens, A. (2010). “What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs?”
The British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), pp. 999-1022.

31
previous criminal records for simple possession could be expunged. MMHA is committed to
working with Health Canada and its partners in the criminal justice system to explore these
questions.
4.9.2 Police Training

If granted an exemption from the CDSA, MMHA will work with its policing partners and Health
Authorities to develop a range of training resources to support knowledge and full
implementation of the decriminalization framework amongst front-line police officers across
BC. The BCCDC has expertise in this area, having worked with police forces to develop resources
to support officer knowledge and application of the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act.
Examples of training resources are included in Appendix C.
4.9.3 Public Education

MMHA has a public engagement team and a dedicated annual budget to develop and run
public campaigns supporting overdose awareness. These existing resources will be leveraged to
launch an education and awareness campaign to inform British Columbians about the
decriminalization framework. The public engagement team has expertise in social marketing,
production of web- and television-based advertisements, and can draw on a network of
branding and communications agencies. The team is also committed to working with PWUD to
ensure that messages resonate with those most impacted by the illicit drug poisoning crisis.
Workplaces represent a specific context in which education will be particularly relevant, both
for employers and employees. MMHA will work with its partners inside and outside of
government to support employers in developing workplace policies on personal possession of
illicit substances, where required.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION

If a s.56(1) exemption is approved, MMHA will lead the oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of
BC’s decriminalization framework, including working with internal and external evaluation
partners to monitor progress toward objectives, intended outcomes, unintended
consequences, and other issues, risks, and risk mitigation strategies on an ongoing basis.
BC is home to public universities and research institutions that are world leaders in substance
use research, uniquely positioning the province to develop a significant body of research
literature and implementation science regarding the Province’s decriminalization policy. A
comprehensive evaluation plan will require partnerships with various research institutions, law
enforcement agencies, and people with lived experience of substance use. It will also require
access to a range of provincial administrative datasets from health and justice stakeholders, as
well as qualitative data generated in partnership with people with lived and living experience,
and policing partners.

32
MMHA has convened a Decriminalization Research and Evaluation Committee with leading
researchers and experts, including representatives of the BCCDC, BC Centre on Substance Use
(BCCSU), Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research (CISUR), FNHA, as well as members
with lived and living experience of substance use. The committee will develop key indicators,
explore the use of administrative data to track progress on indicators, and determine key
qualitative research needed to support comprehensive evaluation. If a s.56(1) exemption is
granted, BC will submit a detailed evaluation plan to Health Canada. Below are a few examples
of indicators and data sources that will be explored.
Intended Outcomes Indicators (draft examples Potential Data Sources

only)
Reduction in illicit drug # of deaths officially attributed BC Coroners Service data
poisoning events and deaths to illicit drug poisoning
BC Emergency Health Services
# of illicit drug poisoning- data
related calls responded to by
BC Emergency Health Services
Reduction in arrests and # of criminal cases with simple Statistics Canada data on adult
charges for simple possession possession as the most serious criminal cases and charges
offence (MSO)
Reduction in drug seizures # of drug seizure events under Municipal police department data
under the threshold for threshold quantities RCMP data
personal possession
Increased voluntary and # of connections with health Health Link BC
appropriate health service services where police were Health Authorities
referrals cited as the
referral/information source
Law enforcement awareness # of police officers that have Attendance/participation data on
and understanding of attended training/information new training/information sessions
decriminalization policy, sessions on decriminalization
health and social services # of police officers that report Participant Survey (TBD)
implementing decriminalization
policy in practice
Increased public awareness # of people reached by BC Stats Survey (TBD)
of decriminalization and its decriminalization awareness
role in reducing stigma campaign materials
5 CONCLUSION
BC has faced a public health emergency relating to high rates of illicit drug toxicity deaths since
2016, with over 7,500 lives lost in the past five years, and countless others impacted by non-
fatal illicit drug poisonings, stress and burnout from crisis response efforts, and the pain of

33
bereavement. The Province is committed to using every tool at our disposal to bring this crisis
to an end. BC has a history of bold and innovative drug policy, but further action is urgently
needed. Therefore, under an urgent public health need, the Province is pursuing a s.56(1)
exemption to decriminalize personal possession of illicit substances in BC. Decriminalization will
help to address the stigma that prevents so many from reaching out for the services and
support they need.
BC’s decriminalization framework seeks to complement a comprehensive response to the illicit

drug poisoning emergency. This submission was developed with input from key partners and
stakeholders, including people with lived and living experience, clinical leaders, public health
experts and practitioners, drug policy experts, law enforcement, Indigenous partners, Regional
Health Authorities, and municipalities.
This submission expands upon an initial outline provided to Health Canada by detailing key
details of BC’s plan for the decriminalization of personal possession. These include intended
outcomes, eligibility, a definition of what constitutes “personal possession”, alternatives to
criminal penalties, and a plan for implementation including training and public education. The
framework considers the nuances of how decriminalization would work in different regions, for
specific populations (including Indigenous Peoples), and in unique circumstances. Finally, the
framework commits to strong monitoring and evaluation to ensure that intended outcomes are
realized and to support evidence-based adjustments to our approach throughout the
implementation phase. Given the significant public support for decriminalization, BC’s proposal
provides the federal government with an opportunity to generate a timely body of
implementation science to support drug policy reform elsewhere in the country and world.
This submission is intended to inform ongoing dialogue between Health Canada and MMHA
leading to a s.56(1) exemption. MMHA is committed to ensuring that our approach meets the
requirements of the federal government and we look forward to continuing to work together
on this important act of drug policy reform.

34
6 APPENDIX A
Core Planning Table Member Organizations
Peer Organizations
Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users
Society of Living Illicit Drug Users (Victoria)
Coalition of Substance Users of the North (Quesnel)
Society for Narcotic and Opioid Wellness (Dawson Creek)
Rural Empowered Drug Users Network (Nelson / Grand Forks)
BC Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors (province-wide)
Indigenous Partners
First Nations Health Authority
Métis Nation BC
BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres
BC First Nations Justice Council
Police
RCMP
BC Association of Chiefs of Police
Vancouver Police Department
Municipalities
Union of BC Municipalities

35
City of Vancouver
City of Kamloops
Additional Partners
BC Centre on Substance Use
BC Centre for Disease Control
Pivot Legal Society
Government Members/Secretariat
Ministry of Mental Health and Ally Butler, Executive Director of Substance Use
Addictions and Strategic Initiatives (Co-Chair)
Chris Van Veen, Senior Director (Co-Chair)
Meg Emslie, Director
Secretariat Support
Stephanie Taylor, Senior Policy Analyst
Danielle Parish, Senior Policy Analyst
Ministry of Health Kenneth Tupper, Director of Substance Use
Prevention and Harm Reduction
Office of the Provincial Health Officer Dr. Daniele Behn-Smith, Deputy Provincial Health
Officer, Indigenous Health
Dr. Brian Emerson, A/Deputy Provincial Health
Officer
Ministry of the Attorney General
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Brian Sims, Executive Director of Policing and
Public Safety Security
Matt Brown, Director of Policing Operations
Ministry of Children and Family Wendy Norris, Manager, Strategic Child Welfare
Development and Reconciliation Policy
Rose Anne Van Mierlo, Director, Youth Justice
Program Support

36
7 APPENDIX B
The following logic model summarizes inputs, outputs, and immediate and longer-term
outcomes of our proposal.
Inputs Outputs Short-Term Outcomes Long-Term

Outcomes54
Section 56(1) Definition of simple Reduced police and court time and Reduction in illicit drug
exemption possession / resources spent on enforcement of poisoning events and
thresholds personal possession deaths
*Policy restricting
seizures under Reduction in seizures, arrests, charges, Reduction in health,
threshold amounts criminal penalties, and criminal social, and economic
records for simple possession for harms associated with
PWUD criminalization of
substance use
Health and social Decreased racial and other disparities
Stakeholder service referral in enforcement of simple possession Reduction in PWUD
input into policy pathways and reliance on toxic illicit
design resources Increased voluntary and appropriate drugs and increase
connections between PWUD and access to health and
health and social services social services
Guidelines and Law enforcement awareness and Reduction in barriers to

training for law understanding of decriminalization accessing health services
enforcement policy, health, and social services experienced by PWUD
Reduced and improved interactions Increased engagement

between law enforcement and PWUD and retention in
regarding personal possession treatment and supports
for people with
substance use disorders
Improved interactions
between law
enforcement and PWUD
Increased PWUD trust in

law enforcement and
criminal justice system
54
Long term objectives of decriminalization are unlikely to be achieved through decriminalization alone. Progress on these
objectives is expected to take years and relies on other complementary system change initiatives, such as expanding and
improving health and social services to support PWUD and addressing social determinants of health such as poverty, housing,
and systemic racism.

37
Improved ability of law
enforcement and
criminal justice system
to prioritize serious
crime
Increased public awareness of Reduced stigma

Public awareness decriminalization and its role in experienced by PWUD
campaign reducing stigma
Increased socio-
Increased public understanding of emotional well-being of
substance use as a public health issue PWUD

38
8 APPENDIX C
The following list contains examples of BC-specific resources developed to promote police
officer education and awareness of the federal Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Awareness Act.
‘Test Your Knowledge’ Quiz:
https://towardtheheart.com/assets/uploads/1618262317VlUle50ZLLqMaxqcobmVNfdFeBC95
WjEqYhrOwV.pdf
Training Slide Deck:
https://towardtheheart.com/assets/uploads/1625680068BGJmmCAyxkIwZo8vENGBQElBc6Oss
oL0teYImdz.pdf
GSDOA Poster:
https://towardtheheart.com/assets/uploads/1505411688Qgm0PwNT8IxIogPhlnwYhaFnm6NpIc
ikCfb2EY2.pdf
GSDOA Wallet Cards:
https://towardtheheart.com/assets/uploads/1526595325dttSdJc37OH9Y8aecNPDo1PlR5KsP2h
7KaWZcgE.pdf

39
9 APPENDIX D
The following tables include examples of provincial and Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA)
resources that could be included in service information cards provided by police to people
found in possession of personal amounts of illicit substances. The formatting may look different
in the final information products.
Table 1: Provincial Services
Provincial Services
Type Service Contact Information
(all services 24/7 unless otherwise stated)
Supervised Lifeguard App
Consumption Safer use smart phone app with timer and https://lifeguarddh.com/products/lifeguard-
& automatic emergency responder contact if no app/
Harm response following use
Reduction Toward the Heart
Information on harm reduction services including https://towardtheheart.com/
take home naloxone training and harm reduction
supply locations
Crisis Lines BC Suicide support line: 1-800-784-2433
Emotional support, crisis and suicide Mental Health Support Line: 310-6789
assessment/intervention and resource Seniors Distress Line: 604-872-1234
information Youth Chat: www.YouthInBC.com (noon-1am)
Adult Chat: https://crisiscentrechat.ca/
(noon-1am)
Crisis Support Local crisis lines:
https://www.crisislines.bc.ca/mapcrisis-lines
Hope for Wellness Help line: (nationwide) 1-855-242-3310
24 hr immediate mental health counselling and
crisis intervention for all Indigenous people across
Canada
Kuu-Us Crisis Line Society – Indigenous-focused Adults/Elders line: 250-723-4050

crisis support located on Nuu-Chah-Nulth Youth line: 250-723-2040
Territory, but provides crisis support to Toll free: 1-800-588-8717
Indigenous people across BC
Overnight BC211 2-1-1
Shelter and Connection to Shelter and Street Help Line, http://shelters.bc211.ca/bc211shelters
Drop In shelter availability (Lower mainland only) (updated daily with availability)
BC Housing Emergency Shelter and Drop In https://www.bchousing.org/housing-
List and map of all shelters and drop-in services assistance/homelessness-
supported by BC Housing services/emergency-shelter-map
Access to Health Link BC / 8-1-1 8-1-1
treatment and Health service navigators can help find health https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/
information information or health services, or connect you
about health with a nurse, dietitian, or pharmacist.
services BC211 2-1-1
https://bc211.ca/

40
Community resource navigation and link to info@bc211.ca
specialized help lines including Alcohol and Drug Phone, text, email and webchat available
Information and Referral Line
Wellbeing https://wellbeing.gov.bc.ca/
B.C.'s official resource for mental health,
substance use, and addictions support
First Nations First Nation’s Virtual Doctor of the Day 1-855-344-3800
and Virtual doctor appointments for First Nations Monday to Sunday 8:30am to 4:30pm
Indigenous- people in BC
specific Native Courtworker and Counselling Association Call toll free: 1-877-811-1190
Services of British Columbia Email: nccabc@nccabc.net
Culturally appropriate justice and health related Website: https://nccabc.ca/
services according to need
Indian Residential School Survivors Society 1-800-721-0066
Wellness and healing services to Indian
Residential School Survivors and
intergenerational Survivors throughout B.C.
Table 2: HSDA 23-233 Fraser South: Surrey

HSDA 23-233 Fraser South: Surrey
Type Service Hours of Operation Address, Telephone No
Supervised SafePoint Monday to Sunday 2- 10681 135a St, Surrey
Consumption Supervised consumption 7:00 am to 1:00 am 604-587-7898
& (Injection) No appointment needed
Harm Smoke n’ Go Monday to Sunday 2- 10681 135a St, Surrey
Reduction Supervised consumption (inhalation) 9:00 am to 9:00 pm 604-587-7898
No appointment needed
Surrey North Community Health Clinic Monday to Friday 10697 135A Street
Harm Reduction Supplies incl Naloxone 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Surrey
Distribution, drug checking, medical clinic. 604-589-8678
Lookout Mobile Harm Reduction Monday to Friday 604-328-7610
Delivery of supplies including drug 8:30 am to 4:30 pm
checking to Delta, White Rock, Surrey, Call for delivery.
Ladner, Langley
Crisis Support Fraser Health Crisis Line 24/7 604 – 951 - 8855
Free & confidential emotional support, Toll-free 1-877-820-7444
crisis intervention, community resource
information
Surrey Women’s Centre Support worker available 604-583-1295
Medical emergency support, trauma 24/7 by phone
counselling, transportation to hospital
Overnight Gateway Shelter and Resource Centre 24/7 10667 135A Street
Shelter and (Lookout Society) Walk-in’s welcome Surrey
Drop-In 604-589-7777
Year-round and Emergency Shelters Most are 24hr, intake http://shelters.bc211.ca/

(multiple, including women’s-only shelters) hours vary bc211shelters (updated
daily with availability)

41
Quibble Creek Sobering Centre Monday to Sunday 13670 94A Avenue,
Place to recover from intoxication, 24 hours per day Surrey
supervised consumption, harm reduction Walk-in’s welcome 604-580-4969
supplies
Access to Regional Access to Addiction Care Clinic, Monday to Friday 13740 94a Ave, Surrey
Treatment Fraser South 8:30 am to 4:30 pm 604-587-3755
Access to addiction care and treatment No appointment needed
Surrey Urgent Care Response Centre Monday to Sunday Charles Barham Pavilion
Access to Mental Health care and 8:30 am to 8:30 pm 13750 96 Ave Access
treatment No appointment needed through 94a Ave, Surrey
604-953-6200
Quibble Creek Substance Use Services Monday to Friday 13670 94A Avenue,
Substance use counselling services 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Surrey, BC
Walk-in’s welcome 604-580-4950
Indigenous- Fraser Region Aboriginal Friendship Centre Monday to Friday 101-10095 Whalley Blvd,
specific Association (FRAFCA) 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Surrey, BC
supports Harm reduction, outreach, counselling, 604-283-3293
housing support https://frafca.org/
Table 3: HSDA 43-432 North Vancouver Island: Campbell River

HSDA 43-432 North Vancouver Island: Campbell River
Type Service Hours of Operation Address, Telephone No
Supervised Overdose Prevention Service Monday-Sunday 1330 Dogwood Street, Unit #5
Consumption Harm reduction supplies, witnessed 9:00 am- 7:00 pm Campbell River
& consumption, education, referrals 250-287-9969
Harm AVI Campbell River Monday - Thursday 1371 c. Cedar Street,
Reduction Harm reduction services and supports, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm Campbell River BC
referral to services, systems navigation, Friday: 11:00 am - 250-830-0787
outreach 3:00pm Info line: 1-800-665-2437
Crisis Support Vancouver Island Crisis Society 24/7 1-888-494-3888
Crisis line, incl. supports for substance use
Overnight Salvation Army Evergreen House 24/7 690 Evergreen Road
Shelter and Low barrier shelter with housing transition Walk-in’s welcome Campbell River
Drop-In support 250- 287-3791
Sobering and Assessment Centre 24/7 #6 - 1330 Dogwood Street

Safe, supportive environment for Walk-in’s welcome Campbell River
overnight sobering 250-287-9969
Campbell River Women’s Resource Centre Resource Centre: 1330 Dogwood Street, Unit #5
and Transition House Monday-Thursday Campbell River
Drop-in counselling and resource centre 10:00 am – 3:00 pm 250-287-3044
and emergency transition house 24 hr help line: 250-286-3666
24 hr text line: 250-895-1773
Kwesa Place 10am-4pm Monday 1342 Shoppers Row
Drop-in services, free laundry, showers, to Friday Campbell River
clothing, and snacks
Access to Island Health Mental Health and Monday-Friday #207–1040 Shoppers Row
Treatment Substance Use Services Intake Services 8:30 am – 4:30 pm Campbell River
Assessment, short term counselling, (closed 12-1) 250-850-2620
referrals

42
Foundry Campbell River Mon, Fri 830-430 140 10th Avenue,
Mental Health and Substance use supports Tues, Wed, Thurs Campbell River
for youth aged 12-24 8:30 am-6:00 pm 250-286-0611
Columbia Coast Medical Services Monday – Friday 1371B Cedar St
Medical management of opiate 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Campbell River
dependency, methadone, counselling, pain Call to make an 250-287-4822
assistance (private clinic: fees may apply) appointment
North Island Survivors Healing Society Call for options and 625 D 11th Avenue,
Trauma and abuse counselling centre to make an Campbell River
appointment 250-287-3325
Indigenous- Kwakiutl District Council Health (KDC Monday -Friday 1400A Drake Rd
specific Health) 8:30 am - 4:30 pm Campbell River
supports First Nations and Indigenous intervention 250-286-9766
and counselling, screening, treatment,
education
Laichwiltach Family Life Society Monday to Friday 441 4 Ave, Campbell River, BC
Holistic services (cultural, mental, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm 1-250-286-3430
emotional, spiritual, physical) for
Indigenous people and families
Tsow Tun Lelum Society Monday to Friday 1-888-403-3123
Confidential outreach services such as 9:00am- 4:00pm
counselling and cultural support

43

Decriminalization in BC: S.56 (1) Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decriminalization in BC: S.56 (1) Exemption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decriminalization in BC: S.56 (1) Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decriminalization

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

2 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

SUBSTANCE USE AND CRIMINALIZATION HARMS

If the intention of a prohibition-based system was to protect individuals

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

DECRIMINALIZATION TO ENABLE A PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE

S.56(1) Exemption Request

Despite attempts at de facto decriminalization in municipalities such as Vancouver, as well as

S.56(1) Exemption Request

DECRIMINALIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

3 BRITISH COLUMBIA’S APPROACH

S.56(1) Exemption Request

PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS

3.1.1 Cross-Government Project Team

3.1.2 Core Planning Table

3.1.3 Indigenous Partners and Leaders

S.56(1) Exemption Request

3. Trauma-Informed and Person-Centred: Many PWUD have experienced trauma and

4. Anti-Racism: Recognizing that drug prohibition has disproportionately harmful impacts on

5. Reconciliation and Decolonization: BC’s approach to decriminalization should also be

S.56(1) Exemption Request

6. Cultural Safety: BC’s decriminalization framework should ensure that alternatives to

4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DECRIMINALIZATION IN BC

S.56(1) Exemption Request

Decriminalization is expected to support the following long-term objectives:

• Reduce illicit drug poisoning events and deaths;

Measurable progress towards outcomes above is unlikely to be achieved through

Shorter term objectives include:

S.56(1) Exemption Request

Measurable progress on these objectives is expected within 1-5 years of implementation.

DEFINING PERSONAL POSSESSION

S.56(1) Exemption Request

In order to decriminalize personal possession, it is necessary to first define it. In BC’s

S.56(1) Exemption Request

• Indicative Threshold: A flexible, suggested threshold range of an illicit substance that an

4.3.2 Data and Evidence

S.56(1) Exemption Request

Figure 1: DeBeck et al estimated drug consumption volumes

S.56(1) Exemption Request

S.56(1) Exemption Request

Substance Cumulative Binding Threshold Floor for Personal Use

S.56(1) Exemption Request

4.3.4 Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

S.56(1) Exemption Request

ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES

As such, BC’s framework proposes to exclude alternative administrative sanctions and

BC’s decriminalization framework proposes that, as an alternative to criminalization, all

4.4.1 Provision of Information and Harm Reduction Supplies

S.56(1) Exemption Request

4.4.2 Voluntary Referrals

S.56(1) Exemption Request