Senators concerned with how C-46 will impact medical cannabis users

As the Senate debates new impaired driving legislation some Senators are expressing concern with how the legislation will impact medical cannabis patients.

As the Senate debates new impaired driving legislation, some Senators are expressing concern with how the legislation will impact medical cannabis patients.

Bill C-46, the impaired driving companion legislation to Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, provides a host of new proposed rules and limits for those impaired by drugs or alcohol, as well as new rights for police to screen drivers for these substances.

Thus far, the debate in the Senate around C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has focused largely on both the need for more robust impaired driving legislation, not only for cannabis and other drugs, but also alcohol, as well as concerns raised by numerous experts in the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the constitutionality of some of the more aggressive and intrusive aspects of the bill.

In relation to cannabis and THC, the bill proposes three legal limits be enacted to set a summary conviction:

1) When a driver is found to have between two and five nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood. This offence would be punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 and a discretionary driving prohibition of up to one year.

2) A hybrid offence, a more serious criminal offence that would apply when a driver had 5 or more nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood.

3) A hybrid offence would apply when drivers have more than 2.5 nanograms of THC per millilitre of blood in combination with 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The second and third offences would be punishable by mandatory penalties of $1,000 for the first offence and increasing penalties for repeat offenders, with maximum penalties being similar to those for alcohol-impaired driving.

In the few hours of debate at second reading so far, Senators who have spoken have expressed support for the bill, but also cautioned that some of the limits may be challenged in court, especially in relation to concerns with the accuracy of available testing equipment in determining impairment rather than simply the presence of THC or cannabinoids. This is especially true for medical cannabis users who may have a higher threshold for cannabis and because cannabinoids can stay in one’s system for several hours or days after consumption.

In a speech on November 22, Senator Saint-Germain said she had concerns that the legislation could discriminate against medical cannabis patients.

“Canadians who use cannabis for medical purposes may be disproportionately affected by the new approach,” said Saint-Germain. “Does Bill C-46 take these Canadians’ circumstances into account? These measures should not inadvertently discriminate against patients who use medical cannabis to treat conditions like chronic pain. Not only will the committee have to examine whether this measure complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it will also have to consider the alternatives available to medical cannabis users in this context.

“We know that tolerance for cannabis varies widely from one individual to another, as does the length of time that traces of THC stay in a person’s system,” continued the Independent Senator from De la Vallière, Quebec. “The different consumption methods could also have an impact, which is something that has not been discussed much so far. However, the data currently available suggests that to avoid driving over the limit, long-time users of medical cannabis may have to wait several days before getting behind the wheel, even if their faculties remain unimpaired.”

“In light of the havoc that drugs are causing on Canadian roads, my instinct is to support this approach. However, having studied the issue in greater depth and exchanged at length with officials of the government, I believe that this minimum threshold of 2 nanograms will need to be examined in committee. The risk is that this threshold, the low threshold of 2 nanograms, not only criminalizes Canadians who are not impaired at all, for instance medical marijuana users, as Senators St. Germain and Gold pointed out last week, but also weakens the legislation itself.” - Senator Andre Pratte

Senator Marc Gold noted similar concerns, referencing a R v. Smith, a Supreme Court case from 2015 that opened the door to patients possessing non-dried forms of cannabis based on the Canadian Charter of Rights.

“In the Smith case,” said Senator Gold, “the court ruled that access to cannabis products for medical purposes also engaged section 7. For reasons underlined by Senator Saint-Germain in her remarks yesterday, this raises the possibility that the bill may infringe the Charter rights of those who are using cannabis for medical reasons. Why? Because THC can remain detectable within a regular user’s blood for days and even weeks after it was last consumed."

“Medical users have this Hobson’s choice: either they need to stop their consumption for many days prior to operating a vehicle or simply forego forever their ability to drive. Moreover, a medical cannabis user will tend to have a higher tolerance level than a less frequent user and, therefore, will not demonstrate the same level of impairment as the occasional user even if both have the same level of THC in their systems. As such, a medical marijuana user may fail the per se test but in no way be impaired.

“I acknowledge that the latter point can be said to apply equally to regular recreational users of cannabis. However, there seems to be a difference between the case of a person who has chosen to ingest drugs sometime before driving, notwithstanding the law, and one who is prescribed cannabis for medical reasons, as is their constitutional right, rightly or wrongly, and is therefore unable to drive without committing an offence.”

On November 29, referencing the testimony of a government expert in the House Committee, Senator Andre Pratte says he sees the two nanogram limit as being open to court challenges and weakening the bill.

“Some will say that given the characteristics of cannabis and the scientific uncertainties that persist, these limits—that’s two nanograms per milliliter of blood and five nanograms per milliliter of blood—are arbitrary. As they stand, however, they are based on the best scientific knowledge available as compiled by the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian society of Forensic Scientists.”

“In light of the havoc that drugs are causing on Canadian roads, my instinct is to support this approach. However, having studied the issue in greater depth and exchanged at length with officials of the government, I believe that this minimum threshold of 2 nanograms will need to be examined in committee. The risk is that this threshold, the low threshold of 2 nanograms, not only criminalizes Canadians who are not impaired at all, for instance medical marijuana users, as Senators St. Germain and Gold pointed out last week, but also weakens the legislation itself.”

Last June, Public Safety Canada released the results of their Oral Fluid Drug Screening Device Pilot Project which tested two oral fluid drug screening devices, the Securetec DrugRead and the Alere DDS-2. These devices have been used and tested in other jurisdictions, as well.

The program was intended to help coincide with the government’s promise to legalize cannabis, and was in collaboration with Public Safety Canada, the RCMP, and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.

The report concludes that, with proper training, the devices are reliable and a "useful tool" for Canadian law enforcement and the Canadian climate and environment, but concerns around the devices reliability, as well as concerns that THC limits are being set too low have been expressed by numerous experts.

The Senate will continue their debate of Bill C-46 at second reading before sending it to committee for review. Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, is also scheduled to begin second reading Thursday, November 30.

C-46 was passed by the House on October 27 and was first tabled in the Senate for first reading on November 1. Second reading began a week later on November 7, with the bill being debated five times so far, on the 7th, the 22nd, the 23rd, and 29th, for a total of about 2 hours.

Featured image via Wiki Commons.

In this article


Join the Conversation

6 comments

  1. Jason Reply

    In this Nov 29th article, it says "Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act, is also scheduled to begin second reading Thursday, November 30."

    But in the Nov 26th article, it says "Editor's note: C-45 passed third reading in the House on Monday, Nov 27 with 200 in support and 82 opposed."

    I'm sure the confusion is on my part, but are we on the second or third one next?

    1. Profile photo of David Brown

      David Brown Reply

      Hi Jason,

      C-45 passed third reading in the House of Commons on Nov 27 and began second reading in the Senate today, Nov 30.

      1. Jason Reply

        Now I understand better, thank you for the response, just what I was hoping for. 🙂

        Much appreciated.

  2. michael Reply

    They're testing is based on junk science there is only two type of THC out of 12, that is phycoactive, one is THCa once heated at 156^c converts to THC that is phycoactive the second is THCV which activates at 106^c and gets destroyed at 112^c and has lost its activeness above this temperature which is what they test for, and can stay in your system for up to 72 days. The 9 known types of delta-9, 2 known types of delta-8, and 1 delta-7.

    In addition to that, medical testing labs are not testing for THCV. They are testing for the presence of 11-Nor-9-Carboxy-THC aka 11-OH-THC/11-COOH-THC aka THC-OH/THC-COOH, a secondary metabolite of THC that is broken down by the liver when consumed. Depending on the accuracy of the testing equipment, they can further isolate 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC to determine if the exposure was recent. When only 11-COOH-THC is present, the use would have been some time ago, but when both 11-OH-THC and 11-COOH-THC are present, the exposure would have been much more recent This is a great report on the entire breakdown of all the phytocannabinoids in cannabis but is not active at the time of testing. http://www.medicinalgenomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Chemical-constituents-of-cannabis.pdf

  3. michael Reply

    These political pawns are only interested in criminalization to increase their policing budget, their interest is showing with their lack of knowledge which is to the extreme, Impaired driving, joke, to bad their reading abilities are little or they would have studied the 20 or so studies done in the USA and in Canada that there is little to know difference in the ability to drive between a stoned or a sober driver, and some even suggest that because a stoned driver knows hes stoned, they will slow down and focus more on the road, making them a safer driver. Its also to bad that media doesn't challenge the bullshit that politician and police on correct and informative information, and ask the hard questions to show the public how uninformed our politicians really are so that come time to elections we done elect stupidity and corruption. It Turns Out That Smoking Marijuana May Actually Make You A Safer Driver; http://www.businessinsider.com/it-turns-out-that-smoking-marijuana-may-actually-make-you-a-better-driver-2011-12