Bill C-2 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Respect for Communities Act
An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 17, 2013
- Debated in principleJune 19, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 23, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 9, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Jean-Guy DagenaisSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Gary GoodyearDefends the bill's focus on reducing harm and requiring evidence before exemptions.
- David WilksExplicitly states support and describes the bill as giving communities a voice.
- Steven FletcherDefends the bill's focus on public safety and community input while criticizing supervised sites.
- John CarmichaelCalls the bill important and focuses on reinforcing respect for communities.
- Cathy McLeodlends voice to dialogue and defends bill's role in public health and safety
- David Sweetbacks the bill to give communities a say and apply rigorous criteria.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 17 October 2013, the Minister of Health introduced Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Respect for Communities Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Currently, under s.56 of the CDSA, the Minister has the authority to grant an exemption to undertake activities using controlled substances for a medical or scientific purpose, or in the public interest. Approximately 10,000 s.56 exemption applications are received every year, most of which are for routine activities using controlled substances from licit sources, including clinical trials, methadone treatment and university research. Bill C-2 amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to, among other things, • create a separate exemption regime for activities involving the use of a controlled substance or precursor that is obtained in a manner not authorized under this Act; • specify the purposes for which an exemption may be granted for those activities; and • set out the information that must be submitted to the Minister of Health before the Minister may consider an application for an exemption in relation to a supervised consumption site.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this house decline to give second reading to Bill C-2 · 2013-11-26 · Failed
What the Senate tried to change
- narrows scopeSenator CampbellReplaces the list of 26 required items with five broader considerations for the minister when deciding on exemptions for supervised consumption sites.Voted down · June 10, 2015 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
80% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (4,455 words introduced, 3,900 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with its core exemption regime and preamble for supervised consumption sites unchanged. Only formal updates such as assent date and chapter number were added at royal assent.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill mixes long lists of required application documents and defined criminal offences with repeated grants of power that turn on the Minister's opinion and broad public-interest tests. This leaves the core exemption decision open to prolonged argument rather than settling coverage through fixed, objective rules.
Open to argument
“if, in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest”
Subjective ministerial opinion plus open-ended public-interest standard invites disagreement over when an exemption must be granted.“provide the inspector with any information that the inspector may reasonably require”
Reasonableness test depends on context and leaves inspectors wide latitude to decide what counts as sufficient.
Clear-cut
“an offence against section 39, 44.2, 44.3, 48, 50.2 or 50.3 of the Food and Drugs Act, as those provisions read immediately before May 14, 1997”
Specific statutory references and fixed historical date create a closed, verifiable list.“a document issued by a Canadian police force in relation to each person referred to in paragraph (w), stating whether, in the 10 years before the day on which the application is made”
Fixed ten-year window and requirement for an official police document supply an objective factual test.
Discretion. The Minister may grant or refuse exemptions on any terms and conditions the Minister considers necessary, may prescribe additional purposes by regulation, and inspectors exercise ongoing compliance powers, so most substantive outcomes remain with officials rather than fixed statutory rules.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated 'in the opinion of the Minister' and 'public interest' language engages the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter, making a facial challenge comparatively straightforward.
Disputing a charge under it. Once an exemption is granted, compliance turns on detailed documentary and police-record requirements that are largely factual and therefore difficult to dispute in individual enforcement proceedings.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.