Warnings before charges for drug possession

Summary#

This bill changes how police handle simple drug possession under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It tells peace officers to look at options other than charges, such as no action, a warning, or a referral to health or social services. It also sets limits on when charges can go ahead and restricts how police and courts can use records of warnings or referrals.

• Requires officers to consider non‑criminal options before laying possession charges (s.10.2(1)).
• Allows prosecution only if a warning, referral, or existing “alternative measures” cannot adequately deal with the case due to prior offences or other aggravating facts (Proceedings — limits).
• States guiding principles that treat substance use mainly as a health and social issue and aim to reduce harm and stigma (s.10.1).
• Limits police record‑keeping of warnings/referrals to cases necessary for public safety (Record of warning or referral).
• Makes evidence of a prior warning/referral, or of an offence handled that way, inadmissible to prove prior offending in later court proceedings (Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Possession of controlled drugs for personal use remains illegal. The bill does not decriminalize possession (applies to CDSA s.4(1)).
  • If a family member is stopped for simple possession, police must consider no action, a warning, or a consent‑based referral to a community program before charging (s.10.2(1)).

• People who use drugs

  • You may be diverted away from the court system through a warning or a referral to services, if you consent (s.10.2(1)).
  • Charges may proceed only if a warning/referral or Criminal Code “alternative measures” are not adequate because of prior offences or other aggravating circumstances (Proceedings — limits; Criminal Code s.716).
  • A past warning/referral, or the fact police took no action, cannot be used later in court to prove you offended before (Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).
  • Police may keep a record of a warning/referral only when necessary for public safety (Record of warning or referral).

• Workers and service providers (health, social services, community programs)

  • You may receive more police referrals of people who use drugs, with the person’s consent (s.10.2(1)).
  • The bill does not fund services or set standards for referrals. Capacity demands may rise; funding is not addressed. Data unavailable.

• Police and prosecutors

  • Before starting proceedings for simple possession, officers must consider non‑judicial options; however, failing to consider them does not by itself invalidate later charges (s.10.2(1)–(2)).
  • Prosecution may commence or continue only if non‑judicial options are inadequate due to prior offences or other aggravating circumstances, applying the bill’s principles (Proceedings — limits; s.10.1).
  • Police record‑keeping of warnings/referrals is restricted to what is necessary for public safety (Record of warning or referral).
  • Courts cannot treat a prior warning/referral, or a no‑action disposition, as proof of prior offending behaviour (Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).

• Courts

  • Expected to see fewer simple possession cases if more matters are handled by warnings/referrals; exact impact is unknown. Data unavailable.
  • May not admit evidence of prior warnings/referrals or no‑action outcomes to prove prior offending behaviour in later proceedings (Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).

• Timing

  • The bill sets no delayed coming‑into‑force clause; it would take effect on coming into force once enacted. Data unavailable on implementation timelines.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or new spending are in the bill text. It creates duties and limits but no funding (entire bill).
• No new fines, fees, or taxes are created (entire bill).
• Potential savings from fewer prosecutions or court appearances: Data unavailable.
• Potential costs for police training, policy updates, and increased referrals to community services: Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Re‑orients simple possession toward a health and social response, which the bill states aligns with evidence‑based best practices (s.10.1(a)–(b), (d)).
• Reduces stigma and harms linked to criminal sanctions for personal possession by prioritizing warnings/referrals over charges (s.10.1(c), s.10.2(1)).
• Frees up police, prosecutors, and courts to focus on offences that pose public safety risks, by limiting prosecutions to cases with aggravating factors (s.10.1(e); Proceedings — limits).
• Encourages connection to treatment, aftercare, and social supports through consent‑based referrals, aiming to address root causes (s.10.1(d), s.10.2(1)).
• Protects individuals from long‑term legal consequences by making warnings/referrals and related offence evidence inadmissible to prove prior offending behaviour later (Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).

Opponents' View#

• Vague standards may lead to uneven application. The bill does not define “aggravating circumstances” or set thresholds, which could cause inconsistent decisions across jurisdictions (Proceedings — limits).
• Weak enforcement of the duty to consider diversion. Charges remain valid even if an officer did not consider alternatives, which may limit real‑world change (s.10.2(2)).
• Limits on record‑keeping and inadmissibility rules may reduce tools to identify patterns of behaviour in later proceedings or to evaluate program outcomes (Record of warning or referral; Evidence of warning or referral not admissible).
• Increased referrals could strain community services without added funding or capacity requirements in the bill (s.10.2(1)). Data unavailable on service capacity.
• Implementation risk: requires police policy updates and training across many services; the bill provides no timeline or resources. Data unavailable.