Hold Drug Traffickers Financially Accountable

Summary#

• This bill lets the Saskatchewan government and private people sue drug traffickers and illegal producers of serious illegal drugs (like fentanyl, cocaine, meth, and heroin) to recover health and related costs from the harm those drugs cause.
• It also gives the government power to cancel certain public appointments, grants, and contracts if the person or organization has a recent or current conviction for trafficking, producing, importing, or exporting those drugs.
• The bill makes it easier to prove harm in court by allowing population-level data and certain legal presumptions. It also protects personal health information when cases use aggregate data.
• The Act will take effect on a date set by the provincial cabinet.

Key changes:

• Creates a new right for the government to sue drug traffickers/producers to recover public costs for health care, coroner work, and residential services tied to illegal drugs.
• Allows people harmed by illegal drugs to sue traffickers/producers for damages, including the possibility of extra (punitive) damages.
• Lets courts order wrongdoers to hand over profits made from illegal drug activity.
• Uses population-based evidence and “risk contribution” rules so cases don’t fail just because a single source can’t be pinned down.
• Allows cancellation of some public appointments, grants, and contracts if there is a conviction now or within the past three years for serious illegal drug crimes.

What it means for you#

• Individuals harmed by illegal drugs

  • You could sue a trafficker or illegal producer if your use of or exposure to their illegal drug led to sickness, injury, addiction, or death in your family.
  • The court can award damages for pain and suffering, lost income, and possibly punitive damages. You cannot claim the government’s health care costs—that part is for the province to pursue.
  • The court can assume (unless proven otherwise) that your use would not have happened without the wrongdoer’s crime and that the use caused your harm. This can make cases easier to bring.

• Taxpayers

  • The province can try to recoup public costs from traffickers and illegal producers, rather than leaving all those costs with taxpayers.
  • Cases can be brought for whole groups of people using statistics, which may reduce legal costs and protect privacy.

• Government employees and appointees

  • If you are a non-union employee or an appointed member of a board/commission, your appointment can be ended if you are convicted of serious illegal drug crimes now or were convicted within the past three years.
  • If ended for that reason, there is no severance or other termination payments (pensions or pension refunds still apply). You cannot sue the government for wrongful dismissal in this situation.

• Organizations and businesses seeking government money or deals

  • Grants: A grant can be cancelled or declared ineligible if the recipient has a current or recent (within three years) conviction for trafficking, producing, importing, or exporting Schedule I drugs.
  • Contracts/agreements: A contract with government can be cancelled for the same reason. Employees and appointed members are excluded from this contracts rule; they are covered by the appointments rule above.
  • Ministers can add extra conditions related to illegal drugs to grants and agreements.

• Health and privacy

  • In government lawsuits that use aggregate data, your personal health records are generally not produced. If a court orders a sample of records, names and identifiers must be removed.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Holds traffickers and illegal producers financially responsible for the harm they cause, rather than leaving costs with families and taxpayers.
• Helps the province recover significant health and social service costs tied to the toxic drug supply.
• Gives victims a clear civil path to seek damages, including the ability to take profits away from wrongdoers.
• Uses proven tools—population data and risk-based liability—so cases can proceed even when a single source cannot be identified in a complex illegal market.
• Protects privacy in aggregate cases by limiting and de-identifying health records.
• Sets a firm standard for public funds and positions: people or organizations with serious illegal drug convictions should not hold certain appointments or receive grants or contracts.

Opponents' View#

• Legal presumptions and risk-based liability could make it easier to sue than in typical cases, which some see as unfair to defendants who may not have directly caused a specific person’s harm.
• Broad definitions (e.g., including “problematic substance use”) and group-based claims could widen liability and lead to lengthy, costly court battles.
• Cancelling appointments, grants, and contracts for recent convictions may be seen as too harsh, especially where people have already faced criminal penalties; it could also deter some groups from partnering with government.
• Government and court resources may be strained by complex litigation, with uncertain net recoveries.
• Government immunity for actions taken in good faith under the Act may limit avenues to challenge mistakes or overreach.