Bill C-475 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit a person from possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, currently, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the CDSA, it is illegal to produce, traffic or import methamphetamines and ecstasy, as it is for all illegal drugs. Bill C-475 would extend to the ingredients of methamphetamines and ecstasy and changes the act to make it illegal to produce, sell or import anything that would be used to produce the final product.

It is really a reincarnation of Bill C-428 from the 39th Parliament, only this version was changed to include ecstasy and a few other very minor wording changes. It is important to let people know that this bill does not include mandatory minimums, which is not like other crime bills that we have seen introduced by government members.

The main point about the bill is that it would not do very much to enable the justice system to deal more effectively or efficiently with methamphetamines or ecstasy. It may seem like it would because it talks about the ingredients of meth and ecstasy, but it would appear that the justice system already has an adequate way of dealing with this through its organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code.

At committee I was able to ask legislative counsel from the Department of Justice about the bill. I will like read from the transcript. The member from Halifax said:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have one question for you. Hopefully you can answer it. Do you see this amendment capturing any situation that isn't already covered by the organized crime provisions, or is it just the provision in and of itself that it's illegal to produce? Do you see this as actually having an impact?

The lawyer answered:

In terms of the production, I don't think so; nothing comes to mind. In terms of the impact on organized crime, I don't think it has an impact either.

The member from Halifax said:

Do you mean no impact positive or negative?

The Justice lawyer answered:

Hopefully it will have a positive effect in the sense that it will act as a deterrent, but in terms of the relationship between this offence and other offences, I don't think there is any.

The member from Halifax said:

Those are all my questions. Thanks.

Ultimately, it seems like it would not have very much of an effect. The lawyer did mention deterrence, however, the House has heard reams of evidence showing that deterrence is not really an effective strategy when it comes to drug crimes.

Should we support a bill that does not seem to have very much effect? Is this an example of the maxim, no harm, no foul? It is a private member's bill, so I submit that there are two considerations. First, I do respect any member's attempt to respond to the needs of his or her constituents by bringing forward a private member's bill. Our ability to bring forward legislation is a special privilege and it is a very challenging thing to see realized as there are so many steps to getting a piece of legislation through the House. Private member's bills are usually a direct response to the needs or the demands of constituents in a riding, so I tend to give a lot of weight to private member's bills, provided they are not harmful.

Therefore, I do congratulate the efforts that the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country has made to see this bill through the House.

The second thing to consider when deciding how to vote on a private member's bill is the fact that it is a free vote and all members get to make up their mind on whether they will support it. If other members of the House were to ask me for my advice on whether they should support it, I would say that it was their choice. It does not seem to have much of an impact but it does not seem to have a negative impact either.

I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what good drug policy would look like. Would it not be exciting to debate intelligent drug policy for Canada? First, with regard to drug labs, we have seen some really interesting non-criminal ways of dealing with labs in the U.S. The U.S. has seen more successes with commercial and consumer regulation which limits the quantity of over-the-counter medication that a person can purchase and it questions the reason for the purchase. This kind of regulation can serve to limit the production of drugs like methamphetamine and ecstasy and it can act like a preventive measure, unlike this bill.

The existing legislation that we have in the Criminal Code or in the CDSA, the CDSA serves more as an after the fact punishment if a person is caught rather than effectively trying to reduce the ability to produce.

Regulations like the U.S. legislation requiring photo ID and a signature also provide ways to track, identify and police offenders who purchase over-the-counter drugs for meth and ecstasy production. Therefore, why are we not looking at U.S. solutions that have worked like consumer and commercial regulations, instead of adopting solutions that have failed, like a bloated prison system?

Why are we not looking at harm reduction? We have Mainline Needle Exchange back home in Halifax and Vancouver has Insite, a safe injection site. Despite the life-saving successes of harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges, successes in reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C among drug users and successes in increasing access to treatment, in 2007, the Conservatives introduced a new anti-drug strategy for Canada that removed all references to harm reduction.

Instead, the government has put greater emphasis on law enforcement. What a big surprise. It moves Canada closer and closer to an expensive and failed U.S.-style drug system. Right now, Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement. Still, drug use continues to rise. If we look at the numbers, there is 73% to enforcement, 14% to treatment, 7% to research, 2.6% to prevention and 2.6% to harm reduction.

In 2008, the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada convened a working group. Members included federal agencies and provincial health agencies like Health Canada and the Nova Scotia Department of Health Promotion and Protection. It also included related agency representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada, the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. That is quite the team they put together.

The working groups points out:

Research findings suggest that providing appropriate services and supports across a range of systems not only reduces substance use problems but also improves a wide range of outcomes related to health, social functioning and criminal justice. Such a spectrum of services and supports is also a good investment for government, because it returns economic benefits that far outstrip its cost.

The group is calling for a national treatment strategy. This national treatment strategy would look at building capacity across a continuum of services and supports. It would look at supporting that continuum of services and supports. It would look at developing a research program and would also consider reducing stigma and discrimination. How we would do that and what that would look like?

That is intelligent drug policy and that is the kind of drug policy that we can get behind. The NDP is calling for better and more prevention programs directed at at-risk youth. We are calling for more resources for prosecution and the enforcement of existing laws. We are calling for more officers on the street, as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered. We are calling for an overall co-ordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime and also toughened proceeds of crime legislation.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, she was bright, active in her community and supportive of her family. She had known past tragedies involving ecstasy and had asked her family to trust her not to take the drug, but a few Saturdays ago, instead of going to a party, she headed to a rave, where the group she was with took ecstasy. Afterwards, she slept 15 hours and by the time the ambulance was called, her heart was beating very slowly. She died in hospital.

Our country strives to reduce these drug deaths and, indeed, the harm associated with alcohol and other drugs to individuals, families and communities. Bill C-475 is therefore an important step in reducing harm by making it illegal to possess, produce, sell or import chemicals with the knowledge they will be used to create crystal meth or ecstasy. Under the proposed legislation, violators could face a prison term of up to 10 years.

Unlike some street drugs, methamphetamines can be manufactured from chemicals that are available to the public, such as acetone, drain cleaner, iodine, rubbing alcohol and even cold medication. Previously individuals found in possession of these precursors, without the final product, were not breaking the law. The new legislation changes this and therefore makes it easier to prosecute illegal drug makers.

Amphetamine, a synthetic drug that constricts blood vessels, stimulates the heart and respiration and induces sleeplessness was originally marketed as Benzedrine in North America in the 1920s. It quickly became a favourite street drug, known as “bennies” or “pep pills”, and was severely restricted in most countries beginning in the 1950s because of negative effects, including delusions of power, disturbed sleep patterns, hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness and nausea. Long-term negative effects include heart, kidney, liver and lung damage.

Methamphetamine is a chemical variation with a much stronger effect on the central nervous system than the original drug. It is known as chalk, crank, dirt, glass, grit, ice, koolaid, kryptonite, et cetera, and in higher doses is more addictive than the original drug and has a greater rush, followed by increased agitation and possibly violence in some individuals.

Meth became a common street drug and was known as speed in the 1960s. Its use decreased, however, after a number of incidents, with the message “speed kills”. In the late 1980s, however, a smokable crystal form was created, and has increased in popularity ever since.

Meth stimulates brain cells, enhances mood, physical activity and wakefulness. For some, even low doses can be addictive. With higher doses, specially if injected or smoked, the user immediately experiences a rush or flash, which is intense pleasure that lasts a few minutes. Users can become addicted and dependent quickly, meaning more and higher doses as the addiction progresses.

In street and high doses, methamphetamine causes anxiety, confusion, hallucinations, insomnia, irritability and paranoia. At even higher doses, meth can cause death, which results from rupture of the blood vessels in the brain, extreme fever, heart failure and seizures and coma. There is no specific antidote that can reverse the effects of the drug.

Meth production and use also have social impacts. Communities become vulnerable to increases in drug trafficking, health risks, petty crime, social disorder and violence.

The UN's World Drug Report 2009 shows that in recent years Canada's traffickers have come to play an alarmingly prominent role. Canada and Mexico have picked up the slack in the production of methamphetamine.

The report says:

There is evidence that Canada-based...outlaw motorcycle gangs have significantly increased the amount of methamphetamine they manufacture and export, [since 2003] for the US market, but also for Oceania and East and South-East Asia.

For example, Australia reported that methamphetamine from Canada accounted for 83% of total seized imports by weight. For Japan, the figure was 62%.

Crystal meth has become the most widespread and popular form of the drug, largely because it is so easy to make that anyone can set up a lab. Instructions are commonplace on the Internet.

Police report that a $150 investment can yield up to $10,000 worth of the drug. However, the drug is often impure and the manufacturing process can be dangerous and cause fires, posing serious public safety hazards to those in and around production operations. Operations can cause serious physical injury from chemical burns, explosions, fires and toxic fumes and environmental hazards. There are also significant health risks and costs associated with dismantling labs and removing processing agents from the premises.

A recent Statistics Canada survey of teenagers showed that among those who answered questions about drug use, 34% had tried marijuana, 4% had used ecstasy and 2% had used crystal meth. Police say that in some areas, crystal meth is replacing ecstasy as the drug used by teenagers and young adults in the rave scene. In many areas, crystal meth is cheaper, at $10 for about one-tenth of a gram. An ecstasy hit can cost twice as much, at about $20.

Experts say that crystal meth is one of the most addictive street drugs and one of the hardest to treat. Addictions counsellors report that the withdrawal symptoms, especially depression and physical agony, are worse than cocaine or heroin. As a result, addicts often drop out of recovery programs. The relapse rate of 92% is worse than cocaine.

The chemical structure of ecstasy is similar to that of an amphetamine, a stimulant and mescaline, a hallucinogen. It is a street drug that is usually sold as a capsule, powder or tablet and is only made in illegal labs. The tablets vary in the amount of ecstasy they contain, their colour, shape and size. Tablets may not contain ecstasy at all, but rather contain cornstarch, detergents and other drugs, including ephedrine, LSD and methamphetamine.

After taking ecstasy, the drug is absorbed into the bloodstream and travels to the brain. It usually takes about an hour to feel the effects, which last three to six hours. The effects of ecstasy are unpredictable and they are different for everyone. Some may experience closeness to others, empathy, euphoria and friendliness, while others may experience anxiety and panic attacks.

Ecstasy causes an increase in body temperature, which when combined with physical activity such as dancing in a warm environment, the situation can become worse, leading to heart or kidney failure, seizures and strokes. Some people drink too much water to avoid dehydration, which can result in dangerously low salt levels in the blood, leading to confusion, convulsions and delirium and can progress quickly to coma and death.

When the effects of ecstasy have worn off, a user may feel anxious, confused, depressed and may have trouble sleeping. Flashbacks, memory problems and paranoia may also occur.

People can quickly become tolerant to the effects of ecstasy with regular use and it is not uncommon for the drug to take on an exaggerated importance in a person's life.

Crystal meth and ecstasy are two highly addictive substances against which many agencies and people have rallied. Bill C-475 attempts to attack the problem at its source, dealing directly with the precursors of these drugs.

Finally, in closing one more loop, perhaps we can protect more individuals, families and communities, so more mothers are not driven to the hospital only to find their child has already died of ecstasy, as happened a few weeks ago.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure to rise on the last sitting day before Mother's Day to speak to Bill C-475.

The bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by creating a new offence for possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in crystal meth or ecstasy.

Targeted ingredients include the drug's precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and Sudafed, which are commonly found in over-the-counter cold medications. Other targeted ingredients are legal but certainly not intended for human consumption, such as acetone, rubbing alcohol and iodine.

The bill would give our law enforcement community a powerful new tool with which to confront the growing menace of two drugs which are attacking the health and welfare of Canadians.

The passage of this bill would mark a new era in our fight to protect Canadians, especially our children, from the devastating effects of these drugs. In the battle to protect our communities, we would be providing new tools to combat the methamphetamine epidemic that has swept our country.

I believe this House stands united today in one noble purpose as we rise together and speak on behalf of Canadians who seek to escape the grip of these harmful substances.

We know an idea is one whose time has come when three things come together: first, a consensus surrounds and supports the idea; second, the idea meets an obvious need; and third, in one sense or another, the stars seem to align and the idea's progress seems preordained and unstoppable. In this case, all these conditions have come to pass, and I look forward to elaborating now.

First, we have a large nationwide consensus of people who support passage of the bill. The consensus is most evident in this House where all parties support it. On April 14, for the first time in this session of Parliament, all members voted in favour of a private member's bill. The stage was second reading and the bill was Bill C-475, the one to which I speak today.

The member for Peace River also received unanimous support for a previous version of this bill when he introduced it in a prior session of Parliament, but it died on the order paper when an election intervened.

Broad and growing support for this bill extends throughout the Canadian public as well, starting with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Other endorsers include the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the Crystal Meth Prevention Society of BC, the Baldy Hughes Addiction Treatment Centre, the North Shore Substance Abuse Working Group, the Town of Gibsons, the City of Powell River, the District of Squamish, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, Bowen Island Municipality, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, the Solicitor General of British Columbia, as well as Chief Gibby Jacob of the Squamish First Nation.

The broad array of rehabilitation centres, law enforcement officials, former addicts and ordinary citizens who support this bill speak to the need for it, highlighting the fact that we in this chamber are not the only people who say that this is an idea whose time has come.

The chief of the West Vancouver Police Department, speaking on behalf of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief Constable Peter Lepine, wrote me earlier this week. I would like to quote from his message. He said:

As the voice of British Columbia's 5,000+ sworn police officers, the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police, BCACP, is proud to support the legislation and would like to thank [the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country] and his staff for their efforts to reduce the impact of illicit drugs on families and communities across Canada.

Every day police officers and our colleagues in the justice system and fields like health care and social work experience firsthand the terrible toll that the production, trade and use of methamphetamine takes: From lives lost and families torn apart by addiction, to the fear and cost of drug-related crime, to the risk of fires and explosions related to meth labs. The public safety risks of methamphetamine are real, substantial, and growing all the time.

This legislation, which prohibits the possession of methamphetamine precursor materials, will provide police across Canada with a way to help reduce the supply of methamphetamine rather than being forced to simply deal with its consequences.The BCACP is confident that the benefits of early interdiction will include not only a marked reduction in the addiction-related human tragedies that we are all so aware of, but also a mitigation of the growing cost of methamphetamines for our health care and other social services.

Bill C-475 complements other criminal justice reforms initiated by our government, such as toughening the laws against drug trafficking and illegal firearms. I am pleased, therefore, that the Minister of Justice and the Conservative government also support the bill.

While a large consensus in support of Bill C-475 suggests it is an idea whose time has come, the increasing need for it is an even stronger indication. The need is simply to stop the destruction of the lives of young Canadians.

The more clearly I examine the problems associated with crystal meth and ecstasy, the more people I meet who have been affected themselves, directly or indirectly, by crystal meth addicts who suffer psychosis, physical addiction, unemployment and an inescapable draw toward criminal conduct. We need to eliminate the use of crystal meth and ecstasy from Canadian society.

These drugs are affecting an increasing number of Canadians. Serious health implications resulting from chronic use of these drugs include dependence, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and drug use, and a phenomenon known as amphetamine or methamphetamine psychosis, which includes strong hallucinations and delusions. Crystal meth and ecstasy use can translate over the longer term into schizophrenia, a side effect with lasting consequences. Trauma experienced by users includes great physical, psychological and emotional harm.

According to Canada's Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey, approximately 50,000 people aged 15 and over report having used methamphetamine at least once in the previous year.

In 2003, British Columbia's Ministry of Health estimated that 4% of school-aged children had used methamphetamine stimulants. Around the same time, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission found that 5.3% of school-aged children had tried methamphetamine stimulants. That is a lot.

On a personal note, I know that many of us know someone battling drug addiction. Let us not forget that meth is an insidious drug that can affect anyone in any segment of society.

Meth use is not confined to homeless people. Other users include professionals, doctors, lawyers and first responders. These people are mothers and fathers and tragically, in too many cases, they pay with their lives.

The crystal meth and ecstasy industry is linked to various forms of criminal activity. The most obvious form of such activity is the pattern of offences committed by people whose lives are ruined by these drugs.

As I have previously discussed in this House, the methamphetamine industry is increasingly controlled by gangs. For example, Marshall Smith at the Baldy Hughes Treatment Centre in Prince George has informed me that crystal meth addiction is increasingly linked to the multi-billion dollar per year fraud and identity theft problem which is devastating to Canadian families and our economy.

Some who can see the need for this bill have expressed concern about the possibility of wrongful conviction should the bill become law. As in all offences included among Canada's criminal laws, the prosecution must prove an element of mental intention to achieve a conviction under the proposed bill. The bill states explicitly what would have been assumed by the courts, that the accused must be shown to know that the product possessed, produced, sold or imported was to have been used to produce or traffic in crystal meth or ecstasy. The emphasis is on the word “know”. The necessity to prove intent, as stated in the bill, and the general presumption of innocence are two definite responses to anyone concerned about wrongful convictions under Bill C-475, once it is enacted.

This bill gives a new opportunity for law enforcement officials to tackle the production of these drugs before they reach our streets. In particular, this will give judges a new tool to use against chronic producers and allow police to arrest these people earlier, thus reducing the supply of crystal meth and ecstasy on the streets.

I have made the case that Bill C-475 is an idea whose time has come based on the broad support it enjoys and the need it satisfies, but many good ideas are well supported and many ideas could satisfy an important need, but are still not ideas whose time has come.

A third factor which crowns an idea whose time has come is an aligning of the stars, a coming together of people and forces in a way that suggests the idea in question is truly meant to be. People and forces have assembled almost magically to bless the passage of Bill C-475.

The parade began with the member for Peace River whose efforts in introducing a previous version of the bill must never be forgotten. We who appear to personify success in fact stand on the shoulders of giants.

The bill was introduced only six months ago. It could never have reached third reading this quickly without the close co-operation of people such as the Minister of Justice, the government whip, the member for Abbotsford, who chairs the justice committee, the members for Edmonton East and Elgin—Middlesex—London for their willingness to exchange positions with me to expedite the bill through the order of precedence, and the three opposition justice critics, each of whom graciously consulted with me before I introduced the bill.

A moment ago I recited a list of endorsers of the bill. Let me single out one, the Baldy Hughes Addiction Treatment Centre in Prince George, B.C., for purposes of illustrating how the stars have aligned to ensure the passage of the bill. I was on a flight from Ottawa to Vancouver when I chanced to sit next to a board member for the treatment centre, Kevin England, who proceeded to add to and encourage the efforts of the great team of people who support the bill.

When we meet strangers on flights who provide informed support for a legislative initiative, we know the stars are aligned and the idea is one whose time has come.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), as reported with amendment from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Wednesday, April 14, your committee has considered Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy) and agreed, on Thursday, April 23, to report it with amendment.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-475 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 2 the following new clause:

COMING INTO FORCE 3. Section 1 comes into force 90 days after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I move that clause 1 of Bill C-475 be amended by replacing line 15 on page 1 with the following, in English: “than ten years.” En français:

“a term of not more than ten years“.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 14 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, April 22, 2010.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-475, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for methamphetamine and ecstasy.

We have with us Paul Saint-Denis, senior counsel, criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice. Thank you for appearing before us today.

You don't have a presentation, I understand. There were a number of questions that members of the committee wanted to ask about the bill before we go to clause-by-clause.

Members of the committee, we'll go around and ask for questions. We'll start on the Liberal side.

Ms. Mendes, do you have any questions you wanted to ask Mr. Saint-Denis?

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-475 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-475 is about stopping the growing problem of crystal meth and ecstasy, two types of methamphetamines found all too frequently in Canada. The approach of this bill is to make a new criminal offence for those who procure the precursors of crystal meth or ecstasy with the intent to manufacture these drugs.

As the member for Kildonan—St. Paul has just so eloquently stated, these two drugs are highly toxic and addictive substances against which many informed people and agencies have railed, including several members of the House.

I thank my colleague, the member for Peace River, for introducing the original version of this bill in a previous session of Parliament. The bill attempts to attack the problem at its source, dealing directly with the precursors of these drugs.

I also thank the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his comments in the first hour of debate regarding the various substances that these drugs contain. As he stated, these include the primary ingredients of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are commonly found in the over-the-counter cold medications. They also include products not certified for human consumption, including acetone, rubbing alcohol, iodine and other common items. The member's comments highlighted the ease with which criminals could find the ingredients needed to create these products.

I am proud to be a member of a government that has passed laws to reduce crime in Canada. We are not working for criminals but for the majority of Canadians who are law-abiding citizens.

In the previous debate of this bill, the member for Elmwood—Transcona expressed some concerns about pill compression machines. I have since discovered that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration regularly informs Canadian authorities of U.S. exports of pill compression machines to Canada. This American regulation, which does not have a Canadian equivalent, somewhat limits the illegal sale of the drugs we are discussing today.

The United States-Canada Border Drug Threat Assessment 2007, an analysis published jointly by the Canadian and U.S. governments, also notes that effective U.S. legislation restricting the purchase of precursor chemicals has been successful in cutting back cross-border smuggling of methamphetamines.

We need the provisions of this bill not only to allay the fears of our biggest trading partner, but more important to protect our families and our children.

Our research has uncovered many anecdotes about Canadians whose lives have been ruined by methamphetamines. One women from the riding I represent, whom we will call Helen, a 34-year-old recovering ecstasy addict, tells us that she has been fighting her addiction for 15 years. This disease has taken many things from her, she says, such as her self-respect, her motivation and the ability to live a normal and fulfilling life. She confides that ecstasy has damaged her body and her mind forever. She has experienced severe psychoses, spent time on the street, been in abusive relationships and has done whatever was necessary to get the drugs she craved.

Helen tells us that one of the major problems is the ready availability of crystal meth and ecstasy. As we have heard in the House today and in previous testimony, the products needed to make these drugs are found at any big-box store or family hardware shop. Helen tells us there needs to be some kind of law regarding the distribution of the ingredients. She concludes, “We need help from our government to stop the selling of chemicals to the common person”.

I stand in the House proudly to say that members of all parties are ready to answer Helen's call.

Outside the House, the list of supporters of this bill is growing too. Supporters include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs, the Crystal Meth Society of BC, the town of Gibsons, the city of Powell River, the district of Squamish, the municipality of Bowen Island, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and several other groups.

I thank my colleagues in the House, members of all parties, for their support of the bill. By their support, they join me in denouncing the scourge of crystal meth and ecstasy drugs.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), which stands in the name of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I also want to express my appreciation for his putting this bill forward and giving us the opportunity to debate drug policy once again here in the House of Commons.

Let me say at the outset that New Democrats will be supporting this bill to get it to committee where it can be carefully examined once again. I say that even though I do have concerns about this legislation and the kind of direction it espouses and supports.

I do have very serious concerns about the criminal justice model of dealing with drugs in our society. I believe it has been a colossal failure, frankly. We need to be moving to a health issue model of dealing with drug use in our society. There are a lot of examples of how the criminal justice model has failed us. It has failed to deal with the problems of drug use in our society. It has failed to find any major improvement in that situation over many years of dealing with it.

The parallels to alcohol prohibition are absolutely clear when we consider drug prohibition in our society. I have spoken at length about that in the House on previous occasions. When we take a careful look at alcohol prohibition and compare that to drug prohibition, we are going to see an exact parallel in terms of the kinds of social problems that were evident, especially in the United States during the period of alcohol prohibition.

Those problems have an exact parallel to the experience we have today under drug prohibition. Very basic things like grow ops in homes and the problems they cause to housing, the problems they cause to neighbourhoods were very evident in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition in the United States. People had illegal stills all over the place and caused serious problems, including fires when the stills exploded. The family dislocation for a crime that was considered illegal and, therefore, underground was very similar in the 1920s as it is today around drug prohibition and the stigma that goes along with drug use. They are things like the activities of organized crime. They are infamous. There are many stories about the organized crime activities related to alcohol in the period of alcohol prohibition in the United States, which have an exact parallel to the illegal drug activities that we see in our society today.

We have to carefully examine that. We have to look to the example that we have established with the policies on alcohol restriction, that we allow its use in our society and apply that to what we know about drugs. Indeed, other jurisdictions have done that already. Portugal is an excellent example of significant change and improvement in this area.

It is interesting that we are having this debate today because this afternoon I was able to meet with students who are visiting members of Parliament here on the Hill about the whole issue of drug policy. I met with two representatives of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. That is a national grassroots organization composed of student groups at secondary and post-secondary schools across Canada. The various chapters of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy are encouraged to mobilize around drug-related issues that are important to their members and their communities. Their projects range from open peer drug and alcohol education, to public awareness campaigns, to lobbying MPs, as they were doing today. They were lobbying MPs for smart, sustainable, viable drug policies.

There is a chapter of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Simon Fraser University in my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas.

One of the things the folks from Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy were asking today is whether I, as an MP, was ready for Canada to move toward honest and non-judgmental youth drug education. I was able to answer that with a resounding “yes”. They are doing an anonymous survey. They are keeping tally of what MPs told them. I am proud to go public and say that I do support the goals of their campaign around this and that I believe that honest and non-judgmental drug education is something that is absolutely crucial for youth in Canada.

When they talk about drug education and the kind of education and information that youth and young people need in Canada, they break it down into a number of categories. I want to go through some of the documentation they have provided to show what another vision of moving toward a better situation with regard to drug use in our society might look like. They break down three categories in drug education. They talk about the need for honesty, the need for prevention and the need for a non-judgemental approach.

With regard to honesty, there are a number of side issues that they think should be covered. They believe it is important to talk about drugs as a serious issue, but they also believe we should do it in a way that does not exaggerate the negative effects that drugs and alcohol can have on an individual family or community. They believe young people, especially those with any experience of drug use, are aware of this because of their experience and intimate knowledge of that. However, they believe it is very important to create an honest, respectful dialogue so young people are given the opportunity to discuss these issues with their peers.

In terms of honesty, they also believe we need to make it clear that drugs are a part of life. It is undeniable. We use drugs in all kinds of different situations. It is not just illicit drugs in this case, but many other kinds of drugs are used freely and appropriately in our society. There is an important aspect of recognizing that. This is not about promoting drug use; it is a recognition of their place in our lives and in our society.

They believe it is important to point out that illegal drugs are not always dangerous and that legal drugs are not always safe. We know there is much abuse of prescription drugs and there is often much misunderstanding about the effects of these drugs. They believe this needs to be part of the conversation about drug use. It cannot always be on the one side around so-called illicit drugs. We need a broader appreciation of legal drugs that are available and used in our society.

They also say we should talk about use and abuse not being the same thing. Young people know, in any conversation about drug use, from their experience of how we use drugs and alcohol in our society, that there are ways to use them appropriately and ways to use them inappropriately. They know there is a difference between having a glass of wine at dinner and having a glass of wine at breakfast. They see adults and others making those kinds of decisions all the time and that approach needs to be part of the kind of conversation we have drug education.

With regard to prevention, they have a number of points in that general area as well. They point out that not using drugs is the only way to completely avoid the risk of drugs. Abstaining from drug use is the best way to avoid the individual risks of each substance and this has to be a key part of any discussion. We do not want to avoid talking about that.

We also need to talk honestly about preventing problematic drug use. We have to recognize that often young people will do risky things whether we want them to or not, but we have to find a way to engage those young people who already take those kinds of risks. As part of that, harm reduction needs to be part of the conversation. We have to ensure that young people who make those choices know how to reduce the harm that they do, having made that decision. This does not necessarily mean encouraging the use of drugs. It means ensuring young people who make those choices have appropriate information. A lot of good work has been done in the whole area of harm reduction to make it very clear why this is a very effective strategy.

They also want to talk about delaying first use. For youth who think of using drugs, they believe it is important that drug education stress the importance of delaying first use in a non-judgmental fashion. If people make those decisions, they need to make them at a point in their life when they have the information at their fingertips and the background they need to make those kinds of decisions.

Finally, in their category of non-judgmental approach, they point out some things that should be fairly obvious to us. They point out that drug use is not a moral failing. They point out the need for inclusive and respective dialogue. They point out the need for creating stronger peer groups. They say we keep safer sex, why not safer drug use.

There is a great approach here and I would hope we might pay more attention to this alternative approach to dealing with substance use in our society.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting private member's Bill C-475 but I do have my doubts about whether or not it would actually do anything. I am left wondering if the bill would be effective or if it is more empty rhetoric with a tough on crime agenda from the Conservative government.

I wonder that because I do not understand quite yet why the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not adequate to deal with the issue that the member has brought forward since it already is illegal to produce, traffic or import methamphetamines and ecstasy. I am looking forward to hearing from witnesses to see what exactly could be done.

In looking at this bill for the purpose of debate, I would like to first consider other legislative and non-criminal options that are available to us.

Several states in the United States have moved to regulate these kinds of chemicals at the source, and they did not actually use criminal law. They used commercial and consumer regulations. A chain of information is created, tracking the sale of these chemicals and reporting to whom they were sold and in what volume. Anyone along that chain of purchasing has to do the same thing, so the chemical is resold in smaller quantities. The purchaser must list to whom the chemical has been sold and provide an explanation as to what it will be used for. It has been quite effective in restricting labs in the United States, so I wonder why we are not doing the same here in Canada.

Next I would like to talk about Canada's move toward the criminalization of drug use and the movement away from the treatment of drug use.

This bill and all the other drug bills that we have seen come through this House as of late all reek of playing into the fears of a public that the government is happy to keep uninformed about the realities of addiction and drugs in Canada, which continues a pattern of inefficient, ineffective and misguided policies.

Last year, the head of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, Eugene Oscapella, said:

We've had 101 years of drug prohibition in Canada. All of the problems we have seen with drugs have occurred under this system. The solution is not to do more of the same.

I do agree with that.

The government has continuously rejected the idea that there are other options to addressing drug policy. For example, despite having the lifesaving success of harm reduction measures, such as needle exchanges and Vancouver's safe injection site Insite in reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C among drug users and increasing access to treatment, in 2007 the government introduced a new anti-drug strategy for Canada that removed all references to harm reduction, every one of them.

Instead, the government has put greater emphasis on law enforcement, back to tough on crime, moving Canada closer toward an expensive and failed U.S.-style war on drugs. In fact, just 3% of Canada's current drug policy budget goes to prevention, if members can believe it, with over 73% going toward enforcement and, no surprise, drug use continues to rise. We are taking a page out of George Bush's failed U.S. drug strategy.

The government unilaterally changed Canada's drug policy to get rid of harm reduction measures. We know that “just say no” campaigns do not work. There are realities that we are not facing as a society that are really the root of drug use. I am speaking of realities like poverty, access to education, access to justice, non-judgmental health services, a lack of addiction services, education budgets that have been slashed and extracurricular programs that are quickly and continuously vanishing. We tell our youth to just say no but we give them very few options and very little information to actually make choices for themselves.

There are solutions that the NDP can get behind. I will start off with what we know about drug use in Canada. In 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs but by 2004 that number had gone up to 45%. These numbers tell us that a broad, holistic approach to the problem is necessary. We cannot just rely on putting people in jail. That is not a solution. The problem is much more complicated than that, so we need to look at what else is going on. A national treatment strategy is really an idea that we can get behind.

The National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada is a 2008 working group. Its members include not only federal and provincial health agencies, like Health Canada and Nova Scotia Health Promotion and Protection, but also related agency representatives from the Correctional Service of Canada, College of Family Physicians in Canada and the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.

This working group pointed out that research findings suggest that providing appropriate services and supports across a range of systems, so back to the holistic idea, not only reduces substance use problems but it also improves a wide range of outcomes related to health, social functioning and criminal justice.

Such a spectrum of services and supports is also a good investment for government because it returns economic benefits that far outstrip its cost. That is actually from the report of the working group. This group is calling for a national treatment strategy. It is a strategy that would include building capacity across a continuum of services and supports, supporting the continuum of services and supports, developing a research program and reducing stigma and discrimination.

Young people need to have access to realistic and useful information about resources. We know that children are encountering drug culture from an early age, so prevention and education should be just as aggressive as the sellers.

We want kids to make the right decisions but to do that we need to give them the tools. Similar to safer sex campaigns, education needs to include information about being safe if one is taking drugs, how to seek support if one has an addiction and not just a lot of commercials about the horrors of drugs.

I could certainly support any bill that looked at a four pillar approach to this issue. The four pillar approach has been successful in cities across the U.S., the U.K. and Europe. It is based on the four pillars of prevention that we have talked about many times here: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. All pillars are equally important and have to be integrated and jointly implemented to be effective.

In 2002, the House special committee on the non-medical use of drugs, the Office of the Auditor General and the Senate committee all called for: strengthened leadership; coordination and accountability with dedicated resources; enhanced data collection to set measurable objectives, evaluate programs and report on progress; balance of supply and demand activities across government; and increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. We have seen that the four pillar approach has been approved and recommended by members of this place.

Our drug policies need to be based on research, not on public opinion. We should avoid legislation that increases the already imbalanced and overfunded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crimes or drug rate use. Legislation really needs to address the problems of violent or organized crime and not in this patchwork way that we are seeing by the government.

The Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. This is a direction that is expensive, has no effect on drug use and will only increase the prison population creating a whole new set of issues, like overpopulation, health, safety and crime issues within the prison system.

Would the bill do anything? I am unsure but would it not be great if the bill would take a reality based approach to drug policy that is rooted in this four pillar approach? Would it not be great if this bill considered better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk? Would it not be great if this bill looked at more resources for prosecution and enforcement of existing laws? Would this bill not be better if more officers were on the street as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered? Would this bill not be better if it introduced an overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime? Would it not be better if it actually looked at toughened proceeds of crime legislation?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-475. It is a bill that has been introduced by a Conservative colleague in the House, and I believe it is well intentioned.

The bill simply, but in a complicated way, attempts to zero in surgically on the proliferation of club and party drugs known as methamphetamines and ecstasy. The bill, in its two clauses, attempts to pinpoint persons who possess, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to as the two drugs I mentioned.

I think there should first be context. We live in an age when the proliferation of new drugs, drugs that market themselves and drugs that are more easily manufactured than in times before, is upon us. We also know that it is no longer the growing of drugs, but the manufacture of drugs, that is a fairly easy proposition for those in the know and produces drugs of potency that can be calibrated. I do not like to use the word calibration very much on this side, but it is apt here. The calibration of the potency of a drug is much more precise in the chemical production lab than in the marijuana and poppy fields where drugs are traditionally known to come from.

We have a real epidemic of producers who, with very short learning curves in the production of drugs, can fill our streets, schoolyards and playgrounds with perhaps permanently mind-altering drugs at an affordable price in small quantities to be concealed. It is therefore the intention, I think, of my hon. friend to zero in on these club drugs.

I must say that in the four years I have been here, the Conservative approach to law and order has been to put more coats of peanut butter on top of the jam. We all know that peanut butter does not go on jam. It is not enough just to increase sentences. It does not make the criminal justice system work. This bill attempts to widen the net. It is not just another addition of a mandatory minimum. It is not just another hard penalty for a crime that already exists under the Code. We have had four years of that from the government.

It is important to recognize that this bill comes from a private member. It does not come from the government. So bravo; at least somebody on the backbench gets the idea that we can be surgical and at the same time improve the situation with respect to controlling drugs and substances, as the act says. He expands it by saying that no person shall possess, produce, sell or import “anything”. Obviously, that thing is any element that makes up the drugs ecstasy or methamphetamine.

As this is to be sent to committee, we are saying we have to very carefully examine what that word “knowing” means. Of course, someone could have a chemical that results in the production of ecstasy. That chemical may in itself have a harmless use. It may be something that someone buys for agricultural, medicinal or cleaning purposes, but it is an element that in the end makes up the drug ecstasy. I will say ecstasy because I have an easier time saying ecstasy than methamphetamine. If it is part of that process, knowingly, this bill will attempt to insert itself into the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

If ecstasy is produced, the penalties are very precise. There is a maximum penalty, finally we are dealing with maximum penalties, which inherently has within it the long, four years or so, ignored principle, an importance of judicial discretion when giving out sentences. The government has ignored that for so long and, treating judges like schoolchildren, has said no, that it wants mandatory minimums. This bill treats specific offences with maximum sentences therefore protecting the idea that a judge in a certain circumstance could say that this was not a case that warrants the 10 year maximum in the case of having the elements that make up ecstasy and methamphetamines, and the sentence has been increased to a 7 year maximum for other drugs.

We need to look at the government's record with respect to controlled drugs and substances. For a couple of years it might have been good enough for the Conservatives to rail and complain that they did not have the keys to the castle and therefore could not do much with respect to drug awareness and the control of harmful substances but they have been in power for four years now. This is a pretty good bill but we need to look at it at committee to see if the intent aspects are covered, because no one in this House wants to make a law that looks good on the surface but will not be efficacious.

The law has to work, which is why it will be sent to committee, I suspect, and we will see if it passes the test of being upheld by the courts. What we have seen in the last few years is a real rush into a rash of laws that had not been necessarily tested. We certainly never had one charter opinion from a Department of Justice official tabled in any of the debates we have had with respect to law and order legislation.

I welcome the British Columbia member's bill. It will have a very hearty and thorough debate at committee. Overall, however, the government's attack on the harm that drugs can do to our youth has been woeful: increasing sentences and attacking the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Many experts say that increasing sentences for youth, particularly gang members, enticed into criminal activity, will have very little deterrent effect.

We need to examine the whole road map with respect to drug prevention and education. How do we get the people who are addicted to drugs off those drugs? What is the point of putting forward legislation that speaks to diversion to drug treatment courts, which are a very good thing and supported certainly on this side, when drug treatment courts in my riding, for instance, do not even exist? It is a diversion to nowhere. We are just finishing a budget debate. Where are the resources for the prevention of addictions and the treatment for addictions. That is the item that requires five or six days of debate in this country.

Everybody has had a family member who has had a dependency of some sort. Everybody in the House who has would know that it comes through treatment, education, awareness and resources in the community to attach oneself or one's family to those services that really help the fight on addictions in this community.

Many people who are involved in addictions and find themselves in the courts are victims rather than criminals. The more we can do to help the root cause of addictions, to get more people treated and to divert them to measures that are actually funded, the less we will need well-intentioned but surgical bills such as this one which only treat the disease, not the symptoms and only make society more overladen with laws and not justice.

The House resumed from March 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)‚ be read the second time and referred to a committee.