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

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

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again to a bill designed to recover our youth, to deliver a greater sense of peace and order to our communities, and to tackle a major activity of organized crime.

The passion I bring to these issues reflects my role as a father of three young children and as a member of Parliament for the riding that hosted many of the Olympic Games in the past month and will next week host most of the Paralympics.

Many of my constituents are also concerned about health matters. These matters are very important to everyone, people of the east, the west, anglophones, francophones—all Canadians. The health of Canadians is also linked to the progress we are making in our fight against drugs like crystal meth and ecstasy.

My private member's bill is aimed at tackling head-on the production of the drugs known as methamphetamines, more commonly called crystal meth and ecstasy, the two most common forms of methamphetamine-type stimulants. The bill would make a new offence for possessing, producing, selling or importing anything if the person involved knows that the thing will be used to produce or traffic crystal meth or ecstasy.

The United States, New Zealand, Australia and the U.K. have introduced aggressive strategies to target one or both of these drugs. This bill follows the approach taken in these countries, introducing several changes to our Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and creating a new criminal offence for the procurement of the precursor chemicals for these drugs if the procurement is accompanied by the intention to produce the outlawed substances.

When passed, the bill will greatly hamper the clandestine production that has made these drugs so easily accessible to Canadian youth.

There are at least three reasons why this issue is of such great concern to my constituents, to the members who sit in the House and to all Canadians. First, crystal meth and ecstasy harm individuals who use them as well as their families and communities. Second, production of these drugs involves direct environmental dangers. Third, the production of these drugs also affects Canada's reputation internationally.

Experts agree that one way to stem the production of these drugs is to focus on the precursors. Today, law enforcement officials cannot investigate or charge someone merely for gathering the ingredients of these drugs. The bill would give the law enforcement community the new tools it needs to do the job.

The 2004 United Nations report entitled, “Preventing amphetamine-type stimulant use among young people”, made clear what a scourge these drugs are to youth in our country. 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. Too many families and communities are being affected by these awful drugs.

Some personal anecdotes help to give a human face to these struggles. I have been in touch personally with several drug treatment centres and some of the victims of these drugs have shared their stories with me. A young lady, who I will call Vanessa, said “the worst paranoia I've ever experienced was on crystal meth. It creates a feeling of invincibility. I believed I could commit crimes or do anything. The crash when coming down off the drug is so hideous you do whatever it takes to prevent the crash. That's where the crimes come in. You believe you can get away with anything”.

Another person in treatment noted that “ecstasy is what started me and all my friends using other harder drugs” he said. “The come down was so hard, the depression so bad that we needed to find something to numb us out”. He carried on and said, “So we started using cocaine and heroin after a weekend of partying with ecstasy”.

These drugs have affected a large number of Canadians. According to the Canadian alcohol and monitoring survey, about 50,000 people aged 15 or older reported having used methamphetamines at least once in the previous year.

In B.C. it was estimated by the ministry of health in 2003 that 4% of school-aged children have used methamphetamine-type drugs. At the same time, it was estimated by the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission that a shocking 5.3% of the school-aged population had tried methamphetamine-type stimulants.

Between 2000-04, 65 people died in British Columbia with methamphetamines present in their bodies. This number, which has been increasing every year for which statistics are available, charts a disturbing trend for all people in Canada.

One of the most insidious qualities of these drugs is the covert way in which they attack users. Ecstasy seems like a harmless party drug to some, one that is marketed through colourful pills and cheerful designs, such as happy faces, but police have found that a significant amount of ecstasy seized from the streets is laced with more dangerous drugs such as crystal meth. When combined, the two can become an addictive, toxic and dangerous combination. Overdoses are common due to the unregulated nature of the drugs.

Side effects of methamphetamines are similarly worrisome. A position paper produced in Australia noted, “methamphetamine use has often been associated with violent crime, and the drug has a strong reputation for inducing violent behaviour”.

To understand the harm of these drugs, it is crucial to highlight their addictiveness. In a 2004 report, the solicitor general of my home province, B.C., explained:

A powerful stimulant, meth alters the brain's production of dopamine. The drug produces an initial positive pleasurable physical reaction by increasing the levels of dopamine, leaving a person depressed as the effects of the drug wear off. The user then requires more of the drug to return to normal. This "binge and crash" pattern leads to loss of control over the drug and addiction.

To look at the addictive nature of these drugs from another angle, addiction counsellors say that the relapse rate of crystal meth users is about 92%, which is higher than the relapse rate for cocaine.

Having covered aspects of harm to the individual consumer and his or her community, let me speak to the second of these main reasons to attack the production of these drugs, the dangerous environmental aspects of the production.

In the absence of production standards, there is no way to control the quality of substances produced, the safety of production or the location. A report produced by Carleton University in 2004 stated, “Versatility is the term that best defines methamphetamine production. Clandestine laboratories have been found in sites as diverse as private residences, motel rooms, dorm rooms, campgrounds, storage facilities” and almost any other place that we could imagine. Though large-scale industrial production of these drugs is an increasing reality, the vast amount of crystal meth and ecstasy are produced in small, kitchen-like labs. These labs house toxic waste and other substances dangerous to humans and are located in our neighbourhoods and in our homes.

The United Nations notes “environmental harm and costs caused by illegal laboratories and their safe removal are considerable”. The production of these drugs is an extremely toxic endeavour, one about which we should all be concerned.

A letter I received today from B.C.'s solicitor general, Kash Heed, outlines some of the harmful effects of production. In the letter, he says:

In the last five years, police in British Columbia have responded to over 161 clandestine labs, chemical seizures and dumpsites related to illegal ecstasy and methamphetamine production....As you are no doubt aware, synthetic drug labs in British Columbia are large-scale economic labs that...produce...quantities greater than five kilograms per production cycle and, in some instances, 40 kilograms per cycle. At least six kilograms of waste is produced for every kilogram of finished product. These waste products are typically dumped causing serious environmental damage.

One person who was involved with the drug noted, “I lived with a person who cooked crystal meth. He had burns all over his arms. It was in an apartment building and I'm sure that it affected all the people in the building”.

The environmental degradation, the violent nature of the chemicals and the harmful effects are all reasons which independently dictate the need for action.

Many colleagues in the House have expressed to me their concerns about the effects of these drugs on people across Canada. However, the marketing of crystal meth and ecstasy transcends Canada's borders and tarnishes our reputation on an international scale.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported in 2009 that Canada is the single largest supplier of ecstasy to the United States and is a significant supplier of the drug to Japan and Australia. The UN report also concluded:

There is evidence that Canada-based Asian organized crime groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs have significantly increased the amount of methamphetamines they produce and export, for the U.S. market, but also for Oceania and East and Southeast Asia.

The report also noted:

Canada has grown to be the most important producer [of ecstasy] for North America, and since 2006, all ecstasy laboratories reported have been large-capacity facilities operated principally by Asian organized crime groups.

We have many resources, skills and commodities to export. How sad that we Canadians must now include crystal meth and ecstasy among our recognized exports.

My friend and colleague, the member for Peace River, originally introduced the bill and invested enormous effort to obtain unanimous consent in the House. His bill made it to second reading in the upper house. However, an election intervened and the bill died. He and I have since consulted extensively with stakeholders such as law enforcement officials in Ontario, Alberta and B.C.

The bill would improve on the original bill put forward by the member for Peace River by adding the drug ecstasy as a substance which precursors would now also be restricted. The production of crystal meth and ecstasy are often linked. Law officials therefore encouraged us to link the two drugs in the bill.

We have received endorsements for the bill from the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, B.C. Solicitor General Kash Heed and several other associations in the riding I represent, including the Catholic Women's League. This past weekend, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities also passed a resolution in support of this bill, calling on our House to work with the provinces to enact more stringent regulation with regard to precursors in Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, just as proposed in this bill.

First nations leaders such as Chief Gibby Jacob of the Squamish Nation have voiced their support for the bill. I have also received support from B.C. communities regarding the bill, including places such as Gibsons, Bowen Island and Powell River. I am also proud to note that our government has taken action to reduce the level of addiction in our country already through education and treatment. Government-financed programs such as the youth justice fund and the national anti-drug strategy will continue to work in conjunction with the bill to increase liability for possession of the chemicals needed to create crystal meth.

I appreciate the supportive and constructive comments that I have received already from colleagues in the House from all parties. My colleagues have taken note of the three reasons to legislate against the procurement of precursors of crystal meth and ecstasy: the harm to consumers of these drugs; the environmental hazards involved in their production; and their prejudice to Canada's good name as an exporter.

I hope all members will join me in bringing to an end the possession, production and trafficking of crystal meth and ecstasy in Canada. By directly targeting the ingredients of these devastating drugs, we can work to create a safer and stronger Canada. I ask all members join me in support of Bill C-475.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I previously spoke on the bill in the last session. This emanates from a 2007 Department of Justice Canada report. At the time, I said that this should be a government bill. I complimented my friend, and he will recall this, for taking the initiative and trying to fix the Conservative government's omission in not bringing this forward as part of its own legislation. At this point in time, I think he will agree with me that this is an important issue. It should go to committee. It should have been studied, and I support it.

He must be as disappointed as I am that this is not further along. This could have been much further down the road if Parliament had not been shut down. Does he share my extreme disappointment that Parliament was prorogued and that this legislation was delayed because of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly embrace the enthusiasm of my colleague across the floor. I thank him for his support of the bill. The way I look at these things, I come to the House on behalf of constituents and Canadians to do the best I can. I am supported by the government members of the House in the forwarding of the bill.

With the support of my colleague and with the support of members from other parties, we will enact this bill for the good of all Canadians, especially our youth.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would not have taken much for the member to convince almost everyone in this House, if they had been here, of the dangers of these drugs, and the importance of prohibiting the trafficking and production of them.

However, there already is legislation that makes these drugs illegal. The member referred to that act and has proposed some amendments. This act has four schedules, in which drugs are classified according to how dangerous they are.

Why have these substances not been added to the schedules of the act before now, which would have made them illegal substances? Why do we need a new act to amend the schedules of another act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. I see that he is very interested in examining this bill, and that makes me very happy.

As it stands, no legislation prohibits the acquisition of the substances used to produce the drugs. That is surprising to many people, and especially to parliamentarians in this House.

Until now, if a police officer stopped someone who was in possession of substances used in the production of drugs, there was no specific legislation to allow for charges to be laid.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the whole issue of pill compression machines. Without those machines, the drug cannot be made in the first place.

A report of the United States point to Canada as a prime source of these drugs. I know the Americans are concerned. In the United States pill compression machines are registered. When they are bought, they have to be registered. When they break down before they can be repaired, it has to be documented. There is a paper trail that follows the pill-making machine, or the compression machine. I know the United States would like us to take some action on this whole area.

What will the government do and when will it regulate pill compression machines?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. One of the things to be regulated is pill compression machines. In fact, many of the precursors and the things that are to be regulated by this new law, if it is enacted, includes things that are legal in and of themselves. However, if they are collected together with the purpose of manufacturing the drugs, crystal meth and ecstasy, then it becomes illegal.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that no one here doubts the danger posed by the substances targeted in the bill introduced by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

I am extremely surprised that this government has not yet realized it, especially since two government members are themselves convinced. I am surprised that it has not already included these substances in the schedule of prohibited substances.

I appreciate the response I received. Sometimes, if we can approach legislation in a non-partisan manner, we can work more intelligently. I already understood there was a small difference between the offence set out in the legislation currently before us, which was introduced by the hon. member, and the offences set out concerning other substances that are considered dangerous.

As for other substances, basically, here is what is prohibited: the possession, manufacture, import and above all, possession for the purpose of trafficking—a more serious offence than simple possession. This corresponds to the philosophy of all Canadian legislation that prohibits substances, including narcotics and other kinds of drugs considered dangerous.

This bill has one new aspect, and I would like to elaborate on that part of it. The new aspect is the creation of an offence regarding the possession of certain substances with the intention of manufacturing methamphetamine or ecstasy. The essence of the crime is therefore the intention. I understand that intentions are proven based on circumstances, but one must be familiar with the substances used to manufacture methamphetamine, also known as “ice”, and ecstasy.

The ingredients for methamphetamine include a surprising number of substances. These substances are found in over the counter preparations such as remedies for coughs, colds and allergies. These remedies contain pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Other substances are found in acetone, rubbing alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, iodine, ether-based starting fluid, gas additives such as methanol, drain cleaners (sulphuric acid) and lithium batteries. I do not think that people are going to open batteries to extract the lithium and then use it in the recipe for “ice”. It is also found in rock salt, matchbooks (red phosphorus), sodium hydroxide, paint thinner, aluminum foil, glassware, coffee filters and propane tanks. These items can be found in almost any home in varying quantities. That is what increases the danger of selling these substances. You do not need specialized knowledge to make them; these substances are easy to find.

In this case, not only do you have to find these substances in someone's home but there must be circumstances that establish that these substances were collected with the intention of manufacturing drugs. Obviously, the intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of possession for the purposes of trafficking, you must prove that there were two intentions: the manufacture and the trafficking of the substance. The intention of a person who has collected all these substances surely is not just to use them but also to deal in them.

Does this offence, which is slightly different from others already set out in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, make a significant contribution to the fight against the use of these two substances?

Why has the government not yet amended the schedules, which, I believe, could be done by order in council or by regulation? Why have these substances not yet been listed in the schedules?

I am not just a father anymore. Eight and a half months ago, I became a grandfather to twin girls. Every day, I understand that Bernard Landry was speaking the truth when he so often said that becoming a parent makes one wise, but becoming a grandparent makes one mad. If I do crazy things now and then, it is because I have reached that stage. All the same, the greatest happiness we can experience is to see our children feel the joy we felt when they were born.

I heard my children talk about these drugs well before they were ready to get engaged and married, which they both did eventually. These drugs have been on the market for a long time.

I do not think that the member's proposed measures are the best way to make these drugs illegal. I realize that he is proposing a nuance that might apply to existing offences, such as possessing anything intended for use in the production of dangerous substances. This nuance may apply to other substances listed in the act that the member wishes to amend.

I know that a private member faces a lot of obstacles when trying to do something he feels is important. I want to give him a chance to defend his bill before the committees in the hope that someday, the government will understand the problem and do what it should have done years ago.

All the same, this bill enables the member to add an important nuance to this kind of offence by specifying that it is not the distinct use of harmless substances such as lighters, gasoline additives and exhaust pipe cleaners that is prohibited, but the accumulation of such things with the intent to produce something dangerous.

I will certainly offer my support and that of my party to further his bill. I think that we should applaud and thank him.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-475. I would like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for introducing the bill. It is very similar to a bill that was introduced awhile ago. I spoke to that bill and it went to committee. The fact that it is back before the House is evidence of the hon. member's serious intent to bring forward this issue. We certainly appreciate that.

I want to make a few general points about the bill as it relates to the larger issue of drug policy and what we have seen from the government. While on the one hand the bill deals very specifically with substances that are involved in the selling, production or import of amphetamines and ecstasy, as it relates to the larger issue, we have to be aware that reliance on an enforcement strategy and an approach that is focused on the Criminal Code is not going to solve the very major issues we are facing with drug addiction and substance use in our society.

Because the hon. member is from the metro Vancouver area, I am sure he is familiar with what the city of Vancouver is calling the four pillar approach. It is an approach that is more comprehensive. It focuses on prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement.

One thing that really concerns us is that we have seen from the current government an overemphasis on enforcement. This bill would very much be a part of that. For example, we know that Canada spends about 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement; only about 14% goes to treatment, 7% to research, 2.6% to prevention and 2.6% to harm reduction.

When we look at the real picture of what is going on in Canadian society, based on reports that have been produced, we know that in 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs, but by 2004 that number had gone up to 45%. That is pretty staggering. I would say that even the United Nations now recognizes that a broader approach including harm reduction is a very important component in a comprehensive drug policy.

While on the one hand there is this bill which has a very narrow spectrum, I would hope that the hon. member would also advocate for a broader approach and that we would not see the kind of penalization on things around harm reduction. I am sure the hon. member is familiar with Insite in Vancouver, the only safe injection facility in North America. To me the real issue is about prevention and about approaching this as a health issue.

We see that the Conservative government relies heavily on the enforcement mechanism. In fact, in 2007 the government dropped harm reduction from Canada's drug strategy. I really feel that the statistics are only going to get worse.

One real problem we are facing is this illusion, this political stance being put forward of continually seeking tougher laws on enforcement. Of course, there was Bill C-15 in the last session of Parliament, which called for mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The political stance that somehow this is going to solve very complex issues in our society is an illusion. It is just a political stance because the reality, research, and scientific work that is being done shows us that only when all of the components are present do we begin to actually make changes.

For example, I would point to the National Framework for Action to Reduce the Harms Associated with Alcohol and Other Drugs and Substances in Canada 2008 working group. The working group is made up of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, first nations, the Canadian Executive Council on Addictions, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and BC Mental Health and Addiction Services. It is a very professional body. It points out in its national framework for action that 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.

I use this information because it is further evidence that unless we have some kind of equilibrium and common sense approach to drug policy in this country, we are actually not going to change anything. If we continue along a path of criminalizing drug users, which is what Bill C-15 would do, an over-emphasis on an enforcement strategy, and somehow fooling people into believing that we are going to deal with this issue by having more cops or tougher enforcement, the evidence in this country shows us that is not the case. I wanted to paint that slightly bigger picture because it is very relevant in this debate.

As my hon. colleague from the Bloc has pointed out, the fact that the bill does not name the products and that the various substances that go into making these drugs are so readily available makes enforcement very challenging. That is all the more reason, particularly when talking about drug use by young people, it is very critical to emphasize the prevention and education, particularly realistic education about drug use.

I have had a lot of concerns and qualms about sending police officers into schools regarding drug education. I ask myself whether we would send police officers into schools to provide sex education. No, we would not, so why would we do it for drug use? It is because these substances are illegal and I do not think kids get a very realistic and honest education about what these substances are, that they need to be aware of their own health and what they need to take care of.

I hope the member and other members of the Conservative caucus would focus on some of those issues and bring them forward in bills as well. We in the NDP will certainly support the bill going to committee because it requires examination, but I want to emphasize that this is just a tiny piece of a much bigger issue that is not being dealt with in any kind of appropriate way by the Conservative government, and that is what we need to focus on.

We will certainly support it going to committee. We want witnesses to be heard. We would like to look at the details of the bill and examine some of the issues about what the products are and why it is that the existing Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is not adequate to deal with this issue that the member has brought forward.

Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. Let us not get so caught up in the spin, political manoeuvring, and the stance that takes place that we have seen with the Conservatives, that they see this as somehow the be-all and end-all because it is not. It is quite shameful that in this country we would have a drug policy that is now so unbalanced, over-focused on enforcement, and under-supported in terms of treatment, research, prevention and harm reduction. Those are very critical elements.

If we are really genuine about supporting local communities and helping the kids who need to go into treatment, then federal dollars have to go there, too. I appreciate the member reading some of the comments by people who are involved in treatment, but let us listen to what they are really saying. One of the things they are really saying is that there is not enough treatment available. We do not have treatment on demand in this country and we need to have it.

We in the NDP will support the bill going to committee, but let us also focus on the much bigger picture.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House this evening and debate Bill C-475. It is a bill that is close to my heart. I had the opportunity to bring forward a bill that was very similar to it in the last Parliament. I appreciate the support I received from members of all parties. It demonstrates that we recognize this issue affects communities regardless of where they are located in the country. This is not just an issue that results in harm to young people. Every community is harmed when young people, or people of any age, become addicted to drugs.

I want to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for bringing Bill C-475 forward.

Before I go on, I thought I would take a moment to thank both the member and his constituents. I am hopeful that some of them are listening to us tonight. Of course many of them are still involved in the efforts they have been involved in over the last number of years, preparing for the Olympics and Paralympics.

The people in my colleague's community made us proud in their willingness and their hospitality as they hosted the Olympics. They are now getting ready to host some of the venues for the Paralympic Games as well. We appreciate those people for putting their best foot forward, for demonstrating what it is to be Canadian in terms of hospitality and truly demonstrating to the participants, the people who were covering the games as well as those who watched the games, just truly what it is to be Canadian.

We thank the people of the member's constituency and the people in surrounding communities for their great efforts in hosting the world over the last couple of weeks and for hosting the world over the next couple of weeks.

It is truly a wonderful opportunity for me to support the bill. Again, I would reiterate the fact that I brought forward a similar bill. This is an issue about which I continue to be passionate. My bill went all the way to the Senate, but unfortunately it stalled there. An election happened and my bill was not brought into force. However, I believe this is an issue that members of Parliament of all stripes can get behind and support.

We had an opportunity to listen to members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois as they talked about some of the issues surrounding drugs and how they affected communities from coast to coast.

The national drug strategy is of importance to our government. We have put a lot of resources into it. We have provided millions of dollars toward educating young people about the harm and effects of drug use.

Our government has put additional resources into treatment and toward helping those people who are addicted. We also put in place supports for people who combat drug proliferation in communities. We have given more resources to the RCMP as well as to police forces across the country. These are partnerships that are essential in combating the proliferation of drugs in our communities.

The thing about crystal meth, or methamphetamines, and ecstasy is they have a characteristic that is different than some other drugs in their addictive quality. All of us in the House need to recognize crystal meth and ecstasy are not drugs that can easily be considered to recreational drugs and that they do not have consequences or harm.

One of the reasons I became involved in the cause to try to rid our communities of methamphetamines was because of the addictive nature of these drugs and the impact they were having in my constituency, on people of all demographics, disproportionately harming first nations communities and also harming people in all walks of life. Young students in high school, college and university were being impacted by this. I saw how this impacted professional people, those who had experimented with the drugs and were struggling with addiction as a result of it.

As I looked into the issue more, what was alarming to me was Canada had kind of stalled in its efforts to get a hold on the issue of methamphetamines. We had moved from being an importing nation of methamphetamines to being an exporting nation of these drugs. It really was of concern to me, so I started to look into it more and more.

What I saw was that what made us different from other countries that had moved from being exporting nations to importing nations was the legislation surrounding the issues that we are talking about today and the issues that are actually combined in this bill in terms of giving police forces the opportunity and the mechanisms to go into especially organized crime that proliferate these clandestine labs and just put huge amounts of these harmful drugs out into our communities.

Most recently, the United Nations has commented on Canada's place in terms of the fight regarding the proliferation of methamphetamines. We are not doing a great job. It is something that I felt was important for us to address as parliamentarians. I see members of all parties supporting this, and I appreciate that. I commend them for that. I am hoping that they will give speedy passage to this bill in committee.

What we do not want to see happen again is this bill being stalled out in some other place and then not have it come into force. I think Canadians from coast to coast would come together in support of this measure. I think we as members of Parliament representing Canadians coast to coast need to represent that alarm and those concerns.

Every time I go into classrooms, of which I make a regular policy of doing, I talk about my job and I talk about the harm of methamphetamines, crystal meth, the addictive qualities and the destruction that these drugs can cause in the lives of young people, and I get an education. I often hear from students who are in grades 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 telling me that they are fully aware of where to get methamphetamines, crystal meth and ecstasy in their communities. I am also learning about some of the marketing tactics of the organized criminals who are actually selling this stuff.

What I found interesting, and when I say interesting, I find it very alarming, was that they are now actually putting this highly addictive drug into a candy form to sell to young people. That is one of the most despicable, most startling things that I as a parent have come to learn, that we have one of the most addictive drugs being marketed by organized crime and directed at young kids.

What I am also learning from people who are involved in combating organized crime is that crystal meth and methamphetamines are actually being cut into other drugs because of the addictive qualities of methamphetamines, making other drugs more addictive by putting in the methamphetamines.

I sometimes hear the suggestion that there are certain strategies that should be employed in terms of addressing this. I just want to warn those people who would promote the idea of harm reduction that this is one of those drugs that we should have a zero tolerance for in our communities. Because of the addictive quality, because of the harm that it does to young people and in terms of the destruction that it does to the human body, especially the young human body, this is one of those drugs that we should have a zero tolerance for in our communities.

We should do everything that we can to remove the possibility of people, especially young people, getting their hands on this drug.

I would implore all members to consider becoming fully educated about this particular drug, the ramifications, the characteristics, the addictive qualities of this drug, and the impacts that it is having in our communities from coast to coast.

There are several things that are interesting about this bill. I know they have been highlighted. This bill is actually unique in its approach to combating a particular drug. There are a number of reasons that we need to do that. One of the things that we have to recognize is that methamphetamines are in fact a synthesized drug. It is something that is manufactured in the place and oftentimes in the communities where it will be sold. So it takes a different approach.

It is not something that has to be grown and it is not something that can be imported, so police forces do not have opportunities to intervene in the transfer or creation of this particular drug. From its production point to its sale point is often a matter of hours, especially in highly organized criminal organizations. That is something that is important for us to recognize and for us to realize as we approach the bill.

I commend the hon. member for his work on this. I thank him for taking up the cause and continuing to advocate to protect our young families and young children, as well as people of all ages. I support him in this and hope that all members will support him.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his address on this particular bill.

While I agree with a lot of what he had to say and a lot of his sentiments, I have to take exception to one or two of his points, the first one being that the bill has been slowed down in the House and can be obstructed by members of the opposition.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he admitted where the logjam was, which was when the Prime Minister called an election one year ahead of his own fixed election date. His problems with the bill really started with the procedural process. As long as the member recognizes that, we will do on our side what we can to move the bill along.

I think the Liberal Party member who spoke earlier made a very good point when he suggested that the bill should have been introduced by the government. This is not the only bill in that category. Another one is by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul dealing with trafficking of children. That too is an example of a bill that the government itself should have introduced.

I admire the members who are doing this because, having been around this business for a long time, I know how hard it is at times to take on one's own government. I admire them for making the effort to bring ideas into the House as private members' bills, which the government will not necessarily accept. It is a longer and more tortuous process but I do not think they should give up on those ideas. If there any other ideas that members have that they cannot get through their caucuses or through their government, they should do what the member did. Bring them in as private members' bills and let us debate them here. The members might be surprised to find that those bills might actually become law at the end of the day.

I want to deal with several issues. One of them is the whole business of the pill compression machine issue. Even though the member tells me it will more or less be covered by the bill, I really do not see where that is automatic.

I see there is a provision for a schedule and the schedule will deal with substances. I note that proposed section 7.1 states that, “No person shall possess, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in” these schedules.

Whether the member thinks that pill-making compression machines are going to be covered by that, I am just not sure. It seems to me that perhaps it might be dealt with by a special measure, perhaps through Health Canada regulations. I am just not sure how the member would proceed, but I think it maybe should be dealt with in addition to what the member is referring to.

When we track this through, the whole issue becomes one of money. There is a saying, follow the money. I think that is the way the government should be looking at this. When we follow the money we find out this is a problem that involves big business, that this is really a big organized business.

The member in his speech has pointed out there are big organized gangs operating this business. As a matter of fact, the Americans who spoke to me about the pill compression machines pointed out to me, as was also indicated by one of the members tonight, that this has now turned into a problem where Canada is a big exporter of these pills. The Americans say there are labs in Toronto that are producing huge quantities for the American market.

The Americans have identified the pill compression machines as the reason for this and say that in the United States they are controlling the inputs, the pill making machines, so the bad guys have simply moved their operation up to Toronto and into Canada to get around the rules that they have there on the pill compression machines. I am not sure that is entirely the full part of the problem but certainly some of them think that it is.

I want to get back to the whole area of the money and big business. Our party and our critic has pointed out this issue that the Conservative government tends to focus a lot on enforcement. We have been through this story before with the United States, with Ronald Reagan and his mandatory minimums and the “three strikes you're out”. What have we seen after 25 years? We have seen prisons filled to capacity. Many more prisons are being built by private persons. At the end of the day, however, the crime rate is even higher than it was before. So once again, let us do things that work.

Clearly, we need to chase small time drug dealers and put them in jail, but we should not be measuring our success by how many of those people we pick up, prosecute and put in jail when the problem just keeps expanding. We need to look at what else is going on.

When we look behind the veils we see that there is organized crime. It is not motorcycle guys driving around behind this. The men in suits who live in fancy houses are funding this business. It costs money to buy these ingredients, to set up these houses, to buy pill compression machines and hire the expertise to make these drugs. Based on what I have read, the average person cannot cook up this stuff on a stove. The person needs to have some sort of a background in chemistry in order to do that. Otherwise they would be blowing themselves up and taking the neighbourhood with it.

I have to admit that I never heard of these drugs until mid-age. When we grew up we never knew about drugs until we hit the end of high school into university and then they were simply the common drugs that we know, such as marijuana and so on. However, we never contemplated what we see going on here. The member in his speech talked about these pills being made with smiley faces mixed in with terrible and dangerous chemicals that are basically being pushed by essentially big business corporations onto the street to little street dealers to go out and entice kids in school to take them.

At the end of the day, the big businesses have money so they hire lawyers. The lawyers tell them how to protect themselves. The reason law enforcement is catching just the little fish is that the big guys are never at the scene of the crime. However, they are funding and controlling the operation, which is what we need to address here.

I have been highly supportive of the white collar criminal legislation. The member is suggesting that the bill should have a million dollar limit but I am saying that is way too high. It should maybe be $100,000 or only $50,000. When white collar criminals steal from people they should know they will be going to jail for a minimum sentence of a couple of years and maybe that will stop them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6:57 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6:57 p.m.)

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.

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT

[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.

[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?