Justice Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That may be. To my mind, the legislation does not ensure that people who would knowingly sell these legal products to somebody who would have an intention to produce.... There's no criminal ramification for a person who would knowingly sell these or assist in getting these precursors for somebody who was going to produce.... The legislation is not clear.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

What I am trying to say is...

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Madame Freeman. Your time is up.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for coming to the committee today.

I do think this is an important issue, because I think a lot of people are very worried about substance use and the drug issue in local communities. I think equally as important is how we respond to that issue. I have to say that actually my first question was going to be exactly the same as the one Mr. Bagnell asked and exactly the same as the one Madame Freeman asked, because when you read the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, section 7, it appears already that it's quite clear that the materials and the precursor materials and so on are already illegal, and there are very stiff sanctions, including imprisonment for up to life.

When you say that your bill will target people who knowingly use these substances, I actually don't see that in the bill. The only thing I can see that's different in your bill is that it talks about equipment. Maybe I'll just make a couple of comments. That's one thing. I think you do need to clarify that.

I don't know if you're aware, but Health Canada in 2002 actually did change the regulations to ensure that all of the precursor materials were included. In fact, I know there was a summit of western premiers in 2004.

I'm curious, because you're saying that the use of crystal meth has actually been increasing, and I'd like you to provide evidence of that. There have been some reports out recently that since 2004--because we only have figures up till 2004--there's been a lot more attention on the impact of crystal meth, and there is a sense that the use has actually been going down, because there's been a really strong response from the police and local communities, parent groups, school groups, and so on, advocacy groups, groups working with young people, which focuses much more on education.

I was actually thinking that the approach here is to really strengthen the prevention and education approach we have. I don't know if you're familiar with the very good report that came out of the City of Vancouver in November 2005. You can go on the website and get it. It's called, Preventing Harm from Psychoactive Substance Use, and it does focus some of its attention on crystal meth.

They, again, really reinforce the idea that because this stuff is so easily available, the real solution is to focus on education and prevention with young people. In my own community in Vancouver, we do know, for example, that often street kids who are homeless are actually using crystal meth to stay awake, because they're on the street, and they have to be alert. They're very vulnerable. They're at risk. So there's an association at least in that aspect between the drug use and another issue, which is people being homeless. We've got to tackle that in order to deal with the drug use.

So my questions would be, one, I'm not clear on how your bill would be different from what we already have. Two, I think you need to provide some information backing up what you say, that the use is increasing. And three, what should we be doing in terms of prevention? To me, the evidence is showing that that's really where the change is taking place, where we're actually getting through to people.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think I can address some of the concerns you had.

The important thing for all members to recognize here is that in the legislation there's a specific reference to “sell”. Someone who would sell knowingly to somebody who was going to produce crystal meth is not considered in the legislation as it currently sits.

Your colleague Mr. Comartin and I actually had this discussion. I think it was his suggestion that it would be important to put the word “knowing” in there, but he felt that it was important for us to address the whole issue of sales. He and I had a discussion specifically about the United States and the active work they've been doing in terms of controlling the amount of certain products that enter certain jurisdictions so that they can ensure the sale issue is dealt with.

What I'm hearing from people combatting this particular issue in communities is that they feel this piece of legislation would assist them in dealing with the whole issue of not being able to go after people who knowingly contribute to and assist in the production of crystal meth.

I can't speak specifically about Vancouver--that's not my area--but I can tell you specifically that the premier's task force on crystal meth in Alberta recently unveiled some pretty scary statistics with regard to the increase in crystal meth. I know anecdotally that we've seen an increase specifically in eastern Canada as well.

As you say, we don't have stats that are current, but I think it's incumbent upon us to act when we see a problem or a situation and make minor changes to the legislation to ensure that the police have all the tools necessary to combat this issue, so that when we get the results four years from now on what's going on right now, we won't see a continued increase; we'll see a continued decrease.

I do absolutely believe that we have to couple this with other initiatives. I don't know if you were here during the part of the presentations when I spoke specifically about that. This is not the be-all and end-all, but it is a contributor. It's something we can contribute to, allowing enforcement authorities to try to stem the production.

You're absolutely correct that we have to couple this with an education policy; that's why I'm very pleased with our government's announcement of $60 million that will be oriented in part specifically towards an education on these matters. It's something I've been working on very diligently since I was elected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin and Ms. Davies.

Mr. Petit is next.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

First of all, I want to congratulate you, Mr. Warkentin, for having managed to get your private member's bill this far. God knows how hard that is. As Mr. Ménard has often said, it is an honour to have you before us here today.

I read the bill, that is the amendment that you are proposing to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In order to really grasp what you have tabled, I am going to make a comparison with what I know of criminal law, being a lawyer who has worked in that area.

You used the term “precursors”. We know that is in the legislation. According to various categories, these are products that you might have at home, that can be mixed, and at some point in time could become what we call crystal meth, that is to say the product that we do indeed wish to criminalize.

I have the following question: Do you make a connection with section 351 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the possession of break-in instruments? For example, if I own a jimmy, a hammer, a crowbar or other kinds of tools, taken separately there is no problem, all woodworkers would have those in their garage, but if I have all those tools together in my car, that could indicate the intention to steal or to commit an offence under the Criminal Code.

Is the meaning that you have given to the word “precursors”—and this is in the same vein as Mrs. Freeman's question—indeed intended to criminalize the fact that one might have several household products or things that could be combined, as is the case in the Criminal Code? That would mean that if these items are separate, you could not be charged, but if they are together, you could be. Is that what you are trying to do? All of these products, in certain cases, are allowed to be on the marketplace.

I would like to know if that is what you are trying to do with Bill C-428, that is to say the equivalent of what you find in the Criminal Code on the subject of the possession of break-in instruments. Those are tools that, taken separately, are not banned, but put together they become so. Is that the case?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think absolutely that there would have to be pretty solid evidence that there was an intent to produce, and that's why the word “intended” is included in the proposed amendment. Without intent and without being able to prove the intent, I don't think anybody should have any fear of either owning or selling individual items through the grocery store. As all of us know around this table, we wouldn't want to be unable to access the ingredients in crystal meth, because they all serve their useful purpose other than the production of crystal meth. We want to ensure that people, if they're going to be charged with this, have a clear intent to produce or traffic or sell this product.

The whole notion is that you'd have a combined number of things that would be included. I imagine you would have to have equipment and the different precursors in order to prove intent, or some type of past history of producing it.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Monsieur Petit, thank you.

Mr. Lee.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin, I'm not so sure I'm going to support this bill, but I want to congratulate you for doing your work as an MP. You found a subject on which you can possibly legislate, and the folks back home will be pleased that you're not asleep at the switch and that you've recognized a real problem for them. I congratulate you for that and for bringing the bill forward.

I'm going to be a little hard on you on the technical side and on the public policy side.

Can you tell us on a relative scale, relative to other drugs, just how addictive methamphetamine is?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I am by no means a scientist, but I can tell you from what I've read that it's one of the more addictive drugs available on the street.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm just wondering, relative to the other drugs that most people are aware of, such as heroin, nicotine—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It would be more addictive than crack cocaine.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

And heroin?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I don't know specifically with regard to heroin. Maybe you can make a reference between heroin--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Or cocaine, or marijuana?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It would be more addictive than crack cocaine, in my estimation.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

More than crack cocaine, yes.

All right. There may be some investigation still that we could do there. The drug is already illegal. I was just seeking clarification about just how addictive it is relative to the other drugs that are a scourge for all of us.

In the bill itself you use the words “intended for use” in both paragraphs of the proposed new section. Are you able to say now who it is you are thinking about when you talk about intention? Is it some person in the chain of ownership or manufacture? Is it the end user? To use Mr. Petit's analogy, if I make a screwdriver, it's intended for many uses. If it ends up in the hands of a burglar, it might be a problem.

I'm having difficulty nailing down precisely what you mean when you say that something is “intended for use” in production. Who has to have that intention?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The intention would concern the person who was actually going to produce the drug. The person who would knowingly contribute would be somebody who knowingly contributes to the person who is producing the drug.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes, but the guy who manufactures the beaker doesn't know what it's going to be used for.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Absolutely, and therefore—

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

It's only the guy who makes and possesses the stuff at the end of the chain who is really involved, and if that's the case, it's the possession that should trigger the criminality and not so much the manufacture of the equipment.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Lee, the difficulty with crystal meth is that from the time the substances are collected up to the point where it's produced and then put onto the street is a very short period of time. There is not the necessity to import it from another jurisdiction; there isn't the end....

All these things are coming in close proximity to every Canadian citizen. The difficulty is for any person who is in the law enforcement profession to try to stop the chain of events from the point where it is a legal substance to the point where it is an illegal substance and available to your kids and my kids on the street. It is important that we allow them to have the tools.

If we have, let's say, somebody who is involved in bringing in large quantities of cold medication with the intent of selling it off the back of their truck to somebody who would take it then to a super lab, I have a problem with that.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Of course, you're going to have problems with people involved in a criminal conspiracy. The problem is that your bill, in a vague way, reaches back and tries to criminalize what is normal conduct. It doesn't try to do it, but it suggests that we can criminalize it, and with the lack of particularity and definition, I'm having difficulty conceptualizing the actual criminality except with 20:20 hindsight.