Justice Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

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

The CDSA has a potential life sentence attached to the possession of this drug. This bill talks about 10 years or something. It seems to me the existing legislation is heavy, it's sophisticated. It has been changed as recently as 2002 to 2005; it responds to the current street threats. This bill looks to me like just posturing.

I'm trying to figure out—and I'll put this to any witness—what this bill would add. If organized crime is out there putting together the components of meth production or any other drug production, or importing—this bill doesn't even touch on importing—and there are life sentences attached to it already, what would this bill add to the mix?

That's my question. I think this bill is just posturing.

Lastly, I would ask the department whether or not there is any intention to propose legislation in the near future that would address the kind of issue focused on by this bill.

[Carole Bouchard]

Thank you.

As a point of clarification with regard to the penalities associated with the offences currently in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, with regard to the example I gave, which was life imprisonment, that was for schedule I drugs. As an example, we currently do find methamphetamine in the schedule. However, currently in the CDSA, the substances that are used or may be used frequently in the illegal production of methamphetamine are found in schedule VI, for which are attached only certain types of penalties and not to the extent of the one we see associated with schedule I.

For instance, we have offences related to the illegal importation, exportation, and possession for the purpose of exportation, and those are associated with a possible maximum of 10 years. Again, this does not include at the statute level—meaning at the act level—offences with regard to illegal production or with the intent of producing controlled substances. There are, however, penalties associated with offences to the precursor control regulation, meaning that if someone is violating a regulation, there are provisions at the statute level for the types of penalties associated with those offences, but they are much lower.

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

Including seizure and forfeiture?

[Carole Bouchard]

Again, this is not for seizure.

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

It doesn't include seizure?

[Carole Bouchard]

Yes, it would be seizure with regard to activities that are in violation of the precursor, meaning illegal production and illegal possession, but they will have or will carry a lower penalty. The lower penalties will be three years and—

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

Sure, but it includes seizure.

Doesn't it include seizure as a remedy?

[Carole Bouchard]

If there is an illegal activity, law enforcement agencies or enforcement can seize in those instances.

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

Good. That's a yes.

Now, going back to the Mounties on deterrence....

[Insp Michel Aubin]

This may be in furtherance to the answer.

My understanding right now is that the precursor chemical regulations address precursors. They do not address material or equipment. Our position here vis-à-vis this proposed legislation is that the intent is there. Our reality is that because of the legislative framework that's in place right now, there has been a displacement of the supply of precursor chemicals from the domestic area to the international.

I think personally, or on behalf of the RCMP, there may be a gap there. We're seeing seizures of very large quantities of precursor chemicals that are essential to production of methamphetamines and other synthetic drugs that are being seized offshore, but they're destined. We know that our streets have a sufficient supply of synthetic drugs; in fact, we're exporting.

So with the legislative framework that's in place now, I don't know if the answer per se is provision for law enforcement bodies or maybe a comprehensive approach including industry to look at how we can prevent the accessibility of precursor chemicals as well as the equipment that's necessary.

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

Why wouldn't we—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Lee, I know this is a very valid argument and probably will answer the questions of many others—

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

Am I out of time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You are, indeed.

I'm going to go to Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I feel a bit like Mr. Lee. I tend to give a favourable hearing to private members' bills, given the power wielded by government. I know that it is important for members themselves to be able to carry out their role as legislators.

However, I have to admit that it has been difficult, since the beginning of our consideration, to understand what new element this bill brings and how it will give you any additional tools. One of the ways this might become clear would be for you to explain the difference to us. What is the exact definition of “precursors”, “chemical” and “substances”?

If we could make that distinction, we might be able to understand what this will change for you. We have the impression that the bill is broader than the regulations. That maybe useful to you.

Explain the difference for me between precursors, chemical and substances. I do not know whether my question is for the RCMP or Health Canada, but I would like you to explain the difference to me.

[Carole Bouchard]

Regarding chemical precursors, I will go exactly by the definition given in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Precursors are the substances listed in schedule 6 of the act. The definition of “chemical precursor” refers to that schedule.

The term is used not only in Canada but internationally to include substances that will or can be used frequently in the illegal production of controlled substances. So it is used not only in the case of methamphetamine. Other controlled drugs or synthetic drugs can be used or produced with the chemical precursors. The terms “precursors” and “chemicals” can be used interchangeably because people often alternate between using one or the other or combining them.

As for the word “substances”, it depends once again on the context. A definition in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act talks about controlled substances. There is a reference to another definition, which includes all substances indicated in schedules 1 to 5 of the Act. The schedules list the drugs and pharmaceutical products that are often found on the market. Morphine and methamphetamine are examples that often come up in a legal context.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

I am intrigued by something you said, which was that in order for you to be able to lay charges as things stand now, the production process—and I understood that you meant the methamphetamine production process—had to be engaged. So in the case where possession does not lead to assembling or producing all the substances, you cannot lay charges.

Would that loophole be closed if we were to pass this bill and clause 7.1 as set out in the bill? If an individual was in possession of substances used to make metamphetamine but had not begun the process or produced the substances, could you lay charges under the proposed section 7.1?

[Insp Michel Aubin]

Absolutely, but we need to be sure that individual possesses them for illegal purposes. The burden of proof then lies on the police and the crown to demonstrate the individual's intention. If there is no evidence to corroborate that intention, we would have a problem.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

But that applies to all offences and not specifically to this one. We know that there has to be both mens rea and actus rea.

One possible justification for this bill would be if it allowed you to bring charges more easily against people who, without having started the production process, had some previous history and against whom you had evidence that they were associated with methamphetamine trafficking and distribution rings. Is that right?

[Insp Michel Aubin]

Yes, in the situation that you have described, Mr. Ménard. However, I think that it would be very difficult to produce that corroborating evidence without wiretaps.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That is another story. We are talking here about getting a warrant from a justice of the peace and so on.

In fact, I would like you to give me one reason why we should vote in favour of this bill. You have explained that you could only lay charges once the production process was well engaged. We certainly understand the terrible repercussions of methamphetamine use, and we would like nothing more than to support these provisions. However, I would like to know what they would change for an organization like yours if we were to vote in favour of this proposed amendment.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

We do not necessarily support the clause as it stands right now. We are suggesting that your committee should debate other considerations. The scope should not necessarily be limited to methamphetamine. We need to focus on the intention. In its current form, the provision does not seem to me that it would be very useful in a criminal court. We might need a better definition.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

If I understand correctly, you are not urging us to vote in favour of this provision, given that it would change little if anything for you in terms of the administration of evidence in a court of justice.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

My role, Mr. Ménard, is to provide you with information to help you deliberate on the matter.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, and that makes you absolutely indispensable to us. The information that you are giving us would have been useful in your testimony. But it is still useful now. You say that the wording is too broad, too general, and that it would not change much regarding enforcement of the act.

Please do not feel shy; you can speak your mind.