Justice Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, let me reassure you that I am sober and in full possession of my faculties, whatever the government may think.

Mr. Chairman, all I mean by this is that after a brief discussion with our NDP colleagues and those from the other party, out of respect for the sponsor of the bill, I am not sure whether it would be wise for us to move to clause-by-clause consideration at this time. I think that if we did that now, a majority, if not all, of the opposition members would not support the bill. I strongly believe that the sponsor should have every possible opportunity.

There are two problems. I would like you to clarify whether it would be better to call back the sponsor of the bill, who did not do his job because he did not explain how this bill would useful for law enforcement organizations.

Mr. Fallu had already appeared before the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. Given the fact that this testimony proposes to specify the substances at issue, I wonder whether we should not give the sponsor of the bill another opportunity. Perhaps he could continue collaborating with Mr. Fallu and get in touch with the RCMP. This morning, we realized that he is not a legal expert, and we were not expecting that.

However, I am inclined to ask you to verify whether we can defer clause-by-clause consideration, invite the sponsor and give him another opportunity. Otherwise, I fear that this bill will be defeated.

Let me note that the government has a great influence on the legislative process. MPs only get one item every four years. Of course, when we have a minority government, it is even less than that. I want to help the sponsor, but we need more information.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I second that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I trust that's a motion, Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yes, you could put it that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Is there further discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance today. Unfortunately, there's some additional information we seek yet. There will be further discussion, so we may call you forward again.

Mr. Calkins is next on a point of order.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Given the fact we're not going to do clause-by-clause now and that we have all of these witnesses gathered before us, if there were some further questions, I think it would be prudent for us to use the time we were going to allot for clause-by-clause to get further input from and questioning of the witnesses, if it suits the rest of my committee colleagues and if the witnesses are available to stay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If there are further questions from the members, that's certainly.... There seems to be a consensus here that we continue with some questions. If there's a need for clarification, we do have here the RCMP and of course their expert from the drugs and chemical diversion units.

Is that the consensus? Do you agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There is agreement to continue the line of questioning, and I will do so.

Mr. Bagnell is still on the list.

Mr. Bagnell, go ahead, and then I'll turn to Mr. Calkins.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I just wanted to finish my previous theme.

I understand from the RCMP that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell, I'm going to interrupt you.

I'm going to break for about two or three minutes for the lunch that is served at the back, and we'll come back to the table for a working lunch.

Thank you.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the committee back to order.

It has become evident that the very legitimate questions being asked of these witnesses are, in a sense, putting them at a disadvantage. We are looking at an amendment to the bill. None of the witnesses had this amendment in their possession, nor did they have the opportunity to seek legal advice—specifically the RCMP, or even some of the other departments. None has had an opportunity to seek advice, outside of looking at the original bill.

I managed to give one copy to the RCMP. There will be other copies coming to the other witnesses for them to examine.

So please keep this in mind when we are asking questions, because we have an advantage over them in our deliberations here.

With that in mind, Mr. Calkins, would you like to begin?

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

Just on a point of order, and it's a picky point, you have said that we're looking at an amendment. Technically we're not looking at an amendment; we're looking at the bill, because the amendment has not yet been moved. I realize there's been an amendment drafted and circulated, and I have no objection to the discussion of the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Your point is well taken, Mr. Lee. It's unfortunate it took this route, but there will be further time to review everything, and maybe some witnesses might be called forward again. I appreciate Monsieur Ménard's motion that he's not shutting the bill down; it's just that we will delay its review.

Mr. Bagnell, please go ahead.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I just want to finish my line of questioning for the RCMP and Ms. Bouchard.

My understanding of this from how the RCMP explained this concept might help is that if someone had a big order—a truck full of ephedrine or hydrochloric acid or acetone—and it was about to be delivered, and the independent trucker had a manifest for a place that you had proven was a crystal meth lab, you could at that point, under this bill, arrest those people because they knew where it was going, dah, dah, dah, that it was going to be used in a crystal meth lab. So under this bill you could arrest them, whereas under the provisions of existing acts and regulations you could not arrest them.

I'd like to ask the RCMP and Ms. Bouchard if that is true.

[Sgt Doug Culver]

Essentially, that's correct.

In the precursor control regulations, there's no offence for simple possession of specific chemicals, regardless of the quantity. So in your scenario of the truckload of chemical A going somewhere, there would be no offence in the current legislation. With the legislation we've seen in front of us today, if we could prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver of that vehicle knew he was taking that chemical to a lab or to someone else with the intent of using it to make methamphetamine, then we would have grounds to stop that vehicle, arrest that person, and seize that quantity of chemicals.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Ms. Bouchard.

[Carole Bouchard]

Maybe I can clarify what we can do. In the precursor control regulations, with regard to the possession of quantities of precursors, as we just described.... I think you have used some examples found in schedule VI of the legislation, such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. If we were to find a person in possession of those substances, and that person were not authorized to possess them, meaning they did not have a licence allowing their possession of those substances, it would not be an offence at the level of the act or statute but a violation of a regulation requiring that the person be in possession of a licence. However, the penalties associated with those offences are not very high. They're related to section 46 of the CDSA act and are for a maximum of up to two years. So they are very low penalties, but they are violations of a regulation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

And it wouldn't include some of the common everyday substances--acetone, turpentine, or whatever--that can be used.

[Carole Bouchard]

This one will be in relation to only the substances we find in class A and class B of the regulations.

Again, it's a limited list. In total, there are 30 substances that we find currently in our schedules to the precursor control regulations. It's a limited number of substances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

As it was just raised here, we should be looking at this bill in the context of how it could be amended. I want to put on record a couple of things. Obviously the precursor chemicals that are available are widely used in other legal activities. We all recognize that. Therefore, the amendment that the government is going to put forward--some of you have seen it by now--would simply clarify that a person must have the requisite mens rea. They must have criminal intent such that they know that what they're in possession of is going to be used to commit illegal activity.

The crown is going to have to prove that someone engaged in possessing these items knows that they would be used for illegal activity. Only then would they be found guilty of the offence. They know there will be future illegal use of the substance, the equipment, or the material.

So I think that addresses some of the questions. And when we're asking these questions, I would like us to consider them in the context that there has been an amendment moved.

It was also raised that the amendment is going to refer to not only methamphetamine now but also methamphetamine and its salts, derivatives, isomers, salts of derivatives, and so on--a more comprehensive scope rather than just simply methamphetamine.

That's the crux of the government amendment, which I think addresses most of the issues I've heard.

Now, we could go down the road of some discussion on whether any drugs, or all drugs, should be illegal. That's not a discussion or debate that I think we should have here.

I'd like to know a bit about this: what is the problem, and does this bill allow our police or our system to address the problem in a way that it cannot be addressed now? That's narrowly how I'd like to look at it. Is this a tool that's going to be used by the police to do something positive that they cannot do now?

In light of that, could the representatives from the RCMP take us through this a bit? We heard about some of the clandestine labs and super labs that are being used, where they're taking in this material in bulk and efficiently producing methamphetamine. Can you take us through the stage where you now--and you alluded to this in your answers--are able to act and put a stop to it, versus where you'd like to be able to act and put a stop to the illegal activity?

I think our goal as legislators should be to stop illegal activity and dangerous activity early on rather than when someone has been able to go further down that road later on.

So could you comment a bit on that? Maybe you could tell us what's typical in terms of what you see, day in and day out, and how this bill would allow you to act earlier.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

To an extent, we have to have the chance to go back and have our legal services review this amendment so that we're properly informed on this. But to the extent that you explained it, the bill would address our situation and our difficulty right now.

As you mentioned, we have to wait for a certain stage in the production, and it's extremely difficult--

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I don't want you to give a legal opinion. I know you can't, and you've only seen the amendment now.

Assuming that the amendment is going to do what I've said it's going to do--you can make that assumption for the purposes of your answer--what is that stage you mentioned where you can step in? What is that stage typically?