Justice Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

[Insp Michel Aubin]

I am not shy, but I am not a legal expert either.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That endears us to you even more.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

In my opinion, some amendments might be justified. We understand the intent of the bill. We agree that amendments are needed in order to close the gap.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Would you go so far as to recommend that the committee postpone passing this bill so that you, along with your advisors, could bring us some amendments after the holidays?

The government has a large presence on the legislative agenda. Every member of Parliament has the right to one item every four years. I would like to help our colleague. The day when it will be my bill, I will want it to be studied. It will be an excellent bill that shall please everyone. Mr. Petit will not be able to turn it down. But we must be able to understand, as Mr. Lee was saying, how it will be useful. We also find that it is rather general. We share your concerns.

Perhaps our colleagues from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, who are so active on the drug committee, could give us...

Do you wish to see this legislation passed, Ms. Rebecca?

[Rebecca Jesseman]

The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse is here to inform the discussion more than to offer a yea or nay on this proposed amendment. We're deferring to the expertise of our colleagues in the enforcement realm, who will be applying and working more directly with this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

I sense there is not some clear statement made in defence of the amendment before the committee. We've been wandering off on another path. I believe the individual who put the amendment forward has something to say--at least, Mr. Dykstra would have something to say--supporting the amendment, and I think answering some of the questions that have been put to the members here about what the intent of this particular amendment is and what it will do to the legislation overall. Then I believe the police could certainly be questioned.

I'm going to go to Ms. Davies, then I'm going to go to Mr. Dykstra, and we'll see what comes of it from there.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Excuse me, Ms. Davies.

We have one other witness who will be sitting at the table, and that is Mr. Fallu, assistant professor, École de psychoéducation, Université de Montréal.

Ms. Davies, would you just sit down until Mr. Fallu offers his presentation? Or maybe we'll put you through and give Mr. Fallu a chance to collect his thoughts.

Go ahead, Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You're going to wait.

Mr. Fallu, you may go ahead.

[Jean-Sébastien Fallu, Assistant Professor, École de psychoéducation, Université de Montréal]

Okay. I'll speak in French. Unfortunately, I couldn't translate. I don't have a copy, but I'll read my statement.

I have two statements to make. Here is the first.

Whereas the use of psychoactive substances has always been part of the habits of both human beings and animals;

Whereas international conventions and Canadian laws are based on assessments of the dangerousness of substances, and that these are extremely complex and do not correspond or at least very little to what objective and scientific assessments have produced;

Whereas the banning and the...

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Could you slow down your presentation for the interpreters?

[Jean-Sébastien Fallu]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Is there a copy we can give them?

[Jean-Sébastien Fallu]

No, sorry.

Whereas the banning and repression resulting from it cause more harm to individuals and to society than the use of psychoactive substances themselves;

Whereas widespread behaviour can only be eradicated through legislation with difficulty, without causing other problems such as corruption;

Whereas scientific studies show that at best, there is no difference in current user profiles as far as countries with different drug policies are concerned, and that at worst, prohibition strategies engender more serious consequences than do harm reduction strategies;

Whereas there is an important distinction to be made between use and abuse, and that the majority of users are functional and have adapted, in a way that is all together comparable with those who abstain;

Whereas abuse and addiction are often the consequence of problems of psychosocial functioning and not their cause;

Whereas people grappling with abuse and addiction problems are primarily in need of assistance and not punishment, and punishment often aggravates the situation;

Whereas abstinence is not always possible for everyone, at least not in the short term;

Whereas in Canada, the principle of fair justice is not respected from one region to another as far as the possession of narcotics is concerned;

Whereas the devastating effects of metamphetamine primarily result from the inhalation or injection methods of use and the lifestyle of the user;

And finally, whereas the effects of substances and drug addiction are not punely the result of the pharmacological effects of substances, but of the interaction between them, the individual and the context, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to not criminalize the possession of metamphetamine, nor any other drug.

It is also recommended to the government to implement measures other than reducing supply by also taking action with respect to people and their social context with a view to reducing demand and harm. That is the first proposal.

The second, which more specifically concerns the two subsections under 7.1 put forward in the bill, read as follows:

Whereas a number of people, particularly young people, who for the most part are well adapted, contributing members of our future society, possess and use speed in pill form that could contain metamphetamines or their precursors, for example amphetamines;

Whereas a number of people possess and use medications or natural products made up in whole or in part of potential metamphetamine precursors;

Whereas certain substances used in the synthesis of metamphetamines can also be used to produce other consumer goods, for example perfume, in the case of lithium hydride;

And finally, whereas well-intentioned people wishing to manufacture natural products, for example, buy used equipment to enable them to produce pills, but that such equipment is sometimes contaminated by a previous owner, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to amend Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Other Substances Act (methamphetamine), in order to specify which substances are targeted by section 7.1—speed pills sold as amphetamine, amphetamine, pseudo-ephedrine, ephedrine, ephedra, natural products containing ephedra, decongestant medications containing pseudo-ephedrine or ephedrine, mahwong, lithium hydride, aluminum hydride, etc.—and in what form.

Finally, it is recommended to the committee and to the government to clarify the word “intended” so as to avoid anyone being unfairly incriminated by having material in his or her possession that could potentially be used for production or trafficking, but in fact is not.

To conclude, I believe that it is both possible and preferable to control the precursors to metamphetamine production, and that all the other aspects of this bill could do more harm than good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Fallu.

Ms. Davies, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming. I'm very happy that I let Professor Fallu go before me because I think he made some excellent points.

I think there are really two issues before us on this bill. The primary issue is whether we actually need a legislative change or whether the provisions that we have in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are sufficient. I would certainly follow up the comments made by Professor Fallu that this heavy reliance on enforcement as the primary tool to deal with substance use issues is certainly very politically driven by the Conservative government. I think the evidence shows us that reliance on enforcement is not only a wrong approach, but it can actually be counterproductive and harmful in and of itself.

I think there is a question as to whether or not an additional legislative approach is necessary. If we agree that it is, then I think the second question is whether this bill, with the wording we have, is the approach we should take. I've heard from all of the witnesses, to different degrees, with slightly different perspectives, that with the bill that's before us it seems to be very unclear what its impact, if any, will be. I really am left with a sense that this bill is really neither here nor there.

You may have some issues about how the enforcement is done, but whether or not this bill is going to change anything from a legislative point of view is I think one question. But just overall, with this reliance on enforcement....

I do have a question for Madam Bouchard.

In terms of the controlled drugs and substances unit that you're part of, does either your unit or somebody else collect information on what the charges and sentences are? We'll be dealing with this issue overall in the House of Commons, and I'm just curious to know whether or not you actually track the charges and the convictions that we have now.

[Carole Bouchard]

Within our program, which is within Health Canada, we're tracking only the information with regard to the seized exhibits, meaning the drugs that have been seized as part of the activities of the law enforcement agency. So we do have information on this. But we're not tracking within my own unit, or even within our program, the information regarding those statistics. I believe that other organizations within the Government of Canada are collecting this information, so we could probably get back to you on that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Professor Fallu, just based on the comments you made today, it seems to me that if we were to use additional public resources we'd be better off to provide realistic education to young people about substance use.

I wonder if you could comment on where these resources should be directed.

[Jean-Sébastien Fallu]

Yes.

If we are to use more resources...because drug addiction is not the same thing as drug use. Principally, drug users are not addicted. For those who are addicted, as I just mentioned, it's often just a symptom, a consequence of having had a bad education, a bad family, or a bad context for life. So we have to tap into and act on these very causes of addiction, which are rarely the drugs per se.

A prominent scientist at UBC said if we eradicated every drug on the planet earth tomorrow morning, every drug addict would find another object of addiction, whether it would be gambling, sex, or whatever. So we should act on the causes.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Is that Bruce Alexander?

[Jean-Sébastien Fallu]

Yes, that's Bruce Alexander.

The money should be put into the early years of life when we can do whatever we can to undermine the causes of drug addiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

We'll go to Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I think some clarification is necessary, Mr. Chair. The government is proposing an amendment to the bill, which I think will address a number of the issues that have been raised, in particular by Mr. Lee. Actually, the couple of questions I have will be in line with his questions.

The reason this amendment is being made is to clarify the mens rea and to make clear that to be found guilty of the offence, the offender must not only commit the illegal activity but must know of the future illegal use of the substance, equipment, or material.

To take that a little bit further, Mr. Lee's reference to life imprisonment for those involved with the drug itself, in whatever context that may be, is post-production. That life imprisonment has nothing to do with what happens during the purchase of equipment or the purchase of the ingredients necessary, if you will, to make the drug. It has everything to do with what happens, I suppose, on the street versus behind the scenes, as noted in Ms. Bouchard's presentation, where it is produced domestically in clandestine laboratories. That's what this bill gets at, and I think it's very important to note that we are talking about and are trying to be specific about giving them, whether it be law enforcement or in terms of criminal charges, the ability to charge those issues.

So if we want to have a discussion of post-production, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with this bill. There is ample legislation in place, as Mr. Lee has pointed out very correctly, to deal with post-production--sale on the street, those using it, and those selling it. There is no legislation to deal with the component of mens rea--pre-production--and that's what all these folks, or at least most of the folks, are here today to present on.

I'd like to ask Mr. Aubin about that and get his perspective, because I think the amendment really addresses some of the concerns some have brought forward. I'd like to get your thoughts and your feelings on the direction of this bill and the strength it gives you to do work you are not able to do presently.