Justice Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

[Insp Michel Aubin]

Thank you for the opportunity, sir. As I mentioned in French, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll be careful not to say that I can give any interpretation. I don't want to interpret a proposed bill.

However, from the law enforcement perspective, as I mentioned in the opening statement and afterwards, one of the difficulties we encounter is having to investigate and having to wait for the opportune moment to ensure that we have sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. Be mindful that what we're dealing with, in many instances, is organized crime. They have economic-based labs. They're mega-sized labs that are producing a lot of product, and they're aware of our challenges. The gap right now is that when those who are in possession of the equipment and the essential chemicals haven't engaged in production to a significant degree, we cannot proceed against them unless we have corroborative evidence, by way of intercepted communications, or unless the individual admits to it, which we don't see too often. That is a significant shortcoming, and it is an issue for law enforcement.

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

Thank you.

I noted, I think it was in one of your responses to a question, the difficulty you face in being able to put together a pretty solid case. I'm using the example here of when you can actually put the whole scenario together, from purchase of the materials before it's actually put together to the equipment necessary. The difficulty is that even though you can, and even though you can prove it, there's nothing you can do in terms of being able to lay charges.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

Not unless we reach a certain point where the production is significantly engaged, where a judge can say there's no doubt that this is what's being produced. But if it's at the stage where the individuals have acquired all the equipment and essential chemicals and materials and they're dispersed in various locales, at that point in time we cannot proceed under the current legislation.

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

I apologize to Mr. Calkins, because I am taking a bit of his time as well, but I just want to be clear that what you're here to do today is to talk about specifically the pre-production, not the post-production issues that have been alluded to today.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

That would be my understanding.

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

Thank you very much.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You have time for approximately two questions.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you.

I certainly appreciate the testimony I've heard here today.

If this bill were to go forward—and there will be some amendments that are coming up later on. If we take a look at schedule VI, which is the list of precursor items in the production, and we look at schedule III, which is basically all the amphetamines less methamphetamine, which is in schedule I due to the problems or the seriousness of methamphetamine, from a defence perspective...if a charge were to be laid based on this proposed legislation becoming the law of the land, would the defence be able to say that any of the compounds that are being used to create methamphetamine could be used to create something that's not methamphetamine--that is, something that's in schedule III or a different schedule—thereby defeating the charge?

[Sgt Doug Culver]

There certainly is that possibility.

One of the things the bill in front of us doesn't take into account, as Ms. Bouchard brought forward, was talking about salts, derivatives, analogues, isomers, and so forth. It addresses only methamphetamine, and not even into its salt form, which we normally find on the street as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

What we do find, though, is that there are usually very specific lists of chemicals that make up a recipe for the different drugs and their different analogues. So, generally, when we take down a lab and look at all the exhibits, we can quite often, before we actually start looking for a final product, have an idea of what is being manufactured in the lab, based on the types of chemicals that are there, because the recipes for all the different chemicals do vary in certain amounts.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

So if an amendment was proposed that would include methamphetamine, its salts, derivatives, isomers, analogues, salts of derivatives, and so on, that would be a more comprehensive approach than the current wording. Would it satisfy the needs of law enforcement insofar as procuring a charge and a successful conviction is concerned?

[Insp Michel Aubin]

It does take into account a portion of our reality, but in terms of whether it will be sufficient, I'm not in a position to answer as to the writing of proposed legislation, as to whether it will meet the full need. I'm sorry.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, unless you have other committee members on the list for questions. I can wait.

Do you have a question, Mr. Bagnell?

I will raise my point of order when Mr. Bagnell is through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

I think we can assume from the hearing so far that meth is very dangerous, it's a big problem, and we'd like to reduce it. We'd like it if this law reduced it. However, there are many other things that would actually reduce it more. The police had suggested that if this type of process works, it should actually be expanded to cover other drugs, because this isn't the only one that has this type of problem. And the section on intent needs to be improved, both to help the police and also to make sure that innocent people aren't caught by it.

In that respect, I would definitely vote for that amendment, because that actually improves that particular section. But based on those assumptions, I have the same concerns as Mr. Lee, Mr. Ménard, and Ms. Davies.

Carole, do you believe this bill does anything more than what you already have in place related to the precursor substances and the drug itself?

[Carole Bouchard]

I spoke about the precursor control regulation. One element you have in front of you in the bill is the equipment and other material, and this is not covered in the precursor control regulation. The precursor control regulation includes a list of specific substances that may be used in the illicit production of controlled substances, which may also include methamphetamines.

The bill in front of you includes all substances, so it's broader than what we have in the precursor control regulation list of substances. It's also broader than what we find in schedule VI of the CDSA.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

In the legislation you just talked about, the police could not proceed at the earlier stage of finding these elements, as they explained. There's no authority under the law or those regulations where the police could proceed earlier.

[Carole Bouchard]

You're correct. The only authority they currently have with regard to types of offences are the ones that include--and again I'm only speaking about the list of precursor chemicals that we find in schedule VI that are currently at the CDSA level--illegal importation, exportation, and possession for the purpose of exportation.

We have certain other offences related to violation of the regulation per se. They include only activities not authorized for the production, and possession for the purpose of production of controlled substances. So they need to have a purpose for the production and not only have them in many places, as my colleagues described.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

If they were in many places and intended for production, would they not be illegal?

[Carole Bouchard]

I'm not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, this is not currently included in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as an offence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Those were good questions there, Mr. Bagnell.

Ms. Bouchard, thank you very much.

Monsieur Ménard is next on a point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, after a brief discussion with my Liberal and New Democratic colleagues, and we will see whether I have understood correctly, I am not sure if it would be wise for the committee, out of respect for the sponsor of this bill—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We're not getting any translation here. I don't know what the problem is.

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard, go ahead.