Justice Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like to call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order. Our agenda should be before all members here.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 16, 2007, Bill C-428, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on methamphetamine, is still under review, under debate. It's a private member's bill, of course.

Mr. Chris Warkentin, I believe you will be making an opening statement.

I know, committee members, there was a desire for more information, specifically from the police. Representing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Michel Aubin, acting director general, drugs and organized crime, and Mr. Culver. Welcome to the committee. And from the Department of Justice we have Greg Yost, counsel, criminal law policy section. Welcome.

Mr. Warkentin, the floor is yours.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wish a happy new year to everyone around the table. I'm happy to be back, and I hope today to be able to clarify some of the questions and some of the issues that folks had with my private member's bill. I'm here today first to walk through and resolve some of those questions and then to give you additional information as well.

I'm not sure the clerk has been able to get a translation yet, so I won't table it at this moment, but I want to give each member the opportunity to know that this morning we put out press releases from our office notifying Canadians that the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, has given its unequivocal support for this private member's bill. This was an unsolicited support, and we're very pleased to do that.

There may be people contacting you, because we informed the media that today was the day we would be bringing this again to committee. This press release may be available later on in the meeting, if they're able to make the translations available.

Today I'm here to clarify some of the issues people had around the table when I was here in the last part of last year. There were questions on some of the aspects of the private member's bill.

I'd be the first person in this room to admit, as a new member of Parliament, that there are opportunities wherein we don't get everything right. I've been working quite a bit with my colleagues from the government side, and two amendments will be or have been brought forward to this committee that I think address many of the concerns committee members had.

It is my hope to address questions that came from the NDP today. There were questions that Libby Davies brought to me regarding the way crystal meth is dealt with in this country. With this bill she had hoped to see that there would be funding attached.

Of course, as all of you are aware, a private member's bill does not have an opportunity to include funding for any type of treatment or any type of measure to combat crystal meth. But I want to assure you that I believe this private member's bill is set in place and walks lockstep with the national drug strategy. Of that national drug strategy and the money that was allocated for it, two-thirds of the funding is dedicated to prevention and treatment options. That, I believe, along with this private member's bill, this legislation, will address her concerns about those issues.

I also wanted to address the concerns she had with respect to a report she quoted from; it's from the City of Vancouver. I guess the impression may have been left for committee members that there seemed from this report not to be a necessity to advocate for stricter regulations.

I want to just read recommendation 27 from that report, which she quoted from. It says in recommendation 27:

That the City of Vancouver advocate for stricter regulation of precursor chemicals that are necessary for the manufacturing of large quantities of methamphetamine and for increased capacity by the federal and provincial governments to enforce these regulations

I think it's important for all of us to hear and understand that not only are the FCM and other organizations and communities across this country calling for this type of regulation, but the City of Vancouver is walking lockstep with this initiative as well.

I'm not sure people in this room have had the opportunity to see the particular document that was put forward by the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice. It's their methamphetamine report. The methamphetamine report basically endorses this private member's bill. I'll read a little bit from my notes about what is being called for.

This report called for amendments to the CDSA to establish new offences for the possession of class A precursors for the purpose of producing methamphetamine: prohibiting the production and trafficking of class A precursors; prohibiting the possession of equipment, chemicals, and other materials for the purpose of the production of methamphetamine; and prohibiting the sale of equipment, chemicals, and other material for the purpose of producing methamphetamine.

This bill fulfills these recommendations, and I really urge the committee, if they haven't had the opportunity, to take a look at this report, because it clearly demonstrates the necessity for this type of legislation that's been moved forward with this private member's bill.

This committee has also had the opportunity to hear witnesses from the Office of Controlled Substances at Health Canada. Ms. Bouchard was here and she testified on December 13, 2007:

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.

There was some discussion in this committee if these regulations did what this private member's bill is calling for, and what she clarifies here in her statement was:

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.

There were questions. I'm hoping that today we're going to be able to resolve many of the questions people had with regard to the private member's bill in terms of its effectiveness, in terms of its ability to truly combat the harmful effects of crystal meth in our communities.

All of us have seen the news reports, we've heard the stories of people who have been drastically affected by crystal meth, and I think everyone around this table does not want to see this harm continued.

I don't know if any of you had the opportunity, but I believe on January 9 of this past year CTV brought forward a story that outlined the story of a lady from Saskatchewan who felt she had to sue her crystal meth dealer. She was successful in that, but when she was questioned as to why she felt she needed to do that, she said the federal and provincial governments had let them down on this issue. “With the criminal justice system there wasn't much of an investigation, so me and my family were frustrated. We found a different way to hold them responsible, through the civil justice system.”

I think it's important for us to step up to the plate, to do what the provincial ministers are asking us to do, what the City of Vancouver has asked us to do and what the FCM would hope we would do.

I thank you for this opportunity. I'm hoping that as we move through today we will have this opportunity to have additional clarity on this issue, and we can work together and combat this horrible drug in our communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

Mr. Aubin.

[Inspector Michel Aubin, Acting Director General, Drugs and Organized Crime, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Sir, it's a pleasure being before you again today.

Since our last appearance in December, the RCMP has had a chance to review the proposed bill with its amendments and is able to provide a recommendation as requested last time.

Since that time, the RCMP has released its 2006 drug situation report , which shows that within a two-year period Canada has reversed its methamphetamine supply pattern status from an importer and consumer country to that of a producer and exporter country. Those who traffic in illicit drugs, including methamphetamine, destroy lives, homes, and communities, and the RCMP remains fully committed to enforcing the laws against illicit drugs to the fullest extent.

As stated in our previous testimony, the RCMP's concern with the current methamphetamine situation in Canada is twofold. First, the current legislation requires investigations to be maintained until the very final stages of a chemical synthesis operation. Consequently, law enforcement often has to wait until a lab is set up and functioning, with suspects active in the final stages of the drug production. Organized crime groups know this all too well, and that's why the accumulation of chemicals and materials often occurs well before production.

Second, clandestine labs pose significant safety threats to the public and first responders from fire, explosions, and groundwater contamination due to hazardous byproducts resulting from production. Labs also pose significant environmental dangers as chemicals are dumped down drains, toilets, or in the bush.

The RCMP feels that the proposed legislative amendments do move the yardstick forward in this case. By introducing the offence of possession, it provides law enforcement with the ability to effectively disrupt these operations prior to the actual production by having the ability to arrest those involved and seize the materials. This has the potential to not only increase our efficiency in the fight against organized crime but also to ensure safer communities by reducing health risks and limiting long-term environmental hazards associated with clandestine drug labs.

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Monsieur Aubin.

Mr. Yost, do you have any comments to make?

[Greg Yost, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

No. I'm just here in case there are some technical questions people want to ask.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Fair enough.

Mr. Lee.

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

Thank you.

I absolutely understand the intent of the legislation, which is to try to get out in front of those who produce crystal meth.

I'm just wondering, if I could ask Mr. Yost, if we do this for any other prohibited drug. Do we do it for heroin? Do we do it for cocaine? Do we do it for ecstasy?

[Greg Yost]

No, we do not. This would be the only drug that would be mentioned.

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

Okay, then I'll ask Mr. Warkentin, why are we focusing on one drug? Are we going to get another bill next month from one of your other colleagues focusing on heroin and then another later focusing on...? Is this like a supermarket, off-the-shelf, anti-crime policy in the making, or what?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The difference between heroin and crystal meth is that in fact heroin has to be imported or grown. It's not something that can be produced from legal products. Crystal meth is unique. It's maybe not the only drug in the world of its kind, but it's unique from other drugs in that it doesn't have to be imported or grown.

There are opportunities for law enforcement organizations to combat the importation of illegal drugs or to stop the grow operations. But basically what we don't have with crystal meth is that opportunity to nip this in the bud. So whereas the police have the opportunity to go into a grow operation and shut it down before it becomes a drug, they don't have that opportunity with crystal meth.

This is giving them, effectively, the same tools as they have for other drugs in stopping the importation or the growth of those drugs.

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

The statute itself is targeted on controlled drugs and substances. Your bill focuses on the equipment.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It includes the equipment, that's right.

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

It focuses on the equipment. The drug is already prohibited.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It includes the equipment and the precursors, Mr. Lee, because currently the precursors—

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

All of which are already regulated or prohibited currently.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Some of them are regulated. This would bring them into legislation and would have a harsher penalty than currently.

I think we have to put this into a scenario. Maybe the RCMP would be able to give us a clearer picture of how this might work from an operational sense.

My understanding is that currently if the RCMP have information that would indicate that legal substances were to be converted into crystal meth, and they could prove intent because of information provided, there would be no opportunity for intervention until they could see that legal product being converted into the crystal meth. So there's no intervention--

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

Unless--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

--unless there's a regulatory--

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

No, unless they decided to deal with it by way of conspiracy.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I suspect that is possible.

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

That would be true for any operation. For conspiracy to rob a bank, you don't bust them and charge them with bank robbery or attempted robbery until they get into it.

I suppose I'm really just trying to get you to accept what you may not, that the current law already covers almost all of this, except you've packaged it to focus on pre-empting a crystal meth production, a crystal meth lab, before it actually produces the first bit of crystal meth.

You also include the pickup truck here. If the pickup truck is part of the operation, it's included in your bill. A pickup truck is a pickup truck. At what point in time do you intend to apply the intention component? At what point in time is it necessary to attach the intention to use the pickup truck in the crystal meth operation, and what if it has two owners?

I get confused, legally, as to when your bill is intended to apply. Whose intention, and at what time?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Anybody who is involved in the criminal activity.

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

In the planning.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

In planning or in--