Evidence of meeting #9 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In fact, I believe it would, strangely enough.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The first bill I brought forward that I was the officer on dealt with the amendments to corporate criminal liability, back in 2003. The section for dealing with corporate liability—“organizations”, they're called—for offences requiring intention envisions there being somebody in the corporation who, with the intention to profit the corporation, does something that's forbidden, and the responsible senior officer of the corporation either colluding in it or turning a blind eye to it or being so negligent that they allowed it to happen.
So yes, I believe a corporation that happily shipped off huge barrels of stuff that can be used to manufacture meth or other drugs could be found to know that it's going to be so used, and I think a charge could be made against them. They'd almost undoubtedly be in violation of various regulations as well. There's no reason on earth why a corporation could not be caught on this.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Okay. That was my question. Thank you.
Thank God for the government for you, right? Your bill wouldn't have captured that, I don't think.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Oh, I am feeling better, thank you.
Enough of the chit-chat; we go back to serious matters.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Yes, that's understood.
Going back to a comment made by Mr. Yost, with the amendment designating item 18 of schedule 1 and those substances that relate to item 18, if it were LSD or PCP or ecstasy, then they wouldn't be captured?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Under the amendment that has been put forward, that is correct, because they aren't under item 18.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just curious to know something from the police while we have you here. Right now you can deal with the precursors under the precursor control regulations. Under the new system, you'll be able to deal with them under this act. So you can deal with them in two different ways.
Leaving apart the fact that there would be an increased penalty—we see that benefit, obviously—I'm curious as to the police experience in dealing with crimes under the regulations or dealing with the crime under the act. We're proposing just a different way of dealing with it. I'm curious as to the police experience with dealing with crimes under those two different mechanisms.
Sgt Doug Culver
I'm not sure I understand the question fully. Are you talking about the two different mechanisms as between the regulations and the CDSA?
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Yes. You can deal with the precursors for meth right now under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act's precursor control regulations.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Assuming the penalty was the same once we put it under this act—I know this increases the penalty, but assuming the penalty was the same—is there any benefit to having it under the act, or are you just as successful using the precursor control regulations under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act?
Sgt Doug Culver
The proposal in the bill deals with a much broader set of circumstances. Once again, the precursor control regulations only control a very specific list of chemicals among class A and class B chemicals. There are six or seven in class B and approximately twenty or so in class A. There are many chemicals that we commonly encounter in clandestine lab operations nowadays that fit into neither of these two categories. Once again, organized crime has become very adept at understanding what chemicals are legislated and in finding alternative chemicals for these recipes—not to mention, once again, all of the equipment, the tabulating machines, the pill presses, the heating mantles that we see coming into this country through the U.S. and other foreign countries, which are going into private residences.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
So would it help to include all of those chemicals you just mentioned that we're not catching now?
Sgt Doug Culver
It would be helpful to include the chemicals that are not currently among the class A precursors. There's a fine balance with the class A precursors, in that all of these chemicals are legitimate chemicals and are used throughout industry. So there's a fine balance between putting a burden on industry versus criminal intent in the use of these products.
Quite honestly, even if certain chemicals were legislated, there would still be other or alternative chemicals that organized crime could easily jump to. Some chemicals are very specific to manufacturing methamphetamine. There are a lot of chemicals involved in that process that can be switched off with other things.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
This is my last question for you and Mr. Yost.
Based on what we have discussed today, wouldn't it be better, a good step forward, if we included in this act the precursors for some of these other drugs you're mentioning, plus the ones for other drugs, which I think the chair was talking about—ecstasy, etc.? Wouldn't it be better if we included those precursors and expanded this act so that someone couldn't get off, as Mr. Yost was saying, by stating, well, we're just making this other drug? Wouldn't that be a more comprehensive tool for both the police and the justice department?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Well, the amendment put forward right now is about selling or importing anything, and would cover any chemical there is. If you could establish that a chemical wasn't a precursor drug, and you haven't got around to putting it on the list yet, but know that it is one of the ingredients put together into meth—which we'll stick to right now, because that's what this says here—you would be able to bring the prosecution under those circumstances.
Obviously, we or the government rely upon Health Canada to tell us which drugs should be put into the various schedules, so I can't comment on how difficult it would be to come up with an exhaustive list of chemicals. I suspect that an exhaustive list of chemicals today would not be an exhaustive list of chemicals two months from now, given the chemical ingenuity of some of the organized crime people, as I understand them.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Does that include the precursors for ecstasy or these other drugs, to catch them, too?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
I rather suspect those precursors are already listed, but I'm not the expert on how you put together ecstasy and which are the precursor drugs and whether they're listed. It would be Health Canada that would tell us which drugs ought to be on the list and which schedule they should be in.
January 29th, 2008 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I don't mean the schedules, though; I'm talking about in this new act, so we can catch ecstasy with this new act too, and any other drugs.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
The act itself contains schedules already; the schedules of drugs are already set out. The precursors are listed in the various schedules.
