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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Because they haven't produced anything yet, in our scenario. They're planning to produce.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
That's right.
I might draw attention to the fact that Australia has similar laws, actually very similar laws, but the penalties are extremely--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Good on the Aussies. I'm just asking you when you intend that the requirement for intention be attached to all this equipment, all of which is very normal equipment: tubes, pipes, tanks. I don't know how to make crystal meth, but I assume it involves some hardware from the local hardware store, and some heat, and some cooling or whatever, but some very ordinary stuff.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
High school chemistry is as good as I can do here.
But at what time? If intention is a component, and surely it must be in criminal law--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
--at what time in process do you expect the police are going to look for the essential component of intention to make all of these very ordinary pieces of equipment become criminal?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Intention would have to be proved before criminality could be proven. So as soon as intention is established, then confiscation could go forward. But until intention is established, the RCMP aren't going to jeopardize their case.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
So intention then would be established by circumstantial evidence or by--
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
--confessions, or electronic surveillance, phone conversations, other conversations, all of which could of course be used for a conspiracy charge, but that's beside the point. Is that what you're thinking?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
My thought is that I guess in terms of how they would conduct the seizure or that type of thing, it would be left up to the RCMP to make that determination.
If you feel there's something that needs to be clarified in terms of this law, I'd be happy to--
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
And there may be an amendment coming too. I do understand that there may be an amendment coming. Is there an amendment coming?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Which may clarify some of that.
I was wondering if the RCMP could comment on whether they believe it really is moving the goalposts a bit closer to the football if you still have to go through this establishing intention to make use of what is pretty much ordinary equipment to use crystal meth when none has been produced. Can you explain to me how that might be of help?
3:50 p.m.
Insp Michel Aubin
My answer is going to be limited to the investigative capacity and I'll defer to Mr. Yost for any legal interpretation of it.
From an investigative capacity, I would say that in the opportunities where police are in possession of intention to produce, it does move the yardsticks forward for us. Right now, as I previously testified, there are many ways by which, or many circumstances in which, intention can be established at an earlier stage. But under our current legislation our understanding is that we have to conduct our investigation in a more protracted fashion in order to meet the demands of the current legislation.
January 29th, 2008 / 3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for providing us with the report of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers. Of course, it would have been useful to read it in advance, but we will read it this evening.
You stated that the ministers of justice recommended this legislative initiative. I can understand your supporting the amendment tabled by Mr. Moore, that is the government amendment. I also understand that this amendment encapsulates in some respects recommendations 15, 16 and 17 made by the Working Group.
Moreover, the nature of this amendment is understandable, but from an operational standpoint, it poses a problem, in my opinion. First of all, in terms of mens rea, it is very important. In law, culpable intent is never an easy question to determine. In fact, it is always very difficult to ascertain, more difficult even that actus reus. Could you be more explicit? I appreciate that the department supports the amendment. If you have not already done so, I would appreciate it if you could clearly state your reasons for doing so.
You maintain that with this amendment, it will be possible to intervene before the final phase of production. Preemptive action could prove interesting. However, I am curious as to how many substances can be used in the production of methamphetamine and what action will be taken if a person is found in possession of one of these substances. How far will we go to determine culpable intent? I would like some reassurance from you about the scope of the bill. You seem certain, which means that technically, Quebec's Minister of Justice supported this amendment. I am working on the assumption that the federal Minister of Justice supported the operational nature of the amendment.
I want to start with the Department of Justice. After that, we will get back to you.
Mr. Aubin, could you tell us how this amendment will facilitate the investigation process? Last time, you were somewhat dubious, but perhaps your opinion changed over the holidays. After all, people's opinion can change.
Let's start with you, Mr. Yost.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
By all means.
The first thing I would like to say is that the department supports the amendment. It is no secret that the department worked on this amendment in an effort to help the committee. If the committee wishes to pursue...
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Everyone knows about the extremely close connection between the department and private members' bills.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Perhaps that is normal in a minority government situation where bills can...
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
This is not the time for a class in administrative law, but at one time, the connection was even closer.
3:50 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That is right.
I worked with the committee that formulated the recommendations. Here is the type of scenario presented to us at the time. Suppose that one evening, all of the equipment and chemicals needed to produce methamphetamine are discovered in the trunk of a person's vehicle. It is impossible to establish whether one or more individuals are involved. There is no doubt about what purpose this equipment and chemicals found under rather interesting circumstances are to serve. As a rule, large companies do not transport products from one location to another in this manner.
Normally, under these circumstances, we would look today to subsection 4(7) of the Act. Pursuant to this provision, if the substance found is listed in Schedule III, then possession constitutes an offence liable to a term of imprisonment of no more than three years. That did not seem adequate to us. We were very much aware of the fact that it would be difficult to institute proceedings in such cases on a regular basis. In many instances, the courts must establish the individual's intent. They must ascertain if that individual knew that the products were related to crime, for example. In English, we say the individual “knew or ought to have known”.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I know that you are not a consumer of the product, but could you tell me how many chemical substances are used in the production of methamphetamine?
