Justice Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I think what Mr. Bagnell is trying to say is that the precursors or the methamphetamines fall under schedule 1, whereas ecstasy, LSD, and PCP fall under schedule 3. I believe Mr. Bagnell is saying that the bill limits the investigation, if you will, to item 18 only on schedule 1. That's what it says in the amendment.

[Greg Yost]

That's correct, yes.

I don't actually know what are the various precursors used in the making of ecstasy and what schedules they appear in and how many of them are fairly normal chemicals that have a lot of other uses. Perhaps the RCMP can comment on that. There are an awful lot of drugs listed on a whole bunch of schedules.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Aubin or Mr. Culver.

[Insp Michel Aubin]

We'll split the answer, sir.

From an investigative standpoint, there are two issues at play. The issue of what chemicals are found, Mr. Culver can address more specifically. The other portion of the answer would be that at times in investigations, evidence is there other than the chemicals that would tend to indicate what type of drug is intended to be produced. But as Mr. Culver will explain, many times when we show up at the lab and we see what's there, we're able to understand that. It gives us a clearer picture of what's going on.

[Sgt Doug Culver]

Most of the equipment has cross uses on production of any type of synthetic drug. Some of the chemicals are very specific starting points, whether you're working your way toward methamphetamine or one of the other synthetic drugs.

To answer Mr. Bagnell's question, in Canada the majority of synthetic drug labs that the police officers investigate are producing methamphetamine or ecstasy-based drugs. So that will include methamphetamine, as listed in the new bill under schedule I, but as it's written now it does not include a lot of the synthetic drugs that we still encounter under schedule III.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Again, I apologize as well that I wasn't here at the beginning. I was at the House leaders meeting, so I didn't hear the presentations.

I just want to clarify what these amendments are that have come from the government. The first amendment says, “knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in item 18 of schedule 1”. I want to clarify that item 18 applies only to those chemicals or substances that would be in the formation of crystal meth. Or is it much broader than that?

Clearly the scope of this bill is addressing crystal meth, and I think we need to know if it's now going beyond the intent of the bill as it was presented to the committee. Perhaps you would clarify again what is in item 18 of schedule 1.

In fact, does somebody have a list of that?

[Greg Yost]

If I may, we suggest saying item 18 because it refers to “Methamphetamine (N,a-dimethylbenzeneethanamine), its salts, derivatives, isomers and analogues and salts of derivatives, isomers and analogues”. It's sort of like methamphetamine and anything else that's pretty darn close to methamphetamine and does the same stuff, to put it in the kind of language I understand, as opposed to these various lists of drugs.

We didn't want a person to be able to say, “I wasn't producing methamphetamine, N,a-dimethylbenzeneethanamine; I added one little molecule of something else, so it wasn't quite meth.” That would be a salt or derivative or analogue.

So that's all it's doing.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No other questions?

Mr. Lee.

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

I want to go on the record before we go to clause-by-clause, if I may.

There seems to be a kind of general acceptance around the committee table that the bill is well intentioned and ready to go forward or go back to the House, but I'm wondering if Mr. Warkentin or Mr. Yost would comment on my perception that with all the good intentions on the part of the mover of the bill and everything, the amendments that haven't been moved....

I take it everybody knows what the amendments are, Mr. Chairman? I can speak about them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I will be calling on Mr. Moore to present those amendments and then we will be debating them.

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

You know, we've been discussing it here as though the amendment has been moved. And I believe it will be moved, but....

The original bill as it came to us from the House, approved by the House at second reading, did not have any provision involving importing. That has been added in. I raise that because that's a scope of the bill issue. I'm just going to say it now and leave it. It can dangle out there as we move forward.

The new subsection 7.1(2) proposed in the amendment has specifically to do with sentencing, and the original bill had no sentencing provision. The House as it adopted the bill did not advert to sentencing, nor did it advert to importing. I accept that the reference to item 18 in schedule 1 comprehends the same concept as to what crystal meth is known to be or thought of to be now.

I suppose I'm asking for the mover--not so much Mr. Yost, but the mover--to say, “Yes, I think this is within the scope of the bill.”

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

This is in terms of the amendments?

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

Yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, they are. I don't know if you were in the House when this was originally debated, but I know that your critic at the time, as well as Mr. Comartin, and I'm not sure if there was representation from the Bloc...but there was a sense that these amendments would be necessary. By the time it moved to the House, the necessity was clear.

There was an implied penalty that I had misunderstood; I understand that three-year is the way it would happen if it moved forward as currently written. With an amendment of ten years, that would clarify my original intention.

In terms of the importation--

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

You're saying your original intention was to be really tough, whereas the bill that the House saw was not really tough.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

My intention was to be--

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

You're a ten-year-max guy, whereas the House got to see nothing. I mean, that's a bit of a problem.

At any rate, you've referred back to comments in the House. I think most of those had to do with the need for the mens rea intention amendment.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, absolutely.

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

I agree with you fully. It was spotted, and the amendment does address that very clearly. I'm really talking about--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

The ten-year.

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

--the add-ons, yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

In terms of the ten-year, if you feel that is...and absolutely that was my intention. My intention was to bring this process in line with the trafficking, at ten years. I think that was explicit in terms of any conversations I had with people, but if that was lost in terms of the process....

I'm hoping that people will see it this way, but I guess we'll see.

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

I'm just trying to get the record to buttress what we may do here. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.