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.
4 p.m.
Sgt Doug Culver
I would assume so, yes.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
They also stated in effect—and I can't remember if it was you who mentioned this specifically—that crystal meth was being mixed with MDMA, which is ecstasy, in some sort of combination.
4 p.m.
Sgt Doug Culver
We are finding some of that in Canada. We're also seeing methamphetamine put into tablet form to mimic ecstasy, as well, and being sold on the street as an ecstasy product, whereas in fact it is not.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
With all of these combinations and different scenarios in manufacturing, is this bill actually going to assist in enforcement of the law when it comes to the possession of the precursors? Is it actually going to assist if, for instance, many of the precursors are not really designated towards methamphetamine specifically, but maybe towards ecstasy?
4 p.m.
Sgt Doug Culver
I believe it is.
There certainly is going to be a burden of proof on the police in collecting evidence, and on the crown, to prove the intent. Many of these chemicals and apparatuses have dual purposes. They have perfectly legitimate purposes, but under certain sets of circumstances where people are known to accumulate chemicals known to be used for methamphetamine production and specific types of apparatuses that police commonly encounter in clandestine labs, such as 22-litre round-bottomed flasks, heating mantles that go along with them, and condensing columns, there is going to be a culmination of evidence brought together, along with whether or not there's an admittance from an accused, or overheard conversations, that would go to prove intent.
As for the simple fact of having a can of solvent at home or some of these other chemicals that a lot of us have at home right now, it's going to be a matter of the circumstances surrounding why they're in possession of those products and in what kind of state.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Warkentin, for appearing again at the committee.
Since your last appearance, you've made us aware of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We did hear testimony from one mayor, via teleconference, from a town in Alberta, but I would be interested to hear this.
I also wasn't aware, until today, of the switch Canada has made in the last couple of years, which was mentioned, from being a net importer to being an exporter of methamphetamine. I would like your comment on what you're hearing from police forces, municipalities, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I think it's pretty significant that they're endorsing your private member's bill. Actually, I'll congratulate you on that, because to have that federation, which is pretty representative across the country, endorse your private member's bill I think is pretty significant.
I did want to take this opportunity to mention the government amendment, which you're aware of. You can add any comment you like. But I should say, for the committee, that what the government amendment does is simply add importation, and it clarifies the issue that had been raised by committee members, and rightfully so, of mens rea--that the individual must know of the future illegal use of the substances--being captured by this change in the legislation. Obviously, it's important that the individual know.
Could you comment, kind of broadly, perhaps, on some of the support your bill's been receiving, and also perhaps specifically on your response to the government amendments?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Thank you very much.
I'll start with the government's amendments. I appreciate the government's amendments, because I think they clarify, and in law clarity is essential. So I thank the government for the work on this in terms of establishing and ensuring that mens rea is included in the bill so there's a burden of proof on law enforcement to ensure that intent is there. Let it be my testimony that my intent was never to go after people who are innocent and would be found in a compromising position because they happened to have bleach and cold medication and a few other things in their trunk. I think what we want to do is ensure that intent can be proven. So I appreciate the amendments, and I think that's fantastic.
What I think is important for us to recognize is that even within the regulation that oversees the precursor material, there are some problems in terms of....There's a harsher penalty for exporting these precursors without a permit than there is for being in possession of these chemicals domestically without a permit. So there's some conflict there.
We need to understand, as was noted, that we have moved from being an importing country to being an exporting country. Certainly we're manufacturing crystal meth here for domestic consumption, which is something that has changed over the last number of years, and we want to see that stopped.
Mayor McQueen did testify before this committee through teleconference. Her community has been affected to an extreme extent by crystal meth, and the areas around her community have absolutely seen the horrors of crystal meth. I guess that's what inspired me to become an advocate for this change, because I saw the effects on the ground. I saw the families that were being torn apart as a result of this drug.
Certainly that has been my experience as I met with RCMP officers from my own community. But since I brought this private member's bill forward, and as the media have drawn attention to it, I've had calls from around this country from families that are desperately trying to bring awareness to their communities.
One thing I mentioned when I was here last was that one of the side benefits of my bringing this forward has been my public advocacy among young people in terms of explaining to them the dangers of this drug and the fact that this can be sold to them as something else, such as ecstasy or some other type of product. I've had that opportunity, and I certainly hope, as we work together, we can protect our communities from this harmful drug.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
This is to the RCMP. I don't think Canadians are fully aware of the impact of crystal meth or of how addictive and dangerous it is. We heard some testimony about that, but could you tell us a bit about your challenges in combating what seems to be a growing problem with crystal meth? Also, the question was raised about some other drugs that we are more familiar with, whereas this is mostly synthetic, and a lot of the precursor material is perfectly legal and normally used by most people. Could you tell us what kinds of challenges that presents for you?
4:10 p.m.
Insp Michel Aubin
Keep in mind that for the most part we are looking at economy-based labs; those are the labs that have a high yield. What we are looking at is organized crime, which is behind them. They are well aware of what our legislation is and of our investigative capacities. The way they are set up, we are seeing some instances where the tasks are being split amongst the members of the organization. Whereas some individuals are there to collect the precursors and stash them for long periods of time, other individuals have their own roles. Because we have this breakdown of roles, these investigations become very protracted. The breakdown is meant purposely to counter what law enforcement can do.
It is not uncommon for us to hear or understand through the evidence that the precursors and the material were stashed for a significant period of time to purposely deter or counter law enforcement. Those are some of the realities we face.
The production of chemical drugs is an opportunity for organized crime. There is a demand on the street. Methamphetamine has been recognized as a highly addictive drug by some organizations. The demand is there, and as per the 2006 drug situation report, which was recently released, we have unfortunately moved from being a consumer nation to being a producer and an exporting nation.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
That's interesting. I don't think we've heard that testimony before; at least I don't recall it. Obviously we are aware that organized crime knows the law as well as or better than anybody else. They know the loopholes and how to get around things; it is in their best interest. But they're actually, as I see it, exploiting what this bill seeks to address. They are exploiting that gap in the law, if you will, whereby if they were in possession of cocaine, for example, then they have a problem; if they are distributing, then they have a problem. But earlier on in the process, they have a problem if the police catch them with cocaine, but with methamphetamine they're actually splitting responsibility, as you said, and exploiting the fact that our laws currently don't address the scenario that this private member's bill seeks to address; that is, nailing people with the precursors before they have a chance to synthetically create the methamphetamine in the lab.
I guess your testimony today illustrates even further in my mind the need for this type of legislation.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations on bringing your bill forward. I think everyone in the committee agrees we would like to cut down methamphetamine use, and we are just working out the best way to do it.
I have a question for Mr. Yost. The department's responsibility is quite often to create legislation. It creates lots of legislation, actually, and brings it forward to deal with improvements in the justice system. I am curious as to why you haven't done a bill like this or a similar bill to it, if you have seen this problem.
If you were to attack this problem, is this the way you would do it, or would you, as some committee members have suggested, include a larger, comprehensive list of precursors that might be used in creating other drugs as well?
4:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There are two issues. I will start with the second one, which was about precursors.
If there are new precursor drugs that are used in making illicit drugs, then they can be added to the schedules by cabinet. The Governor in Council can make regulations putting things there, so we can respond fairly quickly if there is a new precursor drug that has to be controlled.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes, that is under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
With respect to the other question, federal, provincial, and territorial officials and governments have been working for quite some time on various drug issues. There is a bill in front of the House now to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to deal with mandatory minimum penalties and such.
This is a part of one report that has a number of recommendations federally and provincially. There are other things that are always being considered and may come forward at some time. But this amendment proposed by the government members, respecting methamphetamine in particular, would respond to what we've been working on with the meth report. Because of the harm of meth, that particular drug was referred to federal, provincial, territorial officials: what can we do about meth?
The Criminal Code is one part. There are things in the report about education, etc., that can be done in community action, so it requires more, but this responds directly to the recommendation for CDSA amendments made within that report last July.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
As you were saying, the precursors have already been dealt with in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act through precursor control regulations.
My question was, why treat these precursors as special and up it into a law, if you can already deal with them? More importantly, if it's important to do it, why wouldn't you do it with the precursors to all drugs? Someone might try to get out of a court case by saying it's not constitutional; that they're not being treated equally, because you can get the precursors for these other drugs—ecstasy or whatever—and not face the same charge: it's not illegal.
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
That reflects some of the comments made by the chair.
The report was specifically on methamphetamine. I don't think anybody on this committee would be particularly thrilled if, on a charge of having all the precursors to produce methamphetamine, the person was able to get off by saying no, it was another schedule 1 drug I was going to make—phenyl-something-or-other. I'm not a chemist, and I don't know what's put together or how.
If the committee is so inclined, you can catch methamphetamine but also catch other schedule 1 drugs by transforming the offence into one whereby it is “possession of materials for the production of a schedule 1 drug”. It would accomplish that and it would be available, should there be other schedule 1 drugs that they start putting together in labs, etc. It is for the committee to decide whether it considers that appropriate.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
In the way it is written now and with the amendment we were asked to help with, which was aimed specifically at methamphetamine, you would not catch any of the other drugs in schedule 1; it's only that one. It refers to item 18 in the amendment we've put forward. A person who could make the argument, “No, I was actually producing something in item 17” would presumably be found not guilty. They might be guilty of possession of the precursors and face three years, as opposed to being guilty of this offence for which, under the proposed amendment, the maximum would be ten years. That would be the big difference.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
That was my exact point about including the others.
I don't know what the limit on penalties and regulations is. Could you solve the same problem by increasing the penalty, if they were caught under precursor control regulations? Or is there a limit on those penalties?
4:15 p.m.
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
There is a limit in the act right now, and there's certainly no legislation coming forward that I'm aware of that deals with raising the penalties for precursor chemicals. Until they are put together into other things, precursors are not as dangerous; therefore, if you just happen to have too much of one of them kicking around for some reason, you face the lower penalty.
In this legislation, if you have it, or three or four precursor chemicals plus the necessary equipment to cook it together, etc., you're facing ten years, because presumably the court would be able to assume that you got all of this stuff together and that your intention then was to produce methamphetamine.