Thank you for the questions.
The first thing I'd like to do is outline my approach in bringing the bill to the House.
It was very much an information-gathering, consensus-building approach. I went to the critics of the other parties to get their input. I went to law enforcement officials, both national and from my own province. It was recommended that we add ecstasy.
In my remarks, I mentioned that ecstasy is in many occasions a Trojan horse for crystal meth, so the law enforcement community felt that would be consistent with the intent of the bill and consistent with the health and welfare of Canadians. In terms of the intent, many people have asked about the intent provision. Any criminal offence in Canada has a mens rea or an intent portion, whether it's specific or not. We thought the clarity would both protect innocent users of the legal ingredients that may be covered by this bill as well as make it clear to the law enforcement community what they have to prove to get a conviction.
The sentence in this bill is ten years less a day, and I know there are various sentences for different offences in the Criminal Code. I suspect there are people at this table who are better able than I to make the comparison.