Debates of Feb. 18th, 1994

Controlled Drugs And Substances Act

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention when I started to address Bill C-7 to speak to the positives in it. However, I must admit that the best laid plans of this member to find something positive about this bill have gone astray, just like the contents of this bill.

The intent of this bill was a noble enterprise definitely needed in today's society. Instead of taking the time and making the effort to properly research, plan and develop a bill that would fulfil today's needs, this government has simply borrowed Bill C-85 from the previous government, made some cosmetic changes and put this bill forward as its own.

With laziness comes regret and the regret here is that the government was lazy. The only saving grace in this bill is finally a government is addressing the use of weapons, drug dealing near schools, and is requesting judges to offer written reasons for not incarcerating those convicted of using weapons in drug deals or dealing drugs near schools.

I will outline the faults with this bill as I see them. This government would have members of this House pass a bill before the regulations outlining what is permissible are even published.

Those regulations are needed in conjunction with Criminal Code rulings so that Canadians are aware of what is legal process. Ignorance of the law is not an admissible defence in court. Under this bill every Canadian would be denied a legal defence in court. They will be ignorant of the legal process until those regulations are known.

The people of Canada should never be governed by regulations. They should be governed only by law. Passing this bill before the regulations are complete and known will entail giving the regulations superiority over law. I cannot support that.

Further, this bill is so poorly written charter challenges leap off the page every time I turn one. Perhaps this government believes that Canadians have not had their fill of being tied up in courts, criminals being set free and large pay cheques for lawyers because of poorly written legislation.

Let me assure this government that belief is wrong. Let me assure this government Canadians want laws and legislation that will stand the charter test. Bill C-7 will have an extremely difficult time doing that.

The Supreme Court ruled in violation of the charter previous legislation having the same errors in construction as section 12 of this bill pertaining to search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled in violation of the charter previous legislation having the same errors in construction as section 13 pertaining to the necessary force.

Section 34 of this bill allows the minister to remove a person's right to a livelihood such as a druggist or a doctor and then asks them to present a case before an adjudicator.

This bill allows a minister to presume someone is guilty and then asks that person to prove they are innocent.

Do the words Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms strike any note of familiarity with this government? Nowhere in this bill do I see any reference to rehabilitation. I believe this government thinks this side of the House will support any bill offering jail terms for criminals.

Let me assure Canadians we believe in rehabilitation. We believe society and taxpayers are better served by having first time, small quantity possession addicts sent to cost efficient drug rehabilitation centres, offering them hope that they can return to normal life.

We believe excluding in this bill any option for rehabilitation is a sad oversight and shows Canadians the only understanding this government has for a judicial review is punitive measures.

How can any Canadian who is a slave to drugs or a slave to drug pushers and organized crime make a decision for a better future when the only option is to remove them from society?

This bill shows the true light of this government. This bill not only shows this government has a complete lack of understanding for judicial reform, but this bill also shows this government does not understand the concept of justice. The punishment should meet the crime. According to this government, seeking help for an addiction would be a crime.

No one believes in the right of citizens to feel safe in their homes, in their schools, in their streets and in their communities more than I do. I also believe victims include those who are addicted to these soul-stealing drugs.

Nowhere in this bill do I see where this government allows victims of drug addiction any hope of rehabilitation. I really wanted to support this bill. I really wanted this bill to offer protection to society against designer drugs. What do I see instead? I see a bill that is so poorly written, so broad in language that a charter fight will surely result.

The wording in this bill could cause charges under section 3 for giving someone too much coffee. Caffeine in large amounts creates similar stimulative effects as amphetamines. According to this bill, an attempt to keep a friend awake with several cups of coffee could result in charges.

I do appreciate the intent of this bill and believe legislation must be enacted to address the issues intended, but this bill is not the answer. This bill will create more legal and more social problems than it will ever solve.

It is a shame that this government did not take this issue to the serious extent that is required. This government simply borrowed an inept bill left over from the previous government to address a problem that most Canadians want correctly solved.

This bill confuses regulations with criminal law. It presents far too wide powers for inspectors enforcing regulations, not laws. It offers wide powers that will lead to charter challenges, invalidating any evidence found and letting criminals escape from justice. It offers no hope for rehabilitation. It will force undue hardship on medical practitioners and pharmaceutical corporations.

I must discourage support for this bill. I also must encourage this government to return this ill-conceived and poorly worded bill to the drawing table. Then let the government return to this House with a bill that will stand the test of modern jurisprudence.

At that time I will be more than happy to support a new bill and its intention to bring controlled substances and those who are involved in the trade of controlled substances before the law and to justice.

There are penalty provisions in Bill C-7 for small amounts as severe as large amounts of drugs, except a special provision for cannabis, but sharing cannabis with a friend can equal 14 years, according to this bill.

It could cause prescription problems for doctors. Doctors could be charged with trafficking, especially if a substance is not on one of the schedules.

It allows inspectors access to confidential doctor-patient records. It gives the minister the power to impose sentences for substances not yet on schedule, arbitrary power of imprisonment.

The size of this document amazes me. This document, with all its contents and the way it has been written and all the matters that pertain to judicial matters, is then turned over to the health committee to study and to bring back to this House. If I were on the health committee I would wonder why such a document so full of judicial matters would be before us.

Illegal drugs need to be dealt with.

As many members know, I was the principal of a junior-senior high school for 23 years. I have a colleague who is also a principal in Quebec. We could probably share a lot of stories about illegal drugs and what I have seen them do to youth. I have attended many funerals in those 23 years, some of which were the result of drugs and the way they are handled.

I suppose what bothers me more than anything is that over the last two decades or so we from the educational, community and parent levels have asked and continually ask governments and politicians, those in power, to please take charge of the situation and do something about it. It is out of hand, it is getting out of control and it is serious.

I am really disappointed that over the last 23 years I have seen no such progress. If this 35th Parliament would only get the political will and the intestinal fortitude, the courage and the guts it takes, it could take on illegal drugs in the same manner in which it was so brave to take on cigarettes. When they moved in and did those things in such a harsh manner and told the whole world that they meant business it caused the health practitioners throughout the country to cheer and applaud.

When we continually slide by other drugs that cause many serious problems, Canadians wonder when we are going to take the action. Then again, maybe I should not encourage my colleagues on that side of the House to get too much involved in doing this sort of thing just yet. After all, if they want to continue with a lackadaisical attitude they had when they put this bill together and continue to ignore the wishes and desires of Canadians, that should probably make me happy. If that kind of attitude continues they will be occupying some seats on this side of the House after the next election because Canadians are not going to stand for that any longer.

There are problems out there and we are saying that is too bad.

I remember going to the police and how they agreed with me that one individual, an adult, was responsible for trafficking most of the drugs in the small town I was in. Every time they got close to bringing this person under the thumb of the law, some kind of technicality or charter challenge would prevent that. In frustration we could only talk about how we could overcome that kind of a situation.

Yet what I see today is a document that is full of the opportunity to continually cause more and more charter challenges. Why do we not get away from that? Or, do we all have some kind of stock or interest in a law firm and the busier we keep our lawyers the fatter their wallets get and the less we do for society?

Many members make a mockery of these words. It is too bad they were not at some of the funerals I was talking about. It is too bad they were not there to watch the 14-year old blow his own brains out under the influence of a drug over which he had no control. It is too bad they do not get a little closer to the people as politicians to get a little more feel of what they are trying to tell us. Once they understand and get a feeling for it, they will understand why I desire getting something done.

Things can go right when a 34-year old man is caught and charged for trafficking drugs in a small community in my riding. Everybody cheers because students in the area are the ones who were being supplied by the individual. They are glad he has finally been caught. However, there is something terribly wrong when three weeks later, after going to court and being charged under due process of law, he is out in the same town doing the same thing. It is just one example of thousands: a little tap on the wrist and "don't do that again".

I will repeat. If the government had the political will, the courage and the guts, I guarantee it would have the approval of the Canadian people to take action. The government should get with it. I will join it and be pleased to work with it to come up with documents that will make sense and put an end to this problem. This is not a Liberal problem. This is not a Reform problem or a Bloc problem. This is a Canadian problem affecting our youth. When brain burning drugs are free and easy in our society it is time we started doing something about it.

I had the privilege of going on prison missions once every month for a number of years. The prison where I served my missions was the Bowden Institute in my riding, a federal maximum security prison. I find it amazing that in our penal system it is easier to get access to drugs than it is on the streets. When I went on missions to the prison sometimes it was very difficult to counsel some of the individuals I was scheduled to counsel. They were already high or had come down off of a high because of drugs they had been using while in prison. They are readily available to them.

Sometimes we as politicians continually challenge our penal system to rehabilitate, to fix these fellows up. Instead of turning out rehabilitated people from these prisons we are turning out more addicted individuals into society, saying that they have been in the penal system and should be able to walk out into society and function well. However they are already addicted.

What kind of a system would allow that to continue? It should never be a Canadian system. It can be fixed and we need to fix it. But do we have the courage? Does the government have the will? So far I have not seen an example of it.

I am waiting for somebody to do something other than come down with a massive document that is full of irregularities, full of things that will cause nothing but more grief and more problems. Would it be possible to break this document down so that we have a judicial section and a health section?

I would imagine it would drive the health committee right up the wall when it comes to dealing with the judicial aspect. Being on the judicial committee, I certainly would not be comfortable dealing with this document when it comes to all the health aspects. It is a quick and easy way to brush it aside. They can make sure they take care of it and then go out and brag to everybody in their ridings about the wonderful bill they have passed. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It accomplishes nothing toward long-term drug rehabilitation and putting a stop to illegal selling and trafficking.

When a country has billions of dollars in revenues from activities such as illegal drugs, is it something to be proud of? Do members want to run to another country somewhere and say that they are from Canada and our fourth biggest industry is drugs? Is that wonderful? Wherever it fits in, members can be assured it is very high on the ladder.

Are members going to do their jobs in Parliament as people who have been asked to address these problems on behalf of Canadians throughout the country? Members could do it. For once they could focus on the victims and potential victims out there, waiting to fall into the trap created by the crime that is going on.

I looked at certain areas throughout the world. Singapore was one. I understand from the statistics that it is down to 5 per cent. In my last year of school I was fortunate to have a 17-year old exchange student from Singapore for six weeks. I asked him whether there was a drug problem in Singapore schools. He said: "Not on your life. If you get caught with drugs, bang, you are dead". I said: "Really?" It sounds pretty barbaric, does it not? Singapore has a 5 per cent problem or hardly any problem. There is no problem in the schools. It certainly is not causing a health problem. Traffickers are fearful of being in that country.

However I am afraid trafficking in this country is very inviting. When I visited the prison at Drumheller I was amazed by the numbers of drug traffickers from other countries who were there for short terms. For some of them to open their mouths and say the reason they are in Canada is that it is a haven for traffickers ought to be a message. They believe the easiest and most logical place to work is in a country like Canada that has namby-pamby rules when it comes to catching people like them.

They can do something about it. Do they have the will? Do they have the courage? May God grant it to them because it needs to be done and it needs to be done now.

It has even been suggested to me by a few that the real answer to our problems is that we need to legalize some of these drugs. Hogwash. Who would ever suggest such an idea? They should shake their heads and think again. Then they come back and say: "But prohibition never worked". Maybe it did not, to whatever extent they are talking about, but I can guarantee that when alcohol was finally legalized-and I do not think anybody would have to work too hard to research and verify this-it was one of the problems that caused more divorces than anything else.

What is causing more financial breakups? Alcohol. What is causing more bankruptcies? Alcohol. Why are more people in prison than ever before, 70 to 80 per cent of them? Alcohol. Was it a great and wonderful deal to legalize alcohol? Were we good? Now we want to turn around and consider doing the same kind of thing to these other drugs.

To those who would even suggest that we consider legalizing these kinds of drugs I say: "Move away from me immediately or we will have a serious argument". There is no way, after seeing what I have seen through the experiences I have had with the youth of the country, that I would say for a single second legalization of drugs is what we need.

In Canada we need law and order. We need legislators who will say it is time to make the country safer. We can do it and they are the people to do it. They had better find the courage and guts to do it. If it is not done it will continually get worse and we will regret the day that members of the 35th Parliament sat back in their chairs like all other Parliaments have done and let it go. It does not matter if we are left or right; we can write a common sense bill. We can look at it, think about it and then think of our children.

I doubt seriously if there is one of the 295 members in the House who could stand and say: "It really does not apply to me because drugs have never had an effect on my life". If we look at grandchildren, nephews, nieces, friends and families all around us we will find somebody. I guarantee it. That is how widespread it is. Yet we are making it better and better for those who want to sell, traffic or make a living in bringing these drugs into our country.

I hope the words I have said today do not fall upon deaf ears. I can guarantee that most of the ridings I visited prior to the election and after are worried about the economy, about the deficit, about the jobless, and about many other things. However right behind their first worry is their worry about the safety of their children and their grandchildren, their grandmothers and their grandfathers.

Only last week I appeared on a talk show in Calgary where it was suggested to me that crime was not nearly as bad as it used to be. However the very first phone call was from Catherine, 83 years of age, living in Calgary which really does not have a high rate of crime, violence or things of that nature. She said: "I live alone; I only have my cat. All I want for the rest of my days in this world is to have a little peace and security but I cannot even sleep at night because I am so afraid". She lives in a community where the seniors are totally afraid that any day somebody is going to break in, bash them over the head and steal what they have. Most of the time that is done to support some kind of drug addiction.

In the rural community of Wild Rose, in the smaller communities police service is not available because they are quite far out. These are towns and communities of 200 or 300. I invite members to come and look at the bars on the doors and the windows of the businesses and homes. Behind the bars are law-abiding citizens. That is the only way they can protect their property in that part of the country.

I wonder where have we come to when law-abiding citizens are locked behind bars and the rest are out running around. It does not make sense to me and it is time that we did something about it.

For crying out loud, take a good look at Bill C-7. Do not brag about what a wonderful thing it is until you do so. If you cannot see what I have seen going through that, I suggest that you go to an eye doctor and have the doctor take a good look at your eyes because that piece of paper will not solve the problems that this country needs solved.

I encourage members to vote down this bill and then go back and get serious about addressing these problems. Be prepared to go out into the country and the communities and say to the people that you are going to draft some legislation that is going to stop protecting the criminal. We are going to put a stop to you being a potential victim because we are going to start concentrating on the criminal from another aspect. Instead of seeing what we can do to keep him safe and to make sure his rights are looked after, we are going to see what we can do about putting him away where he belongs so you as a law-abiding citizen can enjoy a little peace and security in your own land.

We can do it. Let us do it. But we are not going to do it with Bill C-7.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time you have given me today. This is serious. Some members may not want to take it so seriously. It is more fun to make noise on that side than it is to get serious, but they had better be serious because this is killing this country.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support the second reading of the controlled drugs and substances act.

This government recognizes the need for legislative reform to modernize and improve the drug abuse provisions currently contained in the Narcotic Control Act and parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.

In fact some of the present legislation is over 30 years old and is ill suited to deal with law enforcement requirements arising from the dangerous and complex Canadian drug scene of the 1990s. As the Minister of Health has already pointed out, drugs have a devastating impact on our society, particularly our youth.

The health minister has described to this House why this bill is important and how it will help safeguard the health of Canadians.

It is true that drug use has slightly diminished in recent years but that has been countered by the increasing potency of drugs, the new and dangerous ways in which drugs are injected and increasing use of different drugs in lethal combinations.

New emerging trends in drug abuse include hydroponic cultivation of potent strains of marijuana, the clandestine manufacture of designer drugs such as PCP imitations and the sale to children and teenagers alike of so-called look alike drugs.

Obviously, this legislation, which was passed 30 years ago, can no longer keep up with new drug trends today. The new bill will make Canadian drug control legislation meet the needs of the 21st century.

The Minister of Health has already made clear the important health dimensions of this bill. As Solicitor General I want to discuss the equally important aspects of the law enforcement dimensions of the proposed legislation.

The increasing complexity of the drug scene has been matched by the increasing sophistication of drug traffickers and their ability to evade conventional police methods of fighting drug trafficking.

In the past the courts have repeatedly recognized that ordinary police methods are often ineffective in investigating drug offences. They have suggested on more than one occasion that legislation needs to be passed that would expressly authorize our police forces to carry out effective undercover operations against drug traffickers.

The controlled drugs and substances act which we are presenting will meet this need and give police the statutory instruments needed to fight drug traffickers in a way that complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill will also help us fulfil our international obligations related to the suppression of drug trafficking. In 1990 for example the United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances came into force in Canada. This international agreement is currently in force in over 70 countries. It provides for co-operation between nations and is aimed at suppressing the illicit traffic in various psychoactive drugs and the chemicals used in their clandestine manufacture.

This convention also calls for the use of specialized investigative techniques which are often necessary to infiltrate sophisticated trafficking operations and to identify and bring to justice the ring leaders and their helpers.

Techniques such as "reverse sting" or "sell bust" operations have been used by police forces in other countries to excellent effect in the fight against sophisticated drug trafficking organizations. During this type of sting operation it is frequently necessary for the police to sell small quantities of drugs to the traffickers to establish credibility and further the investigation.

Until now, however, such an operation in Canada has had no basis in legislation and has therefore been open to legal challenge. The new bill will confirm that the police have the statutory foundation they need to carry out such operations. This bill will also allow Canada to fulfil its obligations under two other international conventions: a single convention on narcotic drugs and the convention on psychotropic substances. The bill will do this using a four point approach.

First, it will provide for controls on the import, export, production and distribution of psychoactive substances while at the same time allowing for the use of the substances for medical, scientific and industrial purposes.

Second, it will provide a control on the import and export of precursors, which are chemical substances used to produce controlled substances.

Third, it will enhance enforcement measures available to all police services, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and provincial and municipal police forces to suppress unlawful import, export, production and distribution of psychoactive substances.

It will provide for the forfeiture of any property used to commit such offences. On the home front this bill will make it easier for the police to deal with those who produce illegal drugs.

Under the old legislation new drugs were not considered to be illegal until they were analysed and identified. Needless to say this process took time. This bill instead uses a broad description to define psychoactive drugs. In the future new drugs appearing on the street that fit this new generic description would automatically be covered by the bill. This would give the police the authority to arrest traffickers dealing in these new illicit drugs.

Last but by no means least, this bill will help us better protect our young people. I do not think anyone in this House would argue with the statement that our children represent our most precious resource and that we must do everything in our power to protect them.

Unfortunately one of the facts of modern life is that our young people are often the most vulnerable to the temptations of drug use. Drug traffickers know this and take full advantage of any opportunity to peddle their deadly products in places where young people congregate. Today's schools and even playgrounds are no longer safe from the attentions of drug traffickers.

To help protect children from this influence, the bill will introduce new criteria known as aggravating factors to assist judges in determining sentences for drug traffickers. Examples of these factors include dealing drugs in a school, near a school or to minors or involving minors in drug trafficking operations.

There are also other aggravating factors, such as previous drug convictions, possession of a weapon or the use of violence while engaged in drug trafficking. These are laid out in the bill.

Generally under these new provisions a convicted drug trafficker can expect to receive a stiffer sentence, particularly a jail term. Judges who do not impose a prison term in such circumstances will be required to give the reasons for their decision.

In conclusion, I believe that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will give Canadians the tool they need to better protect their health which is threatened by the harmful effects of drugs.

From the Solicitor General's point of view, in terms of enforcement, this bill will give the police the power they need to organize more effective anti-drug operations, especially against major traffickers.

The proposed legislation will broaden the impact of existing proceeds of crime legislation which allows the police and the courts to strip the traffickers of the profits of their criminal enterprises. This bill will also enable the police to deliver a more forceful one-two punch to drug traffickers to severely curtail their deadly trade.

This is the kind of approach that the people, the courts and the police have rightly demanded to deal with this type of criminal justice problem and our government is committed to such an approach.

I ask members on all sides of the House to give early and full support to this bill.

I have listened to the concerns raised by opposition spokespersons about it. I believe those concerns should and will be addressed in committee when the bill is considered in detail following second reading. This is the place to go into the concerns that have been raised about the bill, its purposes, its approach and so on.

Therefore I urge hon. members to give early second reading to the bill to enable it to go quickly to committee so that all the points raised by opposition spokespersons and by other members in the House can be looked at and dealt with in the seriousness with which they were raised in the first place.

I say this because I believe this bill will provide important additional tools to the enforcement community and the courts to fight the drug problem everywhere in this country.

Again, I ask this House to give this bill its early and full support.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the instructive things when one has been on the opposition side of the benches and one moves to the government side allows one to look back at how one referred to a bill when one was in opposition. I encourage the members opposite to do that.

I have taken the opportunity to go back into the committee hearings and look at comments made by the hon. member when he sat over here.

Is it appropriate, Mr. Speaker, for me to refer to one comment made by one member when that member was in the opposition?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I believe so.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

This comment was made on this bill when the hon. member was in opposition: "As I have told you, the subject has not been given any media attention at all. Yet I understand it was given first reading almost a year ago in June 1992. To rush through it within a couple of months will not speak well of Parliament, to say the least".

When the present government was in opposition a bill was introduced very quickly by the Conservatives, put into committee with a very similar undertaking, not well thought out in this House at all. As the committee comments will show, there were serious problems. I ask the government to listen very carefully in this House to the problems with this bill before it goes to committee.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking that the bill be dealt with without debate or without consideration of the concerns that have been raised or are yet to be raised. However, the format of consideration of legislation under the rules is such that the way to respond to these concerns is to do so in the course of committee proceedings and then through the report stage following committee proceedings.

There are a lot of points that have been raised which are quite technical which apply to individual clauses of the bill, for example, and I will not attempt to deal with them now. Second reading debate enables us to discuss these matters broadly but does not enable us to make the kinds of changes which may or may not be required in the light of parliamentary considerations.

That is why I am not saying that there should be no debate but that the best vehicle for examining in depth the kinds of concerns that have been raised and making changes, if they turn out to be changes that are necessary, is in the parliamentary committee. It will look at this bill in the next stage of debate.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure almost a year ago of attending a conference on crime prevention and community safety. It was chaired by a member who is no longer with us, Mr. Horner, I believe.

I was very impressed when I went to the conference because it was an all-parliamentary committee that produced a unanimous report. The committee took the approach that crime prevention could be best handled through better enforcement as well as social development.

I bring that up because in this past campaign I tried not to play politics with the whole issue of crime, justice and law enforcement. What impressed me was that there was all-parliamentary agreement. Every member of each political party had the same position in the committee when the report was finally put in place.

I would really hope that approach will continue with this bill. The reason I say that is that the problem of crime is a complex one which the committee report stated very ably.

If we as a country, not just political parties, are going to be able to deal with the issues of crime we cannot look for simplistic solutions. We have to understand the complexity of it. It behoves us all to try to give it the serious consideration it deserves.

If one looks at models in different communities or different countries, when Canada is compared to the United States of America, we are an incredibly good model. Our communities are a lot safer, there is a lot less crime, we have fewer people in prison and we do not execute people. We have a much safer community than they have in the United States of America.

We have to look at the issues as to why that is. It is important that as much as possible we take the politics out of it. Partisan politics are dealing with issues that have such an impact on our nation and our communities. We have to work together to solve the problem.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo has made some very important comments. They reflect his own professional experience working with young people who have had difficulties. I am glad to see him here in this House to provide us with the benefit of not only his experience but also his wisdom.

I look forward to this House approaching these kinds of matters with the same type of constructive and non-partisan approach which reflected the report about which the hon. member spoke and which was published in the last Parliament.

We are dealing with serious matters involving the fabric of our communities. We are dealing with serious matters involving our young people and their future. They are very complex. Certainly no one piece of legislation, whether it is this piece of legislation before us or any piece of legislation, can deal with all the complexities by itself.

Certainly we need to make a serious effort toward crime prevention. That is why this government is working to bring forward a national crime prevention council. Certainly we need measures of rehabilitation. That is why this government is moving to bring forward amendments to the corrections and conditional relief act.

There is also a place for enforcement unfortunately but it has to be addressed and recognized. That is why we are bringing this legislation forward. It is to deal with the enforcement aspect of a very serious part of the concern for the breakdown of law and order in this country, that is traffic in drugs.

I ask the House to approach this and similar legislation on the basis of the very good advice given us by the hon. member for Waterloo. I hope in considering this matter they will recognize

that this piece of legislation is a serious and well intentioned attempt to deal with not all aspects but one aspect and an important one of the very serious problem linked with traffic in drugs.

It is in that context that I invite the House to consider it, to debate it, and to give it relatively prompt second reading so that in committee we can approach it in the spirit urged on us by the hon. member for Waterloo and as a result, come out with the best possible legislation to address a very serious concern.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is precisely the importance of this bill and its emphasis on the justice system that we have heard so many people talk about this afternoon.

It is a very serious area of concern. It confuses me why this bill would be passed on to the health committee to be looked at rather than the justice committee. I and many others would feel more comfortable if this were going before the justice committee to look at those issues that have serious consequences long term rather than it being referred to the health committee.

Perhaps if there was some change in that, more of us would feel more comfortable.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the very same thought has crossed my mind. I intend, after consultation with the Minister of Health, to see if there would be some disposition in the House to amend the motion for second reading to have this bill referred to the justice committee.

Looking over the bill in preparation for taking part in the debate, frankly the very same thoughts went through my mind as were expressed by the hon. member. If we present a motion to amend the motion for second reading to have the justice committee consider this matter, I hope we will have the support of the hon. member and others for the reasons she has mentioned.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to make a suggestion to the House. The minister began his intervention at two o'clock. Under the Standing Orders-we are presently under Standing Order 74-he would have had 20 minutes to speak and 10 minutes for questions and comments for a total of 30 minutes. This will bring us to the magical hour of 2.30 which is the agreed upon hour to terminate today's sitting.

The minister spoke for 15 minutes. If I could be allowed to be so creative we could extend the question and comments by five minutes, which will still represent the 30-minute allotment that is allowed the minister on a subject of such great interest, as I see many people still seeking the floor. In the five minutes left I will recognize both the member for Wild Rose and the member for Portneuf, recognizing that both these members have already spoken, that the preamble will be short and the questions succinct, to allow the minister to respond before 2.30.

I will begin by recognizing the member for Wild Rose, if the House agrees.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from B.C. took care of the question I had. I will pass to the next person.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In fairness, would there be anyone else from the Reform Party who would care to take the time. The member for Macleod, with the same consideration.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the comment made that we could have the justice committee involved in this bill certainly satisfies a lot of my concerns. However, the medical community needs to be represented as well. So it looks to me as if the committee might well need to have joint responsibility.

Could the minister comment please?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to see what we can do under the rules. But I would remind my hon. friend that under the rules any member can attend any committee, even a committee in which that member is not a regular participant, and take part in the discussions. In fact, a committee like the justice committee-if that is the way it turns out-could and would have to have the Minister of Health and her officials appear.

If it turned out that the justice committee would be the best overall vehicle, this would not exclude consideration of the health aspects or prevent members who are more interested in the health aspect from participating. That is my understanding of the rules.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, so that the Solicitor General can understand the context of my comment, I can tell him that my question deals with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-7 criminalizes dealing in controlled drugs, as well as import and export of those drugs. This is already in the present Act, and we have no problems with that. The bill also criminalizes possession of property obtained as a result of certain offences, but this is also in section 19 of the current legislation, so I see no problem here either. But perhaps you could tell me whether or not you anticipate any problems with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We also know that concerning the laundering of proceeds of certain offences, section 19 of the current legislation and clause 10 of the bill are pretty similar. Regarding search, seizure and detention, clause 12 is the equivalent of sections 11 and 12 of the Narcotic Control Act. As for the power of infiltration and making supervised sales, clause 54(2) of the new bill provides for things that were essentially covered already under section 18 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

However, where there is a departure from all this, it is in the powers given to the inspector. And I will conclude my question here. We know that, on the one hand, there are administrative powers used by the inspector and, on the other hand, there are judicial powers-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Portneuf, but the minister will have very little time left to respond. The hon. member has had the opportunity to make an eloquent speech on this very important matter. Seeing that time is running out, if the Solicitor General could please respond.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to read over carefully the meaty speech of the Bloc Quebecois critic as it raised very complex and interesting issues.

I would like to respond briefly to his last comments. He feels that a certain section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act gives police sufficient powers to control sales, but based on court decisions and legal opinions from our counsels, it is not enough. That is why we came up with clause 54(2).

I may not be an expert in the field, but it seems to me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act cannot give powers to other police forces, like the Sûreté du Québec or the OPP, the Ontario Provincial Police. That is why we need the amendments proposed in this bill.

I can assure you that I take great interest in preserving the freedoms guaranteed to Canadians from coast to coast under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it is the duty of the Justice Department to let us know whether or not a bill meets constitutional requirements, including those set in the charter. Without their advice, no bill could be tabled in this House.

The interesting comments made by my hon. friend indicate why, although there is a place and a need for general debate, in my opinion we should get this bill into committee as quickly as possible so that we can deal in depth with the very interesting points the hon. member has made and so that we can give all possible explanations and assurances with respect to the charter of rights and freedoms and in general with respect to the foundation and need for this law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to conclude by thanking the minister and all members present for their co-operation.

It being 2.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)