Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes in Bill C-7 specify that the proposed enactment consolidates Canada's drug control policy to fulfill Canada's obligations under international conventions.
That consolidation, which is no doubt necessary, brings about major consequences, the most important of which is the repeal of the Narcotic Control Act, as well as of Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.
In the guise of that consolidation, the legal and statutory approach to a major problem is dramatically changed and this, without prior consultation. Yes, without consultation, and in a strange heavy context which raises concerns on this side of the House.
As you did, Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments that were made to the media by the Solicitor General of Canada on February 15, as I mentioned earlier. If it is true that there is an emergency, as if the present Narcotic Control Act could not allow the RCMP to stop the lucrative traffic of cocaine and other hard drugs, there is a problem with the system.
A country can have all the useful and necessary laws in some activity sector, but if the political will to enforce these laws in some areas of that country does not exist, they will be useless. So, we believe that it is necessary for Canada and for Quebec to have efficient and stringent legislation that responds to the present and imminent need to stop this plague. But, most of all, the police forces must feel that they have the support of those who will vote for that legislation.
From this House, we must give a clear message to anyone engaged in that black market that the legislator is serious in his or her willingness to counter narcotics and all other drugs. In order to do so, we should step up our effort and enforce the present laws while waiting for the updating wished for by Bill C-7.
In that regard, it might be useful to remind the Solicitor General of Canada of certain provisions of the existing Narcotic Control Act compared to provisions found in Bill C-7 dealing virtually with the same issue. If you read the bill, you will see that the legislator's intent was to criminalize the trafficking in designated substances as well as their import and export. However, the legislator does not criminalize trafficking since trafficking, and importing and exporting of narcotics are already considered a criminal activity under the existing Narcotic Control Act.
I could mention a whole list of provisions contained in Bill C-7 that are identical or similar to those contained in the existing Narcotic Control Act, but since I do not have the time, I will simply mention to this House that there is already an act that can efficiently counter cocaine trafficking or trafficking in any other narcotic, provided it is enforced everywhere in Canada.
As regards the statement of the Solicitor General of Canada who said that Bill C-7 would allow police forces to make sales under surveillance, which means that double agents could infiltrate smuggling networks and catch criminals by proposing deals, one can also question that novelty.
When the Solicitor General made that statement, he was referring to clause 54(2) of Bill C-7.
That provision reads as follows:
(2) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, may make regulations that pertain to investigations and other law enforcement activities conducted under this Act by a member of a police force and other persons acting under the direction and control of a member and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations: (b) exempting, on such terms and conditions as may be specified in the regulations, a member of a police force that has been designated pursuant to paragraph (a) and other persons acting under the direction and control of the member from the applications of this Act or the regulations;
There is absolutely nothing new in this bill. Something similar exists in the current Narcotic Control Act. The investigative power of police officers already allows them to infiltrate a group that they are watching and further, section 18 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act already provides for that procedure.
Then, why does the Solicitor General of Canada need the powers under clause 54(2) of Bill C-7 when the investigative power of police officers already provides for such measures?
Furthermore, infiltration is aimed at gathering information on dealers or on trafficking.
However, in the case quoted by the Solicitor General, the RCMP and the Sûreté du Québec-and I must emphasize that it is the Solicitor General of Canada who referred to the groups that I talked about earlier-mentioned that they were aware of the cocaine trafficking done by the Warriors.
So, this bill does not set forth anything new, nor does it provide any additional powers. We have to admit that the Solicitor General could act immediately to put an end to trafficking everywhere in Canada. That statement makes us believe that the Solicitor General is behind the anticipated passage of Bill C-7 in order to gain time and delay any intervention in those territories.
If the bill were so essentiel to the fight against drug trafficking in Canada, does it mean Canada never offered any resistance to drug dealers before the passage of the bill we are now studying? I hope this is only an extrapolation and that Bill C-7 is presented to this House with a view to modernizing a police procedure already in place and consolidating the Canadian drug control policy, as mentioned in the explanatory notes to the bill. However, one fact still remains: the government is not reaching its objective with this bill, it is presenting a faulty bill, one that is badly written, confused and difficult to enforce.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, to convince you, I think it would be appropriate to stress one of the points raised on Friday, February 18, by the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois for Portneuf when he discussed Bill C-7. You will remember he was explaining to the House the deficiencies of Bill C-7.
After studying the bill, the Bloc Quebecois classified its deficiencies under four categories. I will review them briefly. First, the legitimate activities of doctors, pharmacists and veterinarians; were these people adequately protected by this bill? Second, the enormous powers given to inspectors designated by the minister; are they not of such nature as to allow, if not induce, mistakes which will unduly penalize health professionals and their patients?
Third, how will the confidential nature of medical records be respected when the law allows just about anybody designated as an inspector by the minister to copy the files held by health care institutions and to seize all their computer files? The last question is why does this bill call criminal and throw in jail individuals who, in fact, are drug addicts in need of treatment?
As the Official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General, I will deal mainly with the third question regarding the confidential nature of medical records.
I do think that, should this bill be passed without amendment, it will jeopardize the confidential nature of medical records. Under the provisions of the bill, the lawmaker will make it harder for policemen to search the home of a known drug dealer than for an inspector appointed by the minister to carry out what would amount to a seizure in a hospital or at the corner drugstore.
One has only to refer to Part IV of Bill C-7 to realize how far-reaching are the powers of an inspector designated by the minister to enforce the act.
Under clause 29 of the bill:
29.(1) The Minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purposes of this Act and the regulations.
The expression "any person" send shivers down my spine because this person is given a lot of power.
Under clause 30. (1) of the bill:
- (1) Subject to subsection (2), an inspector may, to ensure compliance with the regulations, at any reasonable time enter any place used for the purpose of conducting the business or professional practice of any person licensed or otherwise authorized under the regulations to deal in a controlled substance or a precursor and may for that purpose
We are dealing here with professionals, not smugglers or pushers, but real professionals who are licensed for this very purpose.
This small paragraph therefore entitles anyone designated by the minister pursuant to clause 29 to enter at just about any time-clause 30 even specifies at any time of the day-a doctor's office, a pharmacy, a hospital, an LCSC, or the office of any other health professional who has obtained the required licence.
What are the powers of an inspector doing an inspection? I will tell you. Among other things, he can: a ) open and examine any receptacle or package-
examine anything found in a place that: b ) -is used or may be capable of being used for the production, preservation, packaging or storage of a controlled substance- c ) examine any labels or advertising material or records, books, electronic data or other documents found in that place with respect to any controlled substance-
And the list goes on and on.
The inspector can even: e ) reproduce any document from any electronic data referred to in paragraph ( c ) or cause it to be reproduced, in the form of a printout or other output; h ) examine any substance found in that place and take, for the purpose of analysis, such samples thereof as are reasonably required;
As we can see, Bill C-7 gives the inspector powers that even a peace officer does not have to fight the most serious threat of all, cocaine trafficking. Obviously, we are off the track!
Even more disturbing, should Bill C-7 be passed as it is, the inspector can gather evidence which could be used against a pharmacist, a physician, a nurse or anyone else in criminal court, whereas normally any action likely to lead to a trial in criminal court cannot be undertaken without a warrant, except under very special circumstances provided for in the legislation.
I was saying a moment ago that the law is a lot more demanding for police officers than for these inspectors, and to prove it, I will read to you clause 12, subclauses (1) and (7) of the bill.
Under the title Search, Seizure and Detention , clause 12 says:
- (1) A justice who, on ex parte application, is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a ) a controlled substance-, b ) any thing in which a controlled substance [-]is contained or concealed, c ) offence-related property, or d ) any thing that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under this Act is in a place may, at any time, issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer, at any time, to search the place for any such controlled substance, precursor, property or thing and to seize it.
Subclause (7) provides that:
(7) A peace officer may exercise any of the powers described in subsection (1) -without a warrant if the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would be impracticable to obtain one.
These two subclauses of clause 12 clearly show that a police officer cannot act without a warrant, except under special circumstances.
As for clause 30 of the bill, it provides that an inspector can act, visit, seize, etc., as indicated, at all times and without a warrant. Thus there is a clear difference between the two.
The only time an inspector needs a warrant is when he wants to visit a dwelling, a private residence. It is normal to require a warrant in such a case. For the rest, there is a clear difference between a government inspector and a police officer doing his job, fighting against smugglers.
I find the wording of clause 30 quite strange, especially when referring to superior court judgements on the importance of search warrants under the Canadian Charter of Rights.
We must not forget that certain previous provisions of the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act authorized searches without a warrant anywhere but in a dwelling, when a peace officer had reasonable reasons to believe that narcotics were to be found there.
There were no such open-ended authorizations in the defunct Bill C-85, a bill similar to the one before us today, because they had been ruled inoperative and contrary to section 8 of the Charter.
Yet, subclause 12(7) would authorize, under exceptional circumstances, a peace officer to conduct a search without a warrant when the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist but it would be impracticable to obtain one. It could be that the time required to obtain a warrant would jeopardize the life or safety of a person or the very existence of capital evidence. Under the circumstances, a search without a warrant would be justified and could not be challenged under the Charter.
To wrap up, I sincerely think that the legislator would be giving far too much power to the inspectors if clause 30 were to be passed as is, as it has no foundation in law.
As the past gives us some indication of things to come, we know that it is not good to give this kind of discretionary powers to a person or group of persons without providing a restrictive framework, legally speaking. The War Measures Act is a good example of this. Never again must we relive such excesses.
In no time, these superinspectors would be living in a glass bubble that would promote excesses.
Furthermore, the powers of the inspector run counter to the provinces' jurisdiction. For example, Quebec has granted inspection powers to the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec, as well as to the Quebec college of pharmacists and dentists. The corporation's or organization's inspector can show up, provided proper notice was given, at the office or place of business of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and others to ensure compliance with the principles of medical practice.
The Government of Quebec also allows the corporation's trustee to examine the practice of any physician, dentist or other professional with respect to a complaint to the effect that he or she has prescribed a hazardous substance to a patient.
It seems obvious to me that this part of the act once again enables the federal government to interfere in provincial areas of responsibility, which the Official Opposition considers both costly and unacceptable.
In closing, I suggest the government go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that would be much more in line with the realities of modern-day life, one on which everybody
would have been consulted. I suggest that it holds consultations on this subject, as part of the multiple consultations it is carrying out these days. I think that consultation in that area would definitely be in order, considering the implications for future generations.