Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 24 - Evidence for March 24, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day, at 10:36 a.m. to study Bill C-475, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy).
Senator Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: This morning, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs will begin its study of Bill C-475, an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy).
[English]
To launch our work on this bill we have before us John Weston, M.P., the sponsor of this private member's bill in the House of Commons. Mr. Weston is here with us, as a minister would be for a government bill, to explain the bill and why he presented it. I think you have an opening statement, Mr. Weston.
[Translation]
John Weston, M.P., sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great honour and privilege to join you in this magnificent room.
I want to begin with a short story. There is a fitness program for parliamentarians you are all invited to. Every Thursday, the National Coach for Swimming Canada, Pierre Lafontaine, volunteers to help us improve our health. The activities take place right around the corner, at the Château Laurier pool. When I was leaving today, he asked me the following question: "John, when you are in Vancouver tomorrow, with your wife and children, what will you say? Will you say that you are a proud parliamentarian? Will you say that you are doing something for Canada?"
This is an important question we should keep in mind while studying this bill.
[English]
As the chair pointed out, the bill sets out to tackle crystal meth and ecstasy. I drafted the bill with stakeholders across Canada and the Justice critics of all three Opposition parties, with whom I consulted before submitting the bill to the House of Commons.
The bill was the first private member's bill in this session of Parliament to receive unanimous support when it passed through the House of Commons last June. It echoes a bill introduced in an earlier session of Parliament by the member of Parliament from Peace River. That bill also obtained unanimous support in the house. On that occasion, the bill died in the Senate due to an election.
I am here today on behalf of all those who support the bill — Canadians of all parties — to urge you to expedite the remaining steps required so that Bill C-475 will not suffer the same unfortunate as its predecessor.
The bill bears the hallmarks of a law for all Canadians, with contributions from representatives of all parties and support from inside and outside the Parliament from people of all political dispositions. The bill is short, easy to understand and capable of disposition in the few minutes of time it took the House Justice Committee to dispense favourably with it. While senators have many important bills to consider, this is low hanging legislative fruit, a bill that could come into law tomorrow, before this session of Parliament meets its likely end.
Bill C-475 is a bill whose time has come. The bill seeks to criminalize the possession of precursors to the synthetic drugs of crystal meth and ecstasy. Member of Parliament Chris Warkentin from Peace River first introduced the bill on April 19, 2007 as Bill C-428. It passed the House of Commons unanimously on February 8, 2008. The bill then died in Senate committee due to the intervening election.
Its broad acceptance in the House, in both iterations, demonstrates a deep level of consistent support by all Canadians.
The bill contains only two clauses: One is for the definition of items in question and one is for the sentencing used in the bill. It states "No person shall possess, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in. . . ." the relevant section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
The sentence prescribed for this offence is a term "of not more than 10 years less a day." The sentence was chosen specifically on the recommendation of the opposition Justice critics before I finished drafting the bill.
The language used in the bill is simple and thus has taken a very limited amount of the house's time compared to bills that are more complicated. Canadian law enforcement officials support the bill as evidenced by the endorsement of the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police. I have also met with and received support from a variety of other law enforcement officials and professionals committed to the recovery of drug addicts, and they support the proposed law. Recovery centres that support the bill include the Orchard Recovery Center located on Bowen Island, represented by Carrie De Jong, one of the other witnesses you might hear from later today.
Bill C-475 sailed through the House of Commons in under six months. Introduced on November 2, 2010, the bill survived prorogation and was passed by the house unanimously on two different occasions: April 13, 2010 at second reading, and June 9, 2010 at third reading. The bill passed through the House of Commons Justice Committee in only two sittings. I was the only witness required to speak to the bill. During Mr. Warkentin's time on the Justice Committee, there were three meetings and several witnesses spoke to the bill. Similarly, the bill passed unanimously in all vote situations.
Crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy are two prominent forms of methamphetamines. Reports show that crystal meth is one of the most addictive substances available on the streets today. A completely synthetic drug, it can be addictive after as little as a single use.
Crystal methamphetamine alters the brain's production of dopamine, a chemical that has important properties in the brain, such as controlling sleep, motivation and mood. The drug produces an initial high, and as the effects wear off, a person becomes depressed. The user requires more of the drug to return to the initial high, leading to a binge- and-crash pattern. This can and does quickly lead to a loss of control, and addiction.
While in its purest form, ecstasy is relatively non-addictive, it is rarely, if ever, sold alone and is often combined in pills with much more addictive substances, such as crystal methamphetamine. Ecstasy, or MDMA, is a common party drug that can often lead to more addictive substances due to its being combined with them. Often innocent use of this drug can lead to addiction to much harder drugs, further pulling users into the field of addiction and street life.
Unlike other drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, the production of crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy depends almost exclusively on legal materials available domestically. Furthermore, crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy can be produced in almost any environment with relatively few ingredients and easily obtainable tools. The labs in which they are made are often located in basements and other small spaces, making them difficult to trace.
Increasingly, the producers of drugs are well organized gangs. For this and other reasons, the UN World Drug Report has named Canada as a place that needs to update its laws to deal with the problem of methamphetamines. The 2009 UN report names Canada as the single largest supplier of ecstasy to the U.S. and a significant supplier of the drug to Japan and Australia.
Production of the drug is therefore tarnishing Canada's international reputation. We are famous for exporting many good things, and it is a shame that our name is increasingly associated with the export of crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy. I met with officials in the United States and Hong Kong, who have encouraged us to see through the process of enacting Bill C-475.
Experts agree the most effective way to undermine the production of these drugs is to focus on the use of precursors. Bill C-475 will make the practice of using materials for the production or trafficking of crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy a criminal offence. By affording law enforcement authorities the tools to inquire into suspicious and voluminous acquisition of recognized precursors, suspected producers of these substances will be more vulnerable to investigation and prosecution. The law enforcement authorities represented later in your witness list today will attest to this.
Both Bill C-475 and before it Bill C-428 received many endorsements from organizations across the country. This bill has received endorsement from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs, the Office of the Solicitor General of British Columbia, the West Vancouver Police Board, the Squamish First Nation Chief Gibby Jacob, the Orchard Recovery Center, the Crystal Meth Prevention Society and the national council of the Catholic Women's League of Canada. It also received endorsement from many local governments in the riding I have the honour to represent, including Gibsons, Powell River, West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Bowen Island, the Squamish- Lillooet Regional District, Squamish Municipality, Sechelt, Whistler, and Lions Bay.
Honourable senators, I would like to address a concern regarding the wording of the bill. I understand that there may be some hesitation over the possible breadth of the bill. By not specifying what products or chemicals would be specifically included, some worry that potentially anything could be included, even something innocuous like a glass. The question deals with the possibility of a wrongful conviction under the terms of this bill.
Under the provisions of the bill, in order for a crime to be committed under Bill C-475, the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intention was to manufacture crystal methamphetamine or ecstasy. As a lawyer, I repeat that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the glass, if that is the issue in question, had been produced in the process of manufacturing crystal methamphetamine or ecstasy. Something generic with so many possible legal uses would inherently pose for the Crown an insurmountable burden in proving the possession of the glass alone meets the high threshold required in achieving a conviction.
Another concern relates to the reference in Bill C-475 to a coordinating amendment that refers to Bill C-15, which is now dead. The reference to Bill C-15 was made on a contingency basis. Its current analogue is Bill S-10, now at first reading in the House. I have two vital assurances that the reference to Bill C-15, though redundant, will not prejudice the intended positive consequences of Bill C-475. Marie-Andrée Roy, Principal Parliamentary Legal Counsel who focuses on legislation, has concluded that Bill C-475: "May be passed by the Senate with the current wording of section 2 (coordinating amendment)." Ms. Roy provided that in the form of a written opinion.
Both Bill C-15 and Bill S-10 would change the schedules to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-15 is dead and Bill S-10 is not going anywhere, at least in the foreseeable future, according to Attorney General Rob Nicholson, who provided the second assurance to me yesterday. The Attorney General said that in the event that Bill S-10 does come into force sometime in the future — in this session of Parliament or a future session of Parliament — then an according amendment could be made to ensure that Bill C-475 applies to the correct schedule. To amend Bill C-475 now would not help us tackle crystal methamphetamine or ecstasy, but would force the bill back to the House of Commons and, given the time frame, effectively kill it.
In conclusion, the bill passed through the House of Commons in a record six months, the result of procedural trading, all-party support and broad support from outside Parliament. For the benefit of all Canadians, I therefore urge honourable senators to pass it today so that it may become the law of our land in the name and in the interests of our children and all Canadians.
Senator Lang: I would like to welcome Mr. Weston. I appreciate your coming to speak to your bill. For the record, I have to emphasize that this bill is not new to this chamber or the House of Commons. It was presented to the Senate a number of years ago. Due to a series of events, it never received the full hearing.
Time is of the essence. I appreciate the fact that the committee agreed to hear it on relatively short notice, knowing that we may be going into an election in the next couple of days and we have to deal with it now.
I would like to make a point on the bill itself. It is really important that we recognize the importance of legislation like this and how it affects people on the street.
Not too long ago, I had the opportunity of watching a program — I believe it was on "The Fifth Estate" — in respect to the effects of these chemical drugs on a small community here in Canada. It was a real eye opener to see how many people were affected, how many young people were given a death sentence from the point of view of their future when they made the mistake of coming into contact with drugs of this kind.
I would like to ask the witness to expand a little in respect to the effects of these drugs once they are on the street. Please tell us about the effects of these drugs.
Mr. Weston: To refer to your initial remarks, I would like all senators to know that people in the other place understand how hard senators have been working. The House of Commons understands the vast amount of bills that you have been reviewing lately. Again, I appreciate your coming together on short notice to consider this bill.
The insidious nature of these drugs is, first, that they cut across all demographic lines. I am a father of children aged 13, 12 and 10 years. I look at my kids and realize that if they make one mistake with these drugs it can lead to a sequence of actions that has the ability to destroy lives. These drugs are addictive and enticing — they come in the form of little pills with happy faces on them and our children are exposed to them at parties. It does not matter whether you are rich or poor, these drugs have been seen to destroy lives, families and communities.
The reason I think police officers are so adamant about having a new tool in their tool box is they see how young lives have been destroyed, and the families around them. You will hear more about that from other witnesses.
Senator Lang: I was in Washington a number of weeks ago with the National Defence committee. While in Washington, we met with the senator from Maine who raised the issue of illegal drug smuggling from Canada into her state. She expressed grave concern over these chemicals coming into her state.
Perhaps you could go a little further and expand on your opening comments in respect to Canada becoming the wholesale smugglers of these types of drugs into the United States and other parts of the world.
Mr. Weston: Let me address that in two ways. First, regarding what other countries do, the legislative framework in the United States has to be addressed in terms of state-by-state laws. Oregon, for instance, has the strictest laws. The common precursors for these drugs — ephedrine and methylephedrine — are now available only behind the counter through a prescription, which makes it harder for people who legitimately need the drugs to get them. However, Oregon has decided the scourge is so severe they have to take these stringent measures.
The other response I have to your question is the condemnation from the United Nations drug report that our country, Canada, is becoming a country that is looked to as a source for these drugs. As we try to cooperate with our neighbours in making life healthier and safer, especially for our young people, I do not think anyone in this room wants to be in that category
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Welcome, sir. This is an important bill that affects many young people and families. We are talking about an insidious drug manufactured and marketed in an insidious way as well. It often helps introduce young people to drugs. We have to attack it vigorously, and I congratulate you on this private member's bill initiative.
I have read the bill. You gave an example of a glass — I think I have already heard this somewhere — as possible paraphernalia. At first reading of the bill — and supporting documents — I see that there is a lot of talk about products that could be used to manufacture ecstasy. We also realize that it could cover equipment, so tangible goods that could be used in a laboratory. We could be talking about a beaker, a burner, and so on. I am not familiar with the manufacturing process, but I understand that small laboratories are used. Therefore, I think that there are harmless materials that could be covered by this provision. I am not against that. Was this your intention in introducing this bill, that is, to cover basic products that are used for manufacturing, as well as the equipment that could be used for it? This could be justified because, when a search is conducted, the product may no longer be on the premises, but the equipment remains. It then becomes obvious that the individual was producing ecstasy, which could be covered by other elements of proof.
Mr. Weston: Thank you for the question. My answer will be in three parts. Before presenting the bill to the house, I asked for advice. Several people helped me to draft the bill, including the other three parties' justice critics, as well as police officers.
Even the New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois critics, who were emphasizing wrongful conviction, agreed. Why? Because the —
Senator Carignan: You can speak in English. It is our constitutional right to use our preferred language.
[English]
Mr. Weston: The onus of proof is so high in this case. The criticisms I received of the draft were not concerning it being too broad but concerning the fact that it would be too hard to prove the intent to manufacture crystal methamphetamine or ecstasy. To prove that beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high burden. Constitutional lawyers in the room will tell you that it will be very hard for the prosecution to get a conviction. Thirdly, the time frame to gather the precursors, manufacture, and distribute them adds up to a long time. Law enforcement officials want to deal with the people who are addicting our children and grandchildren. However, during the longer timeframe people are gathering the precursors such as large volumes of ephedrine and pill presses. A law enforcement officer may pull someone over with all of those materials in the pickup truck, including a letter from the driver to his partner saying that they will split the proceeds 50-50. However, right now, it may not be an offence.
This gives law enforcement the opportunity to deal with the perpetrators at the stage where they are more vulnerable. That opportunity has not been there.
I am a lawyer who is concerned with human rights and the spectre of wrongful convictions. Many people with whom I have consulted point out that the likelihood of wrongful conviction is very remote. If anything, the problem is that it will be difficult to get a conviction.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: If my understanding is correct, the intention is to cover equipment as well. For instance, you talked about pill presses.
Mr. Weston: Yes.
Senator Carignan: Simple possession with the intention to produce drugs. Obviously, if someone has pill presses, unless their name is Bayer, the presses are probably used to produce other things, perhaps drugs. Other elements of proof will be taken into consideration, but possessing paraphernalia that could be used to manufacture drugs can constitute an offence, as long as there is culpable intent and we know that the materials will be used with the intention of producing drugs.
In other words, a person may have in his possession basic substances used for the production of pills or drugs. However, possession of any equipment needed for the production will constitute an offence under subsection 7.1, if culpable intent can be proved.
Mr. Weston: The problem with these drugs is that the precursors are not necessarily illegal. If someone intends to manufacture these drugs, they already know where to obtain all the necessary equipment. For us, those who are dealing with the wrongful conviction issue, it is difficult to provide the Crown prosecutor with evidence, given the need to show culpable intent.
[English]
Senator Baker: Welcome to the committee, Mr. Weston. We congratulate you for your initiative and your persistence on this particular bill. I imagine everyone supports the intent of this legislation. That is why it received such unanimous approval in the other place.
I will take the other side of the argument and put it to you.
Mr. Weston: I did not know that there was one.
Senator Baker: I just read this bill this morning. Upon first glance, two things struck me. You were providing punishment for the production or possession of precursors for a drug under Schedule 1. It is the same punishment as that under Schedule 3. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession of a drug under Schedule 3 for the purpose of trafficking carries a 10-year maximum. However, if it is under Schedule 1, it is life imprisonment under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Let us consider the convictions in our courts in British Columbia and Ontario for importing precursors for ecstasy and MDP. I do not know what MDP is; however, people have been convicted for bringing it into Canada. There is one here: R. v. Chan 2008, Carswell Ontario, 3493. I will read to you a section of the head note. It says, "MDP precursors used to produce ecstasy were imported from China." Then, it says that the accused pled guilty to, "Conspiracy to import, conspiracy to produce prohibited substances." This is contrary to Sections 6 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. When one looks at Sections 6 and 7, there is nothing there about conspiracy to produce. What is there is the importing of a substance and the making of a substance, in section 7.
Under the present law, as you see in R. v. Chan, it was a Schedule 3 substance, which ecstasy is. The other substance that you are referencing to in your bill is a Schedule 1 substance. Therefore, the maximum penalty today would be 10 years for Schedule 3 — for conspiracy to produce or import. For Schedule 1, it would be life imprisonment. That is the first thing that strikes me about the bill. Do you have any thoughts on that so far? Then, I will get to my main point.
Mr. Weston: If I accused you of being a lawyer, would I get a conviction?
Senator Baker: No.
Mr. Weston: You raised three separate things: Why combine the two drugs? Why have a sentence of 10 years less a day? Lastly, if you can prosecute someone under conspiracy to produce, why does one need this whole new law of acquiring precursors?
The combining of the two was the only change from Chris Warkentin's bill. He said that crystal meth and ecstasy are often used or produced in tandem. Therefore, they needed the two of them to be brought under the same paradigm. That is why the two are combined.
Why sentence for 10 years less a day? Member of Parliament Joe Comartin, who was the then NDP justice critic Member of Parliament requested this term. Dominique LeBlanc, the Liberal Justice critic, supported it. They were both concerned. If the sentence were 10 years, given prospective provisions that may be introduced, that would attract a mandatory minimum sentence. With pressure from my colleagues, I stuck with 10 years less a day. That is what my colleagues from the other parties suggested.
I am not a criminal lawyer, but proving conspiracy requires a whole set of things that are different from the offence of acquiring these things, and to abet, aid or end up in trafficking or be in possession of the drugs. The reason this offence has been requested by many of those who have endorsed the bill is because we need a specific category. It is not conspiracy; it is different. It requires that the mens rea and the physical act under criminal law will be different to get a conviction.
Finally, it sends a very strong message. The purpose of our laws is not just to convict people, but to send the message to the community that it is wrong to acquire these things if your intent is to make harmful drugs. That is wrong. Ring the bell. No more shall that be done in this country.
Senator Baker: The matching of the schedule of drugs, one being life imprisonment and the other 10 years, and the sentences that result in the cases of people who import these precursors for ecstasy and methamphetamine is that, upon sentencing, section 465 of the code applies. If you get together with someone to commit an indictable offence, the punishment is the same as if you had committed the indictable offence. With section 465 of the Criminal Code, there is an expectation and demand that the sentencing be equal to that of the offence if it were committed.
The exact wording in your bill, ". . . knowing that it will be used to produce," is in 83.03 of the Criminal Code, and 83.05 under the terrorism provisions. The senator to my right is on that committee. If you look up the recent case law on the meaning of that word, the defence to it is that one could be wilfully blind to the fact, and the standard of proof could be on wilful blindness.
That comes to my mind because you say in the bill "to sell any of these substances." As you know, some flu medication or other substances that are readily available are sometimes purchased for making some of these drugs. Therefore, is there any concern that someone who is selling them could be accused of being wilfully blind as to the purpose of those substances?
Mr. Weston: If I could repeat the question back to make sure I understand it. You are saying that the bill, as drafted, is not strict enough and that there is a loophole in the defence by saying, "Well, I did not know, but I was wilfully blind." I suppose the concern is that if we made the standard of proof lower, then people who were concerned about wrongful convictions might see this as an illegitimate amendment to our Criminal Code.
We were straddling the need to make sure there would be a remote possibility for wrongful convictions, yet crafting something that would discourage people from manufacturing crystal meth and ecstasy. We were providing another tool for the toolkit of the law enforcement community that feels frustrated at its inability to prosecute at the early stage of the cycle, which is often the longer and more vulnerable stage for those who we would consider criminal but are now not subject to a criminal offence.
Senator Runciman: I want to commend you for pursuing this and doing so in collaboration with the other parties in Parliament. It is not that often that a private member's bill gets to this stage, let alone one with unanimous support. That is not predicting what lies ahead, but hopefully it will be positive.
You mentioned precursor chemicals, and I think you mentioned the State of Oregon. I assume there is a legal use for these chemicals as well. Do most of these chemicals come into this country legally?
Mr. Weston: Ephedrine is the major ingredient of methamphetamines and is used in cough medicines. For example, some pharmaceutical companies are loathe to increase the process by which legitimate consumers may acquire a precursor. Oregon has decided to make it more difficult because of its concern about the creation of crystal meth and ecstasy.
Senator Runciman: You mentioned that there is support from the policing organizations in British Columbia. I do not know if you were talking about methamphetamine or other street drugs. There was a story in the U.S. media about people giving these drugs out freely with the intent of getting people into an addictive situation. Have seen that in British Columbia?
Mr. Weston: Exactly. The sinister thing about the drugs, among other things, is the context under which they are offered. As I mentioned, they are a party drug. I do not know your family situation, but think of a young person close to you who is a good scholar or athlete and goes to a party where the music is loud and someone says, "Well, why don't you try one of these? It will make you feel great," and there is a happy face on the pill. That one mistake can lead to an addiction and a very hapless future. The ability to spread these drugs, as well as the winsome way in which they are offered, has encouraged law-enforcement officials to seek something more.
Senator Runciman: An explanation as to why the bill does not name the specific products or substances came up in the house and you may have referred to it in your opening comments.
Mr. Weston: It would be impossible to name everything in such a categorical, detailed way that you would not create unfair defences no one has anticipated. The narrowing of the application comes in proving the intent, not in the list of substances. I used the example of a glass. If a glass were the only evidence that was picked up by the police, it would be almost impossible to imagine how they could prove the intent to manufacture crystal meth or ecstasy. You would have to assume there are things more closely related to the drug itself, such as ephedrine or pill presses.
Senator Runciman: In section 7.1(1): "No person shall possess, produce, sell or import anything knowing that it will be used to produce or traffic in a substance referred to in item 18 . . ."
Was it your intention to not just, obviously, cover components of the drugs, but also cars and boats that are used to traffic? Is that the intent of the bill?
Mr. Weston: The obvious example is in the form of pill presses, which are directly useful in creating these pills. This would open up the possibility that if a pickup truck were used in transporting the goods that were seized in the course of the investigation, it would be one more piece of evidence that the Crown could use in seeking a conviction.
Senator Runciman: For seizure of assets as well?
Mr. Weston: That would be a different question. That is covered elsewhere in the Criminal Code, in terms of what can be seized.
Senator Runciman: If they should not possess anything for the purpose of trafficking, it strikes me that it could cover that area as well.
Mr. Weston: It could, but that would be contemplated in the "seizure of goods used for criminal purposes" section of the Criminal Code.
The Chair: If I may, in the guise of supplementary to Senator Runciman. Since you are casting quite a wide net here — possess, produce, sell or import — why did you not include export in the list of banned activities? I am not saying it is a fatal flaw; I am just wondering.
Mr. Weston: The term "trafficking" would probably cover export. I have learned in the drafting of the bill that there is probably no perfect bill. The fact that the bill could be improved, as we have seen, for instance, in the reference to Bill C-15, does not mean that it should not be passed.
The Chair: I did say, Mr. Weston, that I do not think this is a fatal flaw in the bill. It is a matter of interest, though.
Mr. Weston: It is a good question. I did not exclude it specifically. It was not in under the Warkentin version. When we went through the legislative council of the House of Commons, it was not suggested, nor did any of my critics propose it.
The Chair: We are where we are.
Senator Wallace: Along with my colleagues, I congratulate you for taking this initiative. It is obviously important beyond lawyers and debating words; it is a real issue on the streets that affects our children and our communities. Once again, thank you for the initiative.
As you have indicated, you have laid the groundwork well in preparing the support for the bill. The support includes the opposition Justice critics, law enforcement, the community, and people involved at the community level and at recovery centres. It would also be gratifying for you to know — and perhaps you do know — that it also received the support of Senator Larry Campbell, who was the critic of this bill in the Senate. His concluding words when he addressed the Senate on February 2, 2011, were the following:
Honourable senators, the changes proposed by Bill C-475 are an important step towards reducing the production of crystal meth and ecstasy in Canada. For this reason, I support the bill.
That is gratifying.
I have three particular issues in the bill and I believe you have addressed them to my satisfaction. One involves the use of the word "anything," that "no person shall possess, produce, sell or import anything . . ." The word "anything" obviously has considerable breadth. One could think: Why would we not itemize the items that one would commonly consider? However, because that would be impossible, I am satisfied that the word "anything" is appropriate. As you said, you tie it into the word "knowing." There must be the mens rea element, the intent to commit the offence. Again, you have addressed that element.
The final point that struck me with the bill is the reference to "knowing it will be used to produce or traffic," "produce or traffic." My understanding is that those concepts of production and traffic are well recognized in the Criminal Code, and well understood by law enforcement and lawyers. My understanding is that there would be no vagueness with the use of those terms. Do you have any comment to make on that, particularly in relation to "produce or traffic"?
Mr. Weston: I will just say that I took into account the comments of senior law enforcement officials from the RCMP and from local police, and they were satisfied that the terms "produce or traffic" would give them what they needed in order to investigate and make arrests. That was good enough for me.
I would also like to refer to your comment about Senator Campbell. As we all note the increasing tension in the air with a possible election being initiated within hours or days, I would hope we would all be able to follow the example of Senator Campbell and look for common ground wherever we can find it. Speaking on behalf of someone who will be seeking re-election, I hope I will be doing that in my campaign, and I hope you will encourage the candidates with whom you are working to do the same thing.
Senator Wallace: One final brief comment, Mr. Weston. I would certainly understand that law enforcement could look to the words, as you pointed out, "produce or traffic" and feel they could work with those. That is at one level. The next level is what prosecutors will be able to do with it, and how it will be legally interpreted and what it will take to prosecute on that basis. My understanding, at the prosecuting level, is that the concept is well known and the principles are well established. Would you agree?
Mr. Weston: I agree. Again, I tried to cover all the relevant angles by working with the parliamentary counsel who assisted me in drafting this and by getting input from Justice critics, who are all wise, in this case, men and police officers.
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Weston. I have a number of questions relating to the understanding of the wording of the proposed section. I have no queries with the definition of "produce or traffic," because in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — and this bill is an amendment to the act — those two words are defined. As you know, it is section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, both "produce" and "traffic" are defined. Since it is an amendment to the act, the definition of those two words is already covered. Therefore, I have no difficulty as to the implications of those two words in the bill.
I have more concern about the word "anything." I tried to find any section in the Criminal Code where the word "anything" was linked to a criminal act, and I did not find it. As pointed out by my colleague Senator Baker, our recollection of any mention of groups of things or goods or services was the amendment to the anti-terrorist legislation in 2002, Bill C-36, which, as you will remember, we adopted here. Section 83.03 was well defined in terms of property and services. In other words, it covers two realities. "Property," in the meaning of the Criminal Code, is well defined. You know that, since you are a lawyer. It has been interpreted many times by various courts and services. "Services" means advice, professional assistance, and a lot of other things.
However, the word "anything," in my opinion, is so vague that I wonder how a court will react to that word. Of course, the court wants to pronounce on something that they understand within the scope of the Criminal Code, and the Charter protects that within the scope of the Criminal Code as well.
Why did you choose the word "anything" or the concept of "anything" instead of the well-known concept of "property" and "services" as defined in the Criminal Code, which contains, as I mentioned to you, amendments to the anti-terrorist legislation, whereby it says "providing, making available property or services for terrorist purposes." What you propose is, essentially, a similar kind of section for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, production or trafficking.
Please inform us why you picked that concept instead of the already well-defined concept of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Weston: That is a good question, senator. I reiterate that the unique thing about the crystal meth and ecstasy phenomenon is that the broad range of precursors contains almost universally legal things, so it is a broad and vague category of things.
Second, concerning the drafting of an amendment to the Criminal Code, this, I believe, would be the fifteenth time the code has been amended by a private member's bill since Confederation; it does not happen often. It is like the functioning of an artery. It must be wide enough so that the blood goes through but narrow enough so that there is enough pressure to keep it going. The definitions must be narrow enough to achieve your intent without getting wrongful convictions caught along the way and broad enough that it is a useable kind of definition.
For words like "anything," when there is not a definition in the governing statute or code, the courts have the practice of using common definitions. A word like "anything" would be defined as non-lawyers would define it. That is, it would be anything that is used knowingly in the manufacture of crystal meth or ecstasy. Proving that knowledge is the assurance that we will not be inadvertently sending people to jail for things that no one in common sense, decency or fairness would think is really a criminal act.
Senator Joyal: I accept your explanation but I have a question as to whether it covers services. Services are very important in the context of production or even trafficking. That is an element, in my opinion, that still needs to be clear.
Regarding the concept of knowing, in the same provision of the anti-terrorism legislation, again the parallel wording in the Criminal Code is contained in section 83.03 (b), which states:
Knowing that, in whole or part, they will be used by or will benefit a terrorist group,
That is, instead of knowing that in whole or part, to help to circumscribe the proof of the wilful intent. That is why it was put in there. If you say "knowing," you have a more difficult threshold of proof to reach than that for "in whole or in part. "In part" may be just a slight element of it.
Again, paralleling this proposal with what we already have in the Criminal Code to ensure that we make it the way we want to achieve the objective or the intent that you have, I would suggest that that would have been a much better way of drafting the concept of "knowing" in the context of the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
Mr. Weston: I just want to say that we did not consider the anti-terrorism legislation. Not at all. I repeat that there was a balance between proof of intent and the word "anything" which is in line with the fact that many substances were previously legal. This is the balance we tried to achieve in the document that is before us today.
[English]
Senator Joyal: The other element is "production" versus "trafficking." As I mentioned, the drugs in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has a clear definition of "trafficking." We understand what production is; it is "the making of." We see the labs with the pills and everything. However, it is more difficult to encompass what "trafficking" means. It also means, "give", as pointed out by my colleague Senator Baker. "Trafficking" means, essentially, "to give."
If I use my car with the intent of taking an ecstasy pill and go to a rave and offer one to a friend, my car would be part of something that I used for the purpose of trafficking — that is, for the "giving" of it. At the limit, I understand your bill would also cover that.
What is needed for trafficking is the fact that you go to a place and offer the pill to someone. Again, I am against that. However, I understand what would be covered now and is not covered by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Criminal Code in order to understand the implication of this bill.
Mr. Weston: I think, senator, you point to the very concern raised by my friends, the opposition critics, who did not want the new law if passed to give rise to a mandatory minimum sentence. The example you just cited may be something we all would agree is wrong, but it may not be something that we think should lead to a 10-year minimum sentence. There would be discretion for the police, for the Crown and for the judge, upon finding a conviction of someone under those circumstances, to impose a range of sentences that could be very light, but would still send the message that in Canadian society, we find it unacceptable to be producing or trafficking crystal meth or ecstasy drugs.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Mr. Weston, I want to congratulate you on the underlying intent of your bill. If I have understood correctly, at the beginning, you said the following:
[English]
"Canada is one of the largest suppliers of ecstasy." Did I hear properly?
Mr. Weston: Yes, to the United States.
Senator Chaput: I see.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: How many labs produce these types of drugs in Canada? Where are they located? Do you have any statistics on the number of people who are currently using these drugs in Canada?
Mr. Weston: Thank you for your question. I do not have any figures on that, and I do not think anyone does. However, we do know that laboratories that manufacture these drugs are usually controlled by gangs. In addition, the laboratories that have been discovered by the police are increasingly large. Previously, they would be set up in the basement of a house, in a kitchen, in small areas, so they were very difficult to discover.
[English]
Senator Chaput: How can we say that Canada is the largest supplier of ecstasy to the United States if we do not have any statistics?
Mr. Weston: The United Nations' 2009 report on drugs declared Canada as one of the largest suppliers to the United States.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Weston, thank you for being here and congratulations on your involvement in this bill. I would like to start with a short introduction. You know that, in the United States, this type of drug trafficking has been qualified as social terrorism because of the costs it generates in the long term for users. These drugs are intended to make people become addicted to heavier drugs, and such addiction involves permanent and long-term costs. In the United States, the sale of these types of drugs has been characterized as social terrorism. Sentences are very harsh.
Our maximum sentence is ten years less a day. However, the United States have zero tolerance for this type of crime because these drugs target our children, tomorrow's leaders. Is our legislative approach more or less strict?
Mr. Weston: That is a good question. The American approach was to emphasize trade legislation. At state level, drug traffickers are punished. For instance, in Oregon, if one wants to sell ephedrine, it must be —
[English]
— behind the counter. That is the first answer.
The second answer is that there is no perfect sentence for a crime like the one we are talking about, and there is no perfect bill. Each one of you has made good comments and one could imagine that we could have brought a bill that is a little different here or there. The inclusion of the word "export" is something that I would consider if I were to rewind the tape.
The important thing is not to let excellence be the enemy of good and ask ourselves whether this is a step forward. In the eyes of law enforcement officials at the national and local levels, the answer is yes. In the eyes of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the answer is absolutely, because having our youth devastated by these drugs is rotting the core of our cities. In the eyes of the chief of one of the most distinguished First Nations in our country, Chief Gibby Jacob, the answer is yes. By the way, suicide rates among Aboriginal peoples linked to the use of crystal meth and ecstasy are high.
We could have contemplated more severe penalties, but had I proposed that I may have lost the support of my colleagues in different parties whose wisdom I took into account. They said that they did not want to go the American way, but needed something new for law enforcement officials to rely upon; hence, 10 years less a day. It will not attract a mandatory minimum sentence. There are many, and some in the Conservative Party, who would prefer that it attract a mandatory minimum sentence. I say, bring in another bill.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: We know that drug use among young people leads to a kind of a vicious cycle: consumption, addiction, drug debt, and criminal activity to get money for drugs.
The last three murders in Quebec were committed by minors with drug debts. They probably started with this drug. Do you have any data on young people who begin consuming drugs and eventually start committing other types of crimes, such as home invasion, theft? What I am interested in terms of drug use is that it can be socially acceptable, but it becomes worrisome when it leads to more serious criminal activity. Do you have any data on the use of drugs that lead to criminal activity?
Mr. Weston: I apologize, but I do not have any data with me today. I know that what you are saying is true. Other witnesses appearing today may have this type of information on hand.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Weston, thank you very much. It is not often that we get a member of Parliament here to speak to a private member's bill, let alone one who speaks both official languages. It has been, therefore, an unusual as well as a very interesting session for us. We thank you very much.
Mr. Weston: I thank you all.
[Translation]
The Chair: Ms. Suzanne Desjardins, Director, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Health Canada; and Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada. Mr. Saint-Denis is very familiar with us. Thank you both for joining us.
[English]
Suzanne Desjardins, Office of Research and Surveillance, Director, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Health Canada: Good morning. I am Suzanne Desjardins, Director of the Office of Research and Surveillance, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate of Health Canada.
I thank you for the opportunity to be here with to speak on the dangers associated with ecstasy and methamphetamine.
Ecstasy and methamphetamine are drugs that act principally on the central nervous system, which includes the brain and spinal cord. This can have serious health effects.
Ecstasy, also known as MDMA, is a drug with hallucinogenic and stimulant properties. A hallucinogen is a substance that can cause the user to see or hear things that do not really exist. A stimulant is a substance that speeds up the activity of the central nervous system.
The health effects of ecstasy are many. Among these are an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, anxiety, which can sometimes be severe, panic attacks, loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting, muscle ache, muscle stiffness, sweating, teeth grinding and jaw clenching. Other health effects associated with the use of ecstasy include hallucinations and perceptual distortions such as distortions of time, space or body image. The use of ecstasy has also been associated with problems related to thinking and memory. Confusion and depression have also been reported as side effects caused by the use of ecstasy. In more severe cases, the use of ecstasy has been associated with seizures and increased body temperature, which can be fatal in some cases. Reports of liver and kidney failure have also been ascribed to the use of that substance.
The health risks associated with the use of ecstasy can increase when the substance is combined with other drug, such as methamphetamine or cocaine, or when combined with substances such as alcohol. Ecstasy can be addictive.
Methamphetamine is a stimulant related to amphetamines group. These are substances with a long history of abuse.
The health effects of methamphetamine are many. They include an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythm and, in more severe cases, heart attack and heart failure. Other health effects include loss of appetite, dizziness, insomnia, confusion, anxiety and panic attacks. In more severe cases, the use of methamphetamine has been associated with seizures, bleeding in the brain, high fever and coma.
The chronic use of that substance has been associated with a paranoid or delusional mental state in which the user falsely believes he or she is being watched or followed, or that he or she is being singled out for unjust punishment. Other effects of chronic use include severe agitation, violent behaviour and visual or auditory hallucinations. Methamphetamine also has a very high potential for addiction. Thank you.
Senator Lang: I have an observation on Ms. Desjardins' presentation, which certainly emphasizes the implications of these drugs and how they affect people on the street, especially young people. It brought to mind the documentary that was on the "The Fifth Estate" not too long ago. One young lawyer became addicted. Although he went to re-hab, he still suffered from long-term effects. He is still hampered in being able to do his job because of the effects of the drugs. The effects are long-term.
I have a question for Mr. Saint-Denis with respect to the bill and the way it is crafted. This concerns the technical nature of the bill and how it is associated with other bills that may or may not be passed. Could you comment on that?
Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada: Am I right in thinking that you are speaking to the coordinating amendment?
Senator Lang: Yes.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is clause 2. From my perspective, clause 2 is inoperative because it now contains a reference to a bill that no longer exists. It is silent or inoperative. If this bill is adopted, it will have no impact.
The Chair: That clause in the bill refers to coordination with Bill C-15, which, as we all know, died. It was succeeded by Bill S-10, which was considered at some length by this committee and passed at third reading in the Senate. It is now before the House of Commons.
This bill does not refer to Bill S-10. If Bill S-10 were passed and this bill were passed, what would be the effect in law? Would this bill still be useful or, would the fact that the corresponding amendment affecting the schedules was not made affect the efficacy of this bill?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I believe it would. One of the effects of Bill S-10 is that all of the items in Schedule 3 be moved to Schedule 1.
The second portion of section 7.1 would not be operative. It would simply not capture ecstasy. It would still apply though to methamphetamines, if Bill S-10 were to go through as written.
The Chair: Suppose that, this afternoon, the House of Commons decides to do as it sometimes does: deem, deem, deem. I mean deem everything to have been done without amendment. I am not predicting that. However, as we try to contemplate the universe of possibilities before us, I was wondering what the actual impact would be. I call on Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: Certainly, a court or a judge would look at it and say, "Here is a change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and another change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. What was the intent at the time of the passage of the legislation? What was the subsequent change in the schedules for the drugs?" They would conclude that if the other bill were to pass, ecstasy would be covered.
Mr. Saint-Denis: What is your question, sir?
Senator Baker: You said that if the other bill, Bill C-10, were to pass, thereby eliminating Schedule 3 reference to ecstasy and putting it up to Schedule 1, this present bill would not then cover ecstasy because this bill refers to subitem 1(9) of Schedule 3.
Is it not likely that an adjudicator sitting in judgment of the effects of this bill, would look at the passage of this bill and say, "The intent of Parliament was to include ecstasy, which was at the time in Schedule 3, but was subsequently put into Schedule 1," and make this bill applicable to the substance commonly referred to as ecstasy.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not think it is. The first step in reading an act is to look at its face. If there are complications or interpretations that are required, then they would look at things like intent of Parliament. However, it would not get to that point.
Senator Baker: What do you mean?
Mr. Saint-Denis: They would not need to consider what Parliament's intent had been in adopting this bill when the bill, on its face, refers to a sub item that no longer exists because of Bill S-10. The law will have moved on. That is what the court would acknowledge.
Senator Baker: Are you suggesting that the mover of the legislation should have included the name of the substance instead of the identified location in the schedule?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is an interesting question. It would probably break with a drafting tradition.
Senator Baker: Exactly.
Mr. Saint-Denis: Therefore, I do not think that would have happened. Should it have happened? That is an interesting point. It is academic, though.
Senator Baker: Would that not be the logic used by the adjudicator in looking at it and saying "This is the intent of Parliament, to include ecstasy?"
The Chair: Mr. Saint-Denis has answered that question.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I think I have.
The Chair: You may not agree with him, Senator Baker.
Senator Baker: I do not agree with him; however, he is the boss.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Mr. Saint-Denis, you heard MP Weston's testimony earlier. In your opinion, what is the evidentiary threshold required by the interpretation of the term "knowing" and the corresponding interpretation of subsection 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code, considering that they will be used in whole or in part?
What is the purpose of adding "in whole or in part" to section 83.03, as far as knowledge goes?
Mr. Saint-Denis: It needs to be shown without question; that is the evidentiary threshold that applies to each of the two offences. What is different in sections 83.03 and 83.04, if I remember correctly, is that they use the wording "in part," while the bill does not. However, perhaps it is not necessary to include the wording "in part."
I am somewhat familiar with Bill C-36, which amended section 83, especially the part about the financing of terrorism, since I helped draft those provisions. The provisions largely reflect the obligations set out in certain international documents. I am mainly referring to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, and the Convention on the Financing of Terrorism, which use in whole and in part. So, we wanted to go, as much as possible, with the same wording used in those instruments.
That is why sections 83.03 and 83.04 are worded this way, but I do not believe that it was necessary to add that distinction.
Senator Joyal: Why is that?
Mr. Saint-Denis: Because "in whole" includes "in part," right? That makes sense. "Anything" includes "part of." So, it is not necessary to state it explicitly. However, in section 83.03, it was perhaps not necessary to be explicit, but considering that we were basing our legislation on the resolutions and the obligations set out in the Convention, we tried to use similar wording.
Senator Joyal: By the same reasoning, you could have said "anything including part of." We do not need to make the distinction in section 83.03, as you yourself have pointed out.
Mr. Saint-Denis: We could have said that, but we did not.
Senator Joyal: How do you think the courts would interpret "anything"? Do you think that the term "thing" includes services?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is an interesting question. I am not 100 per cent sure that this would be the case. It is possible that services would be included. When we talk about things, we tend to think about tangible or even certain intangible things. We think about material things rather than services. So, the argument could be made that "thing" does not include services.
However, the meaning of "anything" is very broad. The argument could also be made that "anything" includes services. It will depend entirely on the arguments that lawyers, prosecutors and defence counsels present.
Senator Joyal: But it is not clear from the outset, right?
Mr. Saint-Denis: It is not clear from the outset. However, in practice, we may wonder what service we are talking about when we mention any service in this type of offence.
The Chair: So then what is the solution?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That depends. If we are talking about how it should be worded, then in that case, the "thing" should be explicitly stated. Information is key. In that case, it could be a "thing." This will lead to interesting discussions.
Senator Joyal: Yes, because, to my knowledge, unless you can point it out, the Code does not include a term as broad as "anything" in defining an offence.
Mr. Saint-Denis: While you were talking to the bill's author, I quickly read through the Code and I found nothing. Of course, I did not read through everything, so it does not mean that the wording is not there.
Senator Joyal: I did not find it either. But that was not the issue. I am merely trying to take advantage of your solid knowledge of the Code.
Mr. Saint-Denis: I would hope that is the case.
Senator Joyal: This confirms my first thoughts about the clause, that the term was extremely broad. As you know, the Criminal Code philosophy is to be specific, so that the person subject to trial knows what to expect if they take specific action. The term "thing" is so general that we could find ourselves in a situation of legal uncertainty. The person subject to trial could allege in court proceedings that this goes beyond the protection provided by section 7 of the Charter.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is a possibility. However, when we look at section 83.03, there is a reference to property or "financial or other related services." A distinction is made between "property" and services.
It could perhaps be suggested that "anything" is associated with "property" much more than with services. I would see this as a possible argument.
[English]
Senator Baker: If Mr. Weston's bill passes and is proclaimed, it will become law. Upon the passage of Bill S-10, it will then become law if it is so proclaimed. What is the logic of the witness is in saying that the portion of Mr. Weston's law dealing with ecstasy does not apply? Quite often, we see sections and schedules changed in the Criminal Code. One must go back to find out what the effect of that change would be.
What would be the logic? Bill S-10 simply does away with Schedule III, as far as ecstasy is concerned. It puts it up into Schedule I. By straight logic, Mr. Weston's law would be applicable to ecstasy, would it not? Mr. Weston's law has the same status as a bill brought in by the Government of Canada once it is passed by Parliament.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That sounds like the first question you raised, Senator Baker. It would exclude, if Bill C-475 comes into force. It is the same for Bill S-10 without any amendment. Ecstasy would not be gone. That is my view. You can hold a different view if you wish.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: If this bill is not adopted, what other provision of the Criminal Code should the Crown base itself on when prosecuting an individual in possession of equipment that would be used to manufacture methamphetamine or ecstasy?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That would entirely depend on the circumstances. A case-by-case approach has to be used. If there is sufficient evidence to show the existence of a conspiracy, maybe there would be a possibility. We could be talking about conspiracy to manufacture, for instance.
It could also be possible to use "aiding and abetting" in the prosecution. Once again, would sufficient evidence be needed? These are the two provisions of the Code I can think of off the top of my head.
Senator Joyal: To your knowledge, have individuals been convicted based on those two provisions covering the scope of the bill currently before us?
Mr. Saint-Denis: I do not know whether they have been used in the past. I cannot tell you if these provisions have been used.
[English]
The Chair: Bill C-15 and Bill S-10 have been around for a while and this bill in its various incarnations has been around for a while as well. I understand that the government and experts are in favour of Mr. Weston's bill; why not just wrap it into Bill S-10?
Mr. Saint-Denis: That had more to do with circumstances. The government was interested in reintroducing legislation. You may recall the process involved after prorogation and the immediate —
The Chair: We certainly recall Bill S-10.
Mr. Saint-Denis: The government's goal was to reintroduce several pieces of legislation as they died on the Order Paper rather than having to go through the whole process of reintroducing, with amendments. In which case, it would not have been the same bill. It might have meant a different process.
The Chair: That certainly makes sense from the point of view of Mr. Weston. However, given —
Mr. Saint-Denis: It also makes sense for Bill S-10.
The Chair: No, it does not. Bill S-10 did not come under the process for reinstatement. Bill S-10 was a whole new free-standing bill introduced this time in the Senate.
Mr. Saint-Denis: That is correct. However, the government's approach to Bill C-15 was to reintroduce it as is, without any amendments.
The Chair: I am aware of that. I am just wondering, from a technical point of view, if it might not have been a lot simpler to avoid the "after you Alphonse" form of laws.
Mr. Saint-Denis: The government had an interest in ensuring that a private member's bill that was well received goes forward as is.
The Chair: I was not asking you for a political judgment on this, Mr. Saint-Denis. That would be improper and I would not do that.
On our next panel, we are fortunate to have joining us now by video conference from Vancouver, from the Orchard Recovery Center, Ms. Carrie De Jong, who is an addictions counsellor.
Carrie De Jong, Addictions Counsellor, Orchard Recovery Center: Honourable senators, thank you for the honour of speaking to Bill C-475. I commend Member of Parliament John Weston for introducing this bill, as well as members of the Senate who now continue this work.
While there is legislation that makes the possession of these drugs illegal, there is a great need to address the importance of the production and trafficking of drugs like crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy. I ask you to support Bill C-475 and ensure that it is passed through the Senate.
I speak from my experience as an addictions counsellor. I have a master's degree in counselling, and I have worked in a private addiction treatment centre for six years. I see first-hand the devastation that occurs in all aspects of an addict's life.
Addiction is a complex and challenging social issue. There is no simple solution to the devastation that occurs for families, individuals and society as a whole. I have seen a marked increase in the use of synthetic chemical drugs among young people. While the youth of previous decades experimented primarily with alcohol or marijuana, the youth of today are exposed to a polydrug culture. The young adults I see at the treatment centre reflect this drastic and dramatic shift.
It is not uncommon for young people to have experimented with numerous substances, including crystal meth, ecstasy, GHB or MDMA. These synthetic drugs are produced in uncontrolled clandestine labs using toxic chemicals. There is no quality control, and there is a significant lack of education about the risks involved or associated with using them.
The availability of these drugs is also a concern. Crystal meth and ecstasy are relatively inexpensive drugs in the Vancouver area. When a drug is widely available and inexpensive to produce, the price remains very low, making it accessible to all young people who have the ability to access any funds.
I speak to the risks associated with using these synthetic chemical drugs. The damage that occurs for a user occurs rapidly. These are often highly addictive substances, so the patterns of use can move quickly from occasional use to compulsive addictive use.
Emotional and relational instability occurs quickly. The damage done to the brain of a user also occurs quickly and this damage is twofold: first, there is damage caused by the toxic nature of these drugs; and second, there is damage caused in the way these drugs alter brain circuitry and chemistry.
The symptoms present in users and addicts include anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, paranoia and psychosis. Too often, these negative consequences are irreparable; and again, the cost to individuals, to families, to the workplace and to society as a whole is immeasurable.
From spending countless hours providing therapy to addicts, I have learned there are two different populations that are drawn to using a drug like crystal meth. The users I see at the private treatment centre where I work are the fortunate ones who still have the financial means or the family support to access treatment. They are also fortunate in that they have retained enough cognitive and emotional functioning that they can still benefit from a treatment program.
These crystal meth addicts include a middle class wife and mother, an accountant, a mental health worker and a contractor. Many are professional people who begin using the substance to increase productivity or to meet the demands of a stressful career. Their lives quickly spiral into the chaos of addiction, compulsive using, a decrease in productivity and an inability to function in almost all areas of their lives. I say these are the lucky ones compared to the less fortunate crystal meth addicts. Then there are the countless other addicts who start using these harmful substances in their youth. I believe it is most likely as a way of coping with some other struggle in their lives.
Crystal meth is inexpensive and widely available. The cycle of using often includes long periods of time without food or sleep while consuming large amounts of this drug. Again, paranoia, psychosis, high-risk behaviours and violence are commonplace among crystal meth addicts.
The loss of health and brain functioning is devastating for these people. These people are unable to get a job or unable to remain employed. They often turn to crime to support their habit. These are the unlucky ones who are most likely to end up homeless, in prison, in a psychiatric hospital or dead.
My experience is that addiction is a symptom of an underlying issue. It is often indicative of unresolved trauma, mental illness, anxiety or relationship stressors. Addicts typically possess few skills to manage these underlying issues in healthy ways. It is truly unfortunate that the fix for many of these people comes in the form of a cheap pill or a powder.
Bill C-475 will provide another much needed tool in limiting the production and trafficking of these devastating drugs. It will provide another means of limiting access to harmful substances by those who are vulnerable and at risk for addiction.
I urge you, honourable senators, to support Bill C-475 and to ensure that it is passed through the Senate as quickly as possible. I encourage you to act in a manner that protects some of the most vulnerable in our society, and I thank you again for the privilege of speaking to this very important issue.
The Chair: We thank you for agreeing to appear before us. Video conferencing is sometimes a little frustrating because you do not have exactly the same direct personal sense of a group, but you have been very clear and eloquent and that has been very helpful to us.
Senator Lang: Your presentation was well done and very descriptive in respect to what these people face if they go down this journey in life — the unintended consequences of using these drugs.
Perhaps you can go a little further into the prevalent use of these drugs, perhaps in British Columbia. I know that you speak to your colleagues throughout the province. For those of us that are not familiar with this type of activity, it is interesting to talk to somebody on the front line that sees it day to day. Perhaps you can tell us if it is increasing or give us a broader observation on the use of these drugs.
Ms. De Jong: I cannot speak to the percentages of youth that use these drugs in British Columbia. I do not have that information with me.
I can tell you what I see at the treatment centre I work in. As young people come into treatment, we take extensive drug use histories. People 25 years and younger often have an entire page of chemical substances and drugs that they use either on a regular basis or with which they experiment.
From that perspective alone, I would say that the issue is far greater. These are the drug use histories of the young people for whom it has gotten so bad that an intervention is needed and they are in a treatment program. However, for every young adult or teenager in a treatment program, I would venture to say there is anywhere from 10 to 20 others that need to be in a similar place.
Senator Lang: You spoke about treatment and intervention. I would like to go further and have you describe to us the percentage of possibility of recovery, and the long-term effects for those that are serious and are able to combat this and turn their back on it. What is the recovery rate?
Ms. De Jong: That is a question that needs to be looked at on a continuum. We look at how significant was someone's addiction. For one, where are they on that continuum of addiction? How long have they been using? What damage has been done emotionally and cognitively — what has happened in the brain circuitry? Have they suffered negative consequences around additional trauma while using? Have they been incarcerated? Do they still have family support? Do they have the financial means to access treatment to the full extent that they need it?
Addiction is seen on a continuum; how severe is it, and how many resources are needed to access treatment? It depends on the type of treatment they might need, the length of time they might need in treatment and the funds to continue with ongoing therapy. The rates of addiction treatment are highly successful if people are willing and able to access services and follow through.
Senator Lang: With respect to the effects of these drugs, in many cases, I am led to believe that there is irreparable brain damage in many cases, depending on the use, obviously. Are you running across that type of damage?
Ms. De Jong: Absolutely, although neuroscience tells us that our brain has a remarkable ability to renew and regenerate itself and make repairs to places that are damaged. Therefore, for some people, while functioning may never return to 100 per cent or what they were prior to substance use, they can still regain areas of functioning that have been impacted by substance use. It is a long process.
The Chair: I think you have done such a compelling job, Ms. De Jong, that there are no more questions. You should not take this to mean that we are not interested in what you said. You should take it to mean the exact opposite. Thank you again, Ms. De Jong, for joining us.
Colleagues, you will recall earlier discussions about clause 2 of this bill, which contains a coordinating amendment to Bill C-15. As you know, the old Bill C-15, the drug bill, died at prorogation, which raises interesting questions about the applicability of this bill in light of Bill S-10, which was a successor to Bill C-15 and which is now before the House of Commons.
As you heard from Mr. Weston earlier, we have had a bit of a legal opinion. I say "a bit of" because it was done in an informal manner. I am not casting aspersions on its legal validity, but it does not come with letterhead and rather comes in the form of an email from the House of Commons legal department. However, as we know, the House of Commons procedural rules and practices do not necessarily parallel in all respects those of the Senate. Therefore, we thought it would be appropriate to ask our Law Clerk Mr. Audcent to discuss this fascinating matter with us.
Can you do so, Mr. Audcent?
[Translation]
Mark Audcent, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Senate of Canada: It is my pleasure to be here and to assist you to the best of my ability.
[English]
I am advised that brevity is the soul of wit, and I will try and align my conduct with those expectations.
With respect to the role of clause 2 in this bill, I believe the sponsor presented the facts fairly and accurately; it is exactly the way the sponsor said to you. That advice was confirmed by Mr. Saint-Denis. Therefore, I would agree with that. The sponsor said clause 2 would be "redundant." That was his word. Mr. Saint-Denis used the word "inoperative;" it would be silent.
Perhaps, I can take your thinking a little further on that question because they did not address the issue of parliamentary procedure. With parliamentary procedure, it is not just a question of knowing that it is silent, inoperative or redundant and that it will simply be left there and not be worried about.
Your procedure will call upon you to answer the question of that clause carrying. Therefore, you will be asked the question: Shall clause 2 carry? To answer that question, you need a majority of votes that say, "Yes, clause 2 shall carry." You will be called upon to vote proactively for a redundant and inoperative clause. Therefore, you must consider how you feel about that. Therefore, there is that narrow, procedural legal position, which I am entitled to speak to, and then there is a much wider political dimension. That is my first point on the procedural aspect.
The second point is the relationship between this bill and Bill S-10. If Bill C-475 were to receive Royal Assent, it would be fully operative and would be exactly what you want in terms of the substance. The problem would arise if and only if Bill S-10 was to receive Royal Assent also. If Bill S-10 were to also receive Royal Assent, I would confirm what you heard from Mr. Saint-Denis: The result would be that you would lose half of the benefit of Bill C-475 because you would lose the reference to ecstasy, which is the reference to the item in Schedule III. That would be the impact in terms of the relationship between those two bills.
Worthy of further consideration is that if Bill C-475 becomes law, it will become a consideration for the people studying Bill S-10 that one impact in adopting Bill S-10 will be to lose one-half the benefit of the new act that is presently Bill C-475.
The Chair: Do honourable senators have questions for Mr. Audcent?
Senator Wallace: I think you have covered it well. My view is that the coordinating amendment in Bill C-475 effectively provided a contingency. This spoke to when Bill C-475 was passed in the House of Commons, which was back in 2010, and Bill C-15 was in play at that time.
The coordinating amendment simply provided a contingency. Clause 1 of the bill provided for the wording of new paragraph 7.1(1). However, and this is where the coordinating amendment arises, if certain circumstances should occur — namely the Bill C-15 reference — then it would negate subsection 7.1 and there would be a different result.
I think we know today that the contingency would not have the operative affect of amending, eliminating or replacing subsection 7.1. It is only a contingency. Therefore, you point out that the Senate approving Bill C-475 in its present form will give full effect to clause 1 of the bill. The intention is to give full effect to the bill. Correct me if I am wrong.
If in the future, there are further amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, whether pursuant to Bill S-10 or some amended version of Bill S-10 in the house that would be dealt with at that time. That is not unlike any other piece of legislation or bill we deal with in that it reflects circumstances today but, if circumstances change, there could well be the need for consequential changes.
Bill S-10 is before the house. If Bill C-475 were enacted into law, the continued consideration of Bill S-10 would be impacted by this fact. Unless Bill S-10 were to be replaced entirely, an amendment to it would be necessary.
When I boil it down, we deal with the law as it is today. Mr. Weston's bill does that. If circumstances change in the future, then further amendments would be required and such would be dealt with appropriately at that point in time. Does that seem accurate to you, Mr. Audcent?
Mr. Audcent: Honourable senators, I repeat and do agree that if Bill C-475 were adopted and enacted, it would have full legislative effect. In order to get to that stage, you do have to go through the other process of not only voting for clause 1 but voting for clause 2, which is a problem that each senator must deal with. The third question is with respect to Bill S-10 in the House of Commons, which the Senate adopted and sent to the House of Commons, you are quite right that the people studying Bill S-10 can be responsive to the situation.
The note that was sent by house counsel unfortunately raised the issue that it might be difficult to amend Bill S-10 in the House of Commons. However, it concluded with: "You would have to speak to House advisers. I cannot say." Therefore, there is no answer on that.
Senator Wallace: That is for another day.
Mr. Audcent: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Audcent, as you pointed out at the outset, dealing with political considerations is not your job; that is our job. However, purely from the point of view of appropriate parliamentary practice, what would your recommendations be regarding this bill, were this an ideal world where there were no political difficulties and everything was proceeding smoothly in both houses?
Mr. Audcent: Honourable senators, I approach this from a particular perspective and that perspective is, by definition, limited because of my role as an officer of this house. I look at things legally and procedurally and not in the wider context of politics.
It is obvious that when you have a redundant, inoperative and silent clause and "Shall the clause carry?" is put up, the answer from a legal point of view is "no." The question that faces each senator at this table is a much wider question.
The Chair: And I am not asking you to address that, sir.
Mr. Audcent: No. It takes into account more than just the legal perspective.
The Chair: As I say, in that ideal, serene world where there are never any political pressures, from the point of view of appropriate parliamentary procedure, in your view, would just deleting the clause be preferable to amending it to refer to Bill S-10 rather than Bill C-15?
Mr. Audcent: From the perspective of a legislative drafter, it does not make sense to adopt a redundant, silent and inoperative clause. The issue here is of policy considerations versus the integrity of the statute book; namely, why would you put into the statute book a clause that has no meaning?
Those competing values must be assessed.
The Chair: Are there other questions for Mr. Audcent?
Senator Baker: They would not be put into the statute book.
Mr. Audcent: I do not understand, senator.
Senator Baker: I thought you said something to the effect of: "Why put into the statute book something that does not make sense?"
Mr. Audcent: If you adopted this bill unamended, you would be putting clause 2 into the statute book amendment as Chapter X of the Statutes and Regulations of Canada, 2011.
The Chair: I think that would actually be the case.
Thank you very much, Mr. Audcent. I know that you had to rearrange your commitments on very short notice in order to provide us with this assistance, and we are grateful to you for having listened to all the testimony and for then giving us your own opinion. It has been very helpful indeed. Thank you.
Mr. Audcent: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators.
The Chair: Colleagues, I propose that we now go into a brief in camera session to have a discussion of a possible draft report. I think that would be the appropriate rubric.
Are members agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Senator Angus, please go ahead.
Senator Angus: I move that notwithstanding the fact that we do not have notice on the agenda, that we deal with clause-by-clause consideration today. Therefore, I move that:
We do proceed now to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
The Chair: Senator Angus has moved that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-475.
Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Would the clerk please note my own negative vote, but I see no other negative votes. The motion is carried.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed, with one dissenting vote, which my own.
[Translation]
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall the title of the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: We are not finished, Senator Angus.
Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is agreed.
(The committee adjourned.)