Pubdate: Mon, 14 June 1999 Source: Debates of the Senate of Canada ( Hansard) Website: http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Note: Posted in two parts. The debate is also available in French at the above website. Excerpts from Debates of the Senate (Hansard) concerning motion by the Hon. Senator Pierre Claude Nolin to Establish a Special Senate Committee to REVIEW CANADA'S DRUG LAWS AND POLICIES (continued from part one) On April 21, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police recommended to the federal government that possession of small quantities of drugs, including heroin, be decriminalized but not legalized. The most encouraging aspect of the position taken by the association is that it recommends the people of Canada and the federal government take an approach that would treat all matters pertaining to the consumption of drugs as a public health matter. That was being said three years ago. We were saying exactly this three years ago. Finally, little by little, things are moving forward. It would be vital therefore according to the association that a Canadian drug control policy be developed that would lead to the development of treatment for the real problem created by the consumption of drugs both for society and for drug users. Such a policy would incorporate a damage reduction strategy in an effort to avoid worsening the problem by trying to ease it. According to the heads of the association, the justice system and punishment are not the only solution to the problem of the consumption of illegal drugs, and the resources allocated would be better used in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime. This position was supported by the RCMP. In recent years, a number of court rulings concerning the right to use cannabis for medical purposes have tested Canada's drug control policy. You are undoubtedly aware of the case of Jim Wakeford, a Toronto resident with AIDS who uses marijuana to quell his nausea. Until very recently, he was trying to get Health Canada to exempt him from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that make it a crime to possess marijuana. On May 11, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that Mr. Wakeford was constitutionally exempt from the provisions of the legislation and thus permitted to grow and smoke marijuana for medical purposes. Similarly, in 1997, Judge Patrick Sheppard acquitted Terry Parker, an epileptic who used cannabis for therapeutic reasons, of charges of possessing and growing the drug. He had been found guilty of trafficking and sentenced to one year on probation. In his ruling, Judge Sheppard said that the Narcotic Control Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were too broad, that they were unconstitutional, and that they violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition to challenging the law and the right to possess marijuana, all these rulings are also, and above all, aimed at introducing into the debate an element of compassion and respect for the right of the individual. I would like to say a few words about the motion moved by Bloc Québécois member Bernard Bigras. This motion was recently introduced and voted on in the other place. Naturally, it captured the interest of parliamentarians. Mr. Bigras, the Bloc Québécois member for Rosemont, called on the federal government to undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana for health and medical purposes. The motion had the support of a number of associations, including the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, and the Compassion Club of Toronto, which supplies marijuana to those with serious and painful illnesses. It was passed by the House of Commons on May 25. In response to the results of the vote, the Minister of Health, the Honourable Allan Rock, announced that the federal government would move quickly to begin clinical testing of the health benefits of marijuana, which may result in the use of cannabis by those with AIDS, cancer, epilepsy or multiple sclerosis being decriminalized within a few years. I think that we should congratulate the minister on his action. How do Canadians perceive the use of illegal drugs? On the other hand, despite these recent developments in the use of narcotics, the public's attitude and perception have not, generally speaking, really changed. Prejudices against those who take narcotics remain extremely strong. They are not new. They go back to 1908 when the Canadian Parliament passed the Opium Act. The new Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1911 dealt with opiate type drugs and cocaine, and marijuana was added to it in 1923. Since then, prohibition of narcotics and international regulations established by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances have increased prejudices even more against users of illicit drugs. Who, among us, has not heard that those individuals are criminals who steal in order to buy drugs, that they are social drop-outs who should be put behind bars? Some people are even shocked by the needle exchange and bleach distribution programs in prisons. Even though the goal of these programs is to control the spread of AIDS and hepatitis among inmates, which have reached an alarming level in correctional institutions, a significant part of our society refuses to admit that drug consumption is a health problem. Such an attitude can be explained in part by the fact that our governments, whatever the level, fail to provide objective information on the true effects of drug consumption on individuals and on society as a whole. Surprisingly, our leaders, who stoutly defend their repressive policies against drug users by in seminars and information brochures, are unable to explain why those policies do not give concrete results. Those who, in the past, have dared to advocate a different, less conventional approach to those issues have seen their credibility questioned. It is true that, in the absence of scientific evidence, most people go along with these prejudices. These prejudices are being reinforced daily by the legislation, the courts, police action, and the media. However, these entrenched prejudices did not prevent economists, physicians, lawyers, and political scientists from studying the harmful consequences of drug use and of the fight against drugs. They have seriously questioned a number of our society's preconceived ideas on this issue. Each year, new detailed studies are being added to the literature on the subject. A wide consensus is emerging on the need to review our anti-drug policy. In the future, research studies could be convincing enough to eradicate myths and prejudices in our political elite, interest groups and our whole society concerning the benefits of this fight against drugs. Marijuana is a good example. In that sense, we are experiencing a change in attitudes toward the drug control policies and their impact. Lots of things have changed over the years, even if we do not have all the information available to make a good assessment of the situation. Canadians are beginning to realize that the hefty sums being invested in the fight against drug use and trafficking are not yielding the expected results. There is a need for more information on the negative impact of drug use, on experiments being tried in other countries in this area, and on cheaper alternatives to reintegrate into mainstream society a segment of our population that is marginalized at this time. Given these facts, and in order to promote healthy debate on this whole issue, I asked Diane Riley, in September last year, to make a comprehensive examination of Canadian drug control policy. I can assure you that Ms Riley is one the leading Canadian experts in this area. She also has an excellent reputation abroad. When I met her, I gave her the following mandate: to give an overview of the narcotic drug consumption situation in Canada, particularly among young people, the disadvantaged and the aboriginal people, and of the economic and social cost relating to it; to explain how legislation on legal and illegal drugs works in Canada; to present the terms of international conventions that Canada must follow in its own drug control policies and to ascertain if Canada directly met these terms when it amended its legislation by passing, in 1996, Bill C-8 on the use of marijuana, methadone and heroin for therapeutic uses; to study the link between drug use and respect for human rights as defined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly with respect to the use of narcotic drugs such as marijuana, methadone and heroin for medical purposes; to present the experiments conducted in other countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, the United States, Germany and Australia, to fight drug use in their communities and develop harm reduction policies; to examine drug use in Canadian penitentiaries and verify whether prisoners have access to treatment and syringe exchange programs, in conformity with their fundamental rights; to explain thoroughly the workings of the strategy for reducing wrongdoings and list the options that Canadians have available to them to reduce the negative impact of drug use in society; and finally, to develop alternatives to improve the current drug use control system in Canada. As you can see, the mandate that I gave to Diane Riley for the production of this document was aimed at bringing additional information on some points identified by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when it examined Bill C-8. I can say today that this comprehensive study, one of the most complete ever done for the general public, will allow members of the Senate and Canadians to better understand the real effects of drug use and its impact on our society and on the future of this country. I should point out that besides Diane Riley's work, I asked - the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament to analyse and comment on Canada's international obligations under the main international conventions concerning control and use of narcotic drugs. International treaties included in the analysis are the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1998. Canada has signed these three treaties. The in-depth analysis compared the obligations enshrined in these international documents with the Canadian legislative provisions adopted accordingly, particularly those of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The very surprising conclusions of that study are included in Ms Riley's document. For example, during debate on Bill C-8, the government contended that the bill would allow Canada to meet its international obligations respecting the three treaties I just mentioned. That could therefore justify the repressive approach of Bill C-8. The Single Convention of 1961 requires countries to impose criminal sanctions for possession. More recently, Canada signed the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which requires countries to treat the possession, buying and cultivation of narcotic drugs for personal use as criminal offences. However, that obligation is subordinated to the principles enshrined in the constitution of each country. Therefore, the Canadian government could justify departing from the prohibition policy by stating that criminalization goes against the fundamental principle of moderation in our criminal justice system. The other obligation, that of criminalizing the personal use of drugs, only applies when possession is contrary to the provisions of the 1961 convention. In short, these conventions explicitly provide for exceptions to prohibition. They also allow signatory countries to have them amended or to terminate them. On the basis of certain particular considerations, Canada could use one of these two options to review its drug policies. I refer you today to the document prepared by Ms Riley to support my remarks in the Senate and to provide you with a complete tool that will better prepare you to take part in the debate on these issues. I hope it helps you analyse the drug control policy from a different point of view. We must stop using repression and criminalization to deal with our society's problems stemming from drug use. This approach can only make the unbearable situation of drug users even worse. Instead of increasing their chances of becoming contributing citizens, our current policies often have the effect of further marginalizing them. An example of that is the failure of the repressive strategy in the United States. In 1996, our powerful neighbour spent $16 billion in its war against narcotics. What were the results? More than 90 per cent of narcotics produced abroad and destined for the U.S. market escape detection by U.S. customs officers. Drugs are everywhere, including in the schools; they destroy the lives of thousands of individuals and undermine the social cohesion of large urban centres. Fortunately, the situation is not that serious yet in Canada. However, with passage of Bill C-8, our policy is increasingly similar to the policy of our neighbours to the south. The time has come to redefine our outlook on the problems caused by drug use and its effects on the health of individuals. We must change our frame of reference and understand that we will not eliminate drug use by throwing drug addicts into prison. The billions of dollars involved in the criminalization process would be better spent on fighting drug dealers and organized crime. From now on, when we develop drug control policies, we must consider the problem as a public health issue, just as we do for tobacco and alcohol abuse. These policies must, as much as possible, be based on respect for the rights and freedoms of each of our fellow citizens. On this very sensitive issue, Canada is now at a crossroad - just ask the Minister of Health, he knows. On the one hand, we can choose to keep on using the punitive approach described in Bill C-8. In that case, we give up defending the rights of individuals suffering from serious illnesses who use cannabis to ease their pain. We also give up the fight for the rehabilitation of drug addicts and the protection of our social environment. On the other hand, we can admit that we made a mistake - not only us but a lot of parliaments also made mistakes - when we evaluated this serious social problem, and that we are doing everything possible to find alternative solutions to punitive measures. The committee I am proposing will give us the opportunity to hear from lawyers and physicians as well as from experts used to working with drug addicts. We will be able to listen to what Canadians have to say on this issue and rely on their suggestions in order to recommend changes to Canadian drug control policies so that they truly reflect our social values based on human rights, compassion, mutual aid and dialogue. I want to conclude by quoting Milton Friedman, winner of the Nobel Economy Prize. In a letter to the director of drug control policies in the White House, Mr. Friedman stated: [English] The path you propose of more police, more jails, use of the military in foreign countries, harsh penalties for drug users and a whole panoply of repressive measures can only make a bad situation worse. The drug war cannot be won by those tactics without undermining the human liberty and individual freedom that you and I cherish. Drugs are a tragedy for addicts. But criminalizing their use that converts tragedy into a disaster for society, for user and non-user alike. Our experience of the prohibition of drugs is a replay of our experience with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Postponing decriminalization will only make matters worse, and make the problem appear even more intractable. [Translation] I wish you all a good reading of this document. I hope it will give you food for thought and urge you to directly take part in the debate I have launched. Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I must say that I am a little puzzled by the speech of my good friend. There is so much truth in what he has said. On this issue, I am utterly conservative. [English] On this issue, I wish to be sure that we are doing the right thing, because I have seen too much. It is all very well for some of you who live in high-class surroundings where you have no daily contact with the people who are more affected. However, I live in a place such as that, where my sister must pass the broom every morning in back of my own bedroom in order to clean up the syringes. I am careful. However, I am not afraid to study. There is no doubt. [Translation] I believe that the committee should be struck. If I am convinced, I will become one of your best supporters. With all these people you are thinking of summoning, with all the reactions this could cause, could you consider reviewing the immediate political reactions to any liberalization in Canada, in terms of our contacts with the United States and of our common borders? Would they let people from our country in or vice-versa? That is one of the many concerns I have. I believe inthis study, but one must be very conservative and very cautious. All is not black and white, but with respect to the underlying issue, we could use this as a starting point. Senator Nolin: Let me first say that I deliberately avoided this particular mandate. When the Opium Act wasenacted in 1908, we were reacting to what was going on in the United States. We always reacted to what the Americans did. During the Second World War, commercial cultivation of hemp - that is now allowed in Canada - which was prohibited up to that time, was authorised for strategic reasons. It was immediately prohibited once again after the war, because the Americans were convinced that it should not be pursued. I deliberately chose not to include a review of U.S. policies in the mandate. I can assure you that when I talk about policy review, that includes the way we react to U.S. policies and the way they react to ours. I wanted to make a more polite reference in the mandate that I will ask you to approve and, in due course, we will look at international laws that concern it. I will not hide the fact that our American neighbours have a lot of influence when it comes to formulating international treaties, especially those on drugs. The answer to your question is yes. It is a cornerstone of the examination we will undertake. I am not trying to convince Canadians that we are right, that they know nothing or that they are wrong. We must help Canadians. We must especially help Canadian politicians look clearly at the situation of heroin users in order to see what may be done. You mentioned the shooting galleries located near to where you live. These are not found just in Montreal, but in Ottawa, as well. We must stop putting our heads in the sand like the Americans. Yes, indeed. Are we going to force Canadians to accept what we think is good for them? No. We must do this together, and this includes our colleagues in the other House. We proposed to them that a joint committee be set up for Bill C-8, and they paid no heed. We gave them three years. Now that is over with. I have waited long enough. I will try to convince you in the coming months that we have waited long enough. We owe this to Canadians. We will stop fooling ourselves that our prejudices are good. In Switzerland, they had the same problem we do. They began giving heroin to users in special centres, where doctors, nurses and social workers were in attendance to try and solve their problems. The problems of heroin users concern society as a whole. The day heroin is made available to users, they stop stealing for it. Better yet, we help them find jobs. It is not too much to ask politicians and parliamentarians, who are supposed to be wise, to consider such solutions. This is the sort of thing I am inviting you to do. Senator Prud'homme: I have a supplementary question. If I said to you that, without a thorough study of organized crime, it would be difficult for us to come up with a solution, what would you say? Senator Nolin: There is no doubt that we are going to have to come up with a solution. And the way to do that is by going after illegal drug users. This goes hand in hand with the issue of suppliers. This is another difficult area, because there will not be many witnesses willing to tell us what is going on. As I mentioned in my notes and as Ms Riley's document points out, we are going to have to examine the financial aspect. I mentioned a few figures, but this is such a large market that, if it were to cease operating overnight throughout the world, it would be tantamount to an economic disaster. You cannot take $400 billion out of circulation overnight without shaking up the world economy. The document addresses this. If the Senate agrees to strike a committee, we will have to examine this situation. My focus of interest is not traffickers. It is users, those who keep this illegal, underworld production line going. My interest is ultimately in those users who die. They are a danger to the Canadian social fabric. They have to supply their habit and they are prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve that end. This is the problem facing us. When Switzerland began supplying users with heroin, traffickers had to find another livelihood. [English] Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I am curious about an inherent contradiction between Senator Nolin's comments on this motion and Senator LeBreton's comments earlier today with respect to Bill C-82. Liquor is a form of drug. Hash, marijuana and others are forms of drugs. One is somewhat regulated, another is tightly regulated and prescribed. Is there not an inherent contradiction between the proposition that Senator Nolin is putting forward and that of Senator LeBreton? The object of Senator LeBreton's desire is for zero tolerance when it comes to conduct emanating from a drug, namely, alcohol. On the other hand, Senator Nolin is moving exactly in the opposite direction by saying, "I do not want to get into zero tolerance, I want to go in the other direction. I want to examine the cause, rather than the effect, of drugs." I raise that as a philosophic point. There seems to be an inherent contradiction between the two senators who sit beside each other. Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, Senator LeBreton is not trying to prohibit the use of alcohol. She wishes to prohibit the use of alcohol and driving. I, too, want that. There is a difference. My proposition is to look the subject squarely in the face. We have never done that; we have never looked at drug users face to face. These people are Canadians and have fundamental rights. We need to address this problem because their problem is our problem. (1950) I beg to differ with you on that point. There is no contradiction in our positions. I am sure that the technology exists to detect when a driver is impaired by either alcohol or drugs. That is another piece of the puzzle needed to solve some problems. People are speeding while under the influence of drugs. They are jeopardizing lives, just like those who drink and drive. I believe that our positions are complementary. We used to have prohibition on alcohol. Almost 70 years ago, the government decided that it would be lucrative to remove that prohibition. I am not suggesting that the government should do that with drugs, but it should acknowledge the problem and do something about it. It is not a problem of criminality but a public health problem. We owe that to Canadians. I owe it to my three children to look at that problem very seriously, because they will be confronted with it. We need to study it with all of our combined wisdom. It is a grave health problem. Senator Grafstein: I appreciate the senator's response. However, I believe that alcoholism is also a grave health problem. I have been told that alcoholism is as serious an illness as drug dependency. Therefore, some may be concerned that if we focus on zero tolerance, we will lose track of the root causes of that unhappy social conduct. I will be very interested to hear the testimony before the committee that studies the bill which Senator LeBreton introduced, because it contains a fundamental question. I have detected a growing desire in the country to move toward zero tolerance for socially undesirable conduct. Yet, Canada probably has the highest incarceration rate in the Western World, and the problems accelerate. We have a serious conflict of social policies. I hope that your study, and the reference of Senator LeBreton's bill to the committee, will help us decide which way to go. Senator Nolin: We already have zero tolerance in the matter of illicit drugs, but we still have a big drug problem in Canada. We are spending billions of dollars trying to cure that problem, yet we are not succeeding. Perhaps we do not understand the problem. Zero tolerance is fine if you have the proper techniques to enforce it. We already have all the penalties in the Criminal Code, but we are not curing the problem. We need to redefine the problem. We are asking questions which other jurisdictions started to answer 25 years ago. Perhaps we should look at the answers they have found. On motion of Senator Carstairs, for Senator Kenny, debate adjourned. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake