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

(Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 1st Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 137,
Issue 149)

The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Monday, June 14, 1999

Review on Anti-Drug Policy

Motion to Establish Special Senate Committee- Debate Adjourned

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin, pursuant to notice given June 2, 1999, moved:

That a Special Committee of the Senate be appointed to reassess Canada's
anti-drug legislation and policies, to carry out a broad consultation of
the Canadian public to determine the specifics needs of various regions of
the country, where social problems associated with the trafficking and use
of illegal drugs is more in evidence, to develop proposals to disseminate
information about Canada's anti-drug policy and, finally, to make
recommendations for of an anti-drug strategy developed by and for Canadians
under which all levels of government to work closely together to reduce the
harm associated with the use of illegal drugs.

That, without being limited in its mandate by the following, the Committee
be authorized to:

review the federal government's policy to reduce the use of illegal drugs
in Canada, its effectiveness, and the extent to which it is fairly enforced;

develop a national harm reduction policy in order to lessen the negative
impact of illegal drug use in Canada, and make recommendations regarding
the enforcement of this policy, specifically the possibility of focusing on
use and abuse of drugs as a social and health problem;

study harm reduction models adopted by other countries (treatment programs
and parallel programs aimed at illegal drug users) and determine if there
is a need to implement them wholly or partially in Canada;

examine Canada's international role and obligations under United Nations
conventions on narcotics and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in
order to determine whether these conventions authorize it to take action
other than laying criminal charges;

explore the effects of cannabis on health and examine the issue of whether
decriminalizing cannabis would lead to increased use and abuse in the short
and long term.

examine the possibility of the government using its regulatory power under
the Contraventions Act as an additional means of implementing a harm
reduction policy, as is commonly done in certain European countries;

examine any other issue respecting Canada's anti-drug policy that the
committee considers appropriate to the completion of its mandate.

That the special committee be composed of eight Senators and that four
members constitute a quorum;

That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records,
to examine witnesses, to report from time to time and to print such papers,
briefs and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;

That the briefs received and testimony heard during consideration of Bill
C-8, respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances , by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs during the second session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament be
referred to the committee;

That the committee have the power to engage the services of such counsel
(researchers, lawyers, medical specialists, addiction workers, and so on)
and technical, information technology, clerical and other personnel as may
be necessary for the purposes of its examination;

That the committee have the power to authorize television, radio and
electronic broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its
proceedings;

That the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and
outside Canada;

That the committee be granted leave to sit when the Senate has been
adjourned pursuant to subsection 95 (2) of Senate rules;

That the committee submit its final report not later than two years from
the date of it being constituted; and

That the committee be empowered to continue to exist after the date on
which it is to conclude its work in order to inform members of the Senate
and the House of Commons, the Canadian public and any other person or
association interested in its work, to disseminate the Committee's
conclusions and recommendations by means of press releases, press
conferences, information sessions or any other activity members of the
committee deem appropriate at a particular time.

He said: Honourable senators, before beginning debate on my motion, I would
like to introduce an amendment.

On June 2, 1999, after my motion was tabled, I was informed that this
motion would have to be amended by deleting paragraphs 6 and 8 to conform
to the Rules of the Senate.

(1850)

I understand that His Honour may, with leave, amend the text of motions. I
am referring to the paragraphs that read as follows:

That the committee have the power to engage the services of such counsel
(researchers, lawyers, medical specialists, addiction workers, and so on)
and technical, information technology, clerical and other personnel as may
be necessary for the purposes of its examination;

And paragraph 8, which reads as follows:

That the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within and
outside Canada.

I move this motion in amendment because I got a little ahead of myself. In
a later debate, I will bring forward a proposal concerning these two
paragraphs to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator Nolin is asking for
leave to delete part of his motion: the two paragraphs he just read. Is it
agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I am asking for leave to speak for more
than my allotted 15 minutes.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I move that this motion, as amended, be
adopted.

The Hon. the Speaker: The Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the
Honourable Senator LeBreton, moved that the motion, as amended, be adopted.
Do you agree to dispense with actually reading the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, on June 19, 1996 - for the benefit of
those of you who were not here at the time, and that is why my introduction
refers to a debate held three years ago - during the Second Session of the
Thirty-third Parliament, during the final debate at third reading in the
Senate of Bill C-8, respecting the control of certain drugs.

I was strongly critical of the refusal by all previous governments, not
just the government that introduced this measure, to consider a serious
study of Canada's anti-drug laws.

At the time, I maintained that this was almost a deliberate unwillingness
to see. I am speaking not just about honourable senators, but also about
members of the other place. In my view, this attitude has meant that
successive governments of all stripes have viewed drug use in Canada as a
criminal rather than a public health matter. My view of this has not changed.

Worldwide, the illegal drug industry generates annual sales of $400 billion
U.S. This money feeds organized crime, corrupts governments in many
countries, contributes to violence, and encourages parallel economic
development.

In many areas of the world, the fight against drugs leads indirectly to the
spread of infections such as HIV, human rights violations, environmental
damage, and the mass incarceration of persons charged with possession.

As you will read in the document you received, or will receive shortly - it
is a briefing paper to provide additional information to those wishing to
take part in the debate - an increasing number of countries have given up
the fight against drugs because of the negative impact. However, in 1996,
Canada passed prohibitionist legislation with criminal provisions that seem
to fly in the face of Canadian and international human rights charters.

Let us look initially at the situation in Canada. The indirect effects and
costs of drugs far exceed the direct ones. They bear little relationship to
the level of consumption, and result not from the drugs themselves, but
from punitive laws and political policies. The effects are felt primarily
by the populations at risk, such as native peoples, young street people,
people living in poor neighbourhoods and intravenous drug users.

Allow me, honourable senators, to elaborate on each of these four groups of
individuals, of Canadians at risk.

Among native people, alcoholism and drug abuse are rampant. Depending on
the location involved, between 65 per cent and 80 per cent of residents are
affected by these problems. The principal cause of deaths among the
Amerindian and Inuit populations are wounds and poisoning. The violent
death rate is three to four times higher than in the general population.
The number of deaths in which alcohol or drugs play a determining role is
five times greater among native people than it is among non-native people.
Two thirds of the native population dying an unnatural death have alcohol
in their blood, compared with 45 per cent of the non-native population.

Here are two facts. First, the rate of suicide among native children in
Saskatchewan is 27.5 per cent higher than among other Canadian children.
Second, young natives are between two and six times more likely to have an
alcohol problem than their counterparts in the rest of the population.
These two facts, honourable senators, may perhaps explain the despair of
their survivors.

A second group at risk is that of street children. They are also affected
by the use of illicit drugs. A number of adolescents leave home to avoid
physical, psychological or sexual violence or negligence on the part of
their parents. Once on the street, they take risks, which include the use
of illicit drugs and needle sharing.

A national study in 1989 revealed that one street child in four used
marijuana daily, 4 per cent use cocaine and 4 per cent LSD. In a recent
study, nearly ten years later, half the street children in Montreal were
found to use intravenous drugs and are hard hit by suicide and overdose.
The chance of their dying is 12 times greater than that of their peers.

A third high-risk group is people living in poor neighbourhoods. In large
Canadian urban centres, these people also suffer the consequences related
to the use of illicit drugs. For example, in Vancouver, a state of medical
emergency resulted from a rapid increase in the number of HIV cases among
users of injectable drugs, more specifically in Vancouver East, where the
prevalence rate of such cases went from 20 per cent in 1997 to 35 per cent
in 1998, that is in less than one year. This is unfortunately a world record.

(1900)

Vancouver also has the largest number of deaths by overdose in Canada, with
over 300 in 1998 and more than 2,000 since 1991. These rates of infection
and drug addiction are related to poverty and social disruptions in
downtown Vancouver.

The use of injectable drugs poses a direct risk of infection with HIV and
other viruses such as hepatitis, through the sharing of contaminated
syringes. The absorption of drugs through techniques other than injections
poses an indirect risk, to the extent that it may lead to unprotected
sexual relations and to the consumption of injectable drugs. The incidence
rate, which is the rate of new HIV cases, is very high in certain Canadian
cities. It is 10 per cent in Vancouver, the highest in the Western World,
and 7 per cent in Montreal and in Ottawa. It is even higher in certain
regions of the country, including among aboriginals. The World Health
Organization estimates that there is a risk of a general epidemic when the
infection rate among injectable drug users reaches 10 per cent in a given
region.

The situation is so serious in Vancouver that a motion was brought forward
at the end of 1998 by Libby Davies, the NDP member for Vancouver East,
after the state of health emergency to which I referred earlier was
declared in her riding. Her motion called on the federal government to
cooperate with the provinces in order to implement clinical, multi-centre
heroin prescription trials for injection to opiate users, including
protocols for rigorous scientific assessment and evaluation, as is already
being done to varying degrees in Switzerland, in the United Kingdom and in
certain German and Australian cities. There will soon be such a program in
place in Spain as well.

Honourable senators, let us look now at the application costs of Canada's
drug policy. This war against drugs does not only have negative
consequences on the lives of thousands of Canadians. Drug abuse also
involves considerable costs to our society. The use of illicit drugs was
responsible for the death of 732 Canadians in 1992, which represents 0.4
per cent of Canada's total mortality rate for that year. Forty-two per cent
of those committed suicide, 14 per cent died from opiate poisoning, 9 per
cent died from cocaine poisoning, and 8 per cent died from AIDS contracted
through intravenous injection. In that same year, 1992, the use of illicit
drugs was responsible for 7,100 cases of hospitalization and 58,000 days of
hospitalization, half of which were the result of a psychosis caused by an
assault or by cocaine abuse.

Let us turn to the economic cost for Canada. All in all, drug abuse cost
Canadians more than $18.4 billion in 1992, that is $649 per capita or 2.7
per cent of Canada's gross domestic product. The economic cost of the drugs
themselves is estimated at $1.37 billion, or $48 per capita. These
estimates include $823 million in loss of productivity due to morbidity and
premature deaths, $400 million in drug enforcement and $88 million in
direct health costs.

It is important to point out that, although drug use is involved in many
crimes, its role is not clear. Users get their supply from a lucrative and
violent market where crime is ever present. The use of illegal drugs
contributes to the rise of crime and therefore to law enforcement costs. It
is one of the motivators of crimes against property and violent crimes
perpetrated to ensure control over a territory, like what we have seen
recently in Quebec, with the biker wars in Montreal and Quebec City.

Canada has had three opportunities to put an end to some of the individual
and collective consequences of trafficking and use of illegal drugs that I
have just mentioned.

First, in 1969, the Le Dain commission held serious consultations on the
negative impact of the Canadian drug policy at that time. Since the
commission focused mainly on the non-medical use of drugs, it concluded
that hundreds of thousands of Canadians found guilty of prohibited drug
possession saw their personal freedom restrained for the rest of their life
because of a criminal record.

The commission also concluded that the huge police resources used to fight
prohibited drug trafficking and consumption were mainly aimed at young
people. Under the circumstances, the Le Dain commission recommended that
sanctions against drug users be gradually eliminated, that the use of
marijuana be decriminalized and that control methods other than criminal
justice sanctions be used.

That was almost 30 years ago. However, former commission chairman Gérald Le
Dain is still convinced that its recommendations are as valid today as they
were in 1971, even though at that time there was no legislative follow-up
of any kind on its recommendations. According to this former dean of the
prestigious Osgoode Hall Law School at the University of Toronto and former
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, politicians are the only ones to
blame for not having taken initiatives on this issue at the beginning of
the 1970s. In 1998, in an interview with The Edmonton Sun, Mr. Le Dain
said, and I quote:

[English]

It was a hot potato for all the parties and they didn't want to run any
risk. The position adopted by the politicians was to do nothing. We saw at
the hearings the public was worried about their kids. The public saw those
current laws as a tremendous injustice.

[Translation]

A bill to decriminalize the possession of cannabis, Bill S-19, was rejected
in 1975. During the 1970s, the number of convictions for possession of
cannabis grew from less than 1,000 to over 40,000 a year.

Second, in 1978-79, a Health Canada report, kept secret up till the end of
last year, recommended that the federal government decriminalize the use of
marijuana. This report, as you can imagine, was shelved by the department.

With the advent, in the 1990s, of new legislation on narcotics, we could
have dealt with some of the problems left by previous legislation and
benefited from other countries' experience. However, the new Controlled
Drugs and Substances Act was fundamentally prohibitionist and, far from
dealing openly with the drugs issue, it reinforced prohibition.

The problems arising out of the criminalization of drug users, out of its
economic and social costs and out of the non-decreasing supply have still
not been dealt with. Therefore, both human and financial costs resulting
from illicit drug use remain needlessly high, whereas the costs created by
the criminalization of illicit drugs use keep increasing in a regular,
foreseeable but avoidable way.

With regard to my motion of June 2, you will agree, honourable senators,
particularly when reading the document handed out to you, that this
situation is intolerable.

(1910)

It cannot go on like this indefinitely. For this reason, on June 2, I
brought forward in this house a motion requesting that a special committee
of the Senate be struck to reassess Canada's anti-drug legislation and
policies. This committee will carry out a broad consultation of the
Canadian public to determine the specifics needs of various regions of the
country, where social problems associated with the trafficking and use of
illegal drugs are more prevalent. It will also develop proposals to
disseminate information about Canada's anti-drug policy and, finally, it
will make recommendations for an anti-drug strategy to be implemented
Canada-wide, a strategy under which all levels of government will work
closely together to reduce the harm associated with the use of illegal drugs.

I would now like to say a few words about the report of the Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-8 that I just
mentioned. On June 13, 1996, the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the Honourable Sharon Carstairs, tabled
the committee's report on Bill C-8, respecting the control of certain drugs
and other substances. In that report, the committee members, including
myself, recommended some amendments to Bill C-8. Thank God, and this shows
how much of a problem we had, we succeeded in allowing the growing of hemp
for commercial purposes in Canada. After an extensive debate in the House
of Commons and in the Senate, we finally understood that we were quite
stupid to continue to prohibit this substance, which has nothing to do with
the Indian hemp referred to when we talk about marijuana. This shows that
many prejudices and myths I will now refer to existed back then, prejudices
and myths that, I hope, do not exist anymore.

After a review that lasted over three months, the committee report proposed
several amendments to Bill C-8, but mostly stressed that to carry out a
proper study of the principles and provisions contained in the bill it was
necessary to complete the inadequate technical, moral and sociological
information provided by officials from the health and justice departments,
and other agencies involved in the development of Canada's narcotics
control policy.

In order to fill this gap, the committee proposed to set up a joint
committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to scrutinize every
national drug act, policy and program. The first part of my motion is a
carbon copy of the committee's recommendations regarding the mandate of
such a committee.

As you know, since we tabled our report, no committee of this kind has been
put in place to answer senators' legitimate concerns. The Canadian
population also needs complete and non-partisan information on this complex
issue. And yet, the situation in this matter keeps on changing.

Let us look at the change in the situation in the area of illicit drugs. In
the past three years, a number of clinical studies have been done in order
to scientifically measure the physical and psychological effects of using
cannabis and of methadone substitution treatments. For the first in its
history, the Quebec College of Physicians officially spoke out in March in
favour of the use of methadone to reduce the risks of infection and the
spread of AIDS and hepatitis among intravenous drug users.

On March 17, 11 experts from the prestigious National Academy of Science
Institute of Medicine in United States published the results of a study
commissioned by the White House director of drug control policy. The report
concluded that there was definite potential for the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. In November 1998, seven American states organized
referendums during mid-term elections in order to seek public approval for
measures to relax extremely strict regulations on the use of cannabis in
the treatment of patients. Six states, with the exception of the District
of Columbia, approved the proposed measures.

[continued in part two]